I once again apologize for the length of this blog, but I considered the topic too important and complex to be dealt with superficially.  So please indulge me in this discussion of biblical integration and forgive any ramblings that may appear.

There seems to be some confusion these days about some aspects of what we call a “Christian worldview.”  The subject is often also associated with that of the term “integration” of faith with knowledge.  My perception is that there are both substantive and methodological issues that need to be addressed.  This blog may contribute to a beginning toward the necessary greater dialogue.

Natural versus Special Revelation

Let me begin with a fundamental issue:  The relationship between natural revelation and special revelation.  This is no small issue.  And I don’t pretend to have an exhaustive answer.  But let’s try.  I am a Christian and the sole ultimate source of Christian faith is the Bible.  Nothing else has been given by God in any specific and reliably clear form.  This we call special revelation.  If God gave this revelation, and we assume He wishes to communicate with humans clearly (He is not stingy or perverse), then whatever has been communicated as truth is truth without question, except for understanding its meaning (more on that below).   Moreover, if it is truth, then whatever aspect of thought or life it speaks to or about must also be accepted as truth in a completely objective and non-relativistic  sense, whether the revelation is quite direct and unambiguous or is a more general principle from which one can draw out further implications (application) for concrete disciplines and situations.

Natural revelation is what is revealed to humans in nature, broadly understood—what we see, hear, etc. with our senses, or what we may discover through experiment.  This revelation may or may not be true.  It is contingent because of its very nature.  The potential knowledge of natural revelation is obtained by the senses, which have been affected by the Fall, and too often freighted with assumptions and conclusions arrived at autonomously.  The possibility of truth is an ambiguous proposition.

Therefore special revelation is superior to natural revelation in that it is unambiguous (except for interpretational problems), and it is given directly by God and not mediated through human reason (though reason is used in understanding special revelation).  But this does not mean natural revelation is useless.  It simply must be bounded by Scripture and its alleged knowledge must be judged by Scripture.  This is only appropriate, or humans would be able to “trump” God regarding knowledge, since humans must determine the significance of natural revelation and would be severely limited because of their sin and their very humanness.  Nevertheless knowledge ought to be pursued through natural revelation, but consistently assessed for its truth value by special revelation.  Its truth value will be determined not just be the application of some biblical text, which may not exist, but also by more general metaphysical principles derived from special revelation.  For example, I cannot verify that the Pythagorean Theory is correct by finding a Bible verse.  But I can find many texts that speak of who God is and what He is like and that establish the conditions by which such a theory can hold at all in the real world created by God.  I am responsible to stress those texts in order to solidify in the minds of others that this theory is true not because I made it up but because God made it possible to discover it (it was “already there,” “built into” the universe).  Likewise for the question of the best type of government.  Though the Bible does not tell us the best type, it does for example, have something to say about human nature.  Humans are made in God’s image, but they are also fallen.  They are predisposed to sin, no matter who they are.  Some types of government create perverse incentives to sin and others are less prone to encourage or create incentives to sin.  Other things being equal, we should choose the latter type.

The Bible then constrains man’s “imagination” to the extent that it is necessary to prevent untruth.  But it does not discourage the pursuit of truth itself.  Some argue that and overly aggressive application of special revelation to the propositions of natural revelation stymies the pursuit of truth, but in reality it only stymies (in a positive way) the autonomous pursuit of truth and the resultant wrong assumptions and conclusions.  Natural revelation must remain subservient to special revelation and can never operate independently of it.

Practicing Biblical Integration

Now how does one actually “do” integration, given what we see above?  The first step is to go to Scripture and, using categories and terminology of a given discipline as it exists, begin to find those texts that in fact do speak to a specific discipline or question.  This is not always simple.  The Bible does not generally use the terminology of any modern discipline.  The discovery process must then be undertaken at the conceptual level for the most part—with exceptions of course.  But relevant texts can be found, even if they cannot be applied literally and directly to some aspect of an intellectual discipline.  In doing this, one should always be aware of context, but without losing the relevance of the text to modern situations.  It may be that some texts are, in their contexts, completely inappropriate for a given discipline.  One then passes over them and looks for others.

