The first thing that must strike a non-Christian about the Christian’s faith is that it obviously presumes far too much. It is too good to be true: the mystery of being, revealed as absolute love, condescending to wash his creatures’ feet, and even their souls, taking upon himself all the confusion of guilt, all the God-directed hatred, all the accusations showered upon him with cudgels, all the disbelief that arrogantly covers up what he had revealed, all the mocking hostility that once for all nailed down his inconceivable movement of self-abasement—in order to pardon his creature, before himself and the world. This is truly too much from the Good; nothing in the world would justify such a metaphysics, and therefore it cannot be justified by that individual sign called “Jesus of Nazareth”, which has so little historical evidence and is so difficult to decipher. To build such an extravagent building on such a fragile foundation would overstep all the limits of reason. (Love Alone is Credible, p.102)
Now, lest anyone misunderstand: von Balthasar is not trying to deny the historical reality of Jesus; he is simply saying that the historical evidence for Jesus cannot bear the weight of justifying this entire understanding of God. Von Balthasar is arguing that faith responds to “the inconceivability of God’s love”. He is arguing that the Gospel of God’s love is not something we can work up to rationally. Personally, I think there’s something very valuable in this insight. What do others think?
