Why Natural Theology is Not a "Boogeyman" (2024)

I recently spoke to a friend of mine about my theological concerns about our preaching.1

In that conversation, the term “boogeyman” was used as an accusation toward Barthian theological convictions as if to suggest that we aim to “scare” people away from natural theology.

Through engaging with people over time, I have noticed similar reactions are often equally assuming. I intend to address all such nonsense below:

The term "boogeyman" implies that the critique of Natural Theology is somehow unfounded or ahistorical, which pre-critically dismisses the argument out of hand and is, thereby, completely out of line. The aim of our theological dialectic is not about narcissistically evoking fear responses from others but toward “theology proper.”2

The rejection of Natural Theology is firmly rooted in the historical commitment of orthodox prolegomena to the primacy of God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ, just as Aquinas upheld. Consequently, dismissing the critique that any theological position allowing even a slight epistemological space independent of God’s self-revelation could potentially compromise the uniqueness and sufficiency of the Gospel is not a serious theological consideration. The possibility of such a historical occurrence should be profoundly disturbing, regardless of your ultimate opinion, especially if you are a Protestant.

Secondly, the use of the term "boogeyman" presupposes that Thomistic prolegomena is the default or inerrant position within orthodox theological inquiry. Barthian thought, however, does not seek to "scare" people away from Thomism; rather, it aims to properly evangelize it. This rhetorical misappropriation is both arrogant and reductive, epitomizing the idealistic attitude at the heart of Thomism, as it fails to engage with the legitimate concerns of historic Protestant inquiry.

The assumption that Thomism is a default position interchangeable with an orthodox one is unfounded, as it presupposes that its methods and conclusions are more coherent than a theological framework that seeks to undercut its precritical assumptions, rather than transcend or build upon them as Liberal Theology does. This stance not only reveals the tendency of Thomists to engage with theology from the heights of ivory towers, but it also disregards a historically legitimate position by reducing Barthian thought to mere reactionarism through empty rhetoric.

The issue is plain: despite the widespread success of Thomism, all such things do not preclude anything theologically significant.

As Kierkegaard taught us, “The crowd is untruth.3”

Thus, by implying that the rejection of Natural Theology can be reduced to fear of a "boogeyman," one becomes ignorant of how far beyond the scope of reactionarism the position actually is. Orthodox classicalism reoccuringly fails to seriously engage with Barthian concerns over Natural Theology being an inherently unprincipled position toward an increasingly domesticated and culturally conditioned understanding of God4, rather than an encounter with the living God as revealed in Jesus Christ as the Living Word.

As such, Barthian prolegomena insists we start with the premise that God's self-revelation in Christ is the sole foundation for theology, quite apart from Classicalism’s more Hellenic-ly located analogy of faith they seek to accomplish through substantiating it (predominately) “metaphysically.”

To date, Thomists have yet been able to successfully refute the Barthian position in any substantive way; only clarify their own positions. As such, Barthian thought has only contributed to the renewal of Thomistic thought (as was the case with Hans Von Balthasar); but this has not been true the other way around! Some theologians may be known for borrowing from Barth’s lesser convictions to enrich Classicalism’s more radical theological commitments but have not done the same for Barthian thought as Barthian inquiry is not “Liberal” but “radical” in its trajectory. As such, it has only continued to undercut classicalism, as is precisely the point!

Thus, despite the historic inability of Thomists to successfully rebut the Barthian position as reactionary, the parish continues to seem quite content with the “Great Tradition” eager to be left to its greater theological vices despite its glaring problems.

I’m committed to not allowing such intellectual dishonesty to pass for serious theological thought any longer.

Note: People often wonder why some Reformed thinkers have historically had a reputation of being crotchety and/or misanthropic. Yet, this is the stuff that can drive a man to drinking.