Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T23:05:25.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analogy and Apophaticism: Neglected Themes in Feminist Philosophy of Religion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Oliver Tromans
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Taking the important work of Grace Jantzen as its starting-point, this article challenges the dominant pan-metaphoricism of Feminist philosophy of religion. Throughout, I defend an apophatic interpretation of analogy – analogy as a dynamic rhythm between affirmation and negation, praise and silence. I argue that Jantzen's negative position on apophaticism is related to her negative stance on the infinite ontological difference between creatures and creator. However, Jantzen's rejection of “traditional theology” is really, it is shown, a rejection of “dialectical theology”. Without analogy, moreover, we are ironically left with a (metaphorical) theology of dialectical opposition. By contrast, the way of analogy guarantees that there is no dichotomy between the divine and the human. The “logic” of analogy is one of no contrast.

Keywords

Analogyapophaticismmetaphorfeminismprojection
Type
Original Article
Information
New Blackfriars , Volume 100 , Issue 1087 , May 2019 , pp. 335 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 1a q13 a5 (Davies, B. & Leftow, B. (eds.), Aquinas: Summa Theologiae, Questions on God (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)Google Scholar).

2 Feuerbach, , The Essence of Christianity (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1957), p. 63Google Scholar.

3 McFague, S., Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Soskice, J. M., Metaphor and Religious Language (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985)Google Scholar. For discussion, see Martin, F., The Feminist Question: Feminist Theology in the Light of Christian Tradition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), pp. 221–265Google Scholar. Let me quote Sarah Coakley on this point: “It is unfortunate that…a whole generation of ‘liberal’ feminist theologians have adopted…the ‘pan metaphorist’ strategy where God-talk is concerned; that is, they have declared in neo-Kantian vein that all talk of God is ‘metaphorical’ and (necessarily, for them) ‘non-literal’, and so subject to revision simply according to the imaginative ‘construction’ of the feminist theologian” (Coakley, , “Feminism and Analytic Philosophy of Religion”, in Wainwright, W. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 519Google Scholar). Feminism, of course, entails a variety of widely different approaches, and consists of many different political and ideological orientations. It is not a unified, monolithic movement. When it comes to the neglect or rejection of analogy, exceptions to this “rule”, in addition to Coakley, include Johnson, E., She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse (New York: Crossroad, 1992)Google Scholar and Beattie, T., New Catholic Feminism: Theology and Theory (London & New York: Routledge, 2006)Google Scholar.

4 For helpful overviews of Jantzen's work, see Graham, E., “Redeeming the Present”, in Graham, E. L. (ed.), Grace Jantzen: Redeeming the Present (Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2009), pp. 1–19Google Scholar, and M. Joy, “Grace Jantzen and the Work of Love: Preamble”, in ibid., pp. 23–39.

5 Soskice, J. M., “Naming God: A Study in Faith and Reason”, in Griffiths, P. J. & Hütter, R. (eds.), Reason and the Reasons of Faith (London & New York: T & T Clark International, 2005), p. 254Google Scholar.

6 David Burrell notes that “philosophers have a predilection for univocity unless suitably shaken from their default mode” (Burrell, D., “Analogy, Creation, and Theological Language”, in Van Nieuwenhove, R. & Wawrykow, J. (eds.), The Theology of Thomas Aquinas (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005), p. 94Google Scholar).

7 Jantzen, Becoming Divine, p. 173.

8 Ibid., pp. 173, 175.

9 Ibid., p. 172.

10 Jantzen, Becoming Divine, pp. 174ff.

11 I borrow the term from Rowan Williams (Williams, R., Wrestling with Angels: Conversations in Modern Theology (London: SCM Press, 2007), p. 77Google Scholar).

12 Jantzen, G., “What's the Difference? Knowledge and Gender in (Post)modern Philosophy of Religion”, in Religious Studies 32:4, 1996, p. 457CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Jantzen, Becoming Divine, p. 62.

14 Jantzen, “What's the Difference?”, p. 457.

15 Jantzen, Becoming Divine, pp. 184–192.

16 Ibid., pp. 184ff.

17 Ibid.

18 As Michael Rea concedes, “those who are theologising with analytic ambitions typically…share the supposition that we can arrive at clear knowledge of God… Thus, analytic theology shares affinities with ontotheology” (Rea, M. C., “Introduction”, in Crisp, O. D. & Rea, M. C. (eds.), Analytic Theology: New Essays in Philosophical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 9Google Scholar; his emphasis).

19 Jantzen, Becoming Divine, ch. 8, esp. pp. 184–185.

20 Cupitt, D., Taking Leave of God (London: SCM Press, 1980), p. 15Google Scholar; cited in Turner, “Cupitt, the Mystics, and the ‘Objectivity’ of God”, p. 115.

