Nicholas Wolterstorff is a philosopher who works seek to understand human activity in light of his particular Worldview: that of Creation, Fall and Redemption. In other words, Wolterstorff seeks to understand the everyday ramifications of the answers his faith content brings to questions of existence, joining the particular to the universal. In doing so, he critically examines his Worldview in a way that demonstrates his 21th Century American context: Pragmatically.
One of the first things to understand about Nicholas Wolterstorff is that he is someone who has lost a son. His son Eric, at the age of 25, died in a climbing accident. In his book, Lament for a Son, Wolterstorff (1987) writes:
If someone asks, “Who are you, tell me about yourself,” I say – not immediately, but shortly – “I am one who lost a son.” That loss determines my identity; not all of my identity, but much of it. It belongs within my story. I struggle indeed to go beyond merely owning my grief toward owning it redemptively. But I will not and cannot disown it. I shall remember Eric. Lament is part of life. (p. 6)
The quote above displays several themes for the life and work of Wolterstorff: Identity, Integration and Redemption. Wolterstorff seeks to understand himself. His work is very personal. He sees himself in relationship with the Others and the Universe. He seeks to understand how these relationships flourish; how relationships can be oriented for the good of all members. Redemption is part of the answer given by the Christian Worldview to the most pressing questions of the universe. Does it work? Does it help humans live together in harmony? Does it go all the way to deepest places of the heart? Does it help a father who has lost a son?
I originally set out to read and understand Wolterstorff because he expressed disagreement with the ideas of another philosopher whom I have read and admire, Herman Dooyeweerd. This disagreement, however, is an “in-house” disagreement, for Dooyeweerd and Wolterstorff share a confession. They both declare themselves to be Christians, and their scholarship to be in the Reformed Tradition. The issue over which they differ is how to best to understand the relationship between Christians and non-Christians regarding intellectual work. To what degree can these groups, who do not share an identity with Christ, hope to scholastically dialogue and collaborate? In order to understand this disagreement, however, one must understand the Reformed Tradition of scholarship.
The Reformed Tradition takes its name from Protestant movement of the Christian church in the 16th century. The writing of Martin Luther and John Calvin sought to recovery and development the sovereignty of God over his Church. This directly resulted in the decentralization of power structures located in Rome and the empowerment of the individual. In addition to the Biblical text, the Reformers looked to Christian tradition for the intellectual groundwork to recover the glory of the Church. St. Augustine had written extensively about the love of God and the love of the World and how these two loves were antithetical. At the same time, Augustine had a high view of reason and of intellectual activity. He read, and incorporated into much of his own thinking, what he considered to be the best of Greek philosophy. (This accounts for strong Platonism of most medieval Christian thought, and ultimately for the strong authoritarian view of the Church, for the medieval Church thought Plato’s ideas would fail in a worldly, bodily context, but in a spiritual, soul context, the realm of the Church, would succeed and trickle down into the world.) The Reformers found much in Augustine to discuss and debate concerning the relationship of faith and reason. But one of the most important reforms was to eliminate a hierarchy of soul over the body, of faith over reason, and instead a strong valuing of each, and seeking their integration. This reform brought dignity to everyday activity and experiences. Thus, the Reformation contributed to the rise of Humanism. It is import to note, however, that it developed a Humanism informed by Christianity, one that differed, yet was in dialogue, with the Humanism of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, which was strongly influenced by Platonism, yet tempered by, in tension with, the influence of Aristotle.
This dialogue was largely about the relationship of faith to reason, and universal to particular. There are epistemic ramifications. The Enlightenment began a project which sought to free reason from faith, particular from universal. The Reformation Tradition always maintained that reason could never be free from faith. Neutrality, or Objectivity, could not be achieved. No, faith and reason were in relationship. To claim to be purely Objective is to simply be deceived, to fail to acknowledge the role of one’s faith. One cannot examine and critically inspect what one does not acknowledge.In addition, the particular and the universal are fully integrated. Projects of Reformed Scholarship were to understand these relationship and its implications.
