Hart, analogia entis, platonism, anarchist monarchism.
From a review done by Brian Hamilton of a session of a Karl Barth society meeting in 2006, in which DBH gave a lecture titled The Analogia Entis Makes a Come-Back:
...His [David Bentley Hart's] main theme, it seems to me, was to clarify the nature and purpose of the analogia entis: it does not aim to find a new mediator between God and humanity; rather, it is shorthand for “what sort of ontology would follow from the assertion that God is truly transcendent, that all being comes from him, and from the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.” “There is no mediator between us and God but God,” he agrees, but it is insufficient to say (as Hunsinger did) that all that mediates between God and creation is God’s sovereign will, for it is vacuous not to extend that into the category of being—God’s will is what willed us into being, with a certain stamp of the divine nature. Will we simply gloss over all those parts of our Scriptures that speak of the divine image imprinted on humanity? These do say something about ontology, manifestly. “We are fortuity and grace; our nature is a gift and only a gift.” But our nature is a gift of God and bears an image of him, and this is what we mean when we say that our nature is related analogously to God’s: that there is a certain continuity, not of essence but of creation, so analogy expresses both the continuity and discontinuity that is already clear in our central doctrines...
...In response to the charges of neo-Platonism, Hart admitted their truth unashamed. “I am not afraid of the term neo-Platonism—I am a Platonist in some sense—because I believe that Platonism has always been part of Christianity by the providential will of God.” Indeed, it has been one of the “disastrous foibles” of Protestantism to deny that heritage altogether, to deny that it is present already in the New Testament...
Bold emphasis mine. One notes that Hart is scheduled to speak at a conference titled, The Analogy of Being: Invention of the Anti-Christ or the Wisdom of God? A Theological Symposium, in April. It is expected that Barth is the primary representative of the anti-analogia entis position, but it would be nice were there a vigorous presentation of Orthodox anti-analogia entis as well. Would that someone fully evaluate Hart's intellectual commitments to Przywara. One keeps hearing a brewing storm in the distance, but at the same time I wonder if the English speaking Orthodox intellectual community will ever come to terms with Hart by way of a serious evaluation of his views from an Orthodox perspective.
I was quite pleased to read in Wiki in reference to Hart that "on a number of occasions he has called himself an 'anarchist monarchist.'" Whatever becomes of his place in Orthodox theology, I am very much intrigued by the man's thoughts on culture, politics, and history, and on these matters I think that he writes in a manner quite in keeping with ochlophobism. Anarchist monarchist. How can an ochlophobe not like the ring of that?
...His [David Bentley Hart's] main theme, it seems to me, was to clarify the nature and purpose of the analogia entis: it does not aim to find a new mediator between God and humanity; rather, it is shorthand for “what sort of ontology would follow from the assertion that God is truly transcendent, that all being comes from him, and from the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.” “There is no mediator between us and God but God,” he agrees, but it is insufficient to say (as Hunsinger did) that all that mediates between God and creation is God’s sovereign will, for it is vacuous not to extend that into the category of being—God’s will is what willed us into being, with a certain stamp of the divine nature. Will we simply gloss over all those parts of our Scriptures that speak of the divine image imprinted on humanity? These do say something about ontology, manifestly. “We are fortuity and grace; our nature is a gift and only a gift.” But our nature is a gift of God and bears an image of him, and this is what we mean when we say that our nature is related analogously to God’s: that there is a certain continuity, not of essence but of creation, so analogy expresses both the continuity and discontinuity that is already clear in our central doctrines...
...In response to the charges of neo-Platonism, Hart admitted their truth unashamed. “I am not afraid of the term neo-Platonism—I am a Platonist in some sense—because I believe that Platonism has always been part of Christianity by the providential will of God.” Indeed, it has been one of the “disastrous foibles” of Protestantism to deny that heritage altogether, to deny that it is present already in the New Testament...
Bold emphasis mine. One notes that Hart is scheduled to speak at a conference titled, The Analogy of Being: Invention of the Anti-Christ or the Wisdom of God? A Theological Symposium, in April. It is expected that Barth is the primary representative of the anti-analogia entis position, but it would be nice were there a vigorous presentation of Orthodox anti-analogia entis as well. Would that someone fully evaluate Hart's intellectual commitments to Przywara. One keeps hearing a brewing storm in the distance, but at the same time I wonder if the English speaking Orthodox intellectual community will ever come to terms with Hart by way of a serious evaluation of his views from an Orthodox perspective.