Implied in this discovery process is interpretation, both during the discovery process itself and after texts have been chosen for use in constructing the worldview of the discipline.  Needless to say, proper hermeneutics is a crucial part of thinking about a Christian worldview.  In analyzing the various chosen texts, one may find that in fact some do not fit with the topic/discipline at all.  But others, interpreted accounting for all contexts, literary and non-literary, may prove immediately and directly useful.  Still others may provide more general principles which will also be of immense help, but do not directly and immediately apply.  Regarding the latter, Romans 3 is a good example.  The clear teaching of this text is that all humans are sinful.  That being said, the text is of a very broad applicational value, but that includes its use in thinking about politics and economics.  So though Scripture does not tell us which government is best, texts like Romans 3 help us narrow the possible choices.

The actual hermeneutical process is pretty well-established among evengelicals, but especially here, we must stress the interpretation of more obscure texts by clearer ones—Scripture interpreting Scripture.  Of course that is not all there is to interpretation, but it plays an essential role in keeping the interpreter from the error of finding meaning outside the Scriptures where sometimes what he or she draws on is merely another non-authoritative opinion, even a one quite far from the intent of the author.

Once we have chosen relevant texts and properly interpreted each one, we move to the step of collating and correlating the texts to develop a coherent and accurate “theology” of a discipline or some part of that discipline.  While doing this one must also “keep one eye” on his discipline as it is understood in general as well as how it was understood historically.  This is necessary because the worldview one constructs is to be applicable to something, and that something is the particular content of the discipline—its current knowledge base.  So one must have something to which to make application, to which to respond, to dialogue, to address, even to engage in critical analysis.  Make no mistake, this is not an easy task.  The “theology” is framed in terms of the discipline’s categories (formally) but using biblical substance (content) to erect the structure.  So I can speak about the categories of justice, liberty, democracy, rule of law, checks and balances, obedience, rebellion against authorities, the state, etc.  But when I speak about them, my content must come ultimately from the Scriptures—either directly or by implication, either by immediately relevant texts or through general principles applicable to the categories.

How does on collate and correlate?  The same way one “does theology,” more or less.  First one groups texts with similar content together.  Then for each group one looks to synthesize the common elements, and at the same time, adding discussion of the elements not common to all, to create a rounded theological “system” or “sub-system.”  The correlations however must be real, a true relationship among texts, not forced or superficial.  When done, ideally one has a comprehensive and exhaustive (as far as possible) treatment of the discipline as a whole or in part.  There may be no remainders, unless the Scripture really had nothing to say and unless no deductions from general principles was possible, in which case, one may legitimately remain silent on that particular (adiaphora?).  One is actually systematizing at this point, not a negative endeavor, though some hold otherwise.

From this point, one may use the product both to assess other views, in part or in whole, or to present a positive Christian worldview, and integrated view of the discipline.  It is “vertically” integrated in that it has incorporated Scripture into the discipline as the “controlling partner.”  It will also already (hopefully) be “horizontally” integrated in that the discipline is aware of its critics, its historical development, and its current state of knowledge.  But in all this, for the Christian, the ultimate judge is in some way and to some extent Scripture.  It cannot be otherwise or else the discipline has become autonomous.  It has cut itself off from its Christian connections, if it ever had any (most did at one time).  It cannot then claim to be Christian except in the loosest sense.  And it will be of little help leavening the world.

