A Few Thoughts on Sudduth’s Conversion to Hinduism

(Update: Apparently I  confuse Michael Sudduth with Michael Butler. My apologies!). But anyway, most people these days know Sudduth from his recent book The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology. He’s converted to Hinduism. Read his own testimony here.

Events such as these remind us of a number of things. But three are worth pointing out:  (1) the self-destruction of today’s “Christian philosophy,” (2) the importance of prioritizing theology ahead of philosophy, (3) Eastern religions are alive and well in the West, and can easily have their impact on a variety of Christian circles. I’ll comment mainly on the first two.

What’s sad is not even that Sudduth left Christianity – but that so many Christians held up his approach to studying philosophy in the first place: the truncating of the “love of wisdom” (as the Trinity defines it) into generally impersonal analytic philosophy. Yes, as you’ve heard me assert many times before, “Christian philosophy” and “analytic philosophy done by a Christian” today are almost seen as synonymous, and that’s very unfortunate. From my gatherings of the scene, you’re just not cool if what you want to say about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics can’t be put into a formula, and if you plan to get a degree in philosophy from a Christian institution, you’ll probably master the principles of logic and rules of inference before demonstrating a working knowledge of what God has said in His Word (ack!). Defining “love” and “wisdom” as God defines it is put on hold, or worse, never really sought after in the first place (and thus raises the good question as to whether theory and speculation is taking precedent over truth and theology in “Christian philosophy,” and if it is, why we call it “Christian philosophy” at all).

Thus, we see realities like: (1) Alvin Plantinga is considered the greatest Christian philosopher alive by many – a  libertarian freewillist Molinist whose primary/most popular work is the establishment that belief in God is properly basic. Big deal? Not if you ask me. But many believe so because Plantinga demonstrated that Christians can put up a challenge to secular philosophies (epistemologies). By challenging unbelievers on their own terms, “Christian philosophers” now have to be taken seriously and enter with confidence into the academic world (or so the argument goes)…(2) Bill Craig (another often considered “the greatest Christian philosopher” alive) can make such comments as “Van Til, for all his insights,was not a philosopher” (see Five Views) and people actually believe him, regardless of the facts. Van Til has written extensively on matters of epistemology etc. and has a PhD in Philosophy from Princeton University, etc. So what Craig and others of today’s “Christian philosophers” really mean is either one or both of the following: (a) Van Til’s work has far too much theology to be considered “philosophy,” or (b) Van Til’s work is not refined, analytical and formulaic enough to be considered “philosophy” (note that there exists efforts to bring Van Til up to speed, such as James Anderson who “has a longstanding concern to bring the Reformed theological tradition into greater dialogue with contemporary analytic philosophy.” RTS faculty bio – Anderson’s efforts aren’t inherently bad of course, I’m just noting them). Both assumptions are false, unless we assume that philosophy cannot be rigorously biblical, or cannot be anything but analytic philosophy. And that demonstrates the trend: analytic philosophy dominates, and our whole worldview may depend on it. As Craig himself said on one particular issue:

Unlike some other writers on the attributes of God, I am convinced that the best tool we have for really understanding what is meant by the affirmation that God is eternal is not poetry or piety, but analytic philosophy…unfortunately, today’s theologians generally have next to no training in philosophy and science and so are ill-equipped to address in a substantive way the complex issues raised by God’s eternity.

The problem, of course, is that while you can master modal logic and analytic philosophy as one evaluates “complex issues,” he remains so detached and aloft from the standard of Scripture and his personal worship of the Triune God that…well, there might not be much to prevent him from leaving Christianity. Hence Oliphint, Van Til Professor of Apologetics at Westminster (in responding to Craig):

Why should we agree with the author that the “best tool we have” for understanding God’s eternity is analytic philosophy? Does that mean, as it surely seems to, that the best tool we have for understanding God is analytic philosophy? If so, that would be quite a shock to the thousands upon thousands of theologians who, because untimely born, never had access to the pearls of wisdom offered by this twentieth-century philosophical oyster. Not only so, but, if true, this means that God’s own revelation of himself is, at best, secondary and, at worst, relatively useless in our pursuit to discover what God is like; analytic philosophy can accomplish that without any need of what God himself has told us about his character.

…It is the task of theology to deal with the most fundamental problems and issues of the universe. Theology’s task is to help us understand who God is, how he relates to us and to the world, what pleases him, who we are, and so on. Those questions, contra many modern-day philosophers, need to be answered within the context first of all of what God has said. (Reasons for Faith, 187-189)

So, yeah, it’s not terribly surprising that a “Christian philosopher” can jump ship and give his life to Lord Krishna, given how disconnected “Christian philosophy” is these days from the very foundations of Christianity: theology. Gabriel Fluhrer observed precisely what we would expect:

I had the privilege of participating in a PhD seminar devoted entirely to the study of Sudduth’s critically acclaimed work The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology. After I finished the book and the course, I concluded that Sudduth was a brilliant philosopher but an exceedingly poor theologian.

But, I really think it’s sad that this is even possible (if it is possible). How could a truly brilliant philosopher be a “poor theologian”? Again, I understand the thrust of what Gabriel is saying, but I think we are giving up too much by allowing philosophy to be somewhat autonomous and disconnected from its very roots: God and His Word. The fact is, there exists no true philosophy apart from true theology, as Bavinck, Van Til and others have asserted through and through. And so, whether we like it or not, there exists no true philosopher apart from a true theologian.

Sudduth, then, is a philosopher who said things that may be true and even helpful for the church to some degree. But I think it’s high time to stop redefining “philosophy” and “Christian philosophy” according to today’s norm, and define it as it should be: the love of wisdom – and that means the love of wisdom as God defines both love and wisdom.