What is it that I have against Philosophy; I mean what did it ever do to me? Nothing really. Except when it is used in place of or even as Christian Theology, proper, it’s at that point that it starts to intrude into my life, and more importantly the church’s life in such a way that I believe the Gospel and theology done from and through the Gospel gets distorted. I 
know many think this is naïve, but it’s all a matter of method; that is, how ought a genuinely Christian theology be done, and where from? One of the primary principles of the Protestant Reformation is that Scripture, the Word is where all theology for the church of Jesus Christ ought to be done from; I couldn’t agree more. But what that meant, as far as explicating the inner-logic of Scripture (so theology), was based too much in Aristotelian metaphysics, to the point that that type of (substance) metaphysic distorted the intention of Reformed theologian’s task. Yes, the intention was always good, but the tools available to the Protestant Reformed, particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries, were not, I contend, compatible with the Gospel; in other words, the metaphysic was not amenable to being evangelized by the Gospel.
Philosophy is good at observing things empirically and horizontally, from the human condition, and attempting to abstract “metaphysical” reality from that vantage point; but Christian theology, a genuine approach, doesn’t start there. Christian theology starts from above and only works a posteriori (or from ‘what’s in front of us’) as Deus absconditus (the hidden God) becomes Deus revelatus (the revealed God) in Jesus Christ. In other words, Christian theology is distinct from Philosophy (of Religion), as such the “metaphysic” appealed to for the Christian theologian must be determined by the Logos (Word) o f God. God is his own metaphysic; indeed God is meta-metaphysical. In other words, if the human agent in general wants to have access to this ‘hidden God’ then they must come through the veil of his flesh in Christ. Yes, this might sound foolish or weak, but it is the way of the Christian theologian.
This all does beg the question: Is there a metaphysic for the Christian theologian then? One of my theologian friends (in person) asked me this, in the context of my affection for Barth. I suppose the closest we could get to that, in my view, is Barth’s type of actualism[1]; i.e. being in becoming. It is this kind of “metaphysic” that I see as much more corollary with the reality of Gospel; it gets away from the ‘Pure Being’ static type of conception of God that Aristotle and other philosophers provide for, and of which classical theism and Post Reformed orthodoxy have drunk from so freely. In light of this I thought it would be apropos to hear from Barth himself on how he sees the relationship between Philosophy and genuine Christian Theology which is radically Logocentric and/or Word based. Barth writes:
Theology’s essential hypothesis, or axiom, is revelation, which is God’s own act done in His Word and through His Spirit. How shall this axiom be exhibited or determined? It cannot be done directly, but indirectly. Not positively by negatively. Not by setting it a bound among other sciences. Theology would be falsified or misinterpreted, betrayed or given up, if it sought to make its fundamental assumption or axiom a direct and tangible exhibit. Theology would have ceased to be theology, if it sought to, or could, justify itself. It has always been forsaken by its guardian angels above, every time it has sought to take this way.
For example, is there anything more hopeless than the attempt that has been made in the last two hundred years with ever-increasing enthusiasm to create a systematic link-up, or synthesis, or even a discriminate relationship, between the realms of theology and philosophy? Has there been one reputable philosopher who has paid the least attention to the work which the theologians have attempted in this direction? Has it not become apparent that the anxiety and uncertainty with which we pursued this course only reminded us that we can pursue this course only with an uneasy conscience? Theology can become noticed by philosophy only after that moment when it no longer seeks to be interesting. Its relation to philosophy can become positive and fruitful only after it resolutely refuses to be itself a philosophy and refuses to demonstrate and base its existence upon a principle with, or alongside of, philosophy.[2]
Clearly, from this quote we can see the period that Barth has in his sights in particular; i.e. his ‘modern’ antecedents (e.g. Hermann, Schleiermacher, Kant, Hegel, et al.). And I would be remiss if I didn’t note how appreciative Barth actually was of many of the themes provided for by the Post Reformed orthodox, or we might call them the scholasticism reformed theologians. Nevertheless, what’s at stake here is a critique of how philosophy is ‘synthesized’ and appropriated by Christian theologians.
