Apophatic vs. Cataphatic Theology: An Introduction
I have often talked about Apophadic theology, or the theology of negation. It attempts to describe the Divine not by stating what it is, but by illustrating what it is not. Cataphatic theology, on the other hand, is the theology of revelation, or positive theology, and is more optimistic about our ability to describe God.
The Dual Foundations of My Theological Approach
The combination of these two forms a (if not the) bedrock of my theology – certainly of my epistemology. We must seek a delicate balance between our apophatic and cataphatic theologies.
East Meets West: A Theological Marriage
It is a delicate marriage between the Eastern and Western Churches. Eastern Orthodoxy normally emphasizes apophatic theology, while Protestants and Catholics are more known for cataphatic theology.
The Yin and Yang of Theology
It is the Yin and Yang of Christian theology. It represents the matrimony of the male and female relationship and the need for both emotion and logic in our relationship with God. One is not superior to another. Both are different. Both are needed.
A Verse Close to My Heart: Deuteronomy 29:29
My key verse is Deuteronomy 29:29:
“The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.”
This verse emphasizes the idea that there are certain mysteries known only to God, but what He has chosen to reveal to humanity is for our understanding and obedience. We pursue cataphatic theology in all areas, but we are willing to disengage and accept mysteries when they present themselves.
Delving into the Early Middle Ages: Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite
All of this to introduce you to a passage from one of my favorite theologians of the early Middle Ages. He is credited with the formulation of a more comprehensive apophatic theology. Listen to the ineffability, the mystery and wonder with which he speaks of God:
Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that it is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion, reason or understanding; nor can it be expressed or conceived, since it is neither number nor order; nor greatness nor smallness; nor equality nor inequality; nor similarity nor dissimilarity; neither is it standing, nor moving, nor at rest… but it is the utterly simple, the entirely consistent and invariable; the fountain of life and immortality, the fountain of reason and intellect, the limpid fount of unapproachable light.”
-Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite’s “Mystical Theology,” (excerpt from Chapter 1), trans by C.E. Rolt
My Take on the Divine Mystery
Let me attempt to paraphrase this:
“God is beyond our understanding. He’s not bound by our concepts of thought, reason, or understanding. He’s not describable by any quality we know, like size, position, or comparison. He’s the source of life, intelligence, and pure light that we can’t fully grasp.”
Concluding Thoughts: Embracing the Mystery
In our pursuit of understanding and knowing Him (Jer. 9:23-24), we often find ourselves at a difficult crossroads of knowing and not knowing, of formal articulation and reverent silence. And this is the paramount, theological imperative: The balance between Apophatic and Cataphatic theologies. It reminds us that while we have the capacity to grasp aspects of God through revelation and reason, there will always remain chasms of the infinite mystery that escape our comprehension. It is this balance that grounds our faith, keeping us humble yet curious, reverent yet passionate. As we journey deeper into our understanding of God, may we remain open to the wondrous blend of the known and the unknown, and may this harmonious dance lead us closer to the heart of the Divine.
I invite you all to ponder these thoughts, and as always, I appreciate your engagement and reflections on this completely awesome subject. (As you can tell, I’m quit excited about this!)
4 replies to "Beyond Words: The Paramount Theological Imperative"
Thank you for sharing the concepts of Cataphatic and Apophatic Theology, and I’m trying to grasp their distinctions. From what I understand, Cataphatic theology makes claims about epistemology through positive statements, drawing from religious experiences or scriptures. On the other hand, Apophatic theology seems to approach knowledge through a sense of awe, possibly analogous to understanding the intricacies of brain structures, connections, and their underlying physiology and biochemistry. Have I grasped these ideas correctly?
Building on this, if I engage in worship through glossolalia, can It be said that I’m practicing Cataphatic theology? My rationale is rooted in my personal religious experiences and my understanding of scriptures, though interpretations might differ. In addition, this ability represents a positive assertion about God.
