Crossing the Threshold to Eternity: The Legacy of William James Abraham (1947–2021)
Published Online: Apr 28, 2023
Page range: 2 - 15
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/holiness-2023-0002
Keywords
© 2023 Daniel Pratt Morris-Chapman, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The death of William James Abraham (1947–2021) has been felt in circles Methodists can scarcely imagine. His ecumenical impact may be glimpsed in the tributes offered at his remembrance service, where Orthodox, Pentecostal, Anglican, Presbyterian and Catholic Christians bade him farewell.
‘Billy Abraham Memorial Service - October 30th, 2021’ For example see: William J. Abraham,
Born in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, on 19 December 1947, Abraham did not have an easy start to life. The death of his father, a farmer and day labourer, when Abraham was still a toddler left the task of raising him and his five brothers to his mother. However, the local Methodist church was very present in its pastoral care, which included gifts of money, clothing and even shoes. The church also gave his mother welcome relief when she sent this band of brothers off, on a single bicycle – ‘one on the handlebars, one on the bar, one on the seat and one on the outer nuts of the rear wheel’ – to its Sunday school. A gifted child, at the age of eleven Abraham was admitted to Portora Royal Grammar School (a school whose alumni included figures such as Oscar Wilde, Samuel Beckett, and many others). From there he went on to take a BA in philosophy at Queen's University (Belfast), an MDiv at Asbury Theological Seminary (Kentucky) and a PhD in the ‘logic of historical enquiry’ at Oxford University.
His doctoral studies were supervised by Basil Mitchell, an important philosopher of religion and Newman commentator. Abraham narrates that the first year of his doctoral studies at Oxford were spent roaming all over the university ‘relishing lectures in everything’ (Wittgenstein, Sociology, Archaeology) before he ‘finally settled into work on the logic of historical enquiry’ – spending ‘60% of his time’ in the Bodleian library.‘ William James Abraham Tribute,
While his academic development, particularly his love for philosophy, continued to grow over time, his Christian pilgrimage was far less smooth. By his mid-teens Abraham became an atheist because, philosophically, he could not ‘conceive of the reality of God.’ However, ever so gradually he began to work through these difficulties and became immersed in both the Bible and the life and writings of John Wesley, whose peculiar evangelical-Catholic synthesis ‘opened up a lane in to the classical Christian tradition.’
Abraham, ‘Faraway Fields Are Green,’ 166–171. Ibid.
After the completion of his doctoral studies at Oxford he pastored churches in Glencairn, a ‘heavy drinking’ working-class suburb of Belfast (1977–1978), Irvinestown (1978–1980) and Cullybackey (1982–1984).
Ibid. He spent a further year (1984–1985) in Seattle before moving to Perkins. Following his retirement he was asked to start a new seminary in Baylor (2020–21) where there is now an ‘ Like Saint John Henry Newman, it seems he considered the work of a lecturer to be a pastoral office. He always replied to email enquiries from students interested in his work – even admitting that he was wrong if they found an inconsistency in his thought. For further comparison see: Roderick Strange, ‘Newman the Pastor,’ Paul L. Gavrilyuk, ‘In Memoriam: William James Abraham (1947–2021)’,
Abraham was a controversialist. He never shied away from a theological argument. Those unaccustomed to his work may think, on turning the pages, that they had entered a pub in one of the rougher parts of Belfast. His arguments could be pointed and he never pulled his punches when he felt the truth of the gospel was at stake.
The following illustrates how the common perception of Abraham fails to appreciate the depth of his character: Bridget Anderson, ‘Worthy Opponents: Susanne Scholz and Billy Abraham’
Imagine visiting Ireland with a map of the United Kingdom. Think of a time (before Google) in which you are entirely dependent, for all you know about Ireland, on that which is delineated on this UK map. The problem here is that the map only contains information about Northern Ireland. As a result you know nothing, from the map, about anywhere in the south. Now imagine that you concluded from this that you would only trust the information on the map – regardless of what you saw with your eyes, regardless of the people you met, regardless of anything else; you determined that this map would be your sole guide. On this basis you would clearly have a faulty view of Ireland. Indeed, the absurd presupposition of a criteria like this would cut you off from the great beauty of the Emerald Isle. However, if you embraced not only the map, but all the sights, smells, and people that you encountered, you would have a much richer view of Ireland as a whole. William Abraham's vision of Christianity is a lot like this.
