Book Review: Myk Habets, Theology in Transposition: A Constructive Appraisal of T.F. Torrance
When Alfred North Whitehead once quipped that Christianity
is a “religion in search of a metaphysic,” he might equally have said that
Christianity is a religion in search of a method. A tireless opponent of every sort of dualism,
T.F. Torrance would no doubt be the first to tell us the two are inextricable:
metaphysics begets method; method begets metaphysics. Such interconnections can
provide richness, but they can also invoke a bit of despair—much as trying to
disentangle a thread that never ends might. Peering upon the vast array of
contemporary and historical theologies is not quite to gaze into the abyss, but
even many canny theologians have nonetheless fallen into the pit of method
never to climb back out again.[1]
Indeed, even the memorably terse “a religion in search of …” can hardly be spoken
these days without the caveat that to conceptualize Christianity as a
“religion” is already to freight it with an assortment of methodological
tendencies that emerged when the category was forged in the modern period.[2]
Other factors, like the development of religion as a “worldview,”[3]
and even the fallout from the internal disintegration of many ambitious
theological projects[4] or
exterior challenges from other disciplines, [5] haunt
and refract theological methodology like a great hall of mirrors.
What we need no doubt is a giant upon whose shoulders we
might stand. Luckily the 20th century was something of a theological
garden, growing giants from which to choose. But this too, has difficulties. Harvesting
the method of a von Balthasar, a Barth, a Pannenberg, or—in this case—a
Torrance, is itself no small matter. Luckily with his volume Theology in Transposition, Myk Habets
has done us a great favor in distilling Torrance’s clear-sighted method. There
have been a number of helpful books on aspects of Torrance’s methodology lately—from
Eric Flett’s excellent look into Torrance’s Trinitarian theology of culture and
the concept of “social coefficients,” to Jason Radcliff’s much-needed investigation
into how Torrance retrieves the Fathers of the church in comparison with other
projects of ressourcement.[6]
But as of yet (as far as I know of) there has been no monograph devoted to the
topic of Torrance’s method per se.
Habets has proven himself to be one of the world’s leading
Torrance scholars, and this volume only reinforces that reputation. From the
sprawling oeuvre of Torrance comes a
concise and clear study that begins with a short theological biography, moving
on to chapters regarding his “scientific theology,” ”natural theology,” and
“realist theology.” The second half
of the book deals with the outworking of that methodology in practice, focusing
on the mystical, integrative, and Christological elements of Torrance’s work
respectively (particularly interesting, the last chapter focuses on the
fascinating topic of Christ assuming a fallen
humanity).
And that disorienting hall of mirrors we spoke of earlier?
Torrance (via Habets) arranges and polishes them so that they are no longer a
labyrinthine regress, but each mirror becomes rather a looking glass, one lain
on top of the other as each provides its own magnification for our gaze moving upward
through them, looking now to man, now to world, now to God. Or, put more
properly in Torrance’s own terms:
We select a few basic concepts in
our experience and apprehension of the world, try to work out their
interconnections, and organize them into a coherent system of thought through
which like a lens we can gain a more accurate picture of the hidden patterns
and coherences embedded in the world. (Quoted in Habets, 30).
Torrance in this quote is specifically speaking about the
methodology of science – but herein lay part of his brilliance as he outlines
the analogies between scientific and theological method. Habets masterfully
picks out that one of Torrance’s “few basic concepts” presents theology, like
science, operating kata physin or
“according to the nature [of its object]”:
[E]pistemology is founded on or
correlated with ontology. This holds throughout Torrance’s method and theology.
… Torrance holds that the distinctive nature of theology is determined by its
object, which is defined as God revealed in Jesus Christ. Hence theology, and
any and every other true science … is under an intrinsic obligation to give account
of reality according to its distinct nature, that is kata physin … [Torrance] goes on to argue that ‘science in every
field of our human experience, is only the rigorous extension of that basic way
of thinking and behaving’ (46).
As such, Habets stresses for Torrance that the Nicene homoousios actually provides the entire
structure for theology as a science: “By utilizing the doctrine of the homoousion and perichoresis we are moved (epistemologically) from the experience
of God (level one) to the theological level (the economic Trinity), finally to
the deep theological and scientific structures upon which the first two levels
rest (ontological Trinity)” (38).
