Professor David Burrell and I are honored to be here and to address this audience. We share deeply the conviction, the concerns and the spirit of generosity which you show in your vocation as theology students. In particular we admire profoundly your efforts to continue, to extend and to enrich your education in philosophy, economics, political science and other fields here at Mofid University. Islam in particular, but the world as a whole, will depend upon the vision you are able to develop during these years of study. Professor Burrell and I have spent our life times teaching students such as you, and searching along with our students to discover the deeper philosophical coordinates which will enable us to articulate our religious vision and render it operative in this world. So we come as brothers in faith and fellow wayfarers in the hope that our common journey will lead to the Holy Precincts.

The situation of change in which we stand opens new possibilities for our efforts. The greater the change the greater the opportunity. So it seems important to recall something of the dramatic character of the change in which we stand. At the present time there emerge dramatic differences. Whereas before, physical nature was considered something to be exploited by humankind, now we feel that nature is a gift of God that must be protected and promoted. Before, we thought of power in social life especially as coming from above: today we think much more of the power of the people, of the way in which God speaks to their hearts, of the way in which the Spirit lives within them, and hence of the way in which power emerges and rises upward. Before, we thought of women and minorities more as servants; today we appreciate then as partners.

But a still deeper and broader change is taking place, a change in the very way we see and interpret our world and ourselves. Everything now is seen differently, appreciated differently, and responded to differently. Hence to serve the faith today it is important to appreciate how we think and exercise reason in a new and more positive manner.

In the Christian scriptures this is the word that Mary used when the Angel appeared to her and told her that she was to be the mother of Jesus. She responded: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord." This was not to slight her human dignity; on the contrary it was her way of accepting to be a central cooperation in God’s work of redemption. It was the high point of humanity as it welcomed the message of the angel regarding the great Prophet who was to come. Salvation would not be something that simply happened to humankind, but something in which human kind played an active role. Hence, to speak of reason as the ancilla theologiae is to express the highest dignity of humanity.

By a Promethean Enlightenment this reference to reason and philosophy in the Middle Ages was misinterpreted as disrespect. Rather, the word "ancilla" is part of the prayer that is said three times daily in the Catholic tradition. Archetypically Mary’s response was the act in which humanity was most dignified by God and when humanity responded freely in her person to accept and to join actively the process of its redemption. To call philosophy the handmaid or ancilla of theology then is not to diminish it, but rather to indicate the greatness of human reason in the context of the faith. That was the spirit of faith and reason up to the middle of this millennium.

At about 1500 reason became radicalized, as is reflected in a number of exceptional philosophical moves. Previously work in philosophy always began from the wisdom of the predecessors; it was said that philosophy stood on the shoulders of the predecessors. In the middle of this millennium, however, we find that philosophers changed that relationship. Francis Bacon spoke of smashing the idols which bore the traditions of the people. John Locke spoke of erasing the contents of the mind in order that it be a blank tablet. Descartes, the Father of Modern Philosophy, began his system by suggesting that everything be put under doubt until we found one idea that could not be doubted. That would constitute the basis upon which philosophy could be reconstructed in a scientific manner. In other words, they went about removing the wisdom accumulated by reason through the ages and developed instead an asceptic laboratory in which would be allowed only ideas clear and distinct to the human mind. However, this mind is not unlimited as is God’s, but limited; only what was clearly dominated by that limited power was integrated into the modern human horizon. As a result the pattern of so-called Enlightenment reason removed the content of faith and developed a secular world. This has tended to look down upon anyone who proceeds on the basis of faith. Islamic nations have suffered more than most the sense of injustice in being depreciated because of their faith.

This is the tragedy of modern reason. We find then that this century, rather than becoming the great utopia created by science and human reason, has turned out to be bloody and destructive in the extreme. It has been marked by the "elimination" or killing of millions of people in holocausts and pogroms. Gradually people have begun to draw back before the recognition of this pattern of destruction. In order to keep reason from destroying humanity they have begun to negate reason itself, denying that it could have a foundation, that it could have universal and necessary knowledge, or that it could proceed according to well grounded principles. In effect, they have begun to deny reason itself in order to keep it from destroying humankind. This recalls the image of Samson chained to the pillars of his prison and who pulled those pillars down, bringing down upon him the devastating weight of the prison itself. This is something of the spirit of the moment as people today become doubtful, even fearful, of their own reason.

First, a note about John Paul II.