William J. Abraham,
Forged in Northern Ireland,
Abraham, ‘Faraway Fields Are Green,’ 162; William J. Abraham, William J Abraham, ‘Saving Souls in the Twenty-First Century’ For a powerful discussion of the difficulty in making the scriptures the sole (theological/epistemological) criterion of all Christian doctrine see: William J. Abraham, The drive to get the epistemology right and to show that we are in the right and the other fellow in the wrong is intimately related to the divisions that break out in the church over time.
Abraham,
Abraham interprets these terrible divisions in the church as having an epistemological root. Highlighting particularly the division between Protestants and Catholics, Abraham maintains that the basic problem is that they ‘failed’ to reach a consensus about what they believed to be the epistemological role played by Scripture and tradition and, tragically, ‘took to killing one another.’
Abraham, For an extended discussion see: Abraham,
Abraham takes a totally different approach. He believes epistemological conceptions of the Bible to be ‘bankrupt’ and instead views the Scriptures as a means of grace, its treasures daily food for our hearts and minds.
Abraham, The sacraments, the scriptures, the creed, the canon of the Fathers, and the like, I am suggesting, were construed as materials and practices which fed the soul, which mediated the life of God, which returned human beings to their true destiny as children of God, and which ultimately led to a life of sanctity. Alternatively we might say that they were seen as gifts of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church, intended to bring about participation in the life of God through the working of the same spirit, who guided the church in their selection and use … as medicine to heal the sickness of the world.
Abraham,
Abraham believed these canons, when understood correctly, can bring about renewal and revival in the church.
For further discussion on this point see: William J. Abraham, This resonates with the position taken by Pope Benedict XV (prior to his ascendency to the Papacy). For further discussion see: Joseph Ratzinger,
Abraham's canonical theism is groundbreaking, but it is also important to acknowledge that there are a number of difficulties facing this proposal. One of the challenges for a canonical theism is that (lamentably) it remains, thus far, a ‘paper religion’.
For further discussion see: Daniel Pratt Morris-Chapman, ‘Canon, criterion and circularity: An analysis of the epistemology of canonical theism,’ For a possible application of this proposal for renewal in relation to British Methodism see: Daniel Pratt Morris-Chapman, For an extended comparison of these writers see: Daniel Pratt Morris Chapman, Matthew Levering, ‘William Abraham and St. Thomas Aquinas,’
Abraham's general theological and ecclesiological orientation leads him to take a distinctive epistemological position.
Abraham, The phrase ‘epistemological particularism’ was first coined by Roderick Chisholm, [It] has long been the claim … in epistemology [that] you cannot know if any proposition is true unless you [first] have the correct method or criterion for determining what is true. Of course, you then have to find the right [meta-criterion] second-order method to determine this first-order method, and on and on William J. Abraham,
Therefore, in contrast to theological reductionists, who would narrow the canonical heritage of the Church catholic to the confines of a presupposed criteria, Abraham begins instead with the faith of the church (canonical theism)
The faith of the undivided church of antiquity until the schism between East and West (1054 AD). I want to explore a network of basic observations on the logic of canonical theism that brings into sharp relief the particular insights that relate to the justification of canonical theism. I want to identify features of what is on offer so that we shall have an appropriate sense of the kinds of considerations that are relevant to its truth or falsehood.
Abraham,
His aim here is to expose/uncover the ‘epistemic suggestions’ which ‘lie below the surface of canonical theism.’