One major theory to understand the relationship of faith to reason developed out of German philosophical tradition, starting with Kant, and then making it’s way through Hegel. This is the theory of Weltanschauung, or Worldview (Naugle, 2002, p. 59). In short, this theory proposed that each individual possess a realm of perspective, or pre-theoretical suppositions, which informs and guides theory development. In the late 20th century, Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), a Dutch Calvinist theologian (who also worked as a journalist, educator, social reformer, and eventually Prime Minister of the Netherlands) adopted this theory to propose a way for Christians and Non-Christians to dialogue about intellectual differences. Kuyper was not trained as a philosopher however, and so his use of the theory was simplistic. Following Kuyper’s lead, however, the Dutch philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977) expounded on Worldview, and then sought to develop a explicitly faith-informed Christian philosophy, one which sought to integrate particular and universal.
The theory of Worldview is something that has been, and continues to be, debated amongst philosophers, and Wolterstorff (1989) has expressed reservation about Kuyper’s (and therefore Dooyeweerd’s) contribution (p. 74). Kuyper’s view was that the reality of differing Worldview meant the reality of a plurality of sciences. Kuyper was very successful with his arguments. So in fact, that at the turn of the century, the Netherlands was a sophisticated democratic society in which the three major Worldviews: Calvinist, Catholic and Secular, each had their own social institutions, such as schools, all equally publicly funded! In short, Kuyper argued that there would be multiverse of scholarly activity, but that the only real point of contact between differing scholarly projects would be at the Worldview level. In short, all debates between differing sciences, differing scholarly activity, boil down to questions of faith. Therefore, three more themes for a thinker in the Reformed Tradition, like Wolterstorff, is that of philosophy as faith-informed, integrated into experience, and scholarly, that is engaged in dialogue. Wolterstorff (1976) writes:
The Christian who is a scholar finds himself in two communities: the community of his fellow Christians and the community of his fellow scholars. Each has its own criteria for membership, its own practices, its own characteristic beliefs, its own characteristic training programs. Without a doubt a person can simply live in the two different communities, doing as the Athenians do when in Athens and the Jerusalemites when in Jerusalem. But if one who is a scholar as well as a Christian wants coherence in life – he cannot help asking, how does my membership in these two communities fit together? (p. 21)
Wolterstorff’s disagreement with Kuyper over the value of Worlview can be understood Epistemically. The question is, I believe, this: Is the pre-theoretical the key to reform in the theoretical? Or, in other words, does wisdom flow from pre-theoretical to theoretical, from the realm of faith to the realm of reason, or is it more of a two-way street? Kuyper, taking his cue from Augustine, thinks superior faith results in superior reason, inferior faith will result in inferior reason. In other words, Reason is largely blind and follows Faith. Reason can only rationalize. So a reformation of faith cannot come from reason. It must come from elsewhere, it most come from a particular experience, an encounter, a revelation, which reason would reject. Here we see the denigration of the influence of Plato, resulting in the integration of Faith and Reason, (thanks largely in part by the work of Calvin), yet a remaining influence of Aristotle, elevating particular over the universal. The strange result is a Christianized Foundationalism. Wolterstorff, rather, argues that while it is true that faith radically colors reason, our experiences are filtered through faith and reason. In other words, Reason can, and should, push back on Faith. Reason works with Faith to understand Experience and Experience with Reason to understand Faith. In doing so, both Reason and Faith change. In Reason Within the Bounds of Religion, Wolterstorff (1976)writes:
Sometimes the relation between theory and commitment has been described in such a way as to appear impossible that one’s devising and weighing of theories would ever have an influence on one’s commitment. It is said that religious belief is pre-theoretical. Though religious belief can shape our devising and weighing of theories, it is proposed that our theories cannot shape our belief. This seems to me factually mistaken. The history of thought is replete with cases in which someone’s view as to what constitutes authentic commitment was revised in the light of theoretical developments. (p. 95)
Wolterstorff’s own anti-foundational epistemology is that individuals make commitments to particular theories, therefore giving them a more universal emphasis and less scrutiny. I understand Wolterstorff to say we give some theories the benefit of the doubt because they have demonstrated their worth. We commit to them. They then serve as “control beliefs” and are used to shape and guide new theories. However, they are still open to inspection and ultimately, rejection. In this way, Reason, Faith and Experience interact in knowledge. Thus it is theorized that Experiences, universal and particular, should coincide and corroborate. Therefore, Wolterstoff is anti-Foundational, while also rejecting Relativism.
