Confessing at the Altar

What is it about?

This paper responds to J. Aaron’s Simmons’ critique that James K. A. Smith's methodology for pentecostal philosophy promotes philosophical arrogance, insularity, and defensiveness because it allows theology to encroach on philosophy. When philosophy begins from theological beliefs, those that do not share the same theological beliefs cannot enter into dialogue since there exist incommensurable standards for evidence. In place of Smith’s confessional methodology, Simmons proposes a personal method that does not require confessional agreement, thus promoting philosophical dialogue across diverse confessional commitments. _x000D_ This paper provides a fuller account of the reasons for Simmons’ criticisms through exposition of his other works that address this topic. Specifically, the reasons for Simmons’ opposition to Smith’s methodology is identified as his commitment to a Thomistic view on the universal, but not neutral, availability of reason and new phenomenology’s commitment to only the possibility of religion rather than its actuality. It then responds to Simmons’ concern that confessional methodology promotes arrogance, insularity, and defensiveness, and then provides five responses to Simmons’ concern that confessional methodology discourages philosophical dialogue with those who hold to different confessional commitments. The paper concludes with reflections on the current state and the future of pentecostal philosophy._x000D_

Featured Image