It is imperative for the Church in all times and places to be in
dialogue without the culture of the world, and therefore for the Church to be
able to couch her theology in the language of the world. Christians have done
this to varying degrees of success over the ages. Part of the problem is that
each society has a multi-layered culture which incorporates a different
lexicon, and so the "vernacular" changes depending on who one is
speaking to.
Why is contemporary language important? Many reasons spring to
mind: one cannot truly believe what one does not understand, one will not learn
what one cannot understand, mental barriers emerge when somebody uses language
that is foreign. In this sense, relatable language is evangelical.
Another important reason is that language furnishes our conceptual
framework. According to some people (in particular, adherents to linguistic
determinism), the grammar and vocabulary of a language structures and could
even limit and determine human knowledge and thought. Even if a theory of
strong linguistic determinism is false, it remains clearly true that language
provides clarity to concepts which would be too vague to communicate otherwise.
Since language defines concepts for communication, it follows that
understandable language is crucial for communication of the Gospel.
The fact that concepts appear in linguistic form is part of the
reason why Christians have been hesitant to translate their conceptual
frameworks into the vernacular of an age: precision arises when one uses a
particular language, and dead languages have the bonus of remaining static and
precise. Ecclesiastical Latin is an instance of a language the Church has
declared "sacred", simply for the reason that theology most precise in
Latin, in part because much theology was developed in Latin, in part because it
is now dead and immutable.
This hesitation is not without due reason, as the East-West schism
shows: according to the 1995 document "The Greek and Latin
Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit" from the
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the famous filioque clause which separates the
Western and Eastern Church doctrinally may not be a doctrinal difference at
all, but a linguistic issue. "Procedere" has been used to
translate "ἐκπορεύεσθαι"
and "προϊέναι", whereas only the latter translation would reflect the
doctrine affirmed by the Catholic Church, the former indeed being heretical.
Whilst the East-West schism is more complicated historically than one simple
doctrinal difference, the filioque controversy
does indeed highlight the problems that can result when doctrines readily
understood in one language are transferred to another. Less fundamental issues
may well lie at the heart of other doctrines, such as papal infallibility, as
John Ford points out in a recent article.[1]
Whilst theological orthodoxy is important, it is no substitute for
the essence of the Church's apostolate, which is its missionary commission. So
the Church must, despite risks, translate her theology into language which can
be understood by the receivers of her missionary impulse. Who are these people?
The Church's "preferential option for the poor", as well as her
Master's anointing "to preach good news to the poor" (Luke 4:17,
quoting Isaiah) makes clear that those who live in poverty are the first port
of call for the missionary Church. So language appropriate to that context is
required, and a rhetoric which is intelligible to the poor necessary.
Without
minimizing the important duty towards the poor, the missionary comission is to
preach the Gospel to all the nations, which includes those that are
not marked distinctly by poverty (understood at least in part in material
terms). This means that other groups need the Gospel translated into language
fitting for their context - including my own, the analytic tradition in
philosophy and the natural sciences. What does it mean to couch Christian
theological concepts in the language and vocabulary of these groups?
I
will not here embark on such a monumental project, although any Christian who
lives in a particular cultural context must address the issue of formulating
the core tenets of Christianity at some point, lest they deny their core
vocation as Christians as missionaries. What I will do is make a few comments
about past re-formulations of Christian theology, and ones underway at present.
It
is important to note that this has been done before, in the hands of one of the
greatest theological minds in the Western tradition, St Thomas Aquinas. In his
day, Greek philosophy was the prevailing intellectual norm, and his
Christianizing of Aristsotelian philosophy has profoundly marked the Western
Church. St Thomas therefore presents us with the paradigmatic case of theology
in dialogue with philosophy, even the philosophy of pagans like the ancient
Greeks. It is true that some elements of Aristotelianism had to be condemned,
but it equally true that the insights of Aristotle were important for theology,
and if nothing else, allowed greater intellectual rigor in Christian theology.
Unfortunately,
a large portion of Catholic philosophy has attempted to emulate St Thomas'
Aristotelianism in a time in which it is untenable, instead of taking the
dialogue insight and Christianizing the new "pagan philosophy." Just
like in St Thomas' time, there will be many sceptics that such a venture is
possible - a quick look at the Condemnations at the University of Paris will
suffice to show that they abounded - and yet he managed to pull of an incredible
feat. We must now turn to modern philosophy to see how current language can be
used to express Christian truths, and so give renewed intellectual rigor to
Christianity. The work of saints like St Edith Stein and St John Paul II are
good places to start in the continental tradition's sub-area of phenomenology
(I am unaware of any analytic philosophers in phenomenology), and perhaps John
Joseph Haldane and Richard Swinburne, not to mention the Protestants Alvin
Plantinga and William Lane Craig, can form some sort of beginning of the
analytic tradition's side of things.
The
natural sciences must also be addressed with the eye's of a theologian, and I
can think of no better starting place than the Anglican theologian Alister
McGrath's trilogy A Scientific Theology, which I have the treat of
delving into his first volume later on this year. Just like Greek philosophy
might have been considered out of bounds for theology because it was pagan,
so now the naturalism that prevails in scientific circles should not deter
Christians from entering into it with the firm convictions of Christ.
I
do not know what form a scientific theology would take, and
yet it is undoubtedly necessary for a fruitful dialogue between religion and
science, which is probably considered the most important intellectual authority
in the West today. I do not know what an analytical philosophical theology
would look like, and yet for intellectual dialogue between Christianity and
what probably should be considered the highest intellectual
authority, philosophy, it is crucial.
I
find myself in the strange position of being in the middle of the three: a
Christian, and therefore a theologian, a philosopher, and a scientist. Whilst
this characterization is certainly unfair, some might consider my area of
science the very pinnacle - physics - if only because of the reductionism that
is virally present in society. Misconceptions notwithstanding, if it is the
case that I continue to learn about these fields of study upon which I am
embarked, I should in principle be particularly capable of the task at hand. It
is not a nice idea; it is a necessary one.
[1] Ford,
John, "Infallibility - terminology, textual analysis and theological
interpretation - a response to Mark Powell", Theological Studies, 74 (2013).
