• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Andy Naselli

Thoughts on theology, how to write a theology essay.

September 19, 2012 by Andy Naselli

jensen

Michael P. Jensen.  How to Write a Theology Essay . London: Latimer Trust, 2012. 78 pp.

Each of the twenty chapters (titles in bold below) ends with a bullet-point summary:

1. How not to lose heart before you start

  • The topics of theology really matter
  • The knowledge of God is not the preserve of the very clever
  • Starting to write theology is a challenge that can be fun!

2. What is theology in any case?

  • Theology is a species of reason, subject to the Word of God
  • Theology is a form of speech
  • Theology is evangelical: it about God and his deeds
  • Theology is evangelistic: it is an invitation to submit to the Lordship of Christ

3. What is a theology essay?

  • An essay is an invitation to persuade
  • The object of the theology essay is to say true things about God
  • The theology essay deals with ideas and concepts
  • It is not merely a summary of Scripture

4. The responsibility of theology

  • Theology is answerable to God and must be done with prayerful reverence
  • Theology is best done in service to God and his people

5. Choosing the question

  • Choose a topic that interests you, but look carefully at the question
  • Avoid a topic that is a contemporary church controversy where possible
  • Consider what others are doing

6. Analysing the question

  • What higher level task am I being asked to do, explicitly or implicitly?
  • Am I being asked to find a cause or a purpose, or trace a connection, or describe something?
  • What is the measure I am being asked to use, explicitly or implicitly?
  • Where is my question located in the context of the ongoing theological conversation?
  • Are there any extra features of the question that I have to take into account?

7. Beginning to think about it

  • Get your brain moving early on
  • What different ways of answering the question are there?
  • Do some preliminary quick reading to orient yourself to the topic

8. Brainstorming

  • Get everything you can think of down on paper in no particular order
  • What thinkers might be relevant? Especially look for potential opponents
  • What passages of Scripture might be worth investigating?

9. How to read for theology essays (and what to read)

  • Read to gain basic information
  • Read to gain nuance and subtlety
  • Read to develop arguments
  • Read to find stimulating conversation partners and ‘surprising friends’
  • Read to find out what the opposition says

10. Using the Bible in theology essays

  • You have to read Scripture as a whole to do theology biblically
  • Orthodoxy helps you to read Scripture theologically
  • Avoid prooftexting and word studies

11. How to treat your opponents

  • Treat your opponents with respect
  • Avoid cheap shots and caricature

12. Some advice on quoting

  • Use quotations sparingly
  • The author nailed it
  • You want to prove your opponent really does say that
  • You are expounding a view to learn from it
  • Quote SHORT
  • Quote faithfully to the author

13. Types of argument for your essay

  • Volume knobs, not on/off switches

14. The classic introduction

  • Your introduction should set the scene and frame the question
  • Your introduction should state your answer to the question
  • Your introduction should give an indication of how you are going to answer the question

15. Why presentation matters, and how to make it work for you

  • Presentation does matter
  • The essential principle: don’t distract your reader

16. How to write well in a theology essay

  • Be a reader of great writing
  • Don’t be afraid of metaphors
  • Learn the simple rules of English punctuation
  • Be clear, and avoid vague words

17. The art of signposting

  • Use headings
  • Use summative sentences
  • Use questions that flow

18. Bringing home the bacon

  • Your conclusion should add nothing new
  • Make sure you have fulfilled any promises you have made
  • If you do have some space, consider the implications of your essay for other areas of theology

19. What to do with it now

  • Don’t be shy about thinking of ways in which your essay could have a second life

20. A footnote about footnotes

  • Use footnote commentary sparingly
  • Don’t hide extra words in your footnotes
  • Take care that the footnote relates clearly to the text
  • Use footnotes to protect yourself by showing that you have read widely

Related: 10 Issues I Frequently Mark When Grading Theology Papers

Logos 9 Is Here

Reader Interactions

' src=

September 19, 2012 at 9:47 pm

…but there’s more to the book than the summaries! :-)

' src=

September 20, 2012 at 1:26 pm

This is a great article. Thanks!

Do you have any thesis ideas in the area of philosophy or apologetics with a theological tone?

[…] How to write a Theology Essay Just in case my students begin to think I’m for dumbing down. […]

[…] How to Write a Theology Essay | Andy Naselli […]

Ask the publishers to restore access to 500,000+ books.

Internet Archive Audio

theology essay 123

  • This Just In
  • Grateful Dead
  • Old Time Radio
  • 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
  • Audio Books & Poetry
  • Computers, Technology and Science
  • Music, Arts & Culture
  • News & Public Affairs
  • Spirituality & Religion
  • Radio News Archive

theology essay 123

  • Flickr Commons
  • Occupy Wall Street Flickr
  • NASA Images
  • Solar System Collection
  • Ames Research Center

theology essay 123

  • All Software
  • Old School Emulation
  • MS-DOS Games
  • Historical Software
  • Classic PC Games
  • Software Library
  • Kodi Archive and Support File
  • Vintage Software
  • CD-ROM Software
  • CD-ROM Software Library
  • Software Sites
  • Tucows Software Library
  • Shareware CD-ROMs
  • Software Capsules Compilation
  • CD-ROM Images
  • ZX Spectrum
  • DOOM Level CD

theology essay 123

  • Smithsonian Libraries
  • FEDLINK (US)
  • Lincoln Collection
  • American Libraries
  • Canadian Libraries
  • Universal Library
  • Project Gutenberg
  • Children's Library
  • Biodiversity Heritage Library
  • Books by Language
  • Additional Collections

theology essay 123

  • Prelinger Archives
  • Democracy Now!
  • Occupy Wall Street
  • TV NSA Clip Library
  • Animation & Cartoons
  • Arts & Music
  • Computers & Technology
  • Cultural & Academic Films
  • Ephemeral Films
  • Sports Videos
  • Videogame Videos
  • Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

  • Wayback Machine (iOS)
  • Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

  • Explore the Collections
  • Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

  • Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

How to write a theology essay

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

  • Graphic Violence
  • Explicit Sexual Content
  • Hate Speech
  • Misinformation/Disinformation
  • Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
  • Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

obscured text on back cover

[WorldCat (this item)]

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

245 Previews

13 Favorites

Better World Books

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

No suitable files to display here.

PDF access not available for this item.

