Education
Ph.D., Religions and Theology, 2008
The University of Manchester, England
Dissertation title: Protestant Metaphysics according to Karl Barth and Martin Heidegger (Forthcoming with SCM Press in 2010)
Supervisor: Professor Graham Ward
M.A., (with distinction), Religion, Culture and Gender, December 2004
The University of Manchester, England
M.A.,Theology and Biblical Studies, June 2003
Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California
Brief description of doctoral dissertation:
Comparisons between Barth and Heidegger have been made in the past (e.g. Heinrich Ott), but more recent scholarship has opened up new possibilities for clarifying their relationship along onto-theological lines. Hence, my thesis could be summed up in the following question: What is the difference between Barth's critique of onto-theology and Heidegger's?
In order to address this question I began to explicate the manner in which Protestant dispositions towards metaphysics and theology had been transfigured in the work of Martin Heidegger. This approach led me in two directions. Firstly, Luther clearly did influence Heidegger's early metaphysical deconstructions as well as his conception of a distinctly Protestant form of theology. Secondly, however, Heidegger himself recognized that he was correcting, if not changing, the essence of what he perceived to be Luther's unfinished project. This raised the question of the uniqueness of Heidegger's own radicalization of Protestant metaphysics, as well as its relationship to other theologians re-appropriating Luther's thought at this time. It is at this point that Barth provides the perfect dialogue partner with Heidegger not only because his theology developed contemporary to Heidegger, but also because there is a pervasive assumption among scholars such as Graham Ward, John Milbank and Merold Westphal that Barth is secretly Heideggerian (a view I challenged in my dissertation).
As it turns out, when we compare Heidegger's understanding of Luther's proscription against metaphysics with Barth's we find significant differences between the two. In shorthand, it is possible to read Barth's theology as one long clarification of the metaphysical implications of Luther's theologia crucis. Or, said another way, Barth's theology is a contemporary explication of how Jesus can BE both fully divine and fully human. When Heidegger cites theses 19, 21 and 22 of Luther's Heidelberg Disputation in his Phenomenology of Religious Life, he therefore points out the reason why he, and many of those who followed him, had to abandon metaphysical theology altogether. For although in thesis 19 Luther critiques the theologian "who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened," Luther then goes on in thesis 20 (which Heidegger skipped) to explicitly cite the proper possibility of metaphysical theology as follows: "He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross." Martin Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 31, pg. 52.
It is hoped that my research may have profound consequences for the future of Protestant theology. Firstly, it gives further clarity concerning the relationship between Luther's proscription against "foolish metaphysical questions" in his Lectures on Romans and the post-metaphysical character of contemporary continental philosophy (e.g. Derrida, Levinas, Vattimo, Marion). As such, Protestant theology is now more clearly located at the heart of contemporary philosophical debates about the merits of a God without being. Secondly, however, given the radical nature of Barth's theological ontology, Protestant theologians may suggest authentic alternatives to Heidegger's legacy.
For information about my previous Master of Arts degrees please click here.