Abraham,
In a manner which resonates profoundly with Saint John Henry Newman's theological use of Aristotle's work,
For an extended discussion of Abraham's philosophical connection to Newman, see: Pratt Morris Chapman, If the reader believes they smell a parallel with Wittgenstein here they may benefit from reading William Alston's essay on language games: William Alston, ‘Taking the Curse of Language Games: A Realist Account of Doxastic Practices’ Abraham,
In a landmark text published in this field, It has been commonplace in epistemology … to explore in detail the epistemology of particular academic disciplines. The epistemology of science, for example, has received the lion's share of interest; but attention has also been given to mathematics, history, aesthetics, and ethics. The crucial warrant for these later developments goes back to Aristotle's insistence … [that] we should fit our epistemic evaluations in an appropriate way to the subject matter under investigation. As a result, we do not expect historical claims to be evaluated by the kind of arguments that would apply to mathematics and the natural sciences. Surprisingly – given the attention directed to theological claims and the wealth of materials in both theology and philosophy – this principle has not been systematically explored in the case of theology [...] By epistemology of theology, we mean a critical enquiry of appropriate epistemic concepts and theories in or related to theology. This involves examining and articulating what counts as appropriate epistemic evaluation in theology. The wide-ranging nature of this kind of enquiry can be seen in the following distinction. On the one hand [it] focuses on standard epistemic concepts that are usually thought of as questions about norms and sources of theology (e.g. reason; experience; tradition; scripture; revelation). On the other hand, it explores some general epistemic concepts that can be related to theology.
William J Abraham & Fred Aquino, ‘Introduction’, in W. Abraham & F. Aquino (eds.),
Inspired particularly by John Henry Newman's use of Aristotle's Pratt Morris-Chapman, Abraham,
What is distinctive in Abraham's approach to theological epistemology is that his orientation is diametrically opposed to that taken by many other philosophers of religion who begin with a general theory of rationality and justification and then apply this criterion to theism.
Abraham, With Aristotle I have insisted that we should accept the principle of appropriate epistemic fit. We should let the subject matter in hand shape what kinds of considerations should be brought to bear on the rationality of the issue under review.
Abraham,
Thus, as it would be folly to evaluate good poetry with quadratic equations, Abraham believes theologians should examine the validity of their claims in a manner appropriate to the subject in hand. In a manner analogous to Newman, who used this principle to exhibit what he believed to be the intrinsic logic undergirding Christian history,
For further discussion see: John Henry Newman, He writes: ‘I plan to delineate the contours of an ongoing research program that could well constitute the beginnings of a new field within the discipline of theology.’ William J Abraham, Abraham, Abraham, William J. Abraham, ‘Church’ The title of many of his publications illustrates his wide-ranging (particularist) application of these epistemological tools: William J. Abraham, ‘Epistemological Significance of the Inner Witness of the Holy Spirit,’
At this juncture it is important to highlight that there are a whole host of other possibilities here that were not explored by Abraham before he was taken from us. For example, given the depth of his ecumenical vision, it is unfortunate that he had not yet applied the concept of Aristotelian epistemic fit more fully to the subject of ecumenical dialogue. With regard to the latter, it would be interesting to see how this epistemological principle might be used in uncovering a ‘logic’ of unity between, say, Methodists and Catholics.
For further discussion see: Daniel Pratt Morris-Chapman, ‘Newman, Wesley and the Logic of Unity: An Inductive Ecumenism,’ Immediately before he passed, I had organised to meet Prof Abraham in order to discuss a research proposal of this nature with him. I really wish I had gotten the chance to speak with him and to meet him in person.
As a theologian Abraham is firmly committed to the project of analytic theology. Indeed, his keynote address, as a part of the first symposium explicitly
This analytic approach to theology is anticipated in a volume published during the nineteen fifties that was edited by Abraham's doctoral supervisor. For further discussion see: Basil Mitchel, ed. William J. Abraham, ‘Systematic Theology as Analytic Theology’ Analytic theology can usefully be defined [as] systematic theology attuned to the development of the skills, resources, and virtues of analytic philosophy. It is the articulation of the central themes of Christian teaching illuminated by the best insights of analytic philosophy.
Oliver D. Crisp,
Implicit within the extract above is the particularist orientation highlighted in the previous section. Put simply, Abraham believes that the tools of analytic philosophy should be used as a handmaiden. Abraham believes that theology should begin from within the church, from a commitment to the faith of the church contained in the canonical heritage.