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by station32.cebu on January 26, 2021

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

  • SBTS Library
  • Research Guides

Systematic Theology

  • Do a Systematic Theology Paper
  • Reference Works
  • Systematic Theologies
  • Prolegomena
  • Doctrine of Scripture
  • Doctrine of God
  • Doctrine of Christ
  • Doctrine of the Holy Spirit
  • Doctrine of Man
  • Doctrine of Sin
  • Doctrine of Salvation
  • Doctrine of the Church
  • Doctrine of the Last Things

Resources on How to Write a Research Paper

We've all been there. We know (sort of) on what we want to write, but we don't really know how to write it, how to organize our thoughts, or how to organize our research. It's fun to read, but it's another thing to articulate, analyze, and synthesize our thoughts.

Here are some ideas/resources that might help you along the way:

  • John Frame, professor of Philosophy and Systematic Theology at RTS, wrote a helpful step-by-step process for how to write a theology paper.  You can access it for free here .
  • Michael Jensen (D.Phi. at Moore Theological College) has written a short, topically-arranged book, How To Write a Theological Essay (78+pages), available on reference at SBTS.  Find it here .
  • The Craft of Research, accessed here , gives a book-length treatment of the subject.
  • The Writing Center , located in the library, has a staff dedicated to helping you craft an excellent paper.

Here is some advice regarding Systematic 1, 2, or 3 class papers specifically:

  • Start Early. Begin planning your paper the day before the first day of the class. You'll get first crack at the books, you'll get to ask the professor about any research "snags" you hit along the way, you'll get plenty of time to edit and refine, you'll learn more about the subject, and you'll finish the assignment stress-free.
  • Define the question. Every paper seeks to answer a question. The sooner you discover what that question is and the more specific you can make your question, the better off your paper will be. Once you have your question, the answer to that question can be your beginning thesis statement. This thesis statement, with refining, will begin your writing effort on a good foot to having a strong paper.
  • Discover the lead, competing positions regarding your particular question. This requires reading, and sometimes reading broadly.  You want, in this step, to be able to summarize precisely the arguments/positions regarding your research subject.
  • Pick a position. Which available position wins out and why? Is there one that is "the best"?
  • Defend it against the best objections. One common problem of bad theology papers is that students fail to treat their objectors fairly. It doesn't do you or the world any good to argue against a position nobody actually holds. Moreover, it's disingenuous and academically uncouth.

Your paper should not look like your research. It's feasible that your actual paper will look something like this:

  • Introduction (define the problem), Thesis (state your solution), Methodology (preview how you will demonstrate your Thesis).
  • Summarize the available and most persuasive positions (including your own).
  • Support your position.
  • Defend your position against the best objections.
  • Conclusion. Restate your position in light of your paper. This is not a simple "copy" and "paste" of your Introduction. It is the final appeal to your readers for why your position is superior in view of all you've just said.

Remember, you are not done until you have edited your paper. Read through it again, editing as you go, and then have someone else read through it so you have another set of eyes looking at what will be the finished product.

Distinction between Primary and Secondary Sources

It is often the case that when doing theological research, it will be important to examine Primary Sources .  A primary source is an author's first-hand account of the event being studied.  Examples include: diaries, letters, journals, memos, interviews, manuscripts, newspaper articles of current events, photographs, records of government agencies like birth or death certificates, and minutes of conferences or agencies.  Secondary Sources interpret/analyze the event in question.

Here's a clarifying example from the ATLA website : "A letter from a Union soldier to his wife during the Civil War would be considered a primary document.   A book written by a historian that discusses letters written by soldiers during the Civil War would be a secondary source, even if it includes those letters we consider primary sources. "  The distinction is relevant for researchers because interpretations of primary sources may be incorrect.  If you rely only on secondary sources, your own conclusions may be, consequently, skewed.

For Systematics:

A primary source would be the original (or definitive) edition of a work. Examples (again from the ATLA site) would include:

  • Ausgewahlte Werke —the 1883 or “Weimar” edition of Martin Luther’s works. (Also available online as a subscription database by Proquest.)
  • Institutio Christianae Religionis —John Calvin’s Institutes ( definitive version in 1559) although the 1560 French edition is also considered definitive.
  • Grundkurs des Glaubens —Karl Rahner’s   Foundations of Christian Faith in German.
  • Systematische Theologie— Wolfgang Pannenberg’s Systematic Theology in German.
  • Kirchliche Dogmatik— Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics in German.
  • While not a “definitive” edition of their works, many theological librarians use the Christian Classics Ethereal Library to look at the works of the    early church fathers, originally published in print as Early Church Fathers series.

A secondary source would be a later, non-definitive edition, a non-definitive translation, or an examination of a particular facet of the primary source.  For example, Paul Helm's John Calvin's Ideas is a secondary source because it is an analysis of Calvin's works; Balthasar's The Theology of Karl Barth is a secondary source for the same reason.

If you're unsure what an author's primary works are, you can peruse the Enclopedia of Christian Theology by Lacoste or The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought to get an idea of particular theological thinkers and their primary works.  These are helpful, but not comprehensive guides to theological research.  If you ever have trouble finding primary literature, contact a research expert at the library or attempt to dialogue with a researcher in your field of interest.

  • << Previous: Home
  • Next: Reference Works >>
  • Last Updated: Aug 16, 2022 12:07 PM
  • URL: https://sbts.libguides.com/systematic

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

  • We're Hiring!
  • Help Center

paper cover thumbnail

Theology: Notes and Essays

Profile image of Domenic Marbaniang

Related Papers

Amenu Daba D A B A Waktola

theology essay 123

https://www.swrktec.org/theology

Herb Swanson

We surface a brief overview of a few of the problems of contemporary theology, in hope that readers will find a fresh starting place in old evidence: a place to build a consensus that reaches for unanimous agreement in the Spirit.

THEOLOGY is about God and Creation, or more precisely perhaps about our ideas of them, how they are formed and somewhat justified, although it is stressed that they can be neither proved nor disproved. This book is a thematic compilation drawn from past works by the author over a period of thirteen years. A new essay was added in 2022.

Chris Gousmett

An exploration of what "theology" is, working towards a precise definition in contrast to the rather loose use of the term to describe anything relating to religion.

Domenic Marbaniang

Jon Winkelman

John R Lawless

Johannes Zachhuber

Brian H . Wagner

This is a series of theological essays on important questions concerning the doctrine of God!

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

mary Carrington

Edward Seely: How Can Churches Facilitate Education Leading to Maturity in Jesus Christ Worldwide?

The Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization

Flavien Pardigon

Outline of Theology

The Incarnate Word Journal

Pablo Munoz Iturrieta

John Mark Hicks

Paul Hedges

Theology and Science

Scott MacDougall

International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church

Brian Berry

Religious Studies Review

John N . Sheveland

Nicholas Adams

Russell Re Manning

Dave Buckner, PhD

Journal of Analytic Theology

Jonathan C Rutledge

Ars Disputandi

Willem Drees

Mustapha Kuyateh

Daniel Varadi

International Handbook of Practical Theology

Terry A Veling

Theological Studies

joseph dinoia

Timoteo Gener

Pensamiento Revista De Investigacion E Informacion Filosofica

Lluis Oviedo

  •   We're Hiring!
  •   Help Center
  • Find new research papers in:
  • Health Sciences
  • Earth Sciences
  • Cognitive Science
  • Mathematics
  • Computer Science
  • Academia ©2024
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

A Plus Topper

Improve your Grades

Theology Essay | Theology Definition, A Beginner’s Guide to Understanding the Study of Theology

December 4, 2021 by Prasanna

Theology Essay: While theology is a broad topic, it can be broken up into smaller sections and defined in more detail. For example, the study of theology is the study of what one believes about God. This can be broken down into understanding God’s nature, attributes, and interventions. Understanding what one believes about God is important for understanding beliefs about other things as well. This includes life after death or how to live this life. In this essay, we shall explore the detailed definition of theology, origins and implications on the real world.

You can also find more  Essay Writing  articles on events, persons, sports, technology and many more.

What is Theology?

The word theology is derived from the Greek word “théo” meaning “God”and the suffix “logy” meaning “study of.” Theology can be generally defined as the study of God and religion. Theology is closely related to philosophy, because both fields share similar questions about life, God, and ultimate truths. In other words, Theology refers to the study of the nature of God, divine revelation, and the relationship between the divine and human. Theology has been around for centuries. Its origins can be traced back to Greek philosopher Aristotle. Theologians spend much of their time studying various religions to gain a better understanding of them. There are many different topics that theologians may study including biblical analysis, comparative religion, ethics, and history.

How Religion Relates to Theology

Religion is often thought of as a personal belief system that provides explanations for the origin and meaning of life, but it can also refer to communal behavior. Unsurprisingly, religion impacts theology because it helps shape theological beliefs about the nature of God, humanity, and the universe.

One of the most influential and notable contributors to the discussion of religion and theology is Karl Marx. His theories, which are based on the idea that social status is determined by economic class, have garnered a large body of supporters and detractors alike. He also popularized the idea that religion may be a form of social control and can inhibit critical thinking. Karl Marx was an atheist who believed in a classless society where human beings were not controlled by religion or other forms of ideology. To achieve this goal, he thought that the working class had to take control from those who possessed power – namely capitalists, landlords, and other members of the upper-class. Marx thought that all religions should be equal because they were equally false; he didn’t believe in spirituality or any type of afterlife; and, therefore, he didn’t have a strong opinion on the existence of God.

What are Types of Theological Views?

Theological views are diverse and manifold. However, mainstream views can be grouped into the following four types- Biblical theology, historical theology, Systematic theology and Practical theology.

  • Biblical theology: Biblical theology is the study of theology through a biblical lens. The Bible is the primary source for information on the topic. These studies are used to learn more about God, Jesus Christ, and what they have done for humanity. It also seeks to understand how what we read in scriptures points us to both Jesus Christ and our lives today.
  • Historical theology: One of the theological disciplines, it focuses on how Christian beliefs and practices evolved over time. In other words, historical theology is an approach to Christian theology that holds that its events and doctrines are related to the historical and cultural context in which they occur.
  • Systematic theology: Also called dogmatic theology, Systematic theology is the study of the divine attributes, nature, and works of God. It includes doctrine and biblical interpretation from a Christian perspective.
  • Practical theology: Practical theology is not a theological discipline in itself, but rather a term that refers to the application of any theological understanding to the needs and realities of life. Practical theology has often been used as a synonym for pastoral care and counseling.

Christian Theological Perspectives

Christianity has a rich theological history that includes many different perspectives. These perspectives are often in disagreement with one another. There are three major perspectives that are often discussed when it comes to Christianity which are the Orthodox Perspective, the Catholic Perspective, and the Protestant Perspective.

Jewish Theological Perspectives

The Jewish religion has a rich history of theological thought. There are many different branches of Judaism, all with their own views on God, morality, and what happens to the soul after death. Jewish theological perspectives are heavily influenced by the Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible. These perspectives can be divided into two schools of thought: Orthodox Judaism, which believes in the superiority of Torah law, and Conservative Judaism, which believes that Judaism is a religion that develops and changes over time.

The Role of Faith in Theology

Faith is an important and often-overlooked topic in theology. Faith is defined as the belief in a deity, religious idea, or other concepts without any proof or evidence. It can also be defined as the belief in the truth of something that one has no scientific or empirical evidence of. While there are many ways to define faith, it is central to all religions and is thought of as the most important aspect of religion.

Faith may have originated from human beings’ need for hope in an uncertain world. Faith can also be seen as a coping mechanism for dealing with life’s tough situations that may not have any solutions – this being because faith helps people believe that things will get better soon. Furthermore, psychologists have found that people who have more faith are generally happier than those who don’t.

Faith in religion is something that many people have differing opinions on. One of the most common reasons that people have faith in religion is because it is a deep personal belief for them. They believe that their religion helps them to make sense of life, death, and what happens after this life. Religion also provides a community for many people who may feel alone otherwise.

Essay on Theology

Do non-believers have faith?

There are many people who do not believe in any religion or spiritual system. They often consider themselves to be non-religious, and there is no doubt that their way of life is much simpler than for those who do believe in something greater. As humans, it’s hard not to have some sort of faith in something.Whether that faith is put into a higher power or a scientific theory, the idea of an omniscient being creating the universe fills people with much needed hope.

Does God Exist?

“Does God exist?” This question has been debated for centuries. Theologians, philosophers, and scientists have all taken a stab at it. The definition of God varies by religion, but it is generally agreed that God is omnipresent and omnipotent. Moreover, the idea of God, as a transcendent Creator and Ruler, has been around for a long time. It is arguably the most prevalent religious belief in the world.