If we are going to do a genuine Christian theology, the Christian theologian, I believe, will avail themselves of the best grammar available to them. In other words, they won’t, at a formal level, commit themselves to a period of theologizing as if that period is inherently sacrosanct and limit themselves to the theological grammar of that period. Instead they will be driven more by the expectations of the Gospel itself, as if the Gospel is lively and is anew and afresh today; we might call this the ‘Gospel for Today’ approach. The theologian will resource whatever they can with the goal of allowing the Gospel itself to determine its own categories and emphases; and if the theologian comes across “metaphysics” that comport with the reality that God is indeed lively and dynamic in his inner-being as revealed in Christ, then the theologian will adjust themselves accordingly. In my view, what’s more important is that the categories of the Gospel itself be determinative of what is orthodox versus what is heterodox; I think if we follow this then we won’t be afraid of some of the important gains that modern theology has afforded the church of Jesus Christ.
On a material point: Something that Barth&co. did was identify the import that a theology of the Word has for the Protestant theologian, but then he/they developed that further. He (Barth) saw Christ as the ‘Word’ that ‘God has spoken’ (Deus dixit) for the world; for the church. As such this changes the manner and indeed the way “metaphysics” are commingled with the Gospel itself. In other words, things change when the Word with whom we have to do is the second person of the Triune Godhead (Monarxia). The theologian recognizes that God in Christ is alive, and ever present; the theologian while bounded by the text of Scripture, realizing that as being within the ‘Domain of the Word,’ recognizes that He is Risen! as such the theologian continues to engage theologically as if we can actually grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. The theologian starts with the Word, and sees the living Word as determinative of who God is and how we ought to engage with Scripture itself. But the point is, is that the Word is genuinely alive; as such the theologian should want to seek out a way to articulate that for the church in such a way that comports with the lively reality of God’s inner life. The theologian should move away from theologies that have attempted to synthesize God with a philosophy that sees God as ‘Pure Being’ and all the attendant baggage associated with that.
[1] See this definition of actualism in Barth’s theology:
“Actualism” is the motif which governs Barth’s complex conception of being and time. Being is always an event and often an act (always an act whenever an agent capable of decision is concerned). The relationship between divine being and human being is one of the most vexed topics in Barth interpretation, and one on which the essay at hand hopes to shed some light. For now let it simply be said, however cryptically, that the possibility for the human creature to act faithfully in relation to the divine creator is thought to rest entirely in the divine act, and therefore continually befalls the human creature as a miracle to be sought ever anew. (Hunsinger, How to Read Karl Barth, 16.) Also see this post.
[2] Karl Barth, God In Action (Manhasset, NY: Round Table Press, 1963), 41-2.
Theology teaches us most freely when its fruits are not picked before they have ripened. I am hesitant to engage a discussion on this topic prematurely. I freely admit that any response I could give will be nothing more than this, yet because it is initiated, I feel free to respond.
The concepts engaged in this article, sophisticated and developed as they are in their primary sources, seem somewhat thrown about. I hope to avoid both grammatical error and conceptual naivety. However, once all these are overlooked, and the meat of the discussion is gathered together from the fragmented pieces, a coherent response becomes possible.
There seem to be 2 main objections on the relationship between philosophy and theology, each of which I will succinctly respond to in order.
1) A proper theology of the word means that philosophy ought not to replace theology. This thought presupposes an understanding of philosophy to which I would not admonish ascription. Philosophy, as I see it increasingly (especially in the history of the great doctors of the church) is not an alternate to theology. They do not have an either or relationship. Theology is the queen of the sciences, philosophy being its handmaiden. Seen in this light, philosophy is a constructive tool to be employed by theology, not a fatal alternative. Theologians have certainly made the mistake of confusing these offices, but that does not justify throwing out the baby with the bathwater. One man’s mistake does not justify another’s in response! There is a braver third way I suggest, than to either be inundated by and slave to philosophy, or to totally reject the goods it may offer. To quote Sarah Coakley, “Outright rejection of secular philosophy is as dangerous an alternative as outright submission.” There has to be a better way than the false alternative of fideism and secularism. Or let us quote John Calvin himself, the great inspiration of all of Barth’s theology, when he says, “Read Plato, Aristotle, and others of that tribe. They will, I admit, allure you, delight you, move you, enrapture you in wonderful measure. But betake yourself from them to this sacred reading.” By these words in the Institutes, Calvin means, not to displace the goodness of classical readings with Scripture, but having been educated by them, to be all the more astounded with the unique beauty of Scripture, and to be captivated by God’s word in light of a comparison between theology and philosophy. Thus, even Calvin affirms that for God’s Word to have its day, we must bear in mind and carefully navigate the arduous and shared history between philosophy and theology.
