Analytic theology

Historically and methodologically, AT is both a way of approaching theological works as well as a sociological or historical shift in academic theology.

Characteristics of analytic theology

As a way of doing theology, analytic theology can often be identified by at least two, but usually three features: First there is the analytic method itself. Second is the focus on theological topics, such as incarnation or resurrection. There is not a hard boundary between analytic theology and analytic philosophy of religion. However, as noted in the introduction, analytic theology tends to treat a wider range of theological topics than the philosophy of religion. Whereas the latter might limit its focus to the existence of God, the problem of evil, and a very minimal concept of God (i.e. omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence). Analytic Theologians assume the existence of God and press well into the analysis of theological topics not often addressed by the philosophy of religion. The third feature that characterizes most analytic theology is an engagement with the wider analytic philosophical or theological literature for concepts that can be applied to answer theological questions. Very often these concepts are deployed in the process of solving questions or conceptual “problems” that accompany certain theological beliefs (e.g. the two natures of Christ, or the question of free will in heaven). This literary aspect may be as essential as the other two. For example, ideas such as speech-act theory or possible worlds semantics have been applied to theological questions involving divine revelation or foreknowledge. In other words, analytic theology involves not only theology was written about with a certain analytic style but an application of ideas found in the analytic philosophical literature.

A Venn diagram showing topics covered by analytic theology

Historically demarcating movements (e.g. the Early Modern period of European history) is always imperfect. Many intellectual movements rise and fall like a bell curve rather than appearing suddenly as with clear boundaries. Analytic theology is no different. It should be thought of as the result of a wave cresting and not the result of a few contemporary individuals. Those currently working analytic theology derive their momentum from previous scholarship.

Figure 2

Contemporary analytic theology, represented by scholars like Oliver Crisp and Michael Rea, has its roots in three periods of Western philosophical history. These are indicated by the three “rising tide” levels in Figure 2. These periods include: (a) historic Scholastic philosophical theology (b) Mid 20th century responses by Christian philosophers to challenges of religious epistemology and religious language about God (c) a turn by Christian philosophers to work on more traditionally theological topics in the 1980s.

As noted above, analytic theology is a contemporary movement. It is a resurgence in philosophical-theology that began in the UK and the US. However, this movement has always had a strong retrieval element to it. Retrieval theology refers to thinkers revisiting and reappropriating certain ideas from historical theology or philosophy. In analytic theology, this retrieval often includes a revisitation to the works of theologian-philosophers like Augustine, Duns Scotus, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and Jonathan Edwards. How then did a contemporary movement wind up with roots in a period of the Western intellectual tradition that is hundreds of years old?

In Medieval Europe, a rich tradition of philosophical thought about theological topics flourished for over a thousand years. This tradition of philosophical theology was brought into steep decline by the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and the theology of Friedrich Schleiermacher.[12] In the 20th-century, logical positivism stands as the low water-mark of philosophical theology with its denial of the very possibility to talk meaningfully about God at all. As a result, a very robust dividing wall separated philosophy and theology by the middle of the 20th century. (See Figure 2). The story of analytic theology usually begins at this point with Logical Positivism.

In August 1929, a group of philosophers in Vienna sometimes referred to as the Vienna Circle, published a manifesto containing a verificationist criterion to be used as a criterion by which statements could be analyzed in terms of meaning. Any statements that could not be broken down into empirically verifiable concepts were held to be meaningless thus preventing any metaphysical (i.e. theological) dialogue as counting as meaningful.

In the middle of the 20th century this verification principle began to crumble under the weight of its strictness on at least four counts: (a) No satisfactory concept of empirical verifiability could be agreed upon; (b) Supporters of logical positivism like Carl Hempel argued that it seemed to invalidate less strictly worded universal generalizations of science; (c) Ordinary language philosophers argued that it rendered meaningless imperatives, interrogatives, and other performative utterances.[13] (d) Furthermore, the verification principle itself was not empirically verifiable by its own standards.

