No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 April 2024
When I settled down to prepare this lecture, I looked at the title I had offered to the Regent of Studies and began to have doubts: was it really appropriate, on so prestigious an occasion, to discuss what seemed, the more I looked at it, a rather naive or childish question?
Not that I have anything against childish questions. Small children are neither experts nor are they wise. They are not experts, because they lack the opportunity to amass specialist stocks of information and skill. And they have neither experienced enough nor suffered enough to be wise.
Nevertheless, small children do often ask fundamental questions as a matter of personal concern.
Theologians are usually elderly, or at least middle-aged. The theologian’s audience therefore have a right to expect of him a measure of scholarly expertise: they are entitled to assume that he knows a number of things that other people either do not know or have forgotten. Moreover, the theologian’s audience also have a right to expect of him a measure of that wisdom which is the fruit of experience and suffering. (The fact that, on both counts, the audience will often be disappointed does not render their expectations the less legitimate.)
1 Aquinas Lecture, Oxford, 27 January 1982.
2 Metz, J. ‐B., Faith in History and Society, (London, 1980), pp 584Google Scholar.
3 Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, art. 1.
4 Cf.S. T. Ia, q. 1, art.7.
5 Cf. Bultmann, R., Faith and Understanding, I (London, 1969), p 30Google Scholar. Bultmann here acknowledges his ‘debt of gratitude’ to G. Kruger for this view of the matter.