2) A proper theology of the word delimits the metaphysical possibilities which theology can employ. In this article, he seems to suggest that it is ever possible to fully filter out philosophical tenebrae from pure theological speech. He presents a false vision in which, having liberated ourselves from Aristotelian metaphysics, we can stand fully gospeled in our language and thought, purely theological. This is such a modern reading of history, and is just not possible. We will always be tethered to the philosophical economy of the time we live in. The question is not whether our theology will be philosophically colored, but how faithful we will be amidst the philosophical milieu that is available to us. The theologian inevitably employs philosophy in his theologizing, and I suggest simply that this is better done on purpose, acknowledging the finitude of the task, than with our heads in the sand.
Like TF Torrance has said, reflecting on, in many ways, the watershed of this entire discussion, the relationship between Greek philosophy and the development of Christian dogma is not a matter of the Hellenizing of Christianity, but of the Christianizing of Hellenism. To that extent, there is, I believe, no philosophical pattern of thinking that is off limits to Jesus’ powerful apprehension, to sanctify it and make of it a possibility for faithful language and confession. I just don’t believe that man’s fallenness in developing pagan philosophy is more creative than God’s word is re-creative.
Really, I believe this is an issue of the “relevance” or “accessibility” of the Christian faith. The proclamation of the faith is fruitful on if it is carried on with an awareness of the mentality and situation of the people whom it can and must help. Like Moltmann has said, a church which does not bear the incarnate and cruciform image of its Lord, and thus cannot exist for the humanity of man, becomes ossified and dies. Like Christ, the Church and her theology exist for the life of the world, which necessarily involves the translation of the gospel into the languages of the world. To this end, philosophy not only can be, but must be taken up by the Church to disseminate the gospel, and democratize the grace of God. Of course, there is always the precarious issue of translation and preservation: when does relevance bleed into a distortion of the message, translation into mis-translation? That is a serious issue, serious enough I believe to suggest that we must take it up, not deny it altogether in the name of orthodoxy. We must not insist for the sake of fidelity to the gospel, to enculturate the world up to the Word of God, but rather, allow God’s Word to continue its creative and incarnate power, and to go on allowing that Word to become “flesh” in the world and its myriad of philosophies. I am here following Bonhoeffer, who sought to take up the honest question of liberal theology, unlike the theologians who retreated into the ecclesial sphere, whilst not succumbing to enslavement to that question, but rather answering it with courage and kindness. This, I think, is a better third way.
To conclude, the Word of God always uniquely happens upon us without root or point of contact in human possibility: it is miraculous. And yet, all right thinking about God arises out of the encounter with God, which God graciously always causes to happen within our situation: it is a gracious miracle. Yes, theology does not leave us as we are, but it does find us as we are first. It is to this evangelistic impetus that theology must direct itself in courageously addressing the ambitious reach of philosophy.
Besides the fact that I think you just insulted me in your second paragraph. I’ll respond very briefly.
I disagree with you, and I don’t think you actually responded to the gist of the post. I never said philosophy has no place, but that its place relative to theology is simply an under the sun endeavor; i.e. There is no material value that philosophy has to offer say in regard to developing a doctrine of God. I noted in my post the possibility of evangelizing a metaphysic but only in a non-correlationist way.
If you want to really understand Barth’s relationship to Philosophy read Kenneth Oakes’ book on Barth and Philosophy. But I never said philosophy can’t be appealed to in a way that retexts it, instead I said in this particular post that Aristotelian philosophy is not amenable to such a task; you haven’t shown otherwise. I think Aristotle and Aquinas, as does T Torrance, necessarily distorts a doctrine of God and turns God’s interactions with creation into non personal mechanical and decretive thing; and this is precisely because of the kind of philosophy being appealed to and also the way that’s done. So I don’t agree with you, and you didn’t really engage with the basic premise of my post.