I was quite pleased to read in Wiki in reference to Hart that "on a number of occasions he has called himself an 'anarchist monarchist.'" Whatever becomes of his place in Orthodox theology, I am very much intrigued by the man's thoughts on culture, politics, and history, and on these matters I think that he writes in a manner quite in keeping with ochlophobism. Anarchist monarchist. How can an ochlophobe not like the ring of that?
posted by The Ochlophobist at 5:09 PM
5 Comments:
Och,
Ah, a post on this! I was almost lamenting that I had departed blog-dom too quickly when I had read about the analogia entis, Hart's (and his friend John Betz's) dedication to it, and that Przywara's book will be getting an English printing from Eerdmans in Spring. I scrambled to do some brief research on it and found only Fr. John Romanides spent anytime with the analogia entis directly, though he seems to have left it dangling with a general rejection of natural theology. (Hart seems to believe the former does not necessarily imply the latter, at least not in what he takes to be its "naive" form.) Romanides also, understandably, rejects analogia fide, though he does so by mentioning Luther and not Barth (though maybe I just didn't find/don't recall a Barth reference).
I am with you on wishing some Orthodox mind or another would step up to the plate on Hart. The closest I have seen is Fr. John McGuckin's review of Beauty..., though I got the sense from it that Fr. John not only sees nothing particularly exciting (special?) about Hart's theology, but that he is hard pressed to take it as Orthodox. (Whether this is due to some alleged "neo-Palamite bias" on the part of Fr. John is something I really couldn't say; his monographs certainly lean towards a much broader understanding of Orthodox theology.) But to be frank, Orthodox minds writing in English that could go "toe-to-toe" with Hart are few and far between. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if their own projects are much more intriguing to them than having a rhetorical slobberknocker with--as you have rightly pointed out in the past--one of the best essayists of our generation.
I can't even begin to visualize what "anarchist monarchist" is supposed to mean, unless it's just a recognition that a traditional central authority had many points beyond its reach, governed only by the dictates of local culture, unlike our own totalitarian "democracy", which strives to infinitely extend its authority, and govern human life down to its most intimate details.
I think the term we are looking for is cognitive dissonance. I tend to suffer from it myself as a mildly libertarian monarchist. Don't ask me to explain. When I think about it too much I get a headache.
If only Hamilton had lived...
ICXC
John
It's amazing how Ortho-American politics can so easily be summarized by John 19:15...
I'm sure Hart was trying to be cute by his use of "anarchist monarchist" because, to be honest, being cute is something Hart is rather good at. (Rhetorically at least.) What he seems to be moving away from is being clear, which is bothersome since one would like to think he has some sense of mission, some notion of what his purpose is in simultaneously being an academia outcast and a man whose work is the subject of much study from academics (or would-be academics). But then again, writing about theology is much easier, much safer, than writing about society, culture, and politics. The former will get you the sort of attention that, at best, lands you a spot in a university and, at worst, get you ignored by the snobs down the road. The other route--the more dangerous--can land you out on your rear end, far away from the admiration or even the distant appreciation of your fellow Christians.
With that said, it's not as if I wouldn't welcome a stream of essays from Hart on social, cultural, and political issues. I would welcome a stream of such things from (most?) Orthodox writers. I don't expect them, of course. We're a cloistered lot whose ranks share more affinities with nominalism and contemporary liberalism than we care to admit. We have some "pet issues" (e.g., abortion), but it really doesn't amount to much since, like so many things, it's merely an "opinion" the "authorities" haven't ruled in-on; all is allowed under that grand cloak of "haziness" Orthodox love to pull over themselves when pressed with concrete problems.
Scratch a utopian and you'll find a tyrant. At least admitting an "anarchist monarchist" label implies an honest confusion about one's tyrannical impulses, unlike the effete busybodies who don't believe in anyone else's freedom.
Hart's pedestrian social and political commentary achieves significance only by inappropriately enlarging the reach of the subject matter and by stylistic mastery, rather than by delivering substance. Permit me a wry inward smile in observing that his stylistic mastery arguably reaches its pinnacle in skewering his philosophical competitors.
If I were a monarch, Hart's name would be permitted to be mentioned only among the clucking Latin hens over at First Things.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home