I think Wolterstorff fails to recognize that Dooyeweerd, in expounding on Kuyper, sought to due justice to human experience and its role in shaping faith and reason. In short, I believe Wolterstorff and Dooyeweerd are closer than Wolterstorff thinks. Roy Clouser (2005), a student of Dooyeweerd, says as much in his book, The Myth of Religious Neutrality. He writes: “It is interesting that [Wolterstorff] starts from what appears to be a roughly scholastic orientation, but significantly amends it in the direction I am advocating here.” (p. 349) In short, what Wolterstorff and Dooyeweerd share is that they place significant value in everyday experience. All experience is revelatory. The result is a rejection of the Bible as the singular source of knowledge and therefore Christian Fundamentalism, which Clouser (2005) describes as the practice of “deriving theories or confirmation of them from scripture or theology.”(p. 109) Therefore, the result is the conviction that non-Christians may very well as unique knowledge about everyday experience, including matters of faith. In short, Christians and non-Christians can hope to learn from each other, from each others’ experiences.
What is the import of all this? Wolterstorff (1997) argues for Perspectivalism in the Academy. Rather than oppressing identity in the false hope of Objectivity, he advocates that we do justice to our worldviews. He writes, “To set out to develop a feminist perspective on epistemology is not to set out to articulate a certain position on one of the contested issues within epistemology but to set out to discover how the field as a whole looks when this aspect of one’s narrative identity is allowed to function as perspective” (p. 227). But justice is not the only reason to promote perspective. Wolterstorff argues that a Perspective may very well have positive consequences for knowledge, and therefore should be allowed to demonstrate its worth. He asks, “May it not be that certain of the perspectives that belong to our narrative identities give us access to realms of reality that would otherwise be extremely difficult to come by? May it not be that some of them constitute in that way privileged cognitive access? (p. 237) Given the potential value of perspective, Wolterstorff envisions Academia as a place where Christians can openly pursue and participate in scholarly activity:
…to be a Christian is to have a narrative identity that incorporates a perspective on reality which enables, rather than inhibits, discernment of dimensions of reality. Enables, for example, discernment of the role of forgiveness in life, and of redemptively owned suffering, and of repentance; enables discernment of a human nature split into fallen on the one hand and created and destined on the other, with the latter possessing an ineradicable dignity calling for respect. But this only begins to detail the discernment enabled by possessing the narrative identity of being a Christian. The academy as a whole must also provide a place for that perspectival learning which is Christian learning – provided that those who practice it not only articulate their own perspective but honor the other by taking the risk of engaging in genuine dialogue. (p. 239)
This position, that Christians should be encouraged to have their perspective come to bear on their scholarly activity, and that the academy should encourage such lines of inquiry, is in direct conflict with much of the secular liberal thinking. However, the historian George Marsden (1997), author of The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, notes that the Christian perspective can help the academy live up to its own standard, that of dialogue and critical reflection. Marsden cites Wolterstoff as a prime example of the kind of scholarship at stake (p. 121).
Wolterstroff demonstrates his American context in that this theorizing is very Experiential and therefore very Pragmatic. A good example is his Aesthetic theory. In Art in Action: Toward a Christian Aesthetic (1980), he writes:
What then is art for? What purpose underlies this human universal?
One of my fundamental theses is that this question, so often posed, must be rejected rather than answered. The question assumes that there is such a thing as the purpose of art. That assumption is false. There is no purpose which art servers, nor any which it is intended to serve….
Works of art equip us for action. And the range of actions for which they equip us is very nearly as broad as the range of human action itself. They purposes of art are the purposes of life. To envisage human existence without art is not to envisage human existence. Art-so often thought of as a way of getting out of the world-is man’s way of acting in the world. Artistically man acts. (p. 4-5)
In short, Art is “ instrument and object of action.”(p. 78) It is an aid to existence, and as such it should be judged. Does a particular piece of work assist me (and my neighbor) to get by? But here is where it gets interesting. Wolterstorff argues that Art is our Responsibility. As such, it demonstrates the artist’s perspective and that worldview’s sense of how human can respond to existence.