As far as being tethered or conditioned by the “philosophy of our time,” sure. But that’s not Barth’s point or critique, his critique is a material critique of the type of theology produced under certain conditions and periods. That’s not a problem, in my view, as long as we are able to relativize said periods of development, say for purposes of retrieval, but it does become a problem when certain periods are absolutized (like the 16th and 17th centuries for Protestants) and then repristinated for our situation today; i.e. as if there have been no real beneficial developments, theologically, since then.
I don’t think Barth’s reading of the past is “modern,” or naive, I think he is critical but transmorphing what he reads through the lens he worked under and through theologically; with full acknowledgement of his own “philosophical” milieu. I was careful to say in my original post that Aristotelianism is not amenable to the Christian theologian’s task of providing a fruitful grammar for articulating God. The rest of my blog with the abundance of posts gets into why I think this is.
Let me clarify:
I meant absolutely no insult to you: I think this is a wonderful topic, and I was simply trying to critically engage the material. I think we would actually agree much more than you think on these issues: I was a student under Marcus Johnson and am dear friends with him still. For example, for my postgraduate study I want to explore how the “Deus ex machina” (essentially Bonhoeffer’s articulation of Aristotle’s god) is overturned by God’s decisive self-disclosure in Jesus Christ. Jesus reveals that God is not an unmoved mover: he is full of divine pathos!
Thank you for the book suggestion on Barth, I look forward to exploring that. I totally grant the point in your second comment of absolutizing and thereby idealizing theologies of a certain period without critical examination of the philosophical metaphysics that undergird their approach. That’s a great thought I haven’t given enough attention to. I suppose my point would be that, limited as they may be, those thinkers were doing the best they could given the conceptual tools available to them. I’m amazed to see the fidelity that can shine through even amid ultimately harmful conceptual systems.
I suppose another place I’m coming from is my deep commitment to ecumenical engagement. Given Aquinas’ status in Roman Catholic theology, I’m hesitant to throw him out entirely, especially knowing my own seitz em leiben, that I am inundated with the theologies of his critics. Having said that, I love most of all the sentence in your last paragraph, and I agree! Aristotelianism is not amenable to the Christian theologian’s task of providing a fruitful grammar for articulating God. Even so, I approach his mark on Christian theology with tact as well as, even, a certain gratitude, knowing that he was doing the best with what he had at the time: I hope and assume the same will be said of us some day!
Bless you, dear brother, for this fruitful discussion!
Thanks for clarifying, and where you’re coming from. Marcus Johnson is a great brother and his contributions to our books have been excellent. I’ll respond more later.
I have more to say of course.
Preston,
I’m not throwing Aquinas out completely, but I am critical of the theology and framework he presented for many reasons. The biggest issue I have with Aquinas, and its fundamental to who he is, is his synthesis; is his classical theism, and how that set a trajectory on which later the Post Reformed orthodox developed in their own deleterious ways. It’s not really a matter of being able to look at Aquinas and not recognize the gigantic impact he’s had on Western theology, instead, really, it’s just the opposite; it’s precisely because of his massive impact that he is someone to be critically engaged with and read etc. (which I’ve done and continue to). So yes, I can appreciate who Thomas is and the weightiness of his theology, and this is indeed why I elevate him so much in regard to critique; i.e. he’s worthy of critique. You won’t find anything in what I’ve written wherein I minimize who he is and his impact. His thinking on ‘being’ and ‘persons’ it can be argued, even created space for folks like Barth and TFT to come along and reify such space. George Hunsinger has a good chapter in his book Evangelical, Catholic, and Reformed: Essays on Barth and Other Themes on how Thomas and Barth have more in common than many might think. But its a critical linkage of course; something like the link between Barth and Calvin in election which David Gibson elucidates so well in his book Reading the Decree: Exegesis, Election and Christology in Calvin and Barth.
Preston,
In fact here’s a post where I quote Hunsinger extensively, from that chapter from him I just mentioned, where he draws linkage between Barth and Thomas. Click here