By the 1950s logical positivism was in decline and with it the stance that metaphysical claims were meaningless. The conversation shifted to grounds that required speakers to show why theological or philosophical claims were true or false. This had a liberating effect on analytic philosophy.[14] According to Nicholas Wolterstorff, the demise of Logical Positivism also had the effect of throwing doubt over other attempts, such as those of Kant or the Logical Positivists, to point out a deep epistemological boundary between the knowable and unknowable, the thinkable and unthinkable. This put a crack in the wall that had divided theology and philosophy for centuries. Wolterstorff states that one result of the demise of logical positivism “has proved to be that the theme of limits on the thinkable and the assertible has lost virtually all interest for philosophers in the analytic tradition. Of course, analytic philosophers do still on occasion charge people with failing to think a genuine thought or make a genuine judgment. But the tacit assumption has come to be that such claims will always have to be defended on an individual, ad hoc, basis; deep skepticism reigns among analytic philosophers concerning all grand proposals for demarcating the thinkable from the unthinkable, the assertible from the non-assertible.”[15] Wolterstorff also suggests that classical-foundationalism collapsed as the de facto theory of epistemology in philosophy, but it was not replaced by an alternative theory. What has resulted was an environment of dialogical pluralism where no major epistemological framework (e.g. classical foundationalism or idealism) is widely held.[16]

In this context of dialogical pluralism, the state of play returned to one in which metaphysical or theistic belief could be taken as rational provided one could give justification for those beliefs. Two mechanisms for doing this became popular: Reformed Epistemology (See. Alvin Plantinga & Nicholas Wolterstorff) and evidentialist approaches that made use of Bayesian probability (See. Richard Swinburne). Either way, logical argumentation, and rational coherence remained important for such beliefs.[17] In addition to arguments for rational belief in God, Christian philosophers also began to give arguments for the rationality of various aspects of belief within a theistic worldview. Examples here would be the coherence of certain traditional attributes of God or the possibility that the existence of God was not logically incompatible with the existence of evil in the world).

In 1978, the [Society of Christian Philosophers] was formed. Six years later Alvin Plantinga delivered his famous presidential addresses “Advice to Christian Philosophers” in which he signaled the need for Christians working in that field to do more than follow the assumptions and approaches to philosophy accepted in the wider field, given that many of those assumptions were antithetical to Christianity. He goes on to write that

Christian philosophers, however, are the philosophers of the Christian community; and it is part of their task as Christian philosophers to serve the Christian community. But the Christian community has its questions, its own concerns, its own topics for investigation, its agenda, and its research program. Christian philosophers ought not merely to take their inspiration from what's going on at Princeton or Berkeley or Harvard, attractive and scintillating as that may be; for perhaps those questions and topics are not the ones or not the only ones, they should be thinking about as the philosophers of the Christian community. There are other philosophical topics the Christian community must work at, and other topics the Christian community must work at philosophically. And obviously, Christian philosophers are the ones who must do the philosophical work involved. If they devote their best efforts to the topics fashionable to the non-Christian philosophical world, they will neglect a crucial and central part of their task as Christian philosophers. What is needed here is more independence, more autonomy concerning the projects and concerns of the non-theistic philosophical world.[18]

In the 1980s and 1990s Christian philosophers did begin to turn much of their efforts to explicating questions unique to Christian theology, thereby setting the precedent for the type of work done in analytic theology. The decades saw the production of more literature by Christian philosophers treating theological topics such as the attributes of God the atonement by scholars like[Richard Swinburne. However, much of that work remained largely appreciated by Christian philosophers and less so by Christian theologians. As noted in the analytic theology Defined as a Movement section, both Oliver Crisp and Michael Rea found that philosophers and theologians were not interacting and sharing resources as late as the mid-2000s. It was in the mid-2000s at Notre Dame that they floated the idea of an edited volume aimed at bringing philosophers and theologians together to work on theological questions with a methodology tuned to the style and resources of analytic philosophy.