Abraham, ‘Systematic Theology as Analytic Theology,’ 54–55. Oliver D. Crisp, For further discussion see: Michael Rea, ed. Abraham maintains that analytic theology is not about being ‘philosophical theologians’ so much as being theologians who use ‘philosophy in a fruitful manner.’ While Abraham is by no means the only theologian who takes this declarative approach, his robust vision of God, coupled with the epistemological rigor of his work, means that a key aspect of his legacy may be that of enabling analytic theology to maintain this course, in what he terms ‘the tradition of Saint Basil,’ in future. For further discussion see: William J. Abraham, ‘Turning Philosophical Water into Theological Wine,’
At this juncture it is important to acknowledge a possible criticism, which immediately jumps out to those unacquainted with Abraham's epistemological work. Indeed, it might be assumed that he jumps the gun, ‘plunging … straight into the content of Christian theology’ without first offering a justification of the validity of theological truth claims.
Abraham, ‘Systematic Theology as Analytic Theology,’ 66–67. Abraham, Abraham, Abraham, For further discussion see: Chisholm, Pyrronhism offers an example of this: Richard Hankinson, ‘Pyrrhonism,’ For further discussion see: Roderick Chisholm, ‘Sextus Empiricus and Modem Empiricism.’ Philosophy of Science 8 (1941) 371–384.
Having introduced his basic approach to analytic theology, l want to highlight a key feature of Abraham's approach to analytic theology: his focus upon divine action. Essentially, he defines theology as reflection upon ‘what God has done’ which he considers to be an apt ‘description for theology proper.’
Abraham, What emerges when we stand inside the canonical heritage of the church and seek to indicate the fundamental category in play when we think and speak of God. Nothing less than construing God as an agent is sufficiently felicitous. I would say exactly the same about the doctrine of the Trinity. Indeed, I think that one advantage of thinking about God as an agent is precisely that the concept of agent is a sufficiently open enough concept to be stretched to include a Tri-Personal Agent who is the object of our adoration and service.
Abraham,
The subjects of Divine and Human action were of interest to Abraham from the time he was an undergraduate at Belfast, where he won the Peele prize for an essay on human action.
Gavrilyuk, ‘In Memoriam,’ 11–14. William J. Abraham, ‘Divine Action and History’ (University of Oxford. Faculty of Theology, 1977). William J. Abraham, Abraham, Abraham,
A central theme running through Abraham's tetralogy on Abraham, Of late, a number of writers have reflected on this topic: Mark Murphy, Abraham, Abraham, Abraham, Abraham, It is important to grasp our mode of thinking here. We are not starting out with some vision of the human agent and then adding a network of great-making properties in order to come up with a bigger and better version of human agents. Nor are we projecting a superlative image of ourselves on to the universe. We are seeking as best we can to articulate what we encounter and see once we immerse ourselves in the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and go on to stand within the deep, canonical faith of the church. This happens initially in Christian initiation and then in the work of systematic theology. Beyond that we are in search of an apt conception of the divine that can help us negotiate our intellectual conversion and that will provide appropriate background assumptions in our systematic theology and in our worship and service to the Living God. In traditional terms we are still working in the mode of faith seeking understanding.
Abraham,
Thus, at a foundational level, Abraham considers that analytic theology must begin with an open concept of divine action. It must not presuppose narrow stipulations concerning what God can or cannot do. It must instead begin with ‘what God has done. This is simply another description for theology proper.’
Abraham,
The array of premodern thinkers (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant) discussed by Abraham is impressive. Focusing upon writers antecedent to the modern period, Abraham discusses Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, Augustine of Hippo, Maximus the Confessor, Symeon the New Theologian, Thomas Aquinas, Teresa of Avila, John Calvin and Luis de Molina. However, though he covers a lot of ground, the reader can find their bearings in his recapitulation of a central theme: the relationship between divine and human agency. Abraham's objective, in surveying the rich contours of the Christian tradition prior to the Enlightenment, is to understand the nature of divine action more fully in order to enhance our vision of the nature of God; to open ‘up vistas on divine action in the history of Christian theology that can operate as paradigms of salutary reflection.’
Abraham,
In his discussion of Symeon the New Theologian, Abraham examines the question of apostolic succession. Here he is interested particularly in the relationship between human agents (such as bishops) serving an institutional church and the action of the Holy Spirit in and through them.
Abraham, We might express the import of this interpretation by insisting that the work of the Holy Spirit is free to mediate the full treasures of salvation outside episcopal succession. Put in other terms … it is not that the Holy Spirit operates only fully and even exclusively through the channels of the ‘institutional church.’
