laszlo tengelyiadds that, in contrast with metaphysical theo-logy, non-metaphysical
theo-logy procures an access to God in his “radical immanence for
consciousness.”^88 That is precisely why Marion strives to overcome
traditional onto-theology in order to pave the way for a non-meta-
physical reflection upon God.
It is equally a revision of tradition that, in the 1990s, made it
possible for Henry to integrate Christianity into his phenomenological
philosophy. His attempt to re-interpret Christianity is no less radical
than Marion’s. It is, however, true that the two undertakings are not
nurtured by the same sources. Whereas Marion relies mainly upon
Ps.-Dionysius Areopagita and Bonaventura, Henry joins the tradition
of Eckhartian mysticism. However, in spite of this difference, both
undertakings are animated by a common aspiration: like Marion,
Henry endeavors to call God’s transcendence into question and to
base non-metaphysical theology on the idea of God’s immanence.
Both thinkers use phenomenology as an alternative to traditional
metaphysics. It remains, however, to be asked whether they simply
transgress the border between phenomenology and theology, or
whether they succeed in removing and retracing it.
- Marion,. Marion, Étant donné, 336.