Previous posts in the series here:
The previous posts have highlighted the oddity of using Anselm’s faith seeking understanding approach, given its lack of Scripture, but also it’s confessional goal. The things to be proved are given in advance by the Scriptures, summarised in the creeds. There is faith which is then seeking understanding.
But now we need to see how Anselm and those who follow after get to this confessional goal. What is the starting point? The starting point is a small set of statements that both Christians and the non-Christians of that culture both accept. Barth describes these as the abcd that is the starting point of “proving” the X set by faith as the goal. These starting statements might be biblical truths that the surround culture accepts as true as well. Or they might be cultural truths that are not taught in the Bible but seem consistent with biblical faith. The important thing is that both Christians and non-Christians must accept these starting statements. Otherwise the method won’t work. Simply having Christian statements that atheists won’t accept won’t work. Neither will leaving faith entirely and standing wholly on atheist ground work. The aim is to find statements that both Christians and atheists in a culture accept as true (and ideally important as well). For Anselm in the Monologion, this includes the fact that we can speak of objects comparatively, being more or less X (whatever quality we are talking about). For Richard of Saint Victor in his On the Trinity, it is the fact that everything exists either begins to exist or exists eternally.
Then each step from these agreed statements (abcd) should proceed by reasoning accepted in that culture. Again, it should not be “Christian” reasoning nor “atheist” reasoning, but reasoning that both accept. “[If someone does not believe in God] I think that they can, even if of average ability, convince themselves, to a large extent, of the truths of these beliefs, by reason alone.” And the goal is to show that from the agreed “abcd” and using reasoning considered sound by all, atheism is shown to be inconsistent, and certain truths of Christianity (X) are necessary. The atheist is forced either to admit Christianity is true, or to abandon truths that he had previously held. This is harder if those truths are valuable.
I’ll consider more about how this could be used today in my last blogpost in the series. But for now:
a) This approach reminds us that theology is about communication, and that means understanding where our listeners are starting from. Repeating forms of words which are no longer understood is not helpful. Instead, while wanting to hold the faith once for all delivered to the saints, we also want to communicate to our present audience. Many people who have confessed Christian faith will find their understanding of the ancient truths greatly increased by working it through in the idiom and logic of their current culture.
b) The exact form this takes depends on the culture or subculture. Using this approach with a Muslim, one could include belief in one God in the abcds. Using this approach with a western atheist, one could not, for that is the aspect of Christian faith to be proved. Likewise, what counts as a persuasive argument will depend in part on the philosophy of the culture. There is not a need for the philosophy of the culture to be fully Christian. But the arguments used should be compatible with Christian faith and the Bible. That might be possible with a range of philosophies. “If I say something along the way that greater authority does not teach, then I wish it to be taken in the following way: it is indeed reached as a necessary conclusion from reasoning which seems right to me. Nevertheless, it is not asserted as necessary without qualification. Rather I assert it as possible- for the present at least.” (Incidentally that is why I would not use Anselm much today- while I find medieval Christian platonism fairly plausible, most people don’t and trying to persuade them of a philosophical system in order to persuade them about Christianity is not likely to be effective communication.)
c) This approach will also be helpful in reassuring Christians. The doubts that gnaw away under the surface of a believer’s faith are usually the doubts of the atheists or other faiths of their culture. By seeking to make Christian truths plausible and even necessary in the terms of the culture, this approach helps Christians be more confident in the truth of the culture.
My next post will look at some modern examples of doing this. But perhaps you can already think of some. Feel free to put them in the comments.
Jots and Scribbles 
One thought on “Faith seeking understanding 3 common ground and common reasoning”