How can we compare and contrast perspectives or worldviews? By what standard should we evaluate them? It should come as no surprise that Wolterstorff own criteria is informed by his Christian perspective. Wolterstorff (1988) advocates that the biblical concept of Shalom provides some guidance, “[The scriptures] speak of shalom, where everything exists in right relationship with everything else- God, humanity, nature”(p. 130). Shalom is a state of being which results from a proper recognition of how the diverse aspects of reality relate to each other and to God for the benefit of all. Shalom entails every entity and has an “ideal of human flourishing.”(Wolterstorff, 1988, p. 142) Justice is the cornerstone of shalom. Continuing, Wolterstorff says, “And those right relationships, [the biblical writers] insist, include justice. Without justice, without all the marginal and voiceless persons of the world being brought back into the community and given voice, there is no shalom”(1988, p. 130). A healthy perspective, one which can be characterized by shalom, will include a respect for the normative relationships found in reality, a love for neighbor and critical thinking marked by dialog. My own reading is that the concept of Shalom has much in common with Pragmatic thinking. Both advocate for resolution to differences in a way in which both parties benefit. However, I think the concept of ‘flourishing’ is more robust than the Pragmatist ‘growth’ as criteria for the good. Flourishing can accommodate periods of rest or even inactivity (for example: hibernation, or even homeostatis).
Wolterstorff latest project has been the question of Justice and Human Rights. I have not yet read his latest book, but I understand its source. In an autobiographical essay entitled, How Social Justice Got Me and Why It Never Left (2008), Wolterstorff explains that in the late 1970′s he attended scholarly conferences in South Africa and the Middle East, where he was made more intimately aware of Human Right atrocities by several governments. This solidified for him the value of democratic governance and its practices regarding Human Rights. However, in the following years he began to hear more and more philosophical challenges to the theories that supported Human Rights practices. This caused him great distress. It was obvious to him that the citizens of governments which supported a robust concept of Human and therefore of Human Rights lived a better life. And yet, the theories that had led to such governments were now is disrepute. And so Wolterstorff felt compelled to contribute to the dialogue concerning Justice. And as such, he sought to bring to bear his Christian perspective to defend a practice with demonstrable positive consequences. I look forward to reading this book. However, Wolterstorff has written about Justice elsewhere. The following quote serves to demonstrate how Wolterstorff (2004) seeks to integrate his Christian perspective into the full range of everyday experiences:
Justice is the ground floor of shalom. Shalom incorporates responsible action in general: to God, to nature, to our fellows, to ourselves. And beyond that, it incorporates delight; in shalom we find delight in our right relationships. You see, I trust, how art and pure science are both elements of shalom. And as to your and my relation to our appointed destiny of shalom, the biblical witness is clear. We are to pray and struggle for the incursion of shalom into our world, both struggling against injustice and developing the enriching potentials of God’s creation; and we are to celebrate its presence among us and lament its absence. (p. 170-1)
In the above quote we learn that the reality of Justice and Injustice is both universal (cosmic) and particular. We sense it in all we experience. How should we respond?
In conclusion, I consider Nicholas Wolterstorff a philosopher par-excellence. It is true that I largely share his worldview, and so one might expect that he would resonate with me. Regardless, Wolterstorff’s work demonstrates to me the reality of scholarly activity: a desire to be right and contribute to solving the problems of experience. But the universe and the range of human experience is complex and diverse, and to be human is to accept our finitude. And so we enter into relationships with humility and boldness. To do so it to be faithful.
—–
Clouser, Roy. (2005) The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay Into the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories. Rev. Ed. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Klassen, Norman and Zimmerman, Jens (2006) The Passionate Intellect: Incarnational Humanism and the Future of University Education. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Marsden, George M. (1997) The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship. New York: Oxford University Press.