This does not isolate theology from other disciplines.
Rather because Christ is the true vision of creation, creation is
“proleptically conditioned by redemption” (156). Just so, Habets turns to the
fascinating discussion of how Torrance rehabilitates natural theology by
situating precisely within theology.
Here again, those labyrinths of methodological mirrors are reordered so that
“nature” is not a principle freestanding from robust theological interests, but
is viewed through “sanctified spectacles” (74). “Natural theology can no longer
be undertaken apart from actual knowledge of the living God,” as Torrance
himself puts it (quoted in Habets, 84).
Torrance famously likes this methodological decision with Einstein’s situation
of geometry within physics, so that “No longer extrinsic, but intrinsic to
actual knowledge of God [natural theology] will serve as a sort of ‘theological
geometry’ within it, in which we are concerned to articulate the inner material
logic of the knowledge of God as it is mediated within the organized field of
space time.” When Torrance explained this to Barth, the Swiss theologian is
reported to have responded: “I must have been a blind hen not to have seen that
analogy before” (84). One stands amazed at this concession by Barth, if for no
other reason than the respect for sighted hens he must have!
With this discussion, Habets plunges into the debate on just
what to make of Torrance’s resituating of natural theology. Does it still open
itself to use in “strong” apologetics (as Alister McGrath has created his own
small cottage industry in arguing)? Was Torrance still Barthian, allowing no
place for natural theology except on the few occasions he was inconsistent with
this resolve (Paul Molnar’s thesis)? Or, should what Torrance is doing more
properly be called a “theology of nature” rather than “natural theology” (here
Elmer Colyer and Travis McMacken are cited, though one might add Stanley Hauerwas
in With the Grain of the Universe);[7]
or, as Habets himself argues, is there room for a “soft apologetic” role to
natural theology (86)? Whatever the conclusion, Habets himself notes that
Molnar is right to point out a touch of inconsistency in Torrance: can nature
only be seen within the “lens” of revealed theology? Or does nature of its own
accord “silently cry out” for an explanation that must be beyond itself (91)?
To this question Habets very helpfully distinguishes between a natural
revelation, (which creates the possibility of scientific inquiry without
serving as a foundation for faith), natural theology, which Habets notes “can
be used evangelistically by Christians”, and a “Trinitarian theology of nature”
which is the full-orbed vision of Torrance’s synthesis (92).
In this same vein, in one of the more fascinating sections
of the book Habets recounts the arguments that went on between Torrance and the
Princetonian Carl F. Henry (95-110). The basic outlines of their debate mirror
that of Torrance’s placing natural theology back within revealed theology, only
now it is scripture and reason that are placed within the doctrine of God’s
self-revelation in redemption. Here, instead of “natural theology” remaining
autonomous, Henry advocates rather for a “soft foundationalism” where the mind
and rationality remain independent of the fall or redemption (106). Torrance
wants to place scripture within the reality of God as witness to God: conversely,
for Henry “faith is placed in scripture directly rather than that to which
Scripture bears witness—God’s being and act” (112). Habets notes that
Torrance—in what he also elaborates as Torrance’s “mystical” side (125-145)—is
ceaselessly referring us to God’s reality itself,
that is: “not to mistake Scripture for the truths it seeks to reveal” (112).
Ultimately Habets mediates between Torrance and Henry here, saying “we must see
scripture is divine revelation,
regardless of whether one is in union with Christ” but that the skopos of scripture points to Christ (121).
When one tries to follow in the footsteps of giants,
inevitably we mere mortals stand outpaced. Boot-like craters in impossible
spans fill the horizon as we breathlessly huff on. It is therefore helpful at
the very least to have a map showing that toward which the footfalls tend.
