“The first risk theology runs is not the risk of being judged wrong; it is the risk of being judged meaningless. There will always be those who reject the though of the involvement of the Absolute in the sufferings of Jesus, and will deny the truth of Christianity accordingly. But when positivism rejects theological propositions (along with ‘metaphysical’ doctrines) as candidates for inclusion in the class of propositions that may be true or false and so bear a meaning, then meaningfulness becomes the predominant question. With a speech that is ‘folly’ rationality seems to collapse, and the best thing to do is laugh at it, since it does not deserve the honor of a refutation. With a speech that is ‘scandal’ the faith and hope of Israel seem to be denied, and the only thing is to excommunicate those who have made it. . . . Christian theology will claim that its third language criticizes both the Greek logos and the Jewish logos (if one may speak of such a thing), but the price paid for its critical distance is extraordinarily high. Theology thinks that it alone knows what the most important words really mean: God, mankind, world, salvation, etc. etc. But it will have to persuade us that the language it deploys is intelligible, not senseless; that it is capable of giving men and women access to a community of reasonableness, not simply following the irrational free play of emotions.”
–Jean-Yves Lacoste, “More Haste, Less Speed in Theology,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 9:3 (2007): 271-272.
Comments are closed.