Abstract
In this work, John R. Betz offers an expansive apologia for the relevance of metaphysics to Christian theology. B., an associate professor of systematic theology at the University of Notre Dame, has earned a reputation as the foremost champion of the German-Polish Jesuit Erich Przywara. Here B. continues in his role as Przywara’s advocate, explaining and defending his lamentably neglected account of the analogia entis (“analogy of being”). But B. also offers this “essay”—or rather, series of related essays—in response to a more recent “anti-metaphysical drift” (xxi) in modern theology. For B., antipathy toward metaphysics (the legacy of Kant, Heidegger, and Barth, among others) leaves us powerless in the face of theology’s most pressing task: explaining what it means for Christ to be “the ground and end and definition of things” (xvii). He therefore not only follows Przywara, “as a kind of Virgil” (136), in showing how metaphysics illuminates Christian doctrine. Especially in the later chapters, he goes beyond Przywara in showing that metaphysics must be transformed and perfected by Christian revelation (xxiii)—above all in the person of Christ.
The work is divided into four parts, each of which could be the subject of a monograph in its own right. The introduction is largely devoted to a philosophically lucid exegesis of John 1:1, which serves as a framing device for the book as a whole. There is also some methodological “throat-clearing” and an initial defense of analogical metaphysics as theology’s most able handmaiden. The bulk of part I is devoted to a careful analysis of the debate between Przywara and Barth. Those familiar with B.’s prior work will find much familiar here: a detailed summary of Przywara’s writings and a compelling case that Barth misunderstood them. There is arguably no more informed guide to these primary texts than B. But what’s notable here is B.’s irenic tone. He is just as interested in vindicating some of Barth’s concerns as he is in demonstrating that others were misplaced. Here B. displays what proves to be a commendable feature of the book as a whole: its ecumenical spirit. Throughout, he is at pains to show that metaphysics, as Przywara understood it, need not be a source of division in the Body of Christ.
The chapters in part II attempt to “show what follows from an analogical metaphysics for Christian doctrine, specifically, for Trinitarian theology, Christology, and anthropology” (xxii). Here B. is engaged in systematic theology proper, demonstrating how the analogia entis is the Denkform or structural principle that all doctrines exhibit. This yields some intriguing and well-argued proposals on the Filioque, on Christ as “concrete analogia entis” (203), and, in the most involved chapter of the book, on the human being as “homo analogia” (242). B. argues in part III that the analogy of being even has the potential to resolve two particularly intractable disputes: concerning the nature–grace relationship and the issue of divine humility. On these disputes B. proves to be as sympathetic a reader of Balthasar, de Lubac, and Lonergan as he is of their more recent neo-Thomist critics. These chapters exemplify his “genuinely Catholic approach” (363) to his subject matter. He remains sensitive to whatever is commendable in competing positions rather than to what is presented by one school or theological sect. This, of course, is part of B.’s overriding argument: analogical metaphysics allows him to successfully integrate the strengths of his interlocutors while transcending their apparent limitations. In the final, most speculative part (IV), B. develops this “more Catholic Metaphysics” (407) in conversation with Przywara, Balthasar, and Ferdinand Ulrich. This is, in my opinion, the most intriguing part of the book, and the one in which B. most directly addresses its driving question: how Christ can be said to be the Logos of creation. It also contains a detailed conclusion summarizing the argument and its major implications.
The book’s weaknesses are few. It is a complex and ambitious work demanding much of its readers. Its nature as a collection of related essays at times lends itself to some unnecessary repetition, as B. makes his case convincingly in fewer words than he utilizes. But its strengths clearly outweigh any shortcomings. B. proves himself a rigorous theorist capable of explicating some of philosophy and theology’s most abstract notions in enviably clear prose. His intellectual range is remarkable and his style is, as he intends, “polyphonic” (363). He engages with an impressive number of authoritative voices from the tradition (theological, philosophical, and spiritual). Christ, the Logos of Creation will undoubtedly command the attention of Catholic theologians of all stripes and make lasting contributions to some of the church’s most urgent debates and ecumenical efforts.