This has caused scholars to ask questions pertaining to the existence of God. Some people believe that it is possible that there is no God because there is no proof or evidence of his existence. Others believe that faith alone is enough to know that he exists because it gives them hope and purpose for their lives. Others say that God needs to prove his existence through miracles or by speaking to us plainly through visions or dreams.

FAQ’s on Theology

Question 1. What is theology?

Answer: Theology is the study of the nature of God, divine things, and spiritual matters. Theology seeks to answer questions about God’s nature and attributes, the creation of the world by God, human beings’ relationship with God, and other religious issues.

Question 2. What is an example of theology?

Answer: Theology is the study of religious beliefs, practices, and teachings. Theology looks at the history of religion to understand how religion began and how it has evolved. It can be applied to any religion, even if it is not considered Abrahamic.

Question 3. What is the meaning of biblical theology?

Answer: Biblical theology is a type of theology that seeks to understand the relationship between the Bible’s narrative and its authors. Biblical theologians have traditionally attempted to answer questions about how biblical narratives are both historically accurate, while still being divinely inspired.

Question 4. What is the difference between religion and theology?

Answer: Religion is often seen as a set of beliefs and practices, typically with a supernatural or spiritual element, which unites the faith community. Theology is an academic discipline that involves the study of religion in terms of its intellectual history, cultural expressions and sacred texts.

  • Picture Dictionary
  • English Speech
  • English Slogans
  • English Letter Writing
  • English Essay Writing
  • English Textbook Answers
  • Types of Certificates
  • ICSE Solutions
  • Selina ICSE Solutions
  • ML Aggarwal Solutions
  • HSSLive Plus One
  • HSSLive Plus Two
  • Kerala SSLC
  • Distance Education

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

  • You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
  • You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
  • You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
  • A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Harvard Divinity Bulletin

Select Page

Theology’s Difficult Position

To thrive in today’s academy, the discipline needs to make some new distinctions.

Spring 2005

By Bryan L. Wagoner

The study of religion in general—and of some subdisciplines within religious studies in particular—has been accused by many in the North American academy, implicitly and explicitly, of subjectivism and adherence to uncritical standards or special criteria of truth. Some have called for religion’s exclusion from the academy, or its absorption into other departments, or its reorganization as “area studies.” Theology, once the crown jewel of the study of religion, has increasingly found itself in a stalemate, circumscribed from without as either a peripheral academic-science exercise or a confessional method of subjective spiritual enrichment.

Miroslav Volf has argued with great insight that theology, once the queen of the “sciences” ( Wissenschaften : “disciplines”), now finds itself without its throne, wondering what happened. Volf points out theology’s dilemma today and as it faces the future: “[T]he presumed queen of sciences has grown old and feeble, unable to see that what she thinks is her throne is just an ordinary chair, uncertain about what her territories are, and confused about how to rule in the realms she thinks are hers, seeking advice from a quarrelsome chorus of counselors each of whom thinks himself the king, and ending up with a divided, even schizophrenic mind.” 1

If theology is to have a future in the academy, that future, Volf writes, lies with a theology that “must now descend from the throne on which she enjoyed hushed attentiveness and enter the marketplace in which many clamoring voices vie for attention.” Yet many theologians continue to practice theology as they were trained, ignoring this challenge and thereby perpetuating certain misconceptions about theology.

There are manifold challenges facing theology as it “descends from the throne” and “enters the marketplace,” wherein it must distinguish and even re-legitimate itself. One deeply problematic example that could be remedied by theologians themselves comes to the fore immediately. Even among religious studies scholars, there is an alarming frequency of tacit equations of “theology” with “uncritical” or “confessional,” and the further equation of “theological” with “subjective,” “a-rational,” or “tautologous.” All too often, circular or tautologous arguments that start from personal beliefs or presuppositions are explicitly referred to as “theological” arguments, even by students and scholars within the study of religion. Some of the blame for this misconception surely lies with theologians who have not yet taken Volf’s admonition seriously. As it enters the marketplace of ideas in the academy, theology needs to distinguish, first and foremost to colleagues within religious studies, between at least two different types of theology, which will be sketched out below.

Religious studies scholars such as Donald Wiebe have repeatedly claimed a “re-theologization” 2 of religious studies at every corner, insofar as religious studies has not had the “nerve” to pro-claim independence from its theological heritage. Theology is for him, in fact, ultimately inimical to religious studies, and its expulsion from the university to seminaries will preserve religious studies’ objectivity and its place in the academy. What Wiebe fails to consider, so far as I am aware, is that what he diagnoses as a “failure of nerve” in religious studies’ inability to free itself from theology is actually a sign of the inextricability of and similarity be-tween the two supposedly disparate fields.

While personal interest may draw students to the study of religion (or theology), the subject of religion (or theology) is not and cannot be  those personal beliefs.

From Plato to Cicero , great thinkers of classical Western civilization assumed both the necessity and the universality of “religion.” The assertion of religion’s universality, however, sometimes assumes certain metaphysically normative claims that are difficult to substantiate. Although religion is most often thought to have to do with a God or with the gods, any such definition is insufficient from the start: such assertions axiomatically exclude dialogue with self-described atheists as well as organized religious traditions that do not have a central deity, such as Buddhism. Western definitions and categories have historically distorted Eastern religions in the attempt to conform all religious phenomena within a singular category. Some have therefore suggested that “religions” are distinguishable by their referent to a transcendent reality, theistic or not. Others describe religion as a creative activity that fulfills a sociological and cultural need to pro-vide explanation for the inexplicable—suffering, death, etc.

Max Weber argues that humans axiomatically make meaning out of the world around them, and this provides clues about religion. Similarly, Peter Berger’s broad methodological conception of religion understands the “world-creating” and “world-sustaining” orientation of religion in the social production of meaning. 3 While “meaning” is a fluid and often arbitrary category, a synthetic Weberian-Bergerian understanding of “religion” is potentially useful as an orienting referent: “religion” is rooted in a framework of “meaning-making” and “meaning-sustaining,” as an integral (though not necessarily universal) act of humanity vis-à-vis the awareness of death. Humans are not only aware that death is the limit experience before which and in sight of which individual and communal identities are formed, but humanity generally perceives death to be a problem .