Abraham,
Put simply, if we centre divine agency exclusively within the institutional church, our understanding of God might lead us to believe that those who remain outside that church are eternally damned. Though he does not mention Wesley at this juncture, it is clear that Abraham is shaped by his Methodist roots in taking up this position.
Taking things to another level, Wesley ‘ordained’ Thomas Coke to go as ‘superintendent’ to America. For further discussion see: William J. Abraham, Abraham, Abraham, His thought is clearly informed by Wesley in this regard: William Abraham, Abraham, Abraham,
Having explored the rich treasures of the Christian tradition up until the modern period, Abraham proceeds in volume three to offer a clear account of Christian teaching (theology proper) that can equip church leaders and build up the faithful:
Systematic theology is related to the formation of clergy just as medicine is tied to the formation of doctors. If we do not have robust formation in systematic theology, we will ensure widespread malpractice in the church …. I mean here a systematic theology that avoids being distracted by the host of ancillary questions, say, in exegesis, history, epistemology … and the like. I desire to speak directly and frankly about God.
Abraham,
Here systematic theology is not focused upon biblical exegesis, neither is it engaged primarily with epistemological questions, it is envisaged rather as post-baptismal (for members of the church), university-level catechesis and is drawn from the whole range of canonical materials.
Abraham,
Within the canonical heritage, particularly the creeds, Abraham identifies a ‘network of divine actions neatly summarized in terms of creation, freedom, fall, redemption, and consummation.’
Abraham, Scripture, the biblical canon, it will be said, is the foundation, the criterion for Christian theology. If I am right [then] this claim is clearly false. I am claiming that the church officially adopted its doctrines without first coming up with a Bible and then developing the former from the latter.
Abraham,
This clearly marks a departure from his Protestant roots and situates Abraham's proposals in a terrain which many evangelicals fear to tread. To be absolutely clear, Abraham remained evangelical to the very end. However, he recognised that the canon of scripture was discerned using the creeds and other antecedent materials which precede the Scriptures chronologically in the church's canonical heritage. Though this may sound radical, it is refreshing for anyone aware of the challenges raised by textual criticism. In this regard, Abraham offers an important challenge to writers like Ehrman who reject Christianity because they claim that the Bible was edited by the early church.
A classic example is: Bart Ehrman, The more plausible explanation is that folk felt secure enough in the faith of the church to fix what they considered to be a wayward text here and there that they had received.
Abraham,
Essentially Abraham argues that, while ‘theology lives off scripture,’ systematic theology ‘goes beyond its treasures’ in that it offers a ‘full bodied articulation of the central themes’ of the Christian faith.
Abraham,
In volume four, his final publication, Abraham tentatively engages with issues that touch upon contextual theology when exploring some of the metaphysical questions that arise in theology.
Abraham, Over the past several decades, scholars working in biblical, theological, and religious studies have increasingly attended to the substantive ways in which our experiences and understanding of God, and of God's relation to the world, are (partially) structured by our experiences and concepts of race, gender, disability, and sexuality. These personal and social identities and their intersections (for better or worse) serve as hermeneutical lenses for our interpretations of God, self, others, and our religious texts and traditions. However, these topics have not received the same level of attention from analytic theologians as other more traditional topics, and so a wide range of important issues remains ripe for analytic treatment.
Michael Rea, ed.
This criticism is warranted in that much analytic theology, undertaken by wealthy white individuals, has been untouched (empirically) by many of these issues.
Sarah Coakley's work might perhaps be considered as an exception: Sarah Coakley,
While exploring the concept of ‘Divine Action’ in relation to the ‘Preferential Option for the Poor’ Abraham questions why liberation theologians assume that the poor are in a privileged (epistemological) position when it comes to accessing both the (1) truth about their oppression and the (2) truth about God. He writes:
The claim that the poor have privileged access to the truth about the root causes of poverty is weak … What about the claim that the poor as a community provide us with privileged access to the truth about the content of scripture? … We now have to leave scripture and go ask the poor for guidance … Aside from the fact that the study of scripture will involve significant expertise in the field of biblical studies, we will have to rely on reports supplied by liberation theologians to find out what the poor are telling us about divine action in liberation ... The idea of serious, independent evidence has evaporated.
