Theologians of correlation are inclined to seek their theologically legitimating antecedent in the attempts by Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) to repair the fracture in modern culture that resulted from the unresolved conflict between defenders of the older orthodox “supranaturalism,” whose theology had become increasingly anachronistic, and champions of the newer autonomous critical reasoning, who were effectively left with no option but to embrace an increasingly anti-Christian “naturalism.” In response to this stalemate, which he feared would lead both to the intellectual starvation of Christian faith and to the impoverishment of spiritual values within the wider culture. Scheiermacher called for a permanent alliance between historical Christianity and modern learning. According to the terms of this treaty, the interdependence of faith and learning was to be established, but not at the expense of their individual autonomy, so that “faith does not hinder learning, nor learning exclude faith.” Just how to effect the terms of such an accord was Schleiermacher’s dilemma. In current religious thought, the use of correlation as a methodological strategy is preeminently associated with the name of Protestant theologian Paul Tillich and, to a lesser extent, with that of Roman Catholic theologian David Tracy.
Despite differences in detail, their methods of correlation can be described as examples of a postliberal strategy that aims to meet the challenges of modernity, while steering a course between the modernist temptation to identify the Christian message with the dominant ideologies of the day and the counter-modernist temptation to evade the demands of the present, either by retreating to some idealized Christian past or by surrendering to some authoritarian version of Christianity.
Paul Tillich characteristically spoke of Christian theology as a correlation between certain “questions” implied in an analysis of human existence and the “answers” implied in an analysis of the symbols in which the Christian message is expressed. This question-answer schema defines the structure of his Systematic Theology: The question implied in the concept of “reason” is correlated with the answer implied in the symbol “revelation”; the question of “being,” with the answer “God”; the question of “existence,” with the answer “the Christ”; the question of “life,” with the answer “the Spirit”; and the question of “history,” with the answer “the Kingdom of God.”
Tillich’s account of his method has been subjected to exhaustive critical discussion, much of which has concentrated on the adequacy of the question-answer schema. On the one hand, some critics have doubted whether a question from one realm of discourse can ever be appropriately answered from a different realm. A specifically philosophical question can be answered, if at all, only in properly philosophical terms, such that a specifically theological answer could never be correctly correlated with a philosophical question without violating “the autonomy condition” of an adequate correlative relation.
Despite the impression that he himself sometimes left, Tillich’s method of correlation was not intended as a general theory of relations between philosophy and theology. His question-answer schema was instead meant to apply only to certain sorts of theologically significant philosophical questions; namely, to questions that push up against the limits of human reason and experience, questions that Tillich called “ultimate questions.” Among such questions could be counted the Leibnizian puzzle, “Why is there something and not nothing?” Even if these questions should originate within philosophy, they are not capable of being answered within purely philosophical terms. Although some philosophers would hold that they are consequentially improper questions, Tillich defends their philosophical propriety while insisting that their “answer” necessarily lies beyond the reach of philosophy.
On the other hand, critics of a different kind have complained that Tillich’s account of philosophical questions and theological answers is so rigidly constructed that there is an entirely one-way relationship between philosophy and theology. Such an objection, though not simply mistaken, reflects the propensity of critics to concentrate too much upon what Tillich said about his method of correlation and to neglect what he did with it in practice. In operation, Tillich’s method was always more subtle than were his accounts of it, which tended to be wooden in outline and misleading in detail.
David Tracy is among the theologians who have concentrated their criticism of Tillich on the allegedly nondialectical nature of relations between “questions” and “answers” in the method of correlation. In effect, Tracy charges that Tillich’s methodology fails to satisfy the reciprocity condition: Tillich merely juxtaposes, rather than actually correlates, the two poles of the theological enterprise.
Having described himself as committed both to “the modern experiment” and to “the Christian vision of human possibilities,” Tracy sets out to revise Tillich’s method so that it will allow for full reciprocity between the two poles. Such reciprocity, which Tracy names “mutually critical correlation,” requires the theologian to treat both commitments as subject to modification by means of their mutual critique. Tracy emphasizes that the exact character of such correlations cannot be determined beforehand and that his method of mutually critical correlation can be tested only by its actual use in the constructive work of fundamental, dogmatic, and practical theology. Like Tillich, Tracy recognizes that the adequacy of one’s theological method must be measured by its results.
JOHN CLAYTON
Bibliography
John Clayton, The Concept of Correlation.
Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, 3 vols.
———, Main Writings/Hauptwerke, 6 vols.
David Tracy, Blessed Rage for Order.
———, The Analogical Imagination.
Cross-Reference: Autonomy, Hermeneutics, Systematic Theology, Theological Method.
COSMOGONY (See COSMOLOGY, CREATION.)
COSMOLOGY
As a physical science, cosmology conducts research in three main areas: (1) Relativity theory and astrophysics seek to explain the structures of the universe, (2) particle physics explores the constituents making up the universe, and (3) inflationary physics delves into the origin of the universe, with recent interest on “The Big Bang” theory. The overall goal of these areas is to present a unified and comprehensive picture of the physical universe. This objective means that scientific cosmologists interpret the origin, evolution, distribution, and structure of all the matter comprising the universe. In these terms, cosmology studies the nature and constitution of space-time.
Pre-scientific cosmologies in the West can be traced back to ancient Babylon and Egypt. Coupled with Greek philosophies these views evolved into medieval Catholic cosmology. This “Christian cosmology” united Hellenic speculation, especially the views of Aristotle, with Hebrew perceptions from the Bible. A full-blown Aristotlean theological cosmology developed into what is known as “natural theology.” Looking at the formation and structures of the universe to find “imprints” of God, natural theology produces the idea that “the Book of Nature” offered intrinsic evidence for God independent from but supported by the Bible. On this basis Christianity developed the classical arguments for the existence of God (the so-called cosmological, teleological, ontological, and deontological arguments). One could know that God exists by inquiring into nature; one found out what God requires of us in the Bible. Scientific cosmology split completely from this paradigm, building on empirical research and mathematical logic rather than philosophical and theological metaphysics.
Contemporary theology approaches to the physical universe now tend to prefer to think in terms of a “theology of nature” rather than natural theology. Considerable interest