Hart on the appeal of Christianity
February 17, 2008
From the introduction to The Beauty of the Infinite (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003):
Christian theology has no stake in the myth of disinterested rationality: the church has no arguments for its faith more convincing than the form of Christ; enjoined by Christ to preach the gospel, Christians must proclaim, exhort, bear witness, persuade — before other forms of reason can be marshaled… Christian thought must remain immovably fixed alongside Christ, in his irreducible particularity, and precisely insofar as the temper of “postmodernism” runs against confidence in universal truths of reason, postmodern theory confirms theology in its original condition: that of a story, thoroughly dependent upon a sequence of historical events to which the only access is the report and practice of believers, a story whose truthfulness may be urged — even enacted — but never proved simply by the processes of scrupulous dialectic. What Christian thought offers the world is not a set of “rational” arguments that (suppressing certain of their premises) force assent from others by leaving them, like the interlocutors of Socrates, at a loss for words; rather, it stands before the world principally with the story it tells concerning God and creation, the form of Christ, the loveliness of the practice of Christian charity — and the rhetorical richness of its idiom. Making its appeal first to the eye and heart, as the only way it may “command” assent, the church cannot separate truth from rhetoric, or from beauty.
It’s rather disconcerting reading that paragraph. It rather strips away all of the reason and force that we sometimes like to think that we bring to the table…
Yes, I agree. It is disconcerting. I have often argued for the Christian faith from things like the evidence for the resurrection. I don’t think those things are made irrelevant by this; but I’m at least interested in Hart’s proposal here. It’s very similar to a quote from Balthasar I posted earlier.
Yes, but I suppose the point would be to see and use reason in its proper place, but it is not the ‘highest’ or ‘first’. I happen to think it’s reasonable to believe the resurrection happened as well, yet the interesting thing, particularly in the Balthasar quote is how it might overstep reason. What does that mean, precisely? In what sense do we mean ‘reason’?
Strange but some of the problems people have the absoluteness of the human concept of God also corrupts or undermines an unbiased acceptance of God as God is. Not really God as we “think: he should be. This was what the Losskys talked about. Religion that was outside- in or ontic instead of say, idealized. Some of Harts ideas (which I think it has been said before) appear as the utilitarianism of Hobbes (i.e. “the end justifies the means”). Such a reading of Orthodoxy and Dostoevsky (specifically) do not reconcile with what made the Greeks move past philosophy and into Theophilos or Orthodoxy. Modern Orthodox thinkers have shown that determinism (oroborus) is the same false knowledge as all the conspiracies of the cults in Byzantium’s past (read Nassim Taleb and the Black Swan). I think that there is a better approach to all of this, where there need not be such a heavy push to reconcile ideas so much but rather, push people to accept reality as it is.
Thanks
Alex K