As we discussed the matter, we thought that perhaps a volume might be called for a volume tendentiously entitled Analytic Theology, which would include a few essays making a case directed toward theologians on behalf of analytic approaches to theological topics, a few essays that offered criticism of such approaches, and a few more essays that addressed some of the historical, methodological, and epistemological issues that seemed to lurk in the background of the disciplinary divide. Broadly speaking, our primary task in the volume was to say a bit about what we take “analytic theology” to consist in, and then to make a sort of cumulative case in favor of its being a worthwhile enterprise.[19]

It was with the publication of this volume that AT began to garner attention, both positive and negative, in philosophical and theological circles. In 2012, a session at the American Academy of Religion was dedicated to discussing the volume, followed by several articles in volume 81 the AAR journal. In 2013 the Journal of analytic theology was begun, which is now in its sixth year. In 2015, Thomas McCall, professor of Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School published An Invitation to Analytic Christian Theology with IVP. The following year at the 2016 Evangelical Theological Society annual conference a series of papers were given interacting with McCall's book to a packed room. By the close of the second decade of the 21st-century, several multiple-year projects have been funded at graduate-level institutions that focus on Analytic Theology. Edited volumes, such as those in the Oxford Studies in analytic theology series, continue to be released. Several dissertations have now been published, like monographs, that treat theological topics in an Analytic Style, and both the AAR and ETS continue to have regular sections devoted to papers on Analytic Theology.

In a 2013 volume of the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Andrew Chignell notes that some of the reviewers and writers in the 2009 analytic theology edited volume wondered what the difference, if any, was between analytic theology and philosophical theology.[20] Chignell's definition brings out an important question. Similarly one might ask what the difference between analytic theology and the Analytic Philosophy of Religion is.[21] Demarcating boundaries between disciplines can be difficult. This is no different from analytic theology. Therefore, suggestions will be disputed. However, here are a few distinctions.

• Analytic theology versus philosophical theology. The difference between Analytic Theology and philosophical theology is largely sociological or historic. Analytic theology just is philosophical theology applied by theologians with philosophical methods and sensitivities. In time, as analytic theologians listen to the calls by Biblical Theologians to be more sensitive to exegetical issues, there might develop a slight difference between even philosophical theology and analytic theology.
• Analytic theology versus the philosophy of religion. The difference between Analytic Theology and the philosophy of religion, is more of a difference in scope. Given that AT grew out of Anglo-American philosophy of religion, they share much of the same history up until the 1990s. However, Analytic Theology is willing to treat topics of Christian theology that one will not see addressed in the philosophy of religion. Furthermore, analytic theologians are not focused on proving the existence of God. Instead, they will begin with God's existence, and the deliverances of their particular Christian tradition, and work on theological questions with the tools of analytic philosophy. Andrew Chignell suggests something like this in writing:

Philosophy of religion involves arguments about religiously pertinent philosophical issues, of course, but these arguments are customarily constructed in such a way that, ideally, anyone will be able to feel their probative force based on ‘reason alone.’ Analytic theology, by contrast, appeals to sources of topics and evidence that go well beyond our collective heritage as rational beings with the standard complement of cognitive faculties.[22] In addition to creating a wider range of topics than the philosophy of religion, and focusing on a slightly narrower audience, AT may differ from the philosophy of religion in the way it makes use of Scripture and tradition as evidence in its methodology.[23]

• Analytic theology versus systematic theology. The difference between analytic theology and systematic theology is a third question that has been raised. Michael Rea's introduction in the 2009 analytic theology volume has not been received well by some theologians. Analytic Theology has thus been challenged as legitimately theology. Some suspect it is no more than philosophy in theological costume. William Abraham argues that analytic theology is systematic theology and that it was only a matter of time before something like analytic theology took root in the theological world.[24] Oliver Crisp has published an article demonstrating how analytic theology could qualify itself as systematic theology. Crisp cites leading theologians to demonstrate that there is no agreed-upon definition for systematic theology. He then shows how analytic theology shares a common task and goals with systematic theology and rises above a conceptual threshold established by the way various theologians view systematic theology.[25] In a 2017 interview, Oliver Crisp suggests that analytic theology is not attempting to take over the work of theology, but is instead suggesting an additional set of resources that theologians could turn to find help in their theological projects.[26]

Analytic theology thus sits at the boundaries between several disciplines as suggested by Figure 3.

