I recently got an email from Matt Marston, a student at Duke Divinity, with a couple of excellent questions. With his permission, I am summarizing them here and offering an initial response.
First, Matt said he is taking a class on post-liberalism in which they read Frei's "Types of Theology." Matt noted that Frei classifies Pannenberg as type 2 (philosophy
sets the agenda, theology answers) and Barth as type 4 (theology/scripture sets
agenda, philosphy is an aid). Frei places Tillich and Schleiermacher in type 3.
Matt asked where I would place my work in these types, and whether I am satisfied with Frei's
understanding of Pannenberg, which "seems to be based on the assumption that
Pannenberg "builds" his theology on anthropology?"
Not surprisingly, I disagree with Frei's assessment of Pannenberg, for the former, like so many scholars, failed to understand the complex reciprocity of the relation between theology and (for example) anthropology. I explain the problems with this misreading, and outline my view of Pannenberg's method in my "Postfoundationalist Task of Theology."
What about my work? If forced to choose, I would say probably type three, but happily (for me) I don't think I have to choose, because Frei's entire typology is built on the problematic assumption that theology and philosophy (or science, etc) can be imagined as two more or less separate disciplines (or practices) that may or may not be related in various ways. I believe that all philosophy (and science, etc.) is enmeshed within and emerges out of struggles with questions of ultimate reality and value, and all theology (Christian or otherwise) is formulated and articulated within a particular cultural context that is dynamic and developing. In my view, Frei's typology is too simplistic and modernist. It seems to me his typology is really about psychology, not theological method.
Second, Matt noted that David Bentley Hart's "Beauty of the Infinite" is popular at Duke, mostly with Catholic and
Anglican students. Matt's response was that he was frustrated with Hart's dismissals of Barth and Jungel.
He wondered whether I see any overlap or points of real disagreement with my Reforming the Doctrine of God.
Yes, I was frustrated with his dismissals too, but perhaps for different reasons. It all comes down to the "analogia entis" for Hart. For me, starting with "analogy" of any kind (even analogia relationis, etc.) is the problem. It presupposes that finite language can work on the infinite (in some sense) similar to (hence, analogy) the way it works on the finite. If I had to pick an "analogical" approach, it probably would be along the lines of Jeungel's "analogy of advent." But, again, I don't think I have to choose. In chapter 2 of RDG I outline the problems with such an approach, and in chapter 5 I outline resources in the tradition that can be refigured for the theological task today.
I like several aspects of Hart's work, such as his emphasis on beauty, his insistence on a robustly trinitarian doctrine of God, and even some hints toward what is sometimes called divine "futurity." This is certainly a point of comparison with RDG. But the way in which he outlines those issues, in my view, presupposes a kind of neoplatonic metaphysics and uses a sort of (updated modernist) Aristotelian predication theory that makes the proposal of little use for engaging contemporary culture, especially those who have been oppressed by theological regimes funded by such philosophical assumptions. But, alas, the latter does not seem to be a strong concern among most proponents of Radical Orthodoxy.
So, Matt... and others... responses?
