Preoccupation with
methodology seems to be simultaneously the best and worst reality of
contemporary theology. At its best, discourse on methodology attempts to
justify a robust, theological perspective on the world to a “culture whose
attention is fixed in another direction.”[1]
It’s relatively self-evident that most of Western culture doesn’t think twice
(if even once!) about the world theologically. Fixation on scientific explanation
has transformed the lens through which the average individual experiences and
interprets the world. So, readdressing the relevance and poignancy of a
theological perspective through methodological justification seems (to me) to
be a worthy task.
Unfortunately, at its
worst, methodological consideration devolves into meaningless
spinning-of-the-intellectual-wheels. As
Jeffrey Stout famously stated, “Preoccupation with method is like clearing your
throat; it can go on for only so long before you lose your audience.”[2]
Indeed, as Grenz and Franke point out, it seems that many mainline theologians
have fallen into the mire of “simply reflecting on method” without thoroughly
putting their methodology to work.[3]
Perhaps this is an alternative (more compelling?) account for why many mainline
denominations are declining? (See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-b-bradshaw/mainline-churches-past-pr_b_4087407.html)
Conversely, many
Evangelical theologians have fallen prey to the opposite theological temptation.
They proliferate dogmatic texts concerned with “the content and exposition of
theology”, but fail to give adequate attention to “methodological concerns.”[4]
This often results in the classic appeal to authority. How do you know what you
believe is true? Well, Micheal Horton, Wayne Grudem, L.S. Chafer, or Charles
Ryrie told me so, of course! Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think appeal to
authority is epistemically dubious in all situations. Truly, I tend to trust
the doctor’s analysis of my illness without overwhelming evidence. However, it
seems to me that many lay-Evangelicals (even many seminary trained Evangelicals!)
defer to authority much too quickly and, unfortunately, many dogmatic textbooks
do little to counteract this proclivity – further perpetuating a distasteful
form of fideism.
So, what do we do? On
the one hand we have mainline theologians who have (perhaps) lost relevancy to
culture by too much attention given to methodology. On the other hand we have
Evangelical theologians who have (perhaps) lost relevancy to culture by too
little attention given to methodology.
Currently, I don’t
believe I’m in a justified position to offer suggestions to the mainline
denominations regarding their plight. In short, I would suggest that they
explore the manner in which their methodology produces constructive theological
proposals that have some level of pragmatic clout. For now, I’ll leave room for
that proposal to be explored in another blog post.
Regarding
Evangelicalism, I propose that theologians begin to take seriously proper
justification for their theological conclusions. Perhaps Evangelical
theologians can start by asking and answering simple questions such as: how did
I arrive at this conclusion? What are the philosophical/hermeneutical
presuppositions latent in my method? Why do I consider some text or theory as
more regulative than another? How can I make my implicit framework more explicit
in my writing or teaching?
In an attempt to aid
in this process, I would like to further suggest and commend the resources of
analytic philosophy to the Evangelical theological methodology. Certainly, I am
by no means the first to recommend this integration of disciplines. Kevin
Vanhoozer already exemplifies this integrative sensitivity as he capitalizes on
the deliverances of Speech-Act Theory (see: The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical
Linguistic Approach to Christian Doctrine [Westminster John Knox Press, 2005])
and the same can be seen (albeit in the opposite direction: from philosophy to
theology) in the work of Nicholas Wolterstorff (see: Divine Discourse:
Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks [Cambridge University
Press, 1995]). Furthermore, I think some of the most profound application of
analytic philosophy to the Evangelical theology can be seen in the work of
Oliver Crisp (see: Divinity and Humanity: The Incarnation Reconsidered
[Cambridge University Press, 2007]).
Conceptually, it seems
to me that analytic philosophy should be understood as a handmaiden to
theology. Following in the footsteps of St. Anselm we cry, “Fides quaerens
intellectum” (faith seeking understanding). Christianity’s mantra has never
been, “Just believe, just believe!” Christians throughout the centuries have
attempted to push their understanding of truth to the furthest extent possible.
They’ve sought to unpack the content of their faith in a comprehensible
way. They deferred to “mystery” only as
an absolutely last resort – not a first choice! So many evangelicals that I’ve
met (especially in seminary) prefer to punt to God’s mystery without two
seconds thought about how their infantile method might actually be to blame.
This is a great tragedy.
So, how do I think
analytic philosophy can benefit Evangelical theology? There are at least two
proposals that I would suggest to Evangelical theologians:
1) Analytic philosophy
(as a set of tools) can serve Evangelical theology by making explicit the
implicit features of essential Christian doctrines. Because contemporary
analytic philosophy is concerned with breaking things down to their constituent
parts and then reassembling them in an understandable fashion, I think it is
primed to be put into service for parsing out difficult doctrines such as the
Trinity or Christ’s incarnation.
2) Analytic philosophy
(as a set of intellectual virtues) can serve Evangelical theology by developing
a preference in the theologian for “clarity, parsimony of expression, and argumentative
rigour.”[5]
Beyond confusion of categories on essential doctrines, many theologians fail to
even communicate clearly and concisely on elementary matters. I am convinced
that the careful appropriation of analytic philosophical methods (especially in
theological training) will serve to develop relevant intellectual virtues in
the theologian herself/himself; virtues which are indispensable to public
discourse – and which seem to be absent in many Evangelical circles.
It has been said that
“…there is an eternal Consanguinity between all Verity: and nothing is true in
Divinity, which is false in Philosophy, or on the contrary…”[6]
If this is true (which I suspect it is), then Evangelical theologians should
follow in the footsteps of Vanhoozer, Wolterstorff, and Crisp. They should seek
to rigorously understand the essentials of the Christian faith with the tools
of analytic philosophy and, thereby, offer their students and readers
compelling reasons to believe.
May God show us all mercy
as we humbly seek to understand His self-revelation.
[1] Grenz, Stanley J. and John R. Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in
a Postmodern Context (Westminster John Knox Press), p. 11.
[2] Stout, Jeffrey, Ethics After Babel: The Language of Morals and Their Discontents
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1988), p. 163.
[3] Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, p. 13.
[5] Crisp, Oliver, “On Analytic Theology” in Analytic Theology, eds. Oliver D. Crisp
and Michael C. Rea (Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 37-38.
[6] Quinn, Arthur, The Confidence of British Philosophers: An Essay in Historical
Narrative (Brill Archive, 1977), p. 9.
No comments:
Post a Comment