Naugle, David K. (2002) Worldview: A History of the Concept. Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Wolters, Albert M. (2005) Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview. 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. (1976) Reason within the Bounds of Religion. Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. (1980) Art in Action: Toward a Christian Aesthetic. Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. (1987) Lament for a Son. Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. (1988) The Project of a Christian University in a Postmodern Culture. Joldersma, Clarance W. and Stronks, Gloria Goris. (Eds.) Educating for Shalom: Essays on Christian Higher Education. (p. 109-134) Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. (1989) The Point of Connection between Faith and Learning. Joldersma, Clarance W. and Stronks, Gloria Goris. (Eds.) Educating for Shalom: Essays on Christian Higher Education. (p. 64-86) Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. (1997) Particularist Perspectives: Bias or Access? Joldersma, Clarance W. and Stronks, Gloria Goris. (Eds.) Educating for Shalom: Essays on Christian Higher Education. (p. 226-240) Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. (2004) Autobiography: Two Decades of Thinking about Christian Higher Education. Joldersma, Clarance W. and Stronks, Gloria Goris. (Eds.) Educating for Shalom: Essays on Christian Higher Education. (p. 155-171) Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. (2008) How Social Justice Got to Me and Why it Never Left. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 76, No. 3, pp. 664–679
Faithful Philosophy: Thoughts on Wolterstorff & Philosophy in the Reformed Tradition
Nicholas Wolterstorff
Nicholas Wolterstorff is a philosopher who works seek to understand human activity in light of his particular Worldview: that of Creation, Fall and Redemption. In other words, Wolterstorff seeks to understand the everyday ramifications of the answers his faith content brings to questions of existence, joining the particular to the universal. In doing so, he critically examines his Worldview in a way that demonstrates his 21th Century American context: Pragmatically.
One of the first things to understand about Nicholas Wolterstorff is that he is someone who has lost a son. His son Eric, at the age of 25, died in a climbing accident. In his book, Lament for a Son, Wolterstorff (1987) writes:
The quote above displays several themes for the life and work of Wolterstorff: Identity, Integration and Redemption. Wolterstorff seeks to understand himself. His work is very personal. He sees himself in relationship with the Others and the Universe. He seeks to understand how these relationships flourish; how relationships can be oriented for the good of all members. Redemption is part of the answer given by the Christian Worldview to the most pressing questions of the universe. Does it work? Does it help humans live together in harmony? Does it go all the way to deepest places of the heart? Does it help a father who has lost a son?
I originally set out to read and understand Wolterstorff because he expressed disagreement with the ideas of another philosopher whom I have read and admire, Herman Dooyeweerd. This disagreement, however, is an “in-house” disagreement, for Dooyeweerd and Wolterstorff share a confession. They both declare themselves to be Christians, and their scholarship to be in the Reformed Tradition. The issue over which they differ is how to best to understand the relationship between Christians and non-Christians regarding intellectual work. To what degree can these groups, who do not share an identity with Christ, hope to scholastically dialogue and collaborate? In order to understand this disagreement, however, one must understand the Reformed Tradition of scholarship.
The Reformed Tradition takes its name from Protestant movement of the Christian church in the 16th century. The writing of Martin Luther and John Calvin sought to recovery and development the sovereignty of God over his Church. This directly resulted in the decentralization of power structures located in Rome and the empowerment of the individual. In addition to the Biblical text, the Reformers looked to Christian tradition for the intellectual groundwork to recover the glory of the Church. St. Augustine had written extensively about the love of God and the love of the World and how these two loves were antithetical. At the same time, Augustine had a high view of reason and of intellectual activity. He read, and incorporated into much of his own thinking, what he considered to be the best of Greek philosophy. (This accounts for strong Platonism of most medieval Christian thought, and ultimately for the strong authoritarian view of the Church, for the medieval Church thought Plato’s ideas would fail in a worldly, bodily context, but in a spiritual, soul context, the realm of the Church, would succeed and trickle down into the world.) The Reformers found much in Augustine to discuss and debate concerning the relationship of faith and reason. But one of the most important reforms was to eliminate a hierarchy of soul over the body, of faith over reason, and instead a strong valuing of each, and seeking their integration. This reform brought dignity to everyday activity and experiences. Thus, the Reformation contributed to the rise of Humanism. It is import to note, however, that it developed a Humanism informed by Christianity, one that differed, yet was in dialogue, with the Humanism of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, which was strongly influenced by Platonism, yet tempered by, in tension with, the influence of Aristotle.
