The Lure and Doom of Analytic Theology

1. Analytic theology (AT), through its affirmation of an analytic method in which a problem is analyzed (broken down) and properly reconstructed, assumes that all theological problems are improperly constructed. That is, there really are no "problems" in the logic of Christianity as such, but only problems in Christian understanding of Christianity/God. So what?

-well, first, this assumes that what is problematic for one culture can be explained by another culture in such a way that the problem is really solved for all. This is the lure of logic. You can gain argumentative power through defining terms nobody wants to deny and which lead to the desired conclusion. But culture often confounds this seeming solution. If we have analyzed and improved our understanding of God's relation to time, for instance, this does not necessarily mean that we have done so for anyone operating in another cultural paradigm. All arguments are laden with cultural-linguistic baggage, or location. This means that there is no "proper" analytic construction of God's relation to time, unless…

-unless AT affirms that we are approaching the end of language as we have known it. Perhaps we are approaching the end of history, and entering into a time where all people speak the same language, the perfect language of logic (mathematics). Here, the problems become final solutions because we all occupy the same cultural-linguistic location. We're all playing the same language game.

-but what about the problems which appear in the Scriptures themselves? Are these problems only phenomena of human misunderstanding? What does this mean about the inspiration of these texts? And once analytic theology has done its work on the Scriptures, would not these Scriptures become obsolete, the problems all being solved?

2. AT assumes that our knowledge of God is natural. That is, while revelation serves to get the ball rolling, so to speak, theologians can use analytic method to reconstruct a theology which can be appropriated and evaluated without reference to Scripture. Scripture becomes an artifact of nature which rests alongside all the other books ever written. 

-but this also leads at least to the redundancy and problematic nature of Scripture. If God can be known naturally, then Scripture becomes less than useless. There are many aspects of Scripture which are ethically problematic or scientifically anathema to rationalism.

-this also has the effect of validating or normalizing conventional thought or intuition. That is, instead of judging an idea with reference to an external norm, like the God-breathed Scriptures, we now see reference being made to intuition. Intuition begins to serve as a source of inspiration, not that it comes from a vertically transcendent source, but a horizontally transcendent one, because it is the voice of Man. It is thought to be illogical to propose an idea which undercuts the supremacy of the intuition of Man. If it is possible that what we intuit to be true is false, then, having already naturalized Scripture, we are at an epistemic stale mate. This is no fun for anybody, so we just assume that our intuitions are true. (And nobody even wonders anymore why we don't start by assuming that the Word of God is true, especially where it shows Man to be a foolish liar)

3. AT is also impotent to really solve the problems it is advertised to solve (or if it does anything, it only moves the goal post and dissolves the problem by annulling the authority of Scripture).

-Does God exist?

• AT: Well, yes. But why don't we ask a more answerable question, like "Am I within my epistemic rights to assert that God exists in public?" (Goal post moved, also note that when one defends one right, he often leads to the assumption that he doesn't have the right to say all the things he didn't argue he had the right to say. What about "Am I within my epistemic rights to assert that the prologue of Genesis is a myth which is historically accurate?" Let's bet on the AT answer for that one….)

-Is the bible inspired?

• AT: We'll get back to you on that one/We're working on it (but we're pretty sure that we wouldn't sign the Chicago Statement ;)

-Does hell exist?

• AT: Have you heard of annihilationism? What about evangelical universalism? There are a lot of options on the table historically…If hell exists, it is probably where all the continental philosophers go. lol.

-What about the problem of evil?

• AT: Again, depending on your view of hell, and your view of the nature of God, maybe there isn't a problem as such. Let's move the goal post. Here's a better question: Do humans have libertarian free will? And remember, if you say no, then you're a fatalist. (Why is fatalism so bad again? If we had to pick between fatalism and chaos….) It's not that God couldn't have stopped evil, but more that in order to create a world with LFW, then the possibility of evil must exist. Thus, the problem of evil is weakened (solved?) if we understand that it is necessary to all worlds in which there are humans who have LFW. (Don't ask the obvious follow up, which is why LFW is so valuable that it exonerates God for the existence of evil. Apparently LFW is so intuitive, that to deny it is grounds for institutionalization) (Also notice that we get open theism here, whether they admit it or not. They'll try to convince you that Molinism prevents this, but it doesn't. Otherwise, one must defend that this is the best of all possible worlds, an assertion which only begs the question.)