Habets has provided us one such map for seeking a giant like Torrance through
the overgrown landscapes of theology. There are still deficits in Torrance to
be sure (which Habets points out). For example, as a theologian so intent to
overcome all dualisms, Torrance often remains surprisingly focused on the realm
of the intellect (141), while ignoring the possibilities of bodily
signification. One does not, of course, necessarily exclude the other. Yet, emphasizing
bodily practices and representation like Sarah Coakley and others have suggested,
would greatly increase the scope of Torrance’s argumentation.[8] Torrance’s
continual allegiance to equating “Greek philosophy” with his bogeyman of
“dualism” also weakens his case, especially with the arguments of those like
Pierre Hadot who represent philosophy not as world-denial but in fact as a way
of life.[9] Moreover,
the force in Torrance’s clarity of vision regarding the tradition can be a
weakness as well as his strength. Reading the Trinitarian Faith is a joy, for example, but it’s thematic rather
than historical organization stamps that joy with a question mark.[10]
I would have appreciated Habets addressing whether one can maintain Torrance’s
singular vision in the face of increasingly nuanced and self-reflective appropriations
of theological tradition.[11]
Or, in the face of narratives “placing” the tradition into halls of heroes and
villains equal but opposite to Torrance.[12] Nevertheless,
Habets’ work is not just a book for Torrance aficionados. He has written an
investigation that anyone interested in theological method should have on their
shelves.
[1]
Francesca Aran Murphy, God Is Not a
Story: Realism Revisited (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) argues
that for many, method has itself subtly replaced the actual content of
theology.
[2]
Peter Harrison, The Territories of
Science and Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2015).
[3]
David K. Naugle, Worldview: The History
of a Concept (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing, 2002).
[4]
For example, Johannes Zachuber, Theology
as Science in Nineteenth Century: From F.C. Bauer to Ernst Troeltsch (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2013). And of course the famous (and much contested)
thesis of Hans Blumenberg, that secular modernity had to build itself up from
the ruins theology failed to uphold. See: The
Legitimacy of the Modern Age (Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1985).
[5]
John Allen Knight, Liberalism Versus
Postliberalism: The Great Divide in Twentieth Century Theology (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2013), helpfully organizes his interlocutors around
how they deal with, or circumvent, the problem of “falsification” regarding
theological statements.
[6]
Eric G. Flett, Persons, Powers, and
Pluralities: Toward a Trinitarian Theology of Culture (Eugene: Pickwick
Publications, 2011); Jason Robert Radcliff, Thomas
F. Torrance and the Church Fathers: A Reformed, Evangelical, and Ecumenical
Reconstruction (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2014).
[7]
Stanley Hauerwas, With the Grain of the
Universe: The Church’s Witness as Natural Theology (Grand Rapids: Brazos
Press, 2001).
[8] Sarah Coakley, “Dark
Contemplation and Epistemic Transformation: The Analytic Theologian Re-Meets
Teresa of Avila,” in Oliver Crisp and Michael Rea, eds., Analytic Theology: New Essays on the Philosophy of Theology (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2009), 280-312. “Only a closer attention to the
subtleties of mystical discourse itself (including its apophatic maneuvers),
and to its accompanying and repetitive
bodily practices [emphasis added] can help the analytic tradition beyond
its usual confines of expectation at this point.” (282-283). Here also refer to the essential analysis of
bodily resurrection in Caroline Walker Bynum, The Resurrection of the Body (New York: Colombia University, 1995);
and the political and social significance of the body in Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual
Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press,
2008).
[9]
Pierre Hadot, What is Ancient Philosophy?
(Massachusetts: Belknap Press, 2014).
[10] Frances
Young, “From Suspicion and Sociology to Spirituality: On Method, Hermeneutics,
and Appropriation With Respect to Patristic Material,” in E. Livingston, ed., Studia
Patristica (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 424: “it is not chronology but logic
that determines the sequence [of the Trinitarian
Faith].”
[11] Morwenna
Ludlow, Gregory of Nyssa: Ancient and
Postmodern (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 15-37. 82-97; Radcliff,
Thomas F. Torrance and the Church Fathers,
139-140; 194. Of interest as well would have been a more than tangential
encounter with the work of Richard Muller (e.g.) on reception of the Reformed
tradition. See: Calvin and the Reformed
Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2012).
[12]
Most recently, cf. Adrian Pabst, Metaphysics:
The Creation of Hierarchy (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing, 2012).
Comments