I have to admit that in my descriptions of agnostic theology and a latent God there has been something that I've been avoiding—revelation. For the most part, the avoidance has been accidental. I just didn't happen to post on it. However, I think there is a part of me that just isn't sure what to make of revelation, and so I just (unconsciously?) skipped over it.
I think the reason I struggle with revelation has to do with my understanding of human limitations/frailty/finitude/stupidity. What I mean is that I'm not sure that how capable we, as humans, are of distinguishing the voice of God from voices in our heads. We've all had the experience of hearing something and asking the person next to us,"What'd you say?" when really no one said anything at all. If can't distinguish the voices of people physical present to us from noises in our heads, how can we possibly distinguish the voice of God from self-delusions?
Yes, I know that there are plenty of responses to that kind of skepticism (and at times I've been the one defending revelation), but I want to be clear about what I'm trying say: The only claim I'm making is that revelation is hard for me to grapple with.
And don't worry, I haven't forgotten that revelation includes more than just God-spoke-to-me-in-a-dream kind of stuff. There is, of course, the Bible (at this moment I'm imagining an ancient leather-bound book falling from the sky and landing with a staggering thud, throwing up an immense cloud of dust—as the dust clears, you can see that the ground beneath it is fractured, evidence of the book's great weight and power).
The Bible has it's own set of issues. To start, it didn't miraculously come down from heaven as a complete, bound book (like in the description above). The Bible was written over a vast period of time by many different people. The Bible was edited, reworked, added to, and subtracted from. It was written from many different viewpoints and suggests many different (and sometimes competing) understandings of God. It doesn't even make any claims about it's own authority (we can debate about 2 Timothy 3:16). It is normative for Christian faith, not because God said so, but because Christians said so.
And to make it all more complicated, every book of the Bible began as the kind of revelatory claim I describe at the beginning—someone said God spoke to them (and other related claims).
Again, this all comes back to one big question for me—what do I do with revelation? It's not that I necessarily discount or disbelieve revelation as a whole, but I think it is clear that sometimes "revelation" turns out to be wrong (David Koresh, for example). How, then, are we to distinguish between true and false revelation?
I started to list different possibilities and plenty of examples and counterexamples, but I think it is better just to let the question stand because, honestly, I don't know. Revelation is something that is hard for me to deal with because it doesn't fit neatly into the realm of my experience. It is a troubling, up-ending, messy thing. It turns my notions of what is and isn't upside-down.
And that is precisely what makes revelation an elephant in the room. It is something that common sense says shouldn't be there, but it's there whether we like it or not. So, I guess we have to talk about it....