(Part 2 of the essay I’m working on)<\/p>\n
In my first post, I argued that, for Christians, theology must retain its title as Queen of the sciences.\u00a0 A courtroom, of course, is no place for theology.\u00a0 A first and basic problem with courtroom apologetics, therefore, is the relation of theology to other kinds of argument.\u00a0 In the history of Christian thought, this problem has been discussed as the relation between faith and philosophy.\u00a0 The mainstream of the Christian tradition has always held that philosophy cannot substitute for or rival faith.\u00a0 Faith either eliminates philosophy or provides the ground for philosophy.\u00a0 In either case, faith takes priority.<\/p>\n
The great Swiss theologian Karl Barth recognized this priority.\u00a0 His indictment of philosophy was unrelenting:<\/p>\n
No matter how philosophers may or may not reach an understanding on these matters, they will do so as philosophers and not as theologians.\u00a0 That is, they will not do so out of any responsible regard for the theme of theology.\u00a0 Hence theology cannot learn anything from them and ought not to do so, unless it is ready to let them intrude a philosophical theme instead of its own, as has always happened when it has accepted material instruction from any philosophy.[1]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Because of his theology of the immanence of the Word, Barth rejected apologetic efforts in general:\u00a0 \u201cthe world,\u201d he said, \u201ccannot evolve into agreement with God\u2019s Word on its own initiative nor can the Church achieve this by its work in and on the world.\u201d[2]<\/a>\u00a0 \u201cThe Church is the Church,\u201d Barth said, \u201cas it believes and proclaims that prior to all secular developments and prior to all its own work the decisive word has in fact been spoken already regarding both itself and the world.\u00a0 The world no longer exists in isolation or neutrality vis-\u00e0-vis <\/i>revelation, the Bible, and proclamation.\u201d[3]<\/a><\/p>\n
Barth was surely right about the priority<\/i> of theology over philosophy.\u00a0 His insistence on this priority is a tonic for the rationalism inherent in \u201ccourtroom\u201d apologetics.\u00a0 But did Barth miss the realization that philosophy \u2013 reason \u2013 is itself properly a product<\/i> of theology?<\/p>\n
Pope John Paul II\u2019s 1998 Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio<\/i> offers a helpful comparison to Barth\u2019s apparent blanket dismissal of philosophy.\u00a0 This encyclical stands as one of the finest discussions of faith and reason in recent Christian literature.<\/p>\n
In his introductory discussion of the relation between theology and philosophy, John Paul II states that all knowledge, whether derived from philosophy or faith, depends first on God, who makes knowledge possible by grace.\u00a0 \u201cUnderlying all the Church’s thinking,\u201d John Paul II said, \u201cis the awareness that she is the bearer of a message which has its origin in God himself (cf. 2 Cor 4:1-2).\u201d [4]<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0 The Church did not receive this message through its own power or abilities, nor was the message communicated through abstract intellectual means.\u00a0 Rather, John Paul II said, it stems from a personal encounter with God in Christ:<\/p>\n
At the origin of our life of faith there is an encounter, unique in kind, which discloses a mystery hidden for long ages (cf. 1 Cor <\/i>2:7; Rom <\/i>16:25-26) but which is now revealed:\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cIn his goodness and wisdom, God chose to reveal himself and to make known to us the hidden purpose of his will (cf. Eph <\/i>1:9), by which, through Christ, the Word made flesh, man has access to the Father in the Holy Spirit and comes to share in the divine nature\u201d.[5]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Further, God\u2019s self-revelation in Christ was entirely a free act of grace:\u00a0 \u201c[t]is initiative is utterly gratuitous, moving from God to men and women in order to bring them to salvation.\u00a0\u00a0 As the source of love, God desires to make himself known; and the knowledge which the human being has of God perfects all that the human mind can know of the meaning of life.\u201d[6]<\/a><\/p>\n
Therefore there is no question, as Barth feared, of philosophy superseding faith.\u00a0 There is no sharp division, in Fides et Ratio<\/i>, between \u201cnature\u201d and \u201cgrace\u201d:\u00a0 all that pertains to \u201cnature,\u201d to God\u2019s creative design, is also the gift of \u201cgrace,\u201d of God\u2019s ecstatic, self-giving love.\u00a0 Nevertheless, for John Paul II, \u201cnature\u201d involves empirical realities that are susceptible to human knowledge through a form of reasoning appropriate to the object.\u00a0 \u201cPhilosophy\u201d therefore possesses an inherent integrity, structure, and grammar.\u00a0 \u201cThe truth attained by philosophy and the truth of Revelation,\u201d John Paul II said, \u201care neither identical nor mutually exclusive\u201d:<\/p>\n
There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object\u2026.\u00a0 Based upon God’s testimony and enjoying the supernatural assistance of grace, faith is of an order other than philosophical knowledge which depends upon sense perception and experience and which advances by the light of the intellect alone.\u00a0 Philosophy and the sciences function within the order of natural reason; while faith, enlightened and guided by the Spirit, recognizes in the message of salvation the \u201cfullness of grace and truth\u201d (cf. Jn <\/i>1:14) which God has willed to reveal in history and definitively through his Son, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Jn <\/i>5:9; Jn <\/i>5:31-32).[7]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Contrary to Barth, then, John Paul II sees a positive role for \u201cphilosophy\u201d as a complement to \u201cfaith.\u201d\u00a0 \u00a0Indeed, for John Paul II, \u201cnatural reason,\u201d apart from revelation, is capable of showing that there is a God who created the universe \u2013 a notion Barth rejected.\u00a0 Whether one sides with Barth or John Paul II on the question of \u201cphilosophy\u201d and the role of \u201cnatural reason,\u201d however, these great Christian thinkers hold one thing in common with the historic Christian tradition:\u00a0 they recognize that the final ground of truth resides in God Himself and not in merely human structures of reason or speech.\u00a0 For John Paul II, it is finally our faith<\/i> in God\u2019s creative goodness that establishes confidence in the capacities of \u201cnatural reason\u201d to comprehend creation, and it is our faith in God\u2019s transcendence that establishes the proper bounds of reason.<\/p>\n
We confess in the Creed that we \u201cbelieve in God, the Father almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 This means there is nothing apart from God that is not God\u2019s creation.\u00a0 With this confession, there is no sense in which we as Christians could proclaim anything, provide any reasons, or offer any public apologia<\/i>, without first acknowledging the Triune God revealed in Christ.\u00a0 Any effort to offer a Christian apologia<\/i> that does not operate within the framework of a confession of the Triune God revealed in Christ before proceeding to offer reasons for that confession is a corruption of Christian theology that finally is a kind of a-theism.\u00a0 In my next post, I\u2019ll begin to unpack this relationship between God, theology, proclamation, reason, and apologia<\/i>.<\/p>\n
Further Reading<\/span>:<\/p>\n
Andrew Davidson, ed., Imaginative Apologetics:\u00a0 Theology, Philosophy, and the Catholic Tradition<\/a> (Baker Academic 2012).<\/p>\n
Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio<\/i><\/a>, September 14, 1998.<\/p>\n
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I.1.3 \u00a75<\/a>.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n