This dialogue was largely about the relationship of faith to reason, and universal to particular. There are epistemic ramifications. The Enlightenment began a project which sought to free reason from faith, particular from universal. The Reformation Tradition always maintained that reason could never be free from faith. Neutrality, or Objectivity, could not be achieved. No, faith and reason were in relationship. To claim to be purely Objective is to simply be deceived, to fail to acknowledge the role of one’s faith. One cannot examine and critically inspect what one does not acknowledge. In addition, the particular and the universal are fully integrated. Projects of Reformed Scholarship were to understand these relationship and its implications.
One major theory to understand the relationship of faith to reason developed out of German philosophical tradition, starting with Kant, and then making it’s way through Hegel. This is the theory of Weltanschauung, or Worldview (Naugle, 2002, p. 59). In short, this theory proposed that each individual possess a realm of perspective, or pre-theoretical suppositions, which informs and guides theory development. In the late 20th century, Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), a Dutch Calvinist theologian (who also worked as a journalist, educator, social reformer, and eventually Prime Minister of the Netherlands) adopted this theory to propose a way for Christians and Non-Christians to dialogue about intellectual differences. Kuyper was not trained as a philosopher however, and so his use of the theory was simplistic. Following Kuyper’s lead, however, the Dutch philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977) expounded on Worldview, and then sought to develop a explicitly faith-informed Christian philosophy, one which sought to integrate particular and universal.
The theory of Worldview is something that has been, and continues to be, debated amongst philosophers, and Wolterstorff (1989) has expressed reservation about Kuyper’s (and therefore Dooyeweerd’s) contribution (p. 74). Kuyper’s view was that the reality of differing Worldview meant the reality of a plurality of sciences. Kuyper was very successful with his arguments. So in fact, that at the turn of the century, the Netherlands was a sophisticated democratic society in which the three major Worldviews: Calvinist, Catholic and Secular, each had their own social institutions, such as schools, all equally publicly funded! In short, Kuyper argued that there would be multiverse of scholarly activity, but that the only real point of contact between differing scholarly projects would be at the Worldview level. In short, all debates between differing sciences, differing scholarly activity, boil down to questions of faith. Therefore, three more themes for a thinker in the Reformed Tradition, like Wolterstorff, is that of philosophy as faith-informed, integrated into experience, and scholarly, that is engaged in dialogue. Wolterstorff (1976) writes:
Wolterstorff’s disagreement with Kuyper over the value of Worlview can be understood Epistemically. The question is, I believe, this: Is the pre-theoretical the key to reform in the theoretical? Or, in other words, does wisdom flow from pre-theoretical to theoretical, from the realm of faith to the realm of reason, or is it more of a two-way street? Kuyper, taking his cue from Augustine, thinks superior faith results in superior reason, inferior faith will result in inferior reason. In other words, Reason is largely blind and follows Faith. Reason can only rationalize. So a reformation of faith cannot come from reason. It must come from elsewhere, it most come from a particular experience, an encounter, a revelation, which reason would reject. Here we see the denigration of the influence of Plato, resulting in the integration of Faith and Reason, (thanks largely in part by the work of Calvin), yet a remaining influence of Aristotle, elevating particular over the universal. The strange result is a Christianized Foundationalism. Wolterstorff, rather, argues that while it is true that faith radically colors reason, our experiences are filtered through faith and reason. In other words, Reason can, and should, push back on Faith. Reason works with Faith to understand Experience and Experience with Reason to understand Faith. In doing so, both Reason and Faith change. In Reason Within the Bounds of Religion, Wolterstorff (1976)writes:
Wolterstorff’s own anti-foundational epistemology is that individuals make commitments to particular theories, therefore giving them a more universal emphasis and less scrutiny. I understand Wolterstorff to say we give some theories the benefit of the doubt because they have demonstrated their worth. We commit to them. They then serve as “control beliefs” and are used to shape and guide new theories. However, they are still open to inspection and ultimately, rejection. In this way, Reason, Faith and Experience interact in knowledge. Thus it is theorized that Experiences, universal and particular, should coincide and corroborate. Therefore, Wolterstoff is anti-Foundational, while also rejecting Relativism.
