Wesleyan philosophy 1 -- What is philosophy and is it Christian?

We are possibly creating a Wesleyan wiki on philosophy. Here was my opening salvo on the first question:

1. What is philosophy (and is it even Christian)?  

Philosophy, if we built off the etymology of the word, would seem to involve the “love of wisdom.” Here Proverbs 1:7 immediately comes to mind: “The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge; wisdom and instruction fools despise.” Proverbs suggests that, if we are to pursue true wisdom and knowledge, God must stand at the beginning of our quest.

This observation suggests to me that philosophy need not be antithetical to faith. Might we not say something in keeping with the proverb to say, “Faith in God is the proper beginning of philosophy.” I would see Augustine quite in keeping with this approach when he spoke of “faith seeking understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum).

What of Colossians 2:8: “Look lest someone will be one taking you captive through philosophy and empty deceit according to the traditions of mortals, according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ”? On the one hand, this statement would not preclude a philosophy “according to Christ.” On the other, the rest of the passage makes it clear that a particular religious practice is in view, perhaps a form of Jewish mysticism or syncretism. Perhaps the word philosophy does not really convey in English the nature of the group to which Colossians refers.

What then is philosophy as it has been approached in the “Western” tradition? It is what we might call a “meta-discipline.” Philosophy stands outside of all other areas of thinking and asks, “What’s going on?” It is like a scaffolding beside other knowledge. First order knowledge asks questions about a subject. Second order knowledge asks, “What is going on as we ask and answer questions about a subject?”

Here we do run into a potential conflict with faith. Are we allowed to ask questions about the existence of God? Hebrews 11:6 says, “Without faith it is impossible to please [God], for it is necessary for the one who comes to God to believe that he is and that to those who seek him he becomes a rewarder.”

Here is where various Christian thinkers have parted ways. Let me mention three key positions on this question. 

• “I believe because it is absurd.” (Tertullian) 
• “I believe in order to understand.” (Anselm) 
• “I understand in order to believe.” (Abelard)

The first position has a radical sense that faith will not make rational sense or that reason has little or nothing to do with faith. As Tertullian put it, “What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem or the Academy to do with the Church.” Ironically, of course, Tertullian uses reason and was influenced by Stoicism. In the 1800s, Kierkegaard had a similar perspective but uses reason to tell us about it.

The Reformed tradition has often leaned in this direction as well. Whether it be Abraham Kuyper or Karl Barth, there is a strong sense that without proper presuppositions, no truly meaningful and valid knowledge is possible. Barth has had an immense influence on post-liberalism in the United States, and this impact has been felt on the Wesleyan tradition in general. Many broader Wesleyan thinkers are only a “hair’s breadth” from Reformed epistemology.

On the other end of the spectrum, grass-roots Wesleyanism has drunk deeply from American fundamentalism. Although it might deny it, it comes close to the third position. Josh McDowell famously wrote a book titled, Evidence That Demands a Verdict. We are enamored by Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ and C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. These works assume that human reason leads directly to God and faith.

Because we find Wesleyans in all three positions, we dare not say that there is just one Wesleyan position on this question. I personally think that Wesley himself came closest to the “faith seeking understanding” approach. Wesley was no enemy to reason, but he clearly began all his explorations with faith. The core of faith for him would not have been revisable but reason, tradition, and experience might negotiate around the edges.

My own position is that faith is the starting point for all discussions and that it is reasonable. It may not seem provable from our finite, skewed vantage point as humans. I suspect it is provable from God’s infinite, omni-accurate perspective. I just do not have complete access to that. Even my reading of the Bible has to go through my finite, skewed brain.

The Bible does not reject the asking of questions (e.g., Habakkuk 1:2). Faith is not afraid of questions because it is confident that God knows the answers. Nor is God afraid that he might disappear if we try to ask objective questions about his existence. It seems to me that the motto, “Faith seeking understanding” is very Wesleyan.