That was 1989. Now ten years later John Paul has written a document entitled "Faith and Reason" because it has become apparent that the problem was not only Marxism, but the Enlightenment as a whole. The present discouragement with reason is a reflection of the fundamental error made when reason turned only to itself as if it were the savior which only God could be.

The response of John Paul is in a sense surprising. He does not rejoice at being free at last from the hubris or pride of reason which had been so oppressive though the 400 years of the Enlightenment. Instead, he writes that in faith we know that human persons are images of God and possess reason given by God. Thus, he calls upon them to live up to this dignity in the exercise of their reason.

The inversion is dramatic. Where reason had always said that religion was unworthy of humankind and would disappear, now faith says to reason: do not despair, do not disappear. You are a gift of God, and you are needed; stand tall and be reason.

The document, called an "Encyclical," meaning that it is a letter sent around to all the Bishops of the world, proposes a method for the relation of faith and reason. It is the method employed in your studies here in Qum. The students begin their religious studies in the seminaries with a prayerful analysis of the Qu’ran and of the law. Then some come to the University to study one of the sciences, such as economics, political science or philosophy. Finally the two studies come together to generate a better theology or understanding in faith and of the faith. This indeed is what John Paul recommends as the proper interaction of faith and reason, namely, to begin with revelation, to follow with philosophy, and then to join the two for a better understanding of theology.

Revelation. Why begin with revelation? We know that humankind did not create, and cannot save, itself. So, in His goodness, God sent the Prophets who give us the Scriptures and the Qu’ran to tell us how we have been loved in our creation and about our great and exhalted destiny, namely, to live with God for all eternity. They open our sensibilities to the magnificence and munificence of God. They set for us a paradigm or archetype of human relations which is not the collision of atoms or even the laws of the market place where we buy and sell, but rather a vision of the love of the Creator which is shared in creating us and which we, in turn, should share in our life. This is the vision given to us by the Prophets; we should begin with that.

The message as lived becomes a tradition. It opens our sensibilities and provides the possibility for appreciating the way in which we are to live in our lives this creative love. It specifies the culture as a way in which our life can be cultivated or made to flourish.

Reason. It is at this point, after speaking about revelation and the way in which God has generously shared his life, that John Paul turns to the issue of philosophy. In this passage he does something magnificent. He points out that the human person has been created by a wise, loving and all-powerful God. What God made is not a defective creature; rather he has made the human person in his own image as one who can know and love. Hence, we can have confidence that God has given to us all that is required in order be able to think and to will as children of God who, in his image, are to rule this universe.

Thus, reason has its own autonomy; it can elaborate its own principles, and must follow its own pattern of reasoning. In doing this it is able to work out a philosophical vision that will enable persons to live as children of God and as His Vice-gerants in this world.

This is quite consistent with the vision of philosophy and theology in the Middle Ages, namely, that man has within himself all that is required in order to be fully human. Hence John Paul says to philosophers: have confidence in reason as an instrument that is truly worthy of Children of God.

In the experience of Islam you will remember how al-Ghazali was concerned about philosophy. It seemed to him that the key Islamic philosophers of his time were not able to develop a vision of the human person rich enough to correspond to the eschatology found in the Qu’ran. Faith tells us that the human person will be judged in the last day and will be resurrected for the last judgement and reward. But how could that be unless the human person is free and responsible? For Ghazali philosophy would have to have a much richer sense of the human person in order to provide for the human destiny described in the Qu’ran.

Pope John Paul does something similar. He says that reason must work in its own way and according to its own laws, but that it does so within the culture of a people inspired by The Book. This culture, inspired by revelation understands the human person as free and responsible, as living with dignity in confrontation with evil, and as having a transcendent goal in God himself. This invites reason to work better than it would if it did not have the context of faith.

There are some special characteristics of a philosophy so situated. It must be able to do some specific and proper tasks such as logical and phenomenological analysis, but it must be able also to bring these together in a wisdom that opens the mind to all of creation and to the Creator himself: it must be a wisdom.

Further, it must be not only subjective, looking into itself and seeing things the way one likes to see them. Rather, reason must be able to see and to say how things truly are: this is the God who is; this is the world that He has created; this is the human being to whom he has given such great responsibility. Also it must be a philosophy with a sense of will that is sufficiently open and exhalted to be able to respond in freedom and in love to the love of God by which it has been created. This is the vision of philosophy presented by John Paul II in his recent Encyclical, Faith and Reason.

Theology. Joining the divine message received by the Prophet with such a philosophy, one can proceed to develop a theology truly capable of providing guidance for humanity in this time of great change, great complexity and great promise.

