Chapter 2: The issue of religious and theological language
2.5 Realism and McFague's metaphorical theology
McFague's metaphorical approach to theology raises the issue of realism. A convincing argument for a metaphorical theology is that it takes worldviews into consideration.
McFague's body of God model may change the way human beings view the natural order. This is its great strength. But does this mean that reality is only a construct of the mind, or is there really something out there?
Realism is the view that objects that exist and are under investigation are independent of the mind (Craig 2000: 744). Realism therefore relates particularly well to physical facts. For example, the amount of people living in a country is a fact. Atoms and molecules do exist.
There are a certain number of planets in the solar system.
Realists believe, metaphysically speaking, there are fixed ontological realities to which human beings may refer and the manners in which humans construct reality bridge them with the world. As the researcher understands it, this means realists attempt to connect Kant's
noumenal and phenomenal realities. The realist position affirms that different paradigms must be compatible, because they are orientated towards the same ontological reference points (Greer 2003: 242).
Critical realism is a realist position (Barrett 2000: 135). According to this approach the subject matter or object under investigation is not merely a construct of the mind, but exists externally to it. This type of realism is critical, because it affirms the notion that the mind provides
"conceptual filters" in order to acquire knowledge of the subject matter or object (: 10).
Critical realism is contrary to naive realism, which proposes that the mind's models and the reality, to which they refer, correspond precisely. Critical realism therefore acknowledges that knowledge is provisional.
Kaufman acknowledges the importance of metaphors in theological discourse, but stresses the need to de-reify those that may lead to oppressive situations (1993b: 95-115).
Antirealism denies the realist position (Craig 2000: 744). It maintains that there are no
onto logical reference points and reality is simply a construct of the mind. There is therefore no reality outside of the mind. As the researcher understands this position, antirealists remain in Kant's phenomenal reality . Antirealism is an appropriate epistemological position for postmodern thought, because it does not assume an absolute, external reality.
How do these insights relate to McFague's theological method? She insists her metaphorical theology uses metaphors and models that do not describe reality or God. Moreover, a metaphor or model's purpose is not to achieve logical accuracy, but to alter how human beings view reality. The advantage to such an approach is it offers the theologian a wide scope for imagining the G-W relationship, but what are the limits to this? More specifically, does a metaphor alter a human being's worldview or is it God's grace that achieves this? This concern relates to the issue of conversion. Does a gracious God initiate a conversion process in the self s life or is it a metaphor that does this? In other words, does God have a role in influencing how human beings view the natural order? McFague does not appear to be clear on these issues. She insists it is metaphors that determine how human beings relate to the natural environment. From this perspective the body of God model appears to be a form of antirealism.
McFague, as will be shown, believes God is permanently incarnated and that incarnation is a part of God's very nature. She appears to endorse a form of general revelation in this regard.
This would imply that McFague does acknowledge the notion of God beyond the mind. The idea of God revealing Him or Herself needs to be integrated into McFague's theological method in order to respond to projectionist theorists who claim God is simply a projection1 of the human mind with all its longings, desires and intentions . By stressing divine revelation and the role of metaphor, McFague's epistemology may then be adapted to a critical realist position. If this adaptation is not made to McFague's metaphorical theology it will remain on the phenomenal side of reality. J. Bracken highlights the danger to such an approach,
9 Antirealism thus appears to be a close cousin of idealism. The idealist would assert that mind is the fundamental reality and that physical reality is dependent on it even if a reality beyond the mind is proposed (Sprigge 2000: 379).
10 C. Gunton defines projection as, "the function of descriptive language as not so much describing the world as projecting upon it patterns of interpretation" (1992: 66). He argues there is a large degree of this in McFague's metaphorical theology.
1' D. Bromell believes a metaphorical theology does not prove, "that there is, independent of our projection of possibilities, 'a personal, gracious power who is on the side of life'" (1993: 499).
For, taken literally, this metaphorical approach to theology effectively confines the discipline to a phenomenology of religious experience which says nothing about God as the reality to which religious experience ultimately refers (2002: 365).
These reflections merely signify the danger for any metaphorical theology. There appears to be sufficient resources in McFague's theology to modify the body of God model so that it
becomes a critical realist position, for example her use of incarnational theology . This will be addressed in the study's theological reflection. It is not within the scope of the study to modify McFague's metaphorical theology. The researcher has merely indicated one of the dangers to her theological method: the body of God model's bias towards antirealism.
Conclusion
Two criteria were formulated to address the validity of McFague's metaphorical theology. It was argued that theological language should balance primary-religious and secondary-
theological language. This is necessary so as to emphasise the conceptual aspect of theological discourse. Moreover, theological language should be of such a nature that it addresses the paradox of God. Aquinas's doctrine of analogy and Tillich's notion of religious language as symbolic are problematic vis-a-vis the two criteria for theological language. McFague's metaphorical meets these two criteria, but the researcher argued that it may be a form of antirealism. It was suggested that the notion of divine revelation needs to be stressed in McFague's theological method if it is to counter this charge.
12 M Taylor insists a metaphor takes similarity seriously and affirms the notion that there is a disclosure of the unknown even though language is often inadequate to understand this. He maintains a metaphorical theology should be both sacramental and prophetic (1984: 470). McFague appears to achieve this as will be shown in the section on cosmic Christology.