I have recently been revisiting Craig A. Carter’s Contemplating God with the Great Tradition. It is not a new book, but it is one that continues to challenge me. Carter’s central concern is that modern Christianity has lost something important: a rich understanding of God’s transcendence and the metaphysical framework that supported classical Christian belief. By this he does not simply mean abstract philosophy, but a vision of reality itself: the distinction between Creator and creation, the dependence of all things upon God, and the understanding that creation participates in and points towards its Creator. Classical Christianity did not view God as one being among many within the universe, but as the source and sustainer of all that exists. The Great Tradition is worth retrieving because it teaches us how to think about God and creation.
There is much in Carter’s argument that resonates with me. We do live in a disenchanted age where God is often reduced to a distant creator, if that. The biblical vision is far richer. God is not one being among other beings. God is the ground and source of all being. Creation is not independent from God but continually dependent upon him. The world is not merely a collection of material objects, but a creation that receives its existence and meaning from God. I share Carter’s concerns about approaches such as process theology and panentheism when they risk making God too much a part of the universe rather than the Lord of creation. At the same time, I do not believe the answer is simply to recover a previous metaphysical world. The challenge is how to faithfully articulate the reality of God within the world we actually inhabit.
This is where I find myself both appreciating and questioning Carter’s project. Carter’s answer is largely one of retrieval: recovering the Great Tradition of the early church, medieval theology, and the Magisterial Reformers. There is much wisdom here. The church should not assume that modern thought has automatically improved upon the theological reflections of previous generations. However, I also wonder if we sometimes forget that the Great Tradition itself was an act of contextualisation. The early Christians did not simply preserve a pre-existing Christian philosophy. They engaged the intellectual world around them, especially Greek philosophy, and reshaped those categories around the revelation of Jesus Christ. The Fathers were not great because they were Neoplatonists. They were great because they brought every intellectual framework under the lordship of Christ. Faithful retrieval therefore requires the same kind of contextual theological creativity that created the tradition in the first place. The question before us is not simply whether we can recover ancient categories, but whether we can do the same theological work the Fathers did: receive the wisdom of the past, test everything in light of Christ, and faithfully confess the gospel within our own intellectual and cultural context.
This is also where I have some reservations about Carter’s discussion of natural theology and natural law. I affirm general revelation. Creation does reveal something true about God. As Paul says in Romans 1, humanity is without excuse because God’s power and nature are evident in what has been made. But I see general revelation as limited. Creation reveals enough to point us towards God and hold us accountable, but not enough to reveal the fullness of God’s purposes in Christ. I am cautious whenever appeals to “nature” begin to compete with the teachings of Jesus. Nature must be interpreted through Christ, not Christ through our understanding of nature. The radical demands of Jesus—love of enemies, forgiveness, humility, peacemaking, and care for the vulnerable—must remain at the centre. Any account of reality that does not lead us towards the character of Christ has misunderstood its purpose.
This is perhaps where my own instincts remain closer to the Radical Reformation than the Magisterial Reformers. I appreciate much from the wider Christian tradition, but I remain concerned whenever Christianity becomes too comfortable with the assumptions of Christendom. The church is not called merely to provide a religious foundation for society; it is called to be a faithful community under the lordship of Jesus. The Radical Reformation reminds us that Christian truth is not merely a way of describing reality; it is a way of inhabiting that reality. The church is not simply a community that confesses certain doctrines about God, but a people called to embody the character of Christ. Theology and discipleship cannot ultimately be separated, because the truth we confess is meant to transform the people we become.
Ultimately, I find myself agreeing with Carter’s diagnosis more than his prescription. I share his concern that modernity has flattened our vision of reality. I share his desire for a world where creation is understood as meaningful, dependent upon God, and filled with divine purpose. But I do not think our task is simply to recover an older metaphysical framework. Our task is to do what Christians have always done: faithfully confess Christ within the world we have been given. For me, this means recovering a sense of enchantment—not by returning to a medieval worldview, but by rediscovering the biblical vision of creation. The world is neither a machine closed in upon itself nor part of God’s being. It is a creation sustained by the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Spirit. God is not distant from creation, but neither is God contained within it. The Creator is transcendent, yet actively present. The world is not divine, but it is filled with signs of God’s glory. Perhaps the challenge before theology today is not simply retrieval, but faithful translation. We need to recover the depth of the Great Tradition while also doing the creative theological work required for our own age. The Fathers did not merely repeat the thinkers who came before them. They wrestled with the questions of their time and brought those questions to Christ. We are called to do the same.
Leave a Reply