I think Wolterstorff fails to recognize that Dooyeweerd, in expounding on Kuyper, sought to due justice to human experience and its role in shaping faith and reason. In short, I believe Wolterstorff and Dooyeweerd are closer than Wolterstorff thinks. Roy Clouser (2005), a student of Dooyeweerd, says as much in his book, The Myth of Religious Neutrality. He writes: “It is interesting that [Wolterstorff] starts from what appears to be a roughly scholastic orientation, but significantly amends it in the direction I am advocating here.” (p. 349) In short, what Wolterstorff and Dooyeweerd share is that they place significant value in everyday experience. All experience is revelatory. The result is a rejection of the Bible as the singular source of knowledge and therefore Christian Fundamentalism, which Clouser (2005) describes as the practice of “deriving theories or confirmation of them from scripture or theology.”(p. 109) Therefore, the result is the conviction that non-Christians may very well as unique knowledge about everyday experience, including matters of faith. In short, Christians and non-Christians can hope to learn from each other, from each others’ experiences.
What is the import of all this? Wolterstorff (1997) argues for Perspectivalism in the Academy. Rather than oppressing identity in the false hope of Objectivity, he advocates that we do justice to our worldviews. He writes, “To set out to develop a feminist perspective on epistemology is not to set out to articulate a certain position on one of the contested issues within epistemology but to set out to discover how the field as a whole looks when this aspect of one’s narrative identity is allowed to function as perspective” (p. 227). But justice is not the only reason to promote perspective. Wolterstorff argues that a Perspective may very well have positive consequences for knowledge, and therefore should be allowed to demonstrate its worth. He asks, “May it not be that certain of the perspectives that belong to our narrative identities give us access to realms of reality that would otherwise be extremely difficult to come by? May it not be that some of them constitute in that way privileged cognitive access? (p. 237) Given the potential value of perspective, Wolterstorff envisions Academia as a place where Christians can openly pursue and participate in scholarly activity:
…to be a Christian is to have a narrative identity that incorporates a perspective on reality which enables, rather than inhibits, discernment of dimensions of reality. Enables, for example, discernment of the role of forgiveness in life, and of redemptively owned suffering, and of repentance; enables discernment of a human nature split into fallen on the one hand and created and destined on the other, with the latter possessing an ineradicable dignity calling for respect. But this only begins to detail the discernment enabled by possessing the narrative identity of being a Christian. The academy as a whole must also provide a place for that perspectival learning which is Christian learning – provided that those who practice it not only articulate their own perspective but honor the other by taking the risk of engaging in genuine dialogue. (p. 239)
This position, that Christians should be encouraged to have their perspective come to bear on their scholarly activity, and that the academy should encourage such lines of inquiry, is in direct conflict with much of the secular liberal thinking. However, the historian George Marsden (1997), author of The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, notes that the Christian perspective can help the academy live up to its own standard, that of dialogue and critical reflection. Marsden cites Wolterstoff as a prime example of the kind of scholarship at stake (p. 121).
Wolterstroff demonstrates his American context in that this theorizing is very Experiential and therefore very Pragmatic. A good example is his Aesthetic theory. In Art in Action: Toward a Christian Aesthetic (1980), he writes:
In short, Art is “ instrument and object of action.”(p. 78) It is an aid to existence, and as such it should be judged. Does a particular piece of work assist me (and my neighbor) to get by? But here is where it gets interesting. Wolterstorff argues that Art is our Responsibility. As such, it demonstrates the artist’s perspective and that worldview’s sense of how human can respond to existence.