We could go on. But I brought all this up to set the stage for three rhetorical questions:

1. Doesn't all of this mean that analytic theology presumes an end to itself, a terminus? What happens when the majority of analytic scholars have fully explored the all the domains of theology? They seem to be pretty sure that they have already figured out many of the prolegomena to theology since the 70s. How long will the rest take if the movement really picks up steam? I suppose there will always be nibbles of work to accommodate new scientific discoveries or drifts in language, but for the most part, this is a finite program. What new data could come to light which would really change any of these considerations? Short of digging up Jesus's body, not much. Perhaps this is the only solace AT offers, that it will soon be over.

2. Who are they trying to convince? The problem at the core IMO is that AT is based on a rejection of the total depravity of Man, which leads to an emphasis on natural theology and rationalism. The tragedy is that they think they're doing apologetics for the faith, that they're constructing a biblical defense for a scientific age. They think that pagans will be convinced if a really good argument is used to prove the existence of God. The problem is two-fold. First, they never give any really good offensive arguments for the existence of God. They end up offering an apology in the more contemporary sense, where they demur from the classical conception of God and make little peace offerings to the idol of Intuition. They don't try to get the pagan to say "Jesus is Lord", but rather "Theism is epistemically viable, and theists should be allowed into academia". This leads to the second tragic consequence, which is that the Scriptural foundations for Christianity are sacrificed. I don't think that there are any big name Analytic Theologians who would earn the respect of their forefather, Thomas Aquinas. It's more likely that they would be anathematized. While I can't name any big name analytic theologians who are known for their orthodoxy (historical), I can think of some who aren't even Christians any more. Perhaps this is merely circumstantial. Perhaps all the orthodox analytic theologians like anonymity. It seems much more likely that the whole enterprise which springs from the analytic method leads to varieties of atheism. They think they're preaching to the World, but they're really scandalizing the Church.

3. Whatever it is, can we really call it theology? This seems to be a somewhat debated topic, even within the Christian analytic movement. Some seem to recognize that there is a qualitative divide between theology and philosophy. Thus, even when analytic philosophical methodology is applied to problems within the Christian tradition, these projects are not theological projects. Theology deals with dogmatics; philosophy does not. Theology speaks for the church, philosophy does not (?). What does it mean that analytic philosophers are starting to feel their oats, starting to say, after Plantinga, that all the real theology is being done in philosophy departments? Well, it probably doesn't mean that the American theological tradition is so strong that it has infiltrated philosophy. No, it is more likely that what this signifies is the invasion of analytic philosophy into the culture of the Church (theology having left the building a long time ago). There was a vacuum of academic rigor, and analytic philosophers who happen to be Christian have made a market niche for themselves. I'm not sure if they want to call what they're doing theology because they don't recognize the classical subordination of reason to revelation, or perhaps because of some latent Neo-Calvinist eschatology which thinks that the Church will save the world, literally, through conquering academia. I'm not sure that there is one way to slice it in particular, but I am sure that analytic theology, so called, is not theology. When your god is Intuition, "thinking God's thoughts after him" becomes a purely human affair. Why not just call it analytic philosophy.

___

I would also say that the longer AT masquerades as theology, the weaker the mind of Christianity will get. Theology is first and foremost for the service of the Church to the glory of God, and who would say that this service is being rendered? Mark Noll (et al.) hasn't made his money extolling the vigor of theology in the Church. Further, as we witness the atrophy of theology/philosophy departments in Christian universities around the nation, who's to blame? I would say that a factor in this is that when theology becomes something which is merely apologetic, and not for the life of every Christian, when Christianity is dumbed down and secularized, then philosophy becomes a parachurch ministry, an optional facet of education. What used to be central has become peripheral, and we've got nobody to blame but ourselves.