on the border of phenomenology and theologyto Judaism and Christianity;however, that man is a Son in the Primal
Son is a belief that is peculiar to Christianity, even if one must also
add that this conviction “is Jewish to the extent that a Messiah is
expected in Judaism.”^84
Evidently, Henry’s philosophy of Christianity does not lay any
claim to orthodoxy. Henry rejects decidedly the idea of creation; he
opposes to it the idea of a self-generation of Life. Similarly, he rejects
the doctrine of a double — both divine and human — nature of Christ.
He cannot make this doctrine his own, because he takes for granted
what may be designated as the “univocity of life.” This term amounts
to saying that “Life has the same sense for God, for Christ and for man.”^85
This statement clearly shows that, in spite of all further articulation of
the Eckhartian chain of generation, Henry adheres to the abyssal
indistinctness of God and man. That is why he emphasizes that “there
is only one and the same essence of life or, even more radically, there
is a unique and singular life.”^86
Henry’s phenomenology of life is not simply replaced by his new
philosophy of Christianity. On the contrary, it remains the very in-
stance that guides the interpretation of Christianity. The phenomenol-
ogy of life does not give up its independence of Christian theology. It
remains the very instance that urges Henry’s theological considerations
to proceed to the limits of heresy. Thus, it is no wonder that, even in
the 1990s, Henry’s philosophy of Christianity preserves its Eckhartian
allegiance.
3. Concluding Remark
Marion and Henry try to develop a phenomenology that may con-
tribute to a renewal of theology. The direction in which they move can
be indicated in a few words.
Marion maintains that the phenomenological reduction requires
nothing more than the bracketing of God as a transcendent being.^87 He
- Ibid., 139.. Ibid., 139.
- Ibid., 128.. Ibid., 128.
- Ibid.. Ibid.
- Husserl,. Husserl, Ideen I, 124.