Abraham,
There are serious problems with Abraham's position at this juncture. First of all, as has been highlighted above, Abraham repeatedly advocates that we begin an enquiry with particular knowledge claims and then formulate criteria to evaluate that knowledge. At its heart, this particularist epistemological orientation acknowledges that everyone, whoever they are, has some knowledge and can legitimately begin an enquiry with these knowledge claims in hand. His adoption of this position, in a wide range of publications, makes his pseudo-evidentialist critique of the epistemological vantage point of the oppressed (above) curious. While it might be an exaggeration to suggest that they acquire a privileged epistemological position, they surely do have some empirical knowledge about who is tangibly causing their oppression – scars and wounds that an outsider simply does not possess.
First of all, there is no reason why a liberation theologian could not adopt a particularist orientation which acknowledges the acute knowledge of oppression possessed by the poor. This knowledge could legitimately be presupposed at the start of a work on liberation theology without requiring that the oppressed become professors in Western philosophical departments. As a safeguard, this knowledge could be situated within the network of epistemic platitudes outlined by Abraham himself in his very fine work For a list of these platitudes see: Abraham, For an epistemological particularist approach to liberation theology see: Daniel Pratt Morris-Chapman,
While the above may appear to suggest that Abraham fails to meet the challenge set down by figures like Rea, his analysis of the relationship between divine and human action is incisive. He poses the following question: ‘What does it mean to say that God liberates the oppressed?’ He writes:
The claim that God is liberating such groups is clear. We have a specific action verb, ‘liberate,’ and a specified agent, ‘God’; so, all looks well and good. However, this is but the beginning; we now need to provide more detailed specification. This is so because liberation is a polymorphous activity. Like teaching and farming we need to identify the actions down the line that constitute liberation … we now need to know what are the specific acts of God that constitute the master act of divine liberation. Yet liberation theology makes a sudden turn in a radically different direction at this point.
Abraham,
Here Abraham offers an important observation in that, rather than expound the nature of divine action in liberation, theologians operating within this area of contextual theology prefer to examine the systematic causes of poverty and oppression. Thus, the important theological work, of analysing the way in which God is active in this liberation, is entirely absent.
Abraham,
One possible reason for the lack of focus on divine agency in this important theological tradition, and the great emphasis that it places upon human agency, is perhaps (accidently) due to its connection to philosophical variations of Marx and Gramsci, whose atheism was no secret. However, at this juncture Abraham is right to observe that liberation theologians needn’t subscribe wholesale to atheism, Marxism, or Gramsci in order to analyse the ‘causal mechanisms that underwrite the oppression’ under discussion. Abraham thus states that ‘Marx’ is indeed useful, and is indeed ‘correct in identifying capitalism as the root cause of poverty.’ However, while he acknowledges this point he believes this theological tradition should engage in more serious reflection on the role played by God in liberation:
God and divine action have suddenly disappeared from the scene of the action. Once we go in search of the causal mechanisms that bring about poverty, we are already introducing human agency into our vision of liberation.
Abraham,
In sum, while these writers emphasise that God is a liberating God, once they identify what is needed for liberation it is human action which takes centre stage. Abraham tries to resolve this problem by proposing a distinction between ‘primary and secondary’ actions of God or even a kind of ‘double-agency’ in which liberation is ‘both an act of God and an act of human agents.’ However, whatever the solution, Abraham is right to identify this difficulty, and it seems this difficulty is rooted in the (accidental) presupposition of an atheistic philosophical outlook which, if modified, could readily be utilized in the service of this important theological tradition.
Abraham,
When a thinker impacts so many lives, in so many different ways, we owe it to them to try to discern the contours of their work for future research. I anticipate that Abraham's contribution will be important for many years to come. Nevertheless, the attempt to summarise the work of a man whose publications span more than four decades is clearly folly on my part. His influence—ecumenical, philosophical and theological—extends far beyond the green fields of Ireland and it is far wider than the Methodist tradition he called his home. Fortunately, for my sake, his legacy is not dependent upon human hands (Eph 3:20).
On a personal note, although I never met him, his written words have changed my life.