Such meaning-making or imaginative possibilities can be theistic or nontheistic (Sikhism, Pentecostalism, or Red Sox Nation-like civic religion); this of course only defers any content to the word “religion,” but it situates the distinct contribution of “religion” within the academy as that synthetic discipline that explores and analyzes the self-descriptions, internal rules, and logic of meaning-makers who individually or communally posit or experience some type of transcendence. Such a structural definition, however, often leads toward a pluralistic and universal conception of “religion,” contextually and culturally differentiated, which nevertheless refers to something elemental or universal in human nature. As articulated by John Hick, this posits a single noumenal real” 4 behind all religious phenomena.

One means of obviating the perceived need for a universal definition of “religion” has been offered by George Lindbeck, who refers to the understanding of religion as a universal human experience as an “experiential-expressive” model. 5 Seeking to overcome problems inherent in this model’s universalizing abstractions, Lindbeck’s thesis, rooted in his interpretation of twentieth-century advances in the philosophy of language, is described as “cultural-linguistic.” Focusing on the practices and beliefs of concrete religious groups undercuts the need to posit a universal category of religion. Lindbeck’s preferred “cultural-linguistic” model suggests that religion functions more like a culture or a shared language, for which beliefs and doctrines provide the “grammar.” The distinction between the essence of a religion, an unknowable abstraction, and its cultural function as a system of symbols helpfully orients the study of religion to the latter: an examination of the function of the culture and language of “religious” groups, without positing religion as a universal category.

A further challenge to the pluralist framework of a posited universal “real” comes from S. Mark Heim, who pointedly notes, “Respect for a faith tradition that does not ex-tend to its actual aims and practices is a frail force.” 6 Pluralistic theories of religion typically propose a plurality of means to a singular, if ineffable end. Heim’s suggestion is simultaneously more radical and more traditional: he argues that it should be possible to think not only of a plurality of religious (meaning-making) means, but also of a plurality of religious (meaning-sustaining) ends. This frees one to acknowledge, for example, that the Christian goal of the resurrection of the body is a genuinely distinct goal from the Buddhist path seeking to attain nirvana, just as the hope of Red Sox Nation for another World Series championship represents a quite distinct function and meaning structure. There is no Religion behind the religions; the many paths are not ascending the same mountain; religious goals are genuinely distinct; and any presumption of a single noumenal “real” is unhelpful for the study of religion. “Religion” is nevertheless a useful abstraction, and a healthy polyphony of voices concerning the polyvalence of “religion” seems far preferable to the alternative.

One likely source of the English word “religion” is the Latin religo —to bind—reflecting that “other” to which persons bind themselves, or to or by which persons experience themselves bound. Another etymological option for the word “religion” comes from Cicero’s use of the Latin relego —to gather together again, or to re-peat. The notion of repetition perhaps implies or evokes the generally accepted view of the ritual nature characterizing many religions. Synthesizing these two possible etymologies, “religion” is here tentatively defined as: the binding many humans experience or will experience vis-à-vis a force they cannot control, and the deliberate, communal repetition of actions that reinforce such frameworks.

Often associated exclusively with the Christian tradition, theology is generally concerned with theos , God, or the gods, and how they interact with humanity. Does that mean that theology must presuppose or accept the existence of the gods, or that one must participate in a tradition in order to reflect on it theologically? The regnant assumption even within many religious studies departments today seems to be that, however it is defined, theology remains limited to a subspecies of the study of Christianity. Yet nearly 90 years ago, in his definition of theology, Weber referred to “Hinduist theology” without hesitation. Scholars are increasingly offering courses in “Islamic Theology” or “Twentieth-Century Jewish Theology,” to cite two current courses offered at Harvard. By contrast, it is interesting to note that the American Academy of Religion’s current “research interest survey” for members exclusively equates theology with Christianity; for example, there is no way on the questionnaire to identify one’s interest in Islam and theology.

It should be readily admitted that “theology” has for centuries been a Western construct, associated almost exclusively with Christianity, and further that the majority of theologians through-out previous centuries have in some sense identified themselves with the religious groups they studied; more accurately, most theologians in the past have perceived their scholarship to be in the service of their faith tradition. This is no longer universally the case: one need not be a member of a religious group in order to function responsibly as a theologian concerned with that group, and in fact, many scholars who teach theology are not practitioners. Thus, it is entirely plausible for an individual who self-identifies as a Christian to function as an Islamic theologian by profession.

Francis Schüssler Fiorenza identifies and critiques three common paradigms for understanding the relationship between theology and religious studies: subjective faith versus objective knowledge, epistemic privilege versus scientific neutrality, and committed advocacy versus disinterested impartiality. 7 Fiorenza’s paradigms will roughly orient the central sections of this argument. Even beyond these helpful paradigms, perhaps a more fundamental concern underlying the suspicion of theology, and often of religious studies, is the presumption that any study of religion axiomatically deals with subjective faith or an uncritical epistemic privileging of metaphysically normative claims. While some types of theology may involve explicitly metaphysical or normative claims, this is rarely true in university-based theology; yet even many religious studies scholars are unclear about the possibility of distinct “types” of theology, further complicating this tension.

Weber argues in his 1918 essay “Science as a Vocation” that reason, even with the aid of the natural and social sciences, is incapable of answering fundamental questions of value. Challenging the notion that any scholarship can be free of presuppositions, Weber delineates two crucial rationales governing “science” that academic study itself cannot substantiate. First, every discipline “presupposes that the rules of logic and method are valid,” and, second, “that what is yielded by scientific work is important in the sense that it is ‘worth being known.’ ” 8 This second criterion, concerning the value of the subject, is particularly problematic in that it cannot be objectively justified by “scientific” means. The presumption of the value of any discipline “can only be interpreted with reference to its ultimate meaning, which we must reject or accept according to our ultimate position towards life.” Thus, all disciplines require a presupposition of their subject in order to analyze it; the study of jurisprudence, for example, must presuppose the existence of the law, just as religious studies must presuppose (at least) something called “religion.” Weber’s admonition concerns the personal responsibility of the scholar to recognize the difference between explicating facts and “answering questions of value .”

