We shall see clearly

Took some time out again today to read some theology. Dipped into Karl Rahner's Investigations - or more like drowned in, I guess. Fascinating stuff though seemed unnecessarily heavy in places. His analysis of the failure of dogmatic theology was of its time, whereas the essay on the immaculate conception seemed right up to date, except that I couldn't help feeling he'd have been much happier not having to defend this rather astonishing doctrine as the essay was all about sin and salvation. I also finished David Ford's book. It remained gospel driven but left me disappointed. It almost felt like he'd lost his nerve when it came to Jesus and was unwilling to risk his academic credentials by allowing for the inspiration of the gospel accounts. His suggestion that only parts of the accounts could be trusted did not match up with a clear commitment to the bodily resurrection nor with an emphasis on learning Greek so that you could weigh each word of the letters. How could the subtle nuances of a single word be relevant in one part of scripture and whole swathes of narrative be unreliable in another? There is clearly a tightrope to be trod in theology. I just trust that God's doing the balancing for me.