After reading your exposition on the theology, I was captivated by the breath and depth of your presentation. Your initial framing effectively orients readers, such as myself, who is not entrenched in the nuances of Cataphatic & Apophatic Theology. By grounding these abstract concepts in tangible real-world scenarios, you brilliantly illuminated their relevance, prompting me to draw parallels with phenomena like glossolalia.
Your exploration emphasizes that theology is not an esoteric endeavor confined to isolated scholarly debates but is rather shaped by rich traditions, cross-cultural dialogues. Your use of the “Yin & Yang “metaphor resonated profoundly with me, masterfully weaving the East-West dynamics you’d making the discourse all the more relatable.
While Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite’s works was challenging, your interpretation offered clarity. Your insights underscore the profound truth that the finite human mind invariably confronts the enigma of the Infinite Divine. This highlights the sentiment that no matter our depth of theological knowledge or practice, the Divine retains realms of infinite mystery.
In your conclusion you’ve illuminated that this journey is dynamic, a lifelong odyssey towards understanding.
In summary: Michael you piece stands out as a primer on Cataphatic and Apophatic Theology. It’s a masterclass in theological discourse! This piece is nothing short of stellar.
Eric. Your comments are as good or better than the blog. Thank you!
Concerning glossolalia, I would say it would be categorized as one of two things. If you define it as a private prior language, at that point, it becomes an in articulate expression of worship. Like crying is to sadness or laughter is the comedy, speaking in tongues would be to worship. Therefore, because of the mystery involved, I would put it as Apophatic. However, if it is a known language that you are speaking the mysteries of God with, I would put it in both camps. Hope that makes sense. Again, thanks for the comment!
Concer
Some historical and philosophical insights on the topic (a broad, general outline, of course: a big picture view, that doesn’t necessarily involve all the nuanced details).
A major reason for the decline in apophatic theology – as more than a few modern and contemporary scholars note – is the Western over-privileging of rationality that first began when classical Greek philosophy presumed itself to be more ‘scientific’ and placed itself above mythology as a better way of explaining the reality we experience.
In the field of science, this paved the way for the modern “scientific” paradigm which, since Bacon and Descartes at least, resulted in a dualistic separation of reality into the irreconcilable polarisation of matter and spirit – hence, the broad spectrum of perspectives still available today in the form of rationalism and empiricism, which became the dominant Western materialistic-scientific (or mechanistic) cultural paradigm.
Much modern theology since the 1600s – especially in the protestant camp – was developed under the influence of this dualistic paradigm. From here, we get the broad range of theological positions: at one end of the spectrum, theologians appealed to empiricism as a theological foundation; while at the other end, theologians appealed to rationalist foundations.
Since Thomas Kuhn developed his paradigm theory, it has been acknowledged in academia that such distinctions as “objective facts”, entirely divorced from subjective evaluative judgments, are a myth: cultural conditioning to a large extent determines what is to be considered as fact, viewed through the lens of a particular paradigm. In other words, the paradigmatic bias itself will reject as fact what it cannot accommodate within its narrow confines and self-imposed limitations.
That said, in all the major theistic faith traditions, as opposed to the more exoteric lines, an esoteric core has always been available that resisted the dualism of rationalism and empiricism. For instance, the monastic tradition in the Catholic faith has preserved the apophatic approach to theology and places due emphasis on the analogical aspect of human language with respect to God. However, it does not thereby discard the (limited) usefulness of analytic rationality which can be beneficial – but only up to a point – in theology.
Hopefully this was helpful in some way. All the best on your journey!
Side note: quantum relativity and the post-modern rejection of the Enlightenment paradigm has helped to call into question the foundationalist assumptions and mechanistic view of life and helped to recover some of the mystery of reality: even matter is now considered – as it always has been – to be a mysterious thing that we cannot totally comprehend within the confines of our humanly constructed categories. In a way, matter itself can be said to be like God in some respects. Hence, pantheistic theology, which is so often misunderstood by Westerners as some form of idolatry; but this is mainly due to the incomensurability of paradigms in the East vs West dialogue – sometimes Eastern religions are saying the same thing as religions in the West, just using a different ‘language game’.