I want to end this series by sharing the insight that sent me down this nine part rabbit hole.
I’ve hinted at this insight in a few of these posts, but I want to conclude by bringing it fully into view.
It recently struck me, while reflecting upon the Protestant mind, that the Protestant worldview is a metaphysical vacuum, at least overtly. To be sure, Protestantism espouses a Biblical faith, but it lacks any supporting metaphysical assumptions or cosmological worldview. Rather, most Protestants implicitly default to the metaphysics of modernity--subject/object dualism, the fact/value split, the absence of teleology--which work to undermine Biblical faith. Christianity struggles in the metaphysical soil of modernity.
In addition, a sola scriptura tradition bereft of a metaphysical or cosmological worldview is left with words on a page without a means to make sense of those words.
Let me illustrate.
Consider Genesis 1.1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” These are words on the page, and Protestants believe these words. And yet, what do these words mean? A lot of Protestants default to the metaphysical assumptions of modernity. Genesis 1.1 means that, a long time ago, God created the cosmos like a watchmaker makes and winds up a watch. A deistic and mechanistic imagination sits behind this view of Genesis 1.1. God is the Watchmaker. God is the Intelligent Designer. We imagine that the natural order now exists autonomously and independently of God. Lost is the patristic understanding that creation is constant and ongoing. Gone is the recognition of our continuous ontological dependence. We have lost track of how this particular moment of existence--right here and right now--is an astonishing ontological gift.
And this isn’t just a problem with our understanding of creation. It goes to how we envision God’s relation to the world generally. Does God stand “at a distance”? Do we imagine that when God acts in our world that His act is an external intervention into the natural order? Is a miracle a “suspension” or “violation” of the “laws of physics,” an act of ontological violence? When we imagine God at work in the world is He tinkering as one cause among many?
Here’s another example. John 3.16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” These are words on the page, and Protestant believe these words. But again, what do these words mean?
As I’ve described in this series, without a participatory metaphysics, our visions of “perishing” and “eternal life” default to forensic, penal, and juridical understandings. “Eternal life” means means being forgiven. Which is true, but the patristic vision of sanctification, divinization, and theosis has gone missing.
Another example, Hebrews 11.6: “For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists.” Again, words on a page. Words we believe. But when you believe that “God exists” what are you imagining? God as an object? Is the analogy of being operative? Do you think that science could “disprove” God’s existence?
I hope these examples illustrate my point. When you look behind the curtain of the Biblical text, what metaphysical imagination is at work in the background? How are words like “creation,” “existence,” and “salvation” being unpacked? As words on a page, creation, existence, and salvation can mean many different things. And some of these understandings aren’t very good. They can be thin and impoverished. They can be antagonistic to faith. They can be wrong.
The point, I hope you can see, is that there is a metaphysics of faith. Christianity espoused a participatory metaphysics for over a thousand years. Protestantism has lost touch with this tradition and legacy. The worldview of the patristic tradition has become a lost world.
And in jettisoning the participatory metaphysics of the patristic tradition, Protestantism has defaulted to the metaphysics of modernity. Again, there is a metaphysics of faith. This is unavoidable. There is always more at work than reading words off the Biblical page. Protestants, by and large, are unaware of this, but probe their beliefs and assumptions about creation, existence, and salvation and you’ll quickly bump into an imagination driven by modern metaphysical assumptions. This is a metaphysics of faith that leads to juridical understandings of salvation and to the disenchantment of the world.
That glitch in the background.
A couple of things.
First, it's a Western, not just Protestant problem. Most Catholics think the same way.
Secondly, the best reframing of the vision (at least at a level I can understand) is by Anglican priest Fr Sam Wells, Vicar of St Martin-In-The-Fields in London. He posits that The Mystery Underlying Creation (whom we call God) is Relationship (hence the Trinity) and calls us into relationship with himself and "Sin" is what poisons and destroys relationships.
Wells is author of Humbler Faith, Bigger God: Finding a Story to Live By which I highly recommend.
"Protestantism" has a great deal of variation, with Anglo-catholicism and Lutherans who see themselves as "evangelical catholics" among those who don't fit with the portrayal of Protestantism in this post.
As I recall, Luther accepted traditions that did not contradict Scripture. As a "conservative reformer," he has been derided as a "half-way man" by those who were more radical. He kept more "catholic substance" than many others did, as do many Lutherans today.
"Sola scriptura" arose as a corrective to what church authority asserted above Scripture, in the view of the reformers. When taken out of this context, this phrase can be misunderstood and misapplied. This is one of the problems of any two word slogan.
The power struggles at the time of the Reformation made so many of the doctrinal disputes impossible to resolve at that time. Fortunately, great progress has been made regarding these disputes in recent years.
This series is strong in presenting what the writer knows well. It offers an insightful analysis of contemporary Western culture and religion. I resonate with what it affirms.