Bridging the Gap Between Theology and Philosophy

I used to be a Christian theologian, or at least, somebody who loved studying doctrine and debating it, but I was also somebody who asked a lot of questions, and that led me through and out of Christian theology, and into psychology and philosophy. Along the way, I converted to Judaism and spent many years devoted to learning, understanding, and practicing it, especially since they valued psychology a bit more than the Christianity that I practiced in my youth. However, as a result of the first few years that I spent in Europe where I learned critical thinking and the Trivium method, and directing my critical thinking and methodical manner of asking questions inside myself to work through my emotional upsets, I became more emotionally neutral and was able to develop my philosophical framework, which happened to direct me back to the philosophical version of Jesus—the Logos.

I now consider myself a Logocentric philosopher (not to be confused with Logocentric rhetoric, see below), which is just a fancy way to say that I am a Christian philosopher; unfortunately though, this has not come without some of its own problems, namely, reconnecting with Christians in a way that leads to satisfying and meaningful discussions without too many heated debates, stepping on toes, or hurt feelings; after all, I prefer dialectical discussions in the strong sense over debates, since debates are considered weak sense critical thinking, and because they don’t help people grow but are a hallmark of the power over others game.

The main problem that I have run into prior to the last several weeks is that most churches I’ve seen are either way too rigid in their doctrinal purity and use doom and gloom to shame and guilt those who would question their theology (aka fear/shame/guilt flavored pathos based rhetoric), or on the other side, they’re way too into (at least for my taste) the emotional side of being a good person and Christian (aka love & light flavored pathos based rhetoric), but rarely are they into what it “means” to follow Jesus (aka Logos based rhetoric) in a practical nuts and bolts manner, and also being founded in reason and the quest for truth.

Aristotle identified three main categories of rhetoric: Ethos (character), which establishes credibility through personal qualities; Pathos (emotion), which appeals to emotions and feelings; and Logos (logic), which uses reasoning, evidence, and sound arguments to persuade. ~Llama3.1

I have recently discovered that even if you do find a church that falls into the Logos focused rhetoric category, which I’m thankful to have recently found, there can also be a few hiccups along the way, namely the overall differences between philosophy and theology itself, because I have discovered that they can be speaking two VERY different languages based on their VERY different underlying assumptions about life and reality.

Q: What is the difference between theology and philosophy? In what ways could somebody who is primarily philosophical and a person who is primarily theological have problems connecting in a conversation together?

Theology and philosophy are two distinct disciplines that often overlap, but also have some key differences:

Theology:

• The study of God or the divine, including the nature, attributes, and actions of God.
• Examines the relationship between God and humanity, including the meaning and significance of scripture, tradition, and worship practices.
• Often assumes a particular faith perspective (e.g., Christianity, Judaism, Islam) and seeks to understand and articulate its teachings.
• Typically involves a more apologetic or didactic approach, aiming to persuade others about the truth claims of one’s faith.

Philosophy:

• The study of fundamental questions about existence, reality, knowledge, values, and ethics.
• Examines concepts such as being, time, space, causality, free will, and morality in a more abstract and systematic way.
• May or may not assume a particular faith perspective; instead, it seeks to understand the underlying assumptions and principles that underpin human thought and experience.
• Often involves a more analytical or critical approach, aiming to evaluate and refine ideas rather than persuade others about specific truths.

Now, let’s explore some potential challenges when someone primarily philosophical converses with someone primarily theological:

Challenges:

1. Assumptions vs. Commitments: Philosophers often strive for neutrality, assuming no particular faith position. Theologians, in contrast, typically operate within a specific tradition or framework of assumptions about God and the world.
2. Language and Vocabulary: Philosophical discussions frequently employ abstract concepts and technical terms, which may be unfamiliar to theologians. Theological conversations, on the other hand, rely heavily on scriptural language, allegory, and figurative expressions that might not resonate with philosophers.
3. Methodology vs. Intuition: Philosophers tend to approach problems through systematic analysis and logical reasoning. Theologians often rely more on intuition, tradition, and authority (scripture or church teachings) in their thinking.
4. Objectivity vs. Commitment: Philosophers strive for objectivity, aiming to understand the world as it is. Theologians may be less concerned with objectivity, instead seeking to articulate the truth claims of their faith in a way that’s faithful to its tradition and practices.
5. Conversational Pace: Discussions between philosophical and theological individuals can sometimes proceed at different speeds or levels of abstraction. Philosophers might dive into minute details, while theologians focus on broader implications or practical applications.

Some common misunderstandings:

1. Theological critics may see philosophers as abstracting from the concrete realities of faith and experience.
2. Philosophical critics may view theological discussions as too bound to tradition or authority, rather than critically evaluating the underlying ideas.
3. Philosophers might assume theologians are trying to “prove” God’s existence, when in fact they’re seeking to understand and articulate the nature of God within their faith framework.

To bridge this gap:

1. Seek to understand each other’s assumptions and commitments.
2. Learn basic vocabulary and concepts from both fields (e.g., philosophical terms like “essentialism” or theological concepts like “theosis”).
3. Approach conversations with empathy and a willingness to listen critically, rather than trying to win the argument.
4. Identify areas of common concern, such as ethics or metaphysics, where philosophy and theology can intersect fruitfully.

By recognizing these differences and engaging in respectful dialogue, both philosophical and theological individuals can learn from each other’s perspectives and foster a deeper understanding of the complex relationships between faith and reason.

~Llama3.1 AI Chatbot

How does this story end? Honestly, I’m not sure, as I’m still trying to find my way to build bridges of empathy between the two manners of perceiving reality. I will emphatically state that both parties (at least in my personal case, not necessarily between all Logocentric philosophers and Christian theologians) are passionate to reach people, wanting to affect meaningful change in their lives, and making those meaningful changes sustainable through the good and bad times, but we just employ two very different means of perceiving reality and making that happen—at least at the moment.

Did you enjoy the article? Show your appreciation and buy me a coffee:

Bitcoin: bc1q0dr3t3qxs70zl0y5ccz7zesdepek3hs8mq9q76
Doge: DBLkU7R4fd9VsMKimi7X8EtMnDJPUdnWrZ
XRP: r4pwVyTu2UwpcM7ZXavt98AgFXRLre52aj
MATIC: 0xEf62e7C4Eaf72504de70f28CDf43D1b382c8263F

THE UNITY PROCESS: I’ve created an integrative methodology called the Unity Process, which combines the philosophy of Natural Law, the Trivium Method, Socratic Questioning, Jungian shadow work, and Meridian Tapping—into an easy to use system that allows people to process their emotional upsets, work through trauma, correct poor thinking, discover meaning, set healthy boundaries, refine their viewpoints, and to achieve a positive focus. You can give it a try by contacting me for a private session.