Objections and Answers

But I should also address possible objections.  First, let’s go back to epistemology (study of how we know).  Am I trying to make the argument that the Bible is the only source of genuine knowledge?  I am definitely not.  We know many things that are not found in Scripture.  But that is the wrong question.  It is not whether we can know apart from going to the Bible to find a text.  It is the question, why do we know anything at all?  The answer to that question must come ultimately from some pre-commitment or presupposition.  The Christian presupposition is God, the “ontological Trinity” (to borrow from Cornelius van Til).  But how do we know this God?  Certainly we have natural revelation, but it doesn’t tell us everything we need to know, and even if it did, humans, being sinful, either cannot understand what they “see” or they “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (they know enough to be condemned, but they reject even that).  Natural revelation is not enough, so we have one more option—special revelation.  Here we meet God as He Himself has revealed Himself to humans.  We know God and what He wants, what He desires, what glorifies Him, and what He does not will for humans.  We also discover here that God has “wired” us to think and to think in certain ways.  This is seen as one studies the entire Bible to discern how humans were created in God’s image, as well as how that image was marred by the Fall.  Moreover we learn that God gives grace even for knowing, and even to unbelievers, or they would certainly know nothing at all.  The conclusion of this is that we are dependent on God for all we have and do.

Knowledge too means dependence on God for its possibility.  Humans cannot be autonomous, though they may try to be.  But knowledge which we can derive from the Bible, since it has come from God (and we know that, as opposed to knowledge which humans derive, say empirically, which may or may not be true) and is true absolutely, must logically judge or circumscribe any other type of knowledge.  It stands in authority over all other sources of knowledge, and conclusions and assumptions from human reasoning.

The objection now is, How do I know this presupposition about God and His revelation is the starting point for knowledge?  The answer is found in the attempt to think about one’s worldview from any other standpoint (presupposition) and see what happens.  If for example, I want to adopt a purely empirical approach to epistemology to, say, science (the “hard” sciences).  I make no use of Scripture, because, I say to myself, I don’t need it in this discipline.  It is “scientific.”  All such knowledge is objective.  But right away, you face a major hurdle.  Empirical knowledge is always contingent, a matter of probability only, never absolute or metaphysically certain.  Now you can simply say you believe the empirical evidence or not, but even here you have a presupposition.  Likewise you can either deny Scripture is true or accept it as true, or God as self-existent or not, but in each case you have stated a presupposition.  One is required to begin somewhere.  As Christians we cannot begin without God and still call ourselves Christians.  Moreover, if we do acknowledge God, the self-revealing God, then we must also acknowledge His Word revealed as a first principle.  If we wish to find knowledge that is true or a criterion by which to evaluate truth apart from God and His Word, we effectively assert our autonomy.  So we are confronted with a choice.

The choice we make in turn will determine the authority granted to special revelation in every sphere of thought and life.  If one makes the choice for the authority of the Bible to be the final arbiter of truth—the right choice I believe—one still faces the problem of specific interpretation and application.  Christians are called to responsible interpretation, considering context and other necessary elements.  This is not an insurmountable problem however and should in no way prevent a commitment to viewing and using the Scriptures to evaluate all alleged knowledge.

Finally, as I have already implied, there are the potential dangers of “irrelevance” on the one hand,  what I have emphasized in this blog, and “hyper-relevance,” or the improper use of special revelation, on the other.  Our greatest current temptation among Christians seems to be to treat Scripture in our disciplines as more or less irrelevant to them.  Our basic assumptions and content have been gained in secular graduate programs, and we have not learned how to critically examine our own knowledge base from a position standing above it and evaluating it Christianly.  But sometimes to be sure, we also lapse into mere superficial proof texting, looking to “baptize” the content with Christianity.  Unfortunately, all too often the texts do not fit the purpose.  This leaves Christians open to the charge of over-simplification and anti-intellectualism—sometimes deserved, but believed even if not deserved.  Neither of these approaches is useful, but that does not absolve us from the difficult task of the continuing effort to bring true integration to all knowledge.

Conclusion

We should most certainly continue to seek knowledge in the natural world—the world literally of nature as well as that made up of society, associations of individuals.  Integration does not mean a refusal to engage the world as it is, to seek to know how it works, and why.  But in the end, the goal is the “bring every thought captive” to God.  We can only be assured, to the extent humanly possible, that we have done that by submitting all our conclusions, assumptions, and explanations to Scriptural principles. This is not finding proof texts, but seriously and comprehensively engaging all of special revelation.  But the implication of this writing is to encourage more, not less, exploration by the physical and social sciences, by philosophers, by artists and musicians, by all disciplines, creative and intellectual, as well as the professions.  To engage well is to glorify God.