Listening Theology as Via Media

Karl Barth was relentless in insisting that theology consists in listening and replying to the Word of God. I think we do well to ponder the power of a listening sort of theology to forge a path through some of the problematic features of modernism and postmodernism. In this post, let us explore a listening theology vis-à-vis the former.

Many Enlightenment-driven thinkers have overemphasized the prowess and place of human rationality and this often goes in one or both of the following directions. First, only those truths accessible to all cognizant human beings (the so-called truths of reason) are deemed worthwhile. This amounts to a rejection of the “scandal of particularity” inherent in the Christian claim that God speaks and acts decisively in specific situations, most importantly in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Second, if the particulars of God’s special self-presentation are in fact given consideration, they are subjected to judgment by the canons of secular reason, in which may be included, a priori, commitments such as belief in the sheer impossibility of something like the incarnation.

Now a word of affirmation followed by a word of criticism. As David Clark argues (see his To Know and Love God) there are such things as “worldview-transcending rational principles” which we find sweepingly assumed and embedded in the epistemic endeavors of human beings. These would include rudimentary laws of logic such as the law of (non)contradiction. Colin Gunton remarks (see his essay “Historical and Systematic Theology” in The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine) that the importance of rationality in this sense is quite mundane and uncontroversial. But problems come when we 1) think too highly of our rational powers and/or 2) incessantly pile up, a priori, guidelines to which all doxastic candidates must conform in order to be acceptable. Regarding (1), John Webster reminds us (see his book Holiness) that human rationality is itself caught up in the history of sin and redemption, meaning that we must avoid exalting it and make sure we intentionally consecrate the use of it to the God who sanctifies his people and is the object of our theological reflection. Regarding (2), Alister McGrath’s Scientific Theology project helps us by stressing the value of viewing theology as a primarily a posteriori discipline. I am inclined to cast my lot with McGrath and suggest that, rather than stringently limiting out of the gate what can and cannot be the case, we focus more on listening to reality. In particular, we do well to be open to the possibility of God speaking and acting on the stage of world history. And, in fact, such is the case! The triune God has come on the scene and communicated with humankind, necessitating that we do theology as listeners, a posture very different from that of those who are convinced that they are able to discern from the start the impossibility of a God who reveals himself to men and women in pursuit of their redemption.