Figure 3

Why would students and scholars want to do theological work in an analytic style? At least three motivations exist:

1. A motivation to find possible solutions to theological challenges. The history of theology has demonstrated that times of disagreement during the church's history have produced advances in theological clarity and depth. Theological disagreements force parties to be clear about their terminology, thought processes, and values. Disagreement also motivates thinkers to look for new solutions to prior conceptual problems. During the 20th-century, challenges to Christian theology by many thinkers like Anthony Flew, William Rowe, and John Hick provoked responses by philosophers like Basil Mitchell, Alvin Plantinga, and Thomas Morris which proved to be valued by many Christian theologians. By way of example, Christians have held for centuries that God answers petitionary prayer. More than one philosopher has offers a strong argument for the incompatibility of answered prayer and divine foreknowledge. It is easy to see a strong desire for a solution to the puzzle. Analytic theology, thanks to its careful way of proceeding and its access to philosophical concepts, offers conceptual tools to work out explanations to solutions, rather than just asserting that answered prayer is possible (e.g. rather than merely citing Bible passages like James 5:15-18).
2. A motivation to consider theological topics and challenges from a fresh perspective. Some theological words (e.g. love, judgment) are widely used without reflection because they are part of everyday language. However, clarifying what words like “love” refer to (rather than mistaking the effects of love for the meaning of “love” ) can bring a fresh perspective to old discussions. Christians might know for example that God loves us and that the evidence of love is patience and kindness. If love is defined as a desire for the good of the beloved and union with the beloved (and insight from Thomas Aquinas) new vistas of thought open up. One suddenly has criteria by which to identify patient actions that are genuinely loving patient and kind acts that are driven by other motives.
3. A motivation to reap the benefits of clearer thinking in theological writing. When responding to conceptual challenges, writers sometimes offer “solutions” that, in hindsight, turn out to be new terms that do little more than renaming the problem or put a new label on an old solution. The clear and careful thinking, prized by analytic theologians, can alert others to these dead ends by calling writers to clarify the meanings masked by new terminology, or to demonstrate the difference between new terms and already existing “solutions.”

Some of the following concerns have been voiced over analytic theology. First, “Why do analytic theologians have such conservative theological views?” In other words, is AT just a theological project? Second, “Why do analytic theologians ignore historical-critical biblical studies?” The worry here is also stated as, "Analytic Theologians seem to treat the Bible as a sourcebook for propositions to insert into logical arguments." Thirdly, similar to the second worry, "Does AT genuinely engage Biblical narrative?" Fourth, "Is Analytic Theology genuinely theology or is it just philosophy dressed in theological clothing?"

One of the best ways to become acquainted with a style of work or a movement is to become acquainted with works that are considered to be good examples of that style. As noted in the article above, before the mid-2000s most of the scholars doing something like analytic theology were Christian philosophers working on their own projects.

Given the above history, it is not unreasonable to suggest that analytic theology had its birth in an Anglo-American world of analytic philosophy. This is in contrast to the German idealist context of much early 20th-century theology (e.g. Karl Barth, Karl Rahner). Since the publication of the 2009 analytic theology volume, and with the help of several Templeton grants, analytic theology is being done in the UK, US, Germany, and Israel. Individual scholars who would count themselves as Analytic Theologians, or supporters of AT, can be found at institutions in the following countries or regions: Spain, Israel, Brazil, France, the UK, Austria, Scandinavia, and North America.

Currently, there are several centers of study where analytic theology is being actively worked on in a departmental setting. These include: Fuller Theological Seminary, the Logos Institute at St. Andrews University, the Center for Philosophy of Religion at Notre Dame University, Oriel College at Oxford and the University of Innsbruck.[28]