In this light, it is possible to respond to two questions that concern us all.

I. Freedom. It has been asked whether attending to, and promoting, human freedom is not the wrong approach. Is it not freedom which causes all conflicts and evils in world, and is not the message of the Scriptures intended precisely to delimit this freedom?

In response I would ask: what is freedom? In the pattern delineated above, at the time of the Enlightenment the horizons of the human person came to be very focused on humanity and on what is clear and distinct to the human mind. There resulted an exclusion or rejection of the pattern of wisdom and of freedom which had evolved through the ages in the great religious traditions. Freedom shrunk and was reduced to the ability to do what one wants — which was to acquire physical goods and satisfaction. This is a very minimal notion of freedom, but a very common one.

To respond to this limitation of freedom to the first level in our day, there is need for philosophers, particularly those in the religious traditions, to go more deeply into what freedom is. At its third level freedom is the power of the children of God, in the concrete circumstances of their life, to be able to respond in love and thereby to create justice, harmony and peace.

Is there a principal in theology or in revelation which will speak to the problem of freedom? Yes, it is the whole of revelation; that is what revelation is about. The whole of theology is a process of wisdom; it is not only to defend one or another point. Rather theology as a wisdom; indeed the whole of religion is a vision in which, in their exercise of freedom, all persons come together to live as a holy people.

It is not then a question of restricting freedom, but of liberating freedom from the bonds of materialism and hedonism to which it has been subjected — not least, during these last 400 years. At this turn of the millennium a momentous change is taking place, as described above. As leaders in our faiths, for the first time in four centuries it has become possible to invert the process of secularization and to speak to what freedom really is. We can know that people will respond to that message because they have suffered enough and now are looking for new values and new sensibilities. That is my reading of the present and my hope for the future.

II. Relations between Religions. It has been asked whether the divisions in Christianity do not result in failure on the part of the Catholic Church to appreciate the work of such Protestant leaders as Martin Luther King.

It may help to note that the Protestant denominations are a reformation of the Catholic tradition. Between the two there is then the relationship of the initial, more positive and integrated vision in the Roman Church and a more critical, revolutionary attitude in the Protestant Churches. The Catholic Church has the great intellectual tradition of positive scholarship and of wisdom reflected in such thinkers as Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, which was reflected by the Islamic scholars Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd who contributed richly in turn. The Protestant tradition is much more critical; it sees human nature and reason as corrupted by original sin and therefore does not look to philosophy, but stays more exclusively with the Scriptures.

Is it possible to integrate the two; is there interest in doing this? There is both considerable interest and considerable difficulty. We know how when branches of a faith divide it is difficult to bring them back together. But there is something new in relation to the Christian division; indeed it reaches beyond the Christian traditions to Islam and to Buddhism, etc. During these last 10-15 years there has been a great change in attitude which now looks positively towards ways for cooperation and dialog. The great possibility is that these branches of Christianity and indeed the great religions of the world will increasingly contribute mutually one to another. I am very hopeful in this.

I do not experience the Catholic position as negative toward developments within other religions. Indeed, Martin Luther King and I both wrote our Ph.D. dissertations on the very same subject, and I feel with him a special bond of admiration and understanding. When determining my topic for a doctoral dissertation I first chose William of Ockham because Luther was among his followers. When I could not obtain the needed texts I chose Kierkegaard, a modernizing Protestant. But because there was so much secondary literature on the topic my director suggested Paul Tillich, a leading contemporary Protestant systematic theologian/philosopher. Since then there has been increasing positive interest in the thought of other Churches, for example, in scriptural studies where Protestant thought is advanced.

I would see this interest reaching beyond the Christian Churches to other religions as well. In 1969 I spent my first sabbatical studying Hindu philosophy in India. Interest in Buddhism as well as Islam is now quite considerable in Europe. This expansion of interest across the range of religions seems to be the direction for the future.

It would be a sign of loss of faith if this interest in another religion meant a lessening of commitment to one’s own. My own experience is that acquaintance with other cultures and religions can instead enable one to deepen the understanding of one’s own faith and inspire one to live in one’s own fashion a greater fidelity to God.

1. Ways to God, chs. II-VII.

2. Sept. 14, 1998.

3. The Acting Person (Analecta Husserliana) X; (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979).

4. "The Person: Subject and Community," Review of Metaphysics, 33 (1979/1980), 273-308.

5. The Idea of Freedom: A Dialectical Examination of the Conceptions of Freedom (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1958).