358
J. M. Luetz and R. G. Leo
of “wisdom acquired through living” (Maddox 1994, p. 46;). Second, he esteemed
tradition and Christian Antiquity “as a ‘history of saints’ to be emulated” (p. 45).
Third, he regarded reason as “common sense” (p. 41) and as an important “processor
(organon) of knowledge” (p. 40) that can organise and conceptualise human experiences. Fourth and finally, Wesley considered the bible “as the most basic authority”
(Maddox 1994, p. 36). Moreover, being “explicitly aware that Scripture did not
definitively address every possible issue” (p. 39), Wesley “interpreted the Protestant
sola Scriptura … to mean that Scripture is the primary, rather than exclusive, Christian authority” (p. 37; emphasis original). In short, Wesley advocated using multiple
knowledge sources for meaning making and often engaged “two or three of them
jointly” (Maddox 1994, p. 36).
Wesley’s belief in complementary knowledges also encapsulated the natural world
or creation as an eminent source of ‘revelation’ about God (Maddox 1994, p. 29). He
claimed that “God’s basic attributes of omnipresence, omnipotence, and wisdom can
be deduced from creation” (p. 30; emphasis added). In other words, Wesley argued
that if people wish to learn about God, they could look to creation.
This idea is by no means new. The French theologian and protestant reformer John
Calvin (1509–1564) postulated a similar view two centuries before Wesley’s time.
He noted that while God was “by nature incomprehensible and hidden from human
understanding, He engraved in each one of His works certain signs of His majesty by
which He offered Himself to be known by us according to our small capacity” (Calvin
1541/2009, p. 30). This principle has been variously noted since, with theologians
giving “the term ‘special revelation’ to the scriptures [and] view[ing] nature as a
‘general revelation’. Rightly understood, both special and general revelation give the
same message, because they have the same author” (Knight 2006, p. 180; emphasis
added). This perspective is essentially that of Brunner et al. (2014) who conceive of
creation as God’s second ‘inspired’ bible, which complements the traditional sacred
writings found in scripture:
Reformation emphasis on sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) has desensitized us to God’s other
book, one that has spoken truthfully for millennia … [Although the] Christian community
has long held that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are ‘inspired’ (theopneustos,
2 Tim. 3: 16) by God and the basis for faithful reflection in the church … Christian writers
have maintained that Creation can be read as a text about God and that God has presented
us with ‘two books’—Scripture and the natural world. (Brunner et al. 2014, pp. 23–24)
Brunner et al. (2014) conclude that “[i]n the same way that the Bible offers four
distinctive accounts of the gospel story, so Scripture and nature offer two accounts
of God’s story” (p. 24). Merritt (2010) picks up this idea of the ‘two bibles’ when he
likens the sanctity of scripture to the sanctity of creation, whose defilement in both
instances is similarly sacrilegious:
“There are two forms of divine revelation: the special revelation in Scripture that is able to
lead us to salvation and the general revelation we receive through nature. Both are from God.
So when we destroy creation, which is God’s revelation, it’s similar to tearing a page out of
the Bible.” (Merritt 2010, p. 2; citing Professor of Theology John Hammett).
If we consider Nature as being thus inviolable and imbued with divine revelatory
or sacrosanct qualities, today’s dramatic environmental destruction certainly gives
J. M. Luetz and R. G. Leo
of “wisdom acquired through living” (Maddox 1994, p. 46;). Second, he esteemed
tradition and Christian Antiquity “as a ‘history of saints’ to be emulated” (p. 45).
Third, he regarded reason as “common sense” (p. 41) and as an important “processor
(organon) of knowledge” (p. 40) that can organise and conceptualise human experiences. Fourth and finally, Wesley considered the bible “as the most basic authority”
(Maddox 1994, p. 36). Moreover, being “explicitly aware that Scripture did not
definitively address every possible issue” (p. 39), Wesley “interpreted the Protestant
sola Scriptura … to mean that Scripture is the primary, rather than exclusive, Christian authority” (p. 37; emphasis original). In short, Wesley advocated using multiple
knowledge sources for meaning making and often engaged “two or three of them
jointly” (Maddox 1994, p. 36).
Wesley’s belief in complementary knowledges also encapsulated the natural world
or creation as an eminent source of ‘revelation’ about God (Maddox 1994, p. 29). He
claimed that “God’s basic attributes of omnipresence, omnipotence, and wisdom can
be deduced from creation” (p. 30; emphasis added). In other words, Wesley argued
that if people wish to learn about God, they could look to creation.
This idea is by no means new. The French theologian and protestant reformer John
Calvin (1509–1564) postulated a similar view two centuries before Wesley’s time.
He noted that while God was “by nature incomprehensible and hidden from human
understanding, He engraved in each one of His works certain signs of His majesty by
which He offered Himself to be known by us according to our small capacity” (Calvin
1541/2009, p. 30). This principle has been variously noted since, with theologians
giving “the term ‘special revelation’ to the scriptures [and] view[ing] nature as a
‘general revelation’. Rightly understood, both special and general revelation give the
same message, because they have the same author” (Knight 2006, p. 180; emphasis
added). This perspective is essentially that of Brunner et al. (2014) who conceive of
creation as God’s second ‘inspired’ bible, which complements the traditional sacred
writings found in scripture:
Reformation emphasis on sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) has desensitized us to God’s other
book, one that has spoken truthfully for millennia … [Although the] Christian community
has long held that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are ‘inspired’ (theopneustos,
2 Tim. 3: 16) by God and the basis for faithful reflection in the church … Christian writers
have maintained that Creation can be read as a text about God and that God has presented
us with ‘two books’—Scripture and the natural world. (Brunner et al. 2014, pp. 23–24)
Brunner et al. (2014) conclude that “[i]n the same way that the Bible offers four
distinctive accounts of the gospel story, so Scripture and nature offer two accounts
of God’s story” (p. 24). Merritt (2010) picks up this idea of the ‘two bibles’ when he
likens the sanctity of scripture to the sanctity of creation, whose defilement in both
instances is similarly sacrilegious:
“There are two forms of divine revelation: the special revelation in Scripture that is able to
lead us to salvation and the general revelation we receive through nature. Both are from God.
So when we destroy creation, which is God’s revelation, it’s similar to tearing a page out of
the Bible.” (Merritt 2010, p. 2; citing Professor of Theology John Hammett).
If we consider Nature as being thus inviolable and imbued with divine revelatory
or sacrosanct qualities, today’s dramatic environmental destruction certainly gives