The following series of posts deal with the theses of a theological position I am developing. Each posts teases out aspects of my position by articulating a thesis, an explicatio of that thesis, possible objectiones to the thesis, appropriate responsiones to those objections and closes with a nota about the wider significance of the thesis. Happy reading!
Thesis
Theological expressions T are first to be regarded as syntactical—governed by formation and inference rules—so that questions of meaning and truth arise only when T is interpreted within a model.
Explicatio
Before theology can claim truth, it must have a disciplined language. Every theological expression belongs to a larger body of speech, the language of faith (T), which must be treated as a formal system. In this way, T functions as a formal system before it functions as a disclosure of reality. Within this formal domain, what matters is not whether a sentence is true or false, but whether it is well-formed, consistent, and properly related to other expressions in T.
Regarding T syntactically does not, however, deny the importance of truth; it simply postpones the question of truth until the language of faith can be mapped into an ontological domain, that is, into a model. Just as logic separates syntax from semantics to avoid circularity, theology must first secure the integrity of its own discourse syntactically. (Syntax deals with the structure and form of expressions, while semantics concerns the meaning and truth of such expressions.)
Thus, when a theologian says, “Christ is truly present in the Eucharist,” she is using terms that have definite inferential roles present before anyone can ask whether the statement corresponds to reality. “Presence,” “Christ,” and “Eucharist” each carry rules of use inherited from Scripture, liturgy, and doctrine. If those rules are violated, the statement loses felicity, that is, it loses the very conditions under which it can succeed as a linguistic act, the conditions under which it can be meaningful and/or true. Questions about these conditions are logically prior to questions about the truth of the expressions in question.
This syntactical focus functions as theological self-discipline. It enables theology to evaluate its own utterances for coherence, consistency, and intelligibility. It also makes theology a public language that can, at least formally, be inspected by reason. Only after this groundwork is established can theology responsibly address the question of truth.
Objectiones
Objection 1. It seems that theology is not merely a formal system. The truth of the gospel precedes our linguistic rules; therefore, treating theology as syntactical appears to place human logic above divine revelation.
Objection 2. Furthermore, language about God is inherently analogical and poetic. To demand syntactical discipline risks freezing the living Word into an artificial system of rules.
Objection 3. Finally, faith speaks to the heart, not to the structure of propositions. The believer’s “I believe” cannot be reduced to well-formed formulas without destroying its existential immediacy.
Responsiones
Ad 1, I respond that syntax does not supersede revelation; it serves it. The Word of God comes to us in human speech, and therefore within grammar. To regard theology syntactically is to recognize that divine communication has entered human linguistic form. Theologians discipline their speech not to confine revelation but to preserve its intelligibility.
Ad 2, I concede that analogical and poetic elements are indispensable in religious and theological language. Yet even poetic utterances have grammar. If theology abandons syntactical coherence, it can no longer distinguish legitimate mystery from mere contradiction. The formality of T is the condition for theological creativity; it keeps the Word from dissolving into private sentiment or ideological projection.
Ad 3, I affirm that faith involves the whole person. But faith as confession—as the public saying of truth—inevitably adopts linguistic form. When we speak “I believe,” we participate in a structured language that binds our speech to the faith of the Church. The syntax of T is the scaffolding that allows individual confession to join communal discourse.
Thus, viewing theology syntactically does not imprison the Word; it prepares the way for its faithful interpretation in models of reality. Syntax is the threshold of truth, not its substitute.
Nota
The Institute of Lutheran Theology (ILT) reflects this principle in its operations. A theological school must first safeguard the grammar of Christian teaching before it can speak persuasively to the world. By teaching future pastors how to use theological language with precision, ILT cultivates the felicity conditions for proclamation. The Church’s speech will be true only where its syntax remains faithful.
No comments:
Post a Comment