Metafysikens död, teologins möjlighet? : Jean-Luc Marions tänkande i kritisk belysning

Sammanfattning: In this essay I explore some of the theological consequences of Jean-Luc Marions antimetaphysical philosophy of religion. Inspired by Heidegger and Nietzsche Marion works from the definition of metaphysics as "onto-theology". This means that the western metaphysical tradition from at least Fransisco Suarez made the fundamental mistake of conflating the being of God with the beingness of created beings. This was done in an attempt to give an all-encompassing general description of the world in one universal science. In this science God as Causa Sui (the self caused cause), functions as the first efficient cause of the world. The result from this thinking was according to Marion that God became limited to the conditions of the study of Being. God became knowable as a being. In this process the worry is that theologians lost a sense of wonder for the divine and God became more of a necessary piece in the rational universe. According to Marion this "God of the philosophers and savants" can no longer be the revealed God that judaism and christianity has confessed to but an idol created in the image of man. Therefore, Marion goes on the search for the “God beyond Being”, the God who is infinitely different and other than his creation. One can describe Marions project as exercises in apophatic or “negative” theology with the tools of phenomenology. All of which aims at describing something at the center of faith that he believes it is impossible to completely describe, and that the attempt to do so will not get you closer to what you are looking for but actually further away. For him metaphysics represents the hubris of conforming everything, and thus also God, to the conditions of man. And this can only make idols in mans own image, never reach the divine. How then does God show himself? This is answered by Marion with his description of “saturated phenomena”. Phenomenologically speaking everything that shows itself gives itself. Man is not the starting point nor the condition of possibility of what can show itself. God can thus give himself completely, without limit, and man experiences God without fully being able to make sense of the encounter. This encounter is the saturated phenomenon par excellence. Theologically speaking Marion pinpoints the encounter with God in what for him is the very center of the christian revelation namely the celebration of the eucharist which he describes as the hermeneutics of the eternal Word by itself. The theological/phenomenological vision of Marion has been wildly debated. In this essay I explore some critical responses to Marion from the english speaking world with a focus on his theological thinking. To do this I chose to present the main critical points made in respons to Marion by John Milbank, Graham Ward, Bruce Ellis Benson and James K.A. Smith. This critique is then discussed under three headings “embodiment”, “the divinity of Christ” and “knowledge of God”. In my judgment some of the critical points raised loose their force as they ignore the definitions Marion explicitly lays out and read too much into his discussions of the role of metaphysics in theological discourse. I also try to show that some of the critique becomes strange when one places Marion in the context of a self professed Roman Catholic whose theology reasonably should be seen as a contribution to (at least) that living tradition. Other times it is hard to asses Marions thought and the critique as you can choose what types of descriptions to emphasise and what to downplay. This is especially an issue with respect to what Marion calls the icon and its functions. Some of the critical points do seem valid to me and pose serious questions to Marions project as a whole, especially the way Marion wants to place knowledge of the divine in a separate category than other knowledge and the consequences this has for our ability to know and speak about God. In most Christian epistemology the inability for humans to know God is simultaneously because God is other than us and also because of sin, but this distinction is seemingly lost in Marions thought. Another difficulty is how to describe Jesus Christ as the incarnation of “God beyond being”. The tendency of Marion is to emphasise the hidden presence of God in Christ in such a strongly kenotic language that his theology runs the risk of falling into docetism.