The Shape of Theological Humanism
64
encounter and the metaphysical-mystical vision of discovery, have domi-nated and continue to dominate most Christian thought.Christian humanism and also theological humanism drawn from Christian These two outlooks, what we can call the revelatory-prophetic model of (^11) Importantly,
sources do not fit either model. These represent third-way thinking, with their own impulses, norms, and aims. While closely associated with the way of discovery, because Christian humanists insist that human beings have a natural capacity for a relation to the divine, there is on our account an
important difference. Christian humanists from Erasmus to Thomas Merton and now John de Gruchy and others insist that without the proclamation of the Christian message, human beings would not know that God is “not far from each one of us.” The stories, images, and metaphors of the Christian
community are necessary in order to articulate the human capacity for God and in this respect “revelation” is the means for discovery. One engages scripture in order to discover the truth of God. Like Christian humanists, theological humanists claim that in principle we only know ourselves in
God through resources given to us in the history of particular communities. That which is given has the force of an encounter with what is, initially at least, other and different. Unlike Christian humanists, theological humanists do not restrict the received words and stories that trigger the natural, human
capacity for a relationship to God only to biblical words or stories.be just God’s act of revelation or God as the presupposition of all truth. Garnering insights from the whole of the Christian tradition, seeking a third If this is the case, then the norm or test of valid theological claims cannot
way beyond propheticism and mysticism, a different norm is required. This norm is the second element in the logic of Christian humanism. We call it the monk Anselm of Canterbury.logic of perfection; as noted before, it was first enunciated by the medieval
nothing greater can of God from this formula, since there is something greater that can be con-ceived than God’s non-existence, namely, God’s necessary existence. The In his famous Proslogionbe conceived.” He thought he could prove the existence , Anselm stated that “God is that than which
logic of the idea of God as unsurpassable drives Anselm to believe that one can prove its reality. The idea of God unites what is unsurpassably important and its reality. Anselm offered different versions of the formula in terms of both the necessity of God’s existence and also the idea of perfection.
Centuries of debate surround the “ontological proof ” of God, ranging from those like Kant who reject it outright since it seems to confuse language and existence, to those who have sought to show its validity. It is not the purpose of this book to enter those debates and certainly not to try to resolve them.