21 Swinburne, R., The Existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004), p. 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Cited in Messer, R., Does God's Existence Need Proof? (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), p. 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Aquinas, ST 1a q3 prol.

24 Coakley, “Feminism and Analytic Philosophy of Religion”, p. 500.

25 Barker, V., “God, Woman, Other”, in Feminist Theology 18:3, 2010, p. 317CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Ibid.

27 The phrase is that of Laird, M. OSA, “‘Whereof We Speak’: Gregory of Nyssa, Jean-Luc Marion, and the Current Apophatic Rage”, in Heythrop Journal XLII, 2001, pp. 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Jantzen, Becoming Divine, pp. 65, 255.

29 Ibid., pp. 29, 49, 66.

30 Ibid., p. 65.

31 Ibid., pp. 154–155.

32 See Tanner, K., God and Creation in Christian Theology: Tyranny or Empowerment? (Oxford: Blackwell, 1988)Google Scholar.

33 Jantzen, G., A Place of Springs: Death and the Displacement of Beauty, Volume III (London & New York: Routledge, 2009), p. 144CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Jantzen, A Place of Springs, pp. 143–144.

35 Jantzen, Becoming Divine, p. 258.

36 Ibid., p. 270.

37 Jantzen, A Place of Springs, pp. 144–145.

38 Ibid., p. 145.

39 Ibid.; my emphasis.

40 Ibid., pp. 144–145.

41 Ibid., pp. 137, 150–151.

42 Jantzen, A Place of Springs, p. 144.

43 Whistler, D., “The Abandoned Fiancée, or Against Subjection”, in Anderson, P. S.. (ed.), New Topics in Feminist Philosophy of Religion: Contestations and Transcendence Incarnate (London & New York: Springer, 2010), p. 127Google Scholar.

44 Jantzen, Becoming Divine, pp. 270–272.

45 Jantzen, A Place of Springs, p. 149.

46 Ibid., p. 146.

47 Jantzen, A Place of Springs, p. 145.

48 Cited in Blond, P., “Introduction”, in Blond, P. (ed.), Post-Secular Philosophy: Between Philosophy and Theology (London: Routledge, 1998), p. 35Google Scholar.

49 On this point, see McCabe, H., God Matters (London: Continuum, 2002), pp. 57–58Google Scholar.

50 Jantzen, A Place of Springs, p. 148.

51 Nicholas of Cusa, De Li Non Aliud, in Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of Nicholas of Cusa, 2 vols. (Minneapolis, MN: The Arthur J. Banning Press, 2001), 2:1117.

52 Long, D. S., Speaking of God: Theology, Language, and Truth (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), p. 50Google Scholar.

53 Coakley, S., “Shaping the Field”, in Ford, D. F., Quash, B., & Soskice, J. M. (eds.), Fields of Faith: Theology and Religious Studies in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 46, 47, 51Google Scholar.

54 Alston, W., Divine Nature and Human Language (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), chs. 1 & 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Lash, N., “Ideology, Metaphor, and Analogy”, in Theology on the Way to Emmaus (London: SCM Press, 1986), p. 106Google Scholar.

56 McFague, S., Models of God: Theology for an Ecological Nuclear Age (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), p. 23Google Scholar.

57 This paragraph is indebted to Stephen Long, Speaking of God, esp. pp. 1–20, ch. 1, and ch. 3.

58 Burrell, D., Friendship and Ways to Truth (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame, 2000), p. 26Google Scholar.

59 Aquinas, ST 1a q13 a3.

60 Long, S., The Goodness of God: Theology, the Church, and Social Order (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2001), p. 56Google Scholar.

61 McFague, Models of God, p. 35.

62 Long, The Goodness of God, p. 56. See also Milbank, The Word Made Strange, pp. 10–11.

63 Long, Speaking of God, p. 173.

64 Turner, D., Faith, Reason, and the Existence of God (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 193–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Coakley, S., “Dark Contemplation and Epistemic Transformation: The Analytic Theologian Re-Meets Teresa of Avila”, in Crisp, and Rea, (eds.), Analytic Theology, pp. 280–312Google Scholar.

66 Aquinas, ST 1a q13 a2.

67 Cited in Coakley, “Dark Contemplation and Epistemic Transformation”, pp. 308–309.

68 The phrase is Erich Przywara's (cited in Betz, J. R., “Beyond the Sublime: The Aesthetics of the Analogy of Being (Part Two)”, in Modern Theology 22:1, January 2006, p. 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

69 Jantzen, G., Power, Gender, and Christian Mysticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 285Google Scholar; emphasis hers.

70 Williams, R., “Language, Reality, and Desire in Augustine's De Doctrina”, in Journal of Literature and Theology 3:2, July 1989, p. 141CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 Ibid.

72 Ibid., pp. 139–140.