Edward Schillebeeckx and Hans Frei: A Conversation on Method and Christology

Introduction

INTRODUCTION Any contemporary theological work must start with a description of its method. In working out such a description, however, we are concerned not only with answering how a particular theological task is done, but also with the theological reasoning justifying the method being adopted. For theological reasoning encompasses the fundamental presuppositions of the theologian. The contemporary concern for method includes a change in the understanding of the task of theology. With the Enlightenment , theology no longer limited itself to the task of explaining “revealed truths,” but had to address also the human concern for ultimate reality and meaning within historical contexts. In particular during the Enlightenment, two main shifts in human reasoning occurred that are related to each other. One shift was the dawn of the scientific revolution and as a result the ascendency of the scientific method. This shift was accompanied by a parallel change in philosophical reasoning which is usually called the “turn to the subject.” With the rise of the scientific revolution, the scientific method became prevalent. The scientific method was based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. Intellectual inquiry starts from particular observed phenomena through nature or through experimentation, and then proceeds to generalizations or laws. One no longer starts with accepted truths but rather with particulars which are tested by experiments. The scientific method was not limited to the hard sciences; philosophy also adopted the scientific method. Philosophy no longer argues deductively from general premises to particulars, but rather inductively from observed particulars to generalities. Another major contribution of the Enlightenment was the “turn to the subject.” Philosophy concerns itself with the ques1 tion of meaning raised by the human subject. But now philosophical method starts with “experiments.” However, a question arose: What do we mean by “experiments” in the realm of meaning ? The answer was simple: turn to the subject since it is the subject who seeks meaning. Consequently another question arose: How can one speak of “experiments” of the “subject”? The answer was the introduction of the concept of “experience.” In other words, what “experiments” is to “objects,” “experience” is to “subjects.” Or, put differently, “experience” is the scientific method applied to subjective questions such as meaning. The philosophical method now came into line with the scientific method. This is the genesis of the language of “experience.’’ Theological method in the wake of the Enlightenment, with its interest in scientific method and its interest in the subject, also adopted the category of “experience.” It is important to note, however, that this turn to experience and the subject occurred mainly in Protestant circles, notably in the works of Schleiermacher, considered to be the father of modern theology. In Catholic theology it would take considerably longer to turn to “experience” and the “subject.” With the emphasis on the human subject and on “experience ,” theology no longer limited itself to explaining revealed truths about the divinity of Jesus Christ or the mystery of the Trinity, but also raised questions about the human relationship to God and God’s relationship to humans. This relationship was seen as the point of religion. God was seen as one who speaks through the inmost human dimensions; that is, God was no longer seen as extrinsic to human reality but more intrinsic to it. God was not exclusively revealed in the Bible and in Jesus but also through human experience. In other words, changes in theological method affected the content of theological discourse. These notions of “experience” and the “turn to the subject” had many implications for theology. One of the most important implications was a positive valuation of the human being. Human achievements—whether political, social economic or scientific —were seen in a very positive light. There was optimism in the air and a general trust in human capabilities. This opti2 A Conversation on Method and Christology Introduction 3 mism, however, had a major setback with the two great wars of the twentieth century. There arose a backlash against the liberal view of the human. The evil of human history was revealed. It was seen that theology had put the human on equal footing with God. Theologians such as Karl Barth called for a return to the supremacy of God, away from the “subject” and human “experience ” as a basis for theology. However, the debate has not abated. The function of experience in the construction of theology is still a central issue. Earlier on, this conflict was manifested...