How can we compare and contrast perspectives or worldviews? By what standard should we evaluate them? It should come as no surprise that Wolterstorff own criteria is informed by his Christian perspective. Wolterstorff (1988) advocates that the biblical concept of Shalom provides some guidance, “[The scriptures] speak of shalom, where everything exists in right relationship with everything else- God, humanity, nature”(p. 130). Shalom is a state of being which results from a proper recognition of how the diverse aspects of reality relate to each other and to God for the benefit of all. Shalom entails every entity and has an “ideal of human flourishing.”(Wolterstorff, 1988, p. 142) Justice is the cornerstone of shalom. Continuing, Wolterstorff says, “And those right relationships, [the biblical writers] insist, include justice. Without justice, without all the marginal and voiceless persons of the world being brought back into the community and given voice, there is no shalom”(1988, p. 130). A healthy perspective, one which can be characterized by shalom, will include a respect for the normative relationships found in reality, a love for neighbor and critical thinking marked by dialog. My own reading is that the concept of Shalom has much in common with Pragmatic thinking. Both advocate for resolution to differences in a way in which both parties benefit. However, I think the concept of ‘flourishing’ is more robust than the Pragmatist ‘growth’ as criteria for the good. Flourishing can accommodate periods of rest or even inactivity (for example: hibernation, or even homeostatis).
Wolterstorff latest project has been the question of Justice and Human Rights. I have not yet read his latest book, but I understand its source. In an autobiographical essay entitled, How Social Justice Got Me and Why It Never Left (2008), Wolterstorff explains that in the late 1970′s he attended scholarly conferences in South Africa and the Middle East, where he was made more intimately aware of Human Right atrocities by several governments. This solidified for him the value of democratic governance and its practices regarding Human Rights. However, in the following years he began to hear more and more philosophical challenges to the theories that supported Human Rights practices. This caused him great distress. It was obvious to him that the citizens of governments which supported a robust concept of Human and therefore of Human Rights lived a better life. And yet, the theories that had led to such governments were now is disrepute. And so Wolterstorff felt compelled to contribute to the dialogue concerning Justice. And as such, he sought to bring to bear his Christian perspective to defend a practice with demonstrable positive consequences. I look forward to reading this book. However, Wolterstorff has written about Justice elsewhere. The following quote serves to demonstrate how Wolterstorff (2004) seeks to integrate his Christian perspective into the full range of everyday experiences:
In the above quote we learn that the reality of Justice and Injustice is both universal (cosmic) and particular. We sense it in all we experience. How should we respond?
In conclusion, I consider Nicholas Wolterstorff a philosopher par-excellence. It is true that I largely share his worldview, and so one might expect that he would resonate with me. Regardless, Wolterstorff’s work demonstrates to me the reality of scholarly activity: a desire to be right and contribute to solving the problems of experience. But the universe and the range of human experience is complex and diverse, and to be human is to accept our finitude. And so we enter into relationships with humility and boldness. To do so it to be faithful.
—–
Clouser, Roy. (2005) The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay Into the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories. Rev. Ed. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Klassen, Norman and Zimmerman, Jens (2006) The Passionate Intellect: Incarnational Humanism and the Future of University Education. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Marsden, George M. (1997) The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship. New York: Oxford University Press.
Naugle, David K. (2002) Worldview: A History of the Concept. Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Wolters, Albert M. (2005) Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview. 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. (1976) Reason within the Bounds of Religion. Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. (1980) Art in Action: Toward a Christian Aesthetic. Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. (1987) Lament for a Son. Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. (1988) The Project of a Christian University in a Postmodern Culture. Joldersma, Clarance W. and Stronks, Gloria Goris. (Eds.) Educating for Shalom: Essays on Christian Higher Education. (p. 109-134) Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. (1989) The Point of Connection between Faith and Learning. Joldersma, Clarance W. and Stronks, Gloria Goris. (Eds.) Educating for Shalom: Essays on Christian Higher Education. (p. 64-86) Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. (1997) Particularist Perspectives: Bias or Access? Joldersma, Clarance W. and Stronks, Gloria Goris. (Eds.) Educating for Shalom: Essays on Christian Higher Education. (p. 226-240) Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. (2004) Autobiography: Two Decades of Thinking about Christian Higher Education. Joldersma, Clarance W. and Stronks, Gloria Goris. (Eds.) Educating for Shalom: Essays on Christian Higher Education. (p. 155-171) Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. (2008) How Social Justice Got to Me and Why it Never Left. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 76, No. 3, pp. 664–679
PHOTO CREDITS: Lush by Mark Stozier via Flickr I selected this photo because it speaks to me of “flourishing”