Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Momchil's avatar

I have always wondered why Dr. Hart’s positions attract such a fierce criticism from fellow Christians considering that he is, without a shred of doubt, “God-intoxicated” (to borrow Edward Feser’s characterization, which he genuinely meant as a compliment), has vanquished (with his formidable intellect, erudition and writing talents) countless enemies of Christianity, and (as a staunch universalist) believes in the most optimistic apocalyptic horizon. So, what’s not to like?

Surely, some of them disagree with him on purely intellectual grounds, while others are deeply offended by his (sometimes brutal) critiques on the theistic or metaphysic schools (to which they have sworn allegiance) or, in some rare cases, on their mental faculties or education. However, I suspect that most of the attacks (at least those from true believers) come out of fear of divine retribution (which might be exacted on them if they show him even a modicum of tolerance). In that sense, they remind me so much of Job’s friends. And I suspect this because I can recognize that same fear in my own heart. Some of the beliefs Dr. Hart professes (no matter how close to the patristic tradition or how metaphysically sound they are) are simply too frightening to recognize and adopt for Christians taught a much more frightening concept of God. But I really, really hope that his (and Origen’s, Gregory’s and Maximus’s, etc.) theology is the right one, because it is the only one that interprets the Gospel as good news for all of humanity. I can also confidently say that his vision of God is the one that resonates best with my own conscience (which, I would like to believe, is not just a result of operation of cultural forces, but a divine spark). And, lastly, I know that if God were somehow susceptible to flattery, He would find Dr. Hart’s opinion of Him much more complimentary that the one shared by DBH’s critics.

Expand full comment
Jacob Baker's avatar

I am among those who only read FT for your articles. As a former (born and raised) Mormon with a doctorate in philosophy and religious thought from Claremont Graduate University, I am in a minority of fellow grad students who didn't retain their original faith or become conventional atheists, and I largely credit your writings and some treasured theological writers I return to from that time as almost the only things that have kept me connected to theology and in that sense to an understanding of God more rational, expansive, and non-provincial than that of my former tradition. Hailing from a framework for God-talk that was thoroughly "radical" or "heretical" (depending on the blasphemic cudgel you happen to prefer), I have no problem with so-called "heterodox" or "radical" theologies, and I have often, from an extremely outsider position, bemusedly and with no small amount of fascination observed the self-appointed warriors of orthodoxy raving like lunatics about your writings, which to me are nearly alone in re-conceiving and re-presenting the Christian tradition in much the same ways that Nicene and other ancient thinkers sought to preserve their history, i.e., in ways that caused that tradition to actually live in and be relevant to the present (including in ways that go well beyond theology proper), instead of being encased behind museum glass that becomes more and more obscure with the passing years.

Expand full comment
68 more comments...

No posts