586 - The Crucial Task of Theology

The Crucial Task of Theology
By E. Ashby Johnson
217 pp. Richmond, Virginia, John Knox Press, 1958. $5.00.

There are very few books about theology written by contemporary theologians that display as clear an understanding of the questions being raised in philosophical circles about theology as this one. Dr. Johnson is just old fashioned enough to desire clear answers to clear questions, and he believes that theology, despite its renewed vigor, cannot afford to ignore these: on what subject does the theologian propose to speak, and what is the basis of his competence to speak in this area? In what sense are theological propositions true or false, and what is the commonly

agreed upon method which makes it possible to adjudicate differences when they arise? In short, what is the subject matter and scope and method of theology?

587 - The Crucial Task of Theology

With remarkable clarity, the author demonstrates the importance of these questions and attempts to deal with them systematically. If, in the last analysis, it cannot be said that he answers them satisfactorily (at least in this reviewer's opinion) the book deserves high praise because the reader is driven to formulate his own reply to them.

Chapters Two and Three constitute the heart of the matter: "The Scope of Theology" and "The Method of Theology." Theology is not to be understood as one limited branch of inquiry but is "the effort to incorporate and relate all forms of knowledge, natural and revealed, with the view to giving some intelligible answer to the question of the ultimate meaning of life" (p. 58). Hence, rational analysis, empirical induction, appeal to objective authority, reliance on insight through commitment, all play a role in theology. Theology's method is not a simple one but "a practical and common-sense synthesis of the results of a variety of methods of inquiry" (p. 90).

However wise this emphasis on synthesis might be, it makes it difficult for the author to give as adequate and precise a reply to the challenge to theology as he himself obviously desires. The variety of methods is so loose in specification that it is difficult to see what the author would allow as a decisive objection to a theological utterance.

The central problem is that of specifying the meaning of theological assertions. The author is impressed by the discussion of meaning in recent philosophical literature and writes, "if a statement itself is not subject to verification, and if it is not derived from some proposition whose truth may be determined, and if it can produce no inferences which may be checked, then it presents an isolated concept which is devoid of truth function" (p. 184).

Despite this clearly stated criterion, however, it is not always kept firmly in hand. Occasionally, Dr. Johnson says that the meaning of theology consists in its ability to elicit response (pp. 161 ff.), while at other times he appears to insist that the logical integrity of theology must consist in statements which are true or false. The stress on the existential dimension, however, tempts him to swallow the problem of truth into the problem of certitude. But surely both the question about the truth of an assertion and the certitude one has with respect to it depend upon some determination of its meaning. Meaning cannot be defined, in turn, in terms of certitude without begging the issue of truth.

588 - The Crucial Task of Theology

The problem of determining the meaning of theological statements is not made less difficult by the insistence that theology utilizes a variety of methods. Dr. Johnson insists that the theologian be responsible for meeting canons of strict logical inference and consistency, and yet he argues that theological concepts are so symbolic that the theologian must be willing to tolerate stark logical contradictions (p. 120).

Can one have it both ways? Can one be held responsible for specifying the meaning of a proposition and the inferences that can be drawn from it and at the same time be encouraged to possess a built-in tolerance for stark logical contradictions? If there are contradictions, what is there to be affirmed or denied? What response is there to be elicited?

The author wishes to stress the poetic texture of religious and theological utterances. Good. But surely this conclusion takes some of the melodramatic force out of the initial cry for logical rigor and clearly defined method. At any rate, it does not quench the thirst for an answer to the question the author has previously elicited in our minds: on what subject does the theologian propose to speak, and what is the basis of his competence to speak in this area?

This is a highly suggestive and lucid book and very few can fail to profit from reading it.

Van A. Harvey
Perkins School of Theology
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, Texas