Discernment and practice: questions for a logic of revelation--response to William Abraham.(response to article in this issue, p. 251)

Let me thank Professor Abraham for such an interesting and engaging presentation on the status and character of the epistemology and logic of divine revelation. The humility he calls for, and the spirit animating his desire for critical, open, conversation, is, I think, to be emulated and strongly admired.

I want to begin by reflecting on a quotation near the end of his paper, the poignant passage he recommends from Charles Sanders Peirce's 1877 "The Fixation of Belief." In this passage, Peirce strikingly characterizes the attitude one takes toward one's own logical method as properly akin to that which one has toward one's spouse. Both are chosen from all the world to be one's own, honored through commitment, even if that commitment entails opposition from others--the taking of blows as a result of the choice. Professor Abraham's paper suggests that evangelicals who stand with Paul concerning the offense--the scandal--of revelation, should follow Peirce's lead and so cling to their own chosen method, reasoning by "the logic of divine revelation."

The choice of Peirce for this illustration is an interesting one. Certainly the analogy to Peirce's notion of "logical method" is felicitous for the threshold interpretation of Christian revelation. This latter notion suggests that a decisive instance of revelation opens onto something akin to a "new logic." Additionally, Peirce's passage suggests that our moment of choice is decisive for a new future. All of this sounds, I should add, like a description …