The quest for objectivity is noble, and insofar as it can be attained honestly, recognizing all that the interpreter brings to the task, it is to be lauded. But the value a scholar necessarily imbues her or his field with offers a challenge to all scholars to re-imagine established canons of objectivity and neutrality. Those who insist on claiming the objectivity of their scholarship and disinterested knowledge or neutrality for them-selves as scholars would do well to consider Friedrich Nietzsche’s challenge; he writes with usual candor: “Indeed, one goes so far as to assume that anyone who is totally disinterested in a particular moment of the past is the one who must be called upon to portray it. This is the way in which philologists and Greeks often relate to each other: with total disinterest—and this is what is then called ‘objectivity!’ ” 9

Clifford Geertz labels the view that cultural (or religious) phenomena could or should be analyzed like mathematics or formal logic the “cognitivist fallacy.” This view refuses to acknowledge that “what we call our data are really our own constructions of other people’s constructions of what they and their compatriots are up to.” 10

Given the inevitable gap between facts and values, choice is crucial; “facts” have value only insofar as individuals choose to imbue them with values, and this act of value-giving (or, meaning-making and meaning-sustaining) is fundamental to human autonomy. Meaning is not something independent that can be provided externally, apart from interpretation, and everyone must take responsibility for the meaning or value they give to facts in their ordering or construction of the world around them.

Hans-Georg Gadamer offers a valuable hermeneutical distinction between meaning and significance , arguing that the textual scholarship must address both. If meaning refers to the historical and linguistic analysis of texts or facts, then significance represents the import—the “so what?” of those facts for the academy and society. Yet religious studies departments uniquely often seem to eschew questions of significance beyond historical and linguistic analysis. While most disciplines readily pursue questions of the significance of texts, Fiorenza argues:

“[T]he opposite appears true in many religious studies departments. Only there is it allegedly advocated that one can only correctly read [religious texts] if one reads [them] merely as historical sources without discussing the religious, moral, and truth claims that these texts raise. Otherwise one does not belong in the university. In short, only if one follows a practice contrary to that in other university departments does one belong in a university.” 11

As interpreters of sacred texts and narratives and expositors of enduring communities of practice, scholars of religion would seem to have a greater obligation to the texts and communities they research than merely articulating the facts. The challenge is addressing the significance of those facts without “answering questions of value.”

Returning to Weber , personal belief is neither a marker of objectivity nor of its absence, yet his position can be pushed further here. The professor of economics who is a committed Marxist is thought to be perfectly capable of fulfilling her institutional function as a scholar and teacher insofar as she maintains the integrity to recognize the difference between presentation and pontification. Women’s studies is, quite rightly, an interested, engaged discipline characterized not only by exposition and advocacy, but also by its trenchant critiques of the lacunae in the patriarchal system so long accepted as the norm. The political theorist’s advocacy of her social and political leanings rarely causes concern, provided the scholar acknowledges her values. But advocacy in religious studies often raises eyebrows, even when it is nonsectarian.

Naturally there is a delicate balance required. This is almost universal within the academy and is not unique to theology, or religious studies, or even to the humanities in general. Even the Hippocratic Oath, symbolizing the consummation of medical education, represents a culturally constructed value that cannot be defended solely on rational grounds, and that in some cases results in doctors directly denying the wishes of patients who are suffering. In the field of religion, Weber offers an example of the presumed conflict between professional obligation and personal belief when a scholar of church history lectures on the “miraculous”—this can be done just as well by a believing Catholic as by an agnostic or atheist if the Catholic recognizes her responsibility to present the known facts concerning claims about the miraculous, including the “inconvenient facts.” 12 Similarly, other “confessional” beliefs such as the Trinity or reincarnation can be presented and explored both by the “insider” and “outsider.”

It should be emphasized that scholars need not necessarily be advocates for their fields. In some disciplines, such as pure mathematics perhaps, the primary sense in which any advocacy is present may be identical with Weber’s second criterion of science: the value of a discipline (pure mathematics) cannot objectively be justified by “scientific” means alone and requires the personal value decision of the scholar. Yet the Dostoevsky scholar’s advocacy of the merits of Dostoevsky’s thought and literary style, for example, unlike advocacy in religious studies, is generally perceived to be a benefit rather than a bane, both in the classroom and in scholarly writing.

Ronald Thiemann insightfully articulates the perceived difference between the advocacy of the Dostoevsky scholar and the advocacy of the Buddhist scholar for the Pali Canon:

“The transformative power of texts and traditions is not unique to the study of religion. . . . The crucial difference lies in the fact that many religious traditions have extant communities of practice within which the fictive possibilities of a text can become realized ” 13 (emphasis added).

Thiemann’s comments get to the heart of the fear that many have concerning religion. The Dostoevsky scholar has no traditions or practices into which she can immerse herself, unlike the scholar of Buddhism, and this is perhaps the crucial reason that advocacy in religious studies elicits concern. Yet for the feminist theorist, or the environmental ethicist, among others, there are analogous communities and patterns of practice that exhibit similar life-transformative power. Surely it makes little sense to re-strict these disciplines to nonpractitioners or to challenge scholars solely on the basis of their participation in such a community. Adherence to the standards and norms of the academy and a respect for the difference between presentation and proselytization, between advocacy and inappropriate uses of power, can provide a regulative structure for all disciplines.

Surrendering the affectation of personal neutrality vis-à-vis one’s personal location as a scholar need not imply that one can-not be objective in a critically responsible sense with respect to colleagues and students. Although the presentation of any subject in the university should always strive to adhere to highest standards of objectivity possible, the scholar can never be “neutral” or “disinterested” qua scholar in any meaningful sense, though this in no way suggests the absence of standards. Far from undermining the academic enterprise, such an honest admission by the scholar can help re-ground legitimate norms and standards of scholarship and distinguish illusory claims of neutrality from the genuine pursuit of open and honest presentation and argumentation within a given field.

Theology, in Weber’s terminology, is actually closer to what we now mean by religious studies. Weber writes that theology (or religion in general) “represents an intellectual rationalization of the possession of sacred values. No science is absolutely free from presuppositions, and no science can prove its fundamental value to the man who rejects these presuppositions. Every theology, however, adds a few specific presuppositions for its work and thus for the justification of its existence. Their meaning and scope vary. Every theology, including for instance Hinduist theology, presupposes that the world must have a meaning, and the question is how to interpret this meaning so that it is intellectually conceivable.” 14

Weber acknowledges that theology (religion) is a “science,” but he also asserts that many theologies are not content with this more basic goal of interpreting meaning, insisting instead on “rev-elations which must be believed in.” Weber suggests that “. . .these presuppositions lie beyond the limits of ‘science.’ They do not rep-resent ‘knowledge,’ in the usual sense, but rather a ‘possession.’ ” This latter type of theology is characterized by an “intellectual sacrifice” that demarcates the prophet from the professor. While the latter phrase is rather condescending, Weber importantly ac-knowledges two distinct types of theology in this 1918 essay; an acknowledgement many in the academy and even in religious studies have yet to make.

I want to use Weber’s paradigm in order to suggest at least two distinct, yet occasionally overlapping, types of theology—a theology 1 and a theology 2. Theology in Weber’s broadest sense is the collective task of religious studies: presupposing the existence of an acknowledged abstraction, i.e., “that the world must have a meaning,” in order to get at the question of how one interprets the meaning (making and sustaining) of religious communities’ organizing patterns and paradigms. Analogous to Weber’s broadest sense of theology is what I will label theology 1; it refers to that which in contemporary terms is the function of academic theology in the university, namely, a critically engaged philosophical examination and interpretation of that meaning through the excavation of the logic of beliefs and practices.

I take theology in general to be a type of responsible advocacy, engaged in critical reflection on the internal logic and external ramifications of that  logic within religious traditions.

I take theology in general to be a type of responsible advocacy, engaged in critical reflection on the internal logic and external ramifications of that logic within religious traditions. Theology 1 is methodologically akin to philosophy, and is almost always found on the periphery of both the academy and institutional religions, offering critiques and challenges, utilizing the language of religious groups, but not necessarily bound to or by the religious group it studies. Theology 1 is also perhaps analogous to (religious) intellectual history. In the study of psychoanalysis or critical theory, for example, the rules of academic engagement require a tacit acceptance of certain basic ideas in order to engage the authors and conversations. For constructive analysis, understanding, or dialogue to take place, one must acknowledge that the ideas of psychoanalysis or critical theory exist within a posited framework that has a defensible intellectual position requiring explication and discussion. Theology 1 must similarly grant that individuals and communities who claim to have had experiences of a “transcendent other” do so within a posited, yet intellectually defensible, framework. Only then can the theologian engage those individuals and communities and begin to study and reflect upon their belief structures. Granting the experience of a “transcendent other” or structurally bracketing the question of the existence of a divine being, even while presupposing it for a given inquiry or dialogue, theology 1 enters into the conceptual framework of religious thinkers and communities in order to explicate them.

Theology 1 is methodologically liberal by definition; it is open to any legitimate line of reasoning or critique grounded by some aspect of the text or tradition in question. On the other hand, it is the prerogative, if not the obligation, of ecclesial seminaries and other practitioners of theology 2 to limit not only their methodology, but also the content of their subject and inquiry by a distinctly normative standard: scripture, tradition, creeds, etc. Neither is “better” than the other, but there are important distinctions between the two, and both theology 1 and theology 2 fulfill a distinctive function oriented by different methodological assumptions. While the two are distinct, and articulating distinct types of theology is crucial for university-based theologians and their colleagues in religious studies, profound and deeply engrained points of convergence remain between the two.

Let me now reiterate a claim made above: While personal interest may draw students to the study of religion, the subject of religion is not and cannot be those personal beliefs. The exploration of this claim will illuminate the difference between academic theology in a university setting and theology 2 in a seminary or similar setting. A university-based theologian who is not restricted by confessional requirements or obligations will seek to uphold this distinction, refusing to allow any theological exchange to turn to or revolve around the personal beliefs of any participant as the subject of the discussion.

Should one’s personal beliefs become the subject of theological discussion outside the context of a confessional environment in which some basic unity of beliefs can be assumed, genuine dialogue would seem to be almost impossible axiomatically. In a pluralistic setting where one’s personal and communal beliefs are not necessarily shared, debating certain issues may take on a whole new significance, because to honestly consider and be willing to accept another’s argument that stands against one’s personally held belief could result in calling into question one’s own beliefs, beliefs that serve to ground one’s conceptions of God, self, and world. The suggestion is not that some can handle the challenge to their beliefs and others cannot, but that personal beliefs have no place as the subject of theological reflection in theology 1. In this setting, theological dialogue is most fruitful when only interpretations and ideas are at stake and open to debate and emendation, rather than core beliefs.

A confessional institution, on the other hand, has the prerogative, if not the responsibility, to provide space for discussion within the parameters of a basic level of shared belief, and one’s personal or creedal beliefs can be tested constructively within such a context. This bifurcation between theology 1 and theology 2  should in no way be understood as connoting any value judgment as to which method is more legitimate, nor is it meant to imply that the methodological pluralism of university-based theology is in any way “better” than confessional training at a seminary, or vice versa. While the distinction may verge on hyperbole here, I suggest we do a disservice to both types of theology by refusing to articulate and continually renegotiate these distinctions. Theology has done a relatively poor job of attempting to articulate some of these differences, as is evidenced by the common misunderstanding of distinct types and methodologies within theology, and the misuse of terminology (theological equals tautological) by colleagues within religious studies. Culpability surely rests at least as much with theologians, many of whom are still reticent to enter the “marketplace” of ideas.

A tentative definition of religion was offered earlier, informed by possible etymologies of the word: “the binding many humans experience or will vis-à-vis a force they cannot control, and the deliberate, communal repetition of actions which reinforce such frameworks.” At this point a tentative definition of theology based on this earlier definition can be proffered. Theology is critical and constructive engagement through reflection on the historical realities and truth claims of communities that experience or will a “binding” vis-à-vis a force they cannot control, and the repetition of actions that reinforce such frameworks, but theology is not necessarily bound by those realities or truth claims.

Theology differs from other specializations within the study of religion in several important ways that cannot be explored here. But make no mistake: theology is not identical with other disciplines in religious studies or within the academy at large; theology has a unique critical and constructive contribution to offer the academy and, at times, to communities of faith.

Honest engagement between religious traditions can engender not only the interpretative tasks most scholars already pursue, but also an ultimately constructive task as well.

Honest engagement with and between religious traditions can engender not only the explanatory and interpretative tasks most scholars already pursue, but also a critical and ultimately constructive task as well, naming and unmasking distortions and hidden power dynamics inherent in religions. The challenge of balancing a responsible advocacy for lived religious traditions and critical engagement with the thought of that tradition is what I am advocating for theology 1.

A significant facet of the challenge to both religious studies and theology in recent years has been an increasing awareness of the power dynamics inherent in all knowledge. Important has been the debate over the function of narrative and history: Who gets to tell the story? Who is authorized to write history? It seems painfully obvious that, until recently, history has always been the story told by the victorious. Claims of objectivity within the history of religions and confidence in the “facts” it recounts can fail to provide the necessary critical voice and thereby reify oppressive structures. For example, any historical or theological study of Tibetan Buddhism that obscures the violence permeating Tibet’s history in favor of fostering the illusion of a peaceful Shangri-La high in the Himalayas should be called into question. Any account of twentieth-century American religion that does not take critical aim at the oppression of women and minorities, including the specific role of religion in continuing to deny women and minorities equality, should be called into question.

I maintain that it is the responsibility of scholars, as well as academic administrators, to provide space for these and similar questions to be raised. This cannot be done on purely “objective” or disinterested grounds, however, as if the scholar were not already profoundly situated in a thick context. While the commitment to universal human rights and the cessation of all forms of oppression may be in vogue in universities, such commitments remain ideological presuppositions that cannot easily be substantiated on their own terms. In my opinion, scholars of religion and other disciplines should freely acknowledge such commitments and, if they so choose, mine the available religious or cultural resources in the attempt to find common ground on which conversations about equality and justice can take place, both within religious studies and in conversation with others in the university, in colloquia, in journals, and in the public sphere. The common ground sought to foster critical, comparative dialogue between religions could only aid in this conversation.

Nietzsche offered some “untimely observations” in 1873 that seem eerily prescient for the future of religious studies: “A religion, for example that is supposed to be trans-formed under the rule of pure justice into historical knowledge, a religion that is supposed to be understood scientifically through and through, will be destroyed as soon as it reaches this goal. The reason for this is that every historical audit always brings to life so much falsehood, coarseness, inhumanity, absurdity, and violence that the pious atmosphere of illusion. . .vanishes.” 15

I want to make two concluding points based on Nietzsche’s remarks. One is obvious: religion has not, contrary to Nietzsche’s predictions, vanished. Second, and more important, the pertinacity of religion provides fertile ground for scholars of religion to explore the perseverance and resurgence of religion as a dimension of human culture, oriented toward the purposes of life and the construction of a better world. The effect of religious studies certainly can be to “destroy” religion, as Nietzsche notes, or it can be to “study what service or disservice religion and religious history—as all history—has for the totality of life,” as Francis Fiorenza puts it. 16

Perhaps it is a “theological” assumption, but I submit that the academy in general, and perhaps religious studies in particular, should seek less to cloister itself in order to fortify territory than to recognize instead the significance of the ideas and sacred texts it is entrusted with and to use them in the service of society at large. Our words theory and theoretical do not etymologically connote dispassionate objectivity— theoreo in Greek can mean engaged reflection, in the sense of standing back and observing in wonder. Has the academy (religious studies?) lost its ability to stand back in awe of its subject? Why are so few willing, with Paul Ricoeur, to stand back after having analyzed and deconstructed their subject, and marvel with a “second naïveté” at a subject that still transcends us both as scholars and as human beings?

Perhaps the perceived or real impasse lies not between the academy and religious studies, but between factions within the study of religion. The perceived disparity between religious and theological studies is only the oldest of these contests. The only possible pharmakon in my opinion lies in sustained, systematic dialogue and a renewed openness to listening to and learning from and with colleagues within religious studies and with colleagues in the broader university. The ongoing challenge facing religious studies, equally challenging all of its subdisciplines, is that the discipline must constantly steer between the Scylla of reductionism and the Charybdis of theoretical abstraction, navigating between the twin perils of historicism and dogmatism.

  • Miroslav Volf, “Introduction: A Queen and a Beggar: Challenges and Prospects of Theology,” in The Future of Theology: Essays in Honor of Jürgen Moltmann , ed. Miroslav Volf et. al. (William B. Eerdmans, 1996), x.
  • Donald Wiebe , The Irony of Theology and the Nature of Religious Thought (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1991), 231.
  • Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (Doubleday, 1967), chaps. 1-2.
  • John Hick, An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent (Yale University Press, 1989), 11, 236-240.
  • George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (Westminster Press, 1984), 31-3.
  • S. Mark Heim, Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion (Orbis Books, 1995), 123.
  • Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, “Theological and Religious Studies: The Contest of the Faculties,” in Shifting Boundaries: Contextual Approaches to the Structure of Theological Education , ed. Barbara G. Wheeler and Edward Farley (Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), 119-149.
  • Max Weber, “Science as a Vocation,” in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology , trans. and ed. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (Routledge, 1991), 143.
  • Friedrich Nietzsche, “On the Utility and Liability of History for Life,” in Unfashionable Observations , vol. II, trans. Richard T. Gray (Stanford University Press, 1995), 128.
  • Clifford Geertz, “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretative Theory of Culture,” in The Interpretation of Cultures (Basic Books, 1973), 9.
  • Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, “Theology and the University,” Bulletin of the Council of Societies for the Study of Religion 22:2 (April 1993), 36.
  • Weber, 147.
  • Ronald F. Thiemann, “The Future of an Illusion: An Inquiry into the Contrast Between Theological and Religious Studies,” Theological Education 26:2, Spring 1990, 80.
  • Weber, 153.
  • Nietzsche, 131.
  • Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, “Theology and the University,” 36.

Bryan L. Wagoner is a PhD candidate in the Study  of Religion, focusing on Christian theology and critical social theory in the modern West. He is working primarily with HDS Professors Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, Ronald Thiemann, and Sarah Coakley.

Please follow our Commentary Guidelines when engaging in discussion on this site.

Leave a reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

theology essay 123

About | Commentary Guidelines | Harvard University Privacy | Accessibility | Digital Accessibility | Trademark Notice | Reporting Copyright Infringements Copyright © 2024 President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved.

1: The primacy of the Word of God
2: Faith, the response to God’s Word
3: Theology, the understanding of faith

1: The study of Scripture as the soul of theology
2: Fidelity to Apostolic Tradition
3: Attention to the 4: Responsible adherence to the ecclesiastical magisterium
5: In the company of theologians
6: In dialogue with the world

1: The truth of God and the rationality of theology
2: The unity of theology in a plurality of methods and disciplines
3: Science and wisdom

The study of the theme of the status of theology was already begun by the International Theological Commission in the session of 2004-2008. The work was done by a subcommission, presided by Reverend Santiago del Cura Elena and composed of the following members: Most Reverend Bruno Forte, Most Reverend Savio Hon Tai-Fai, S.D.B., Reverends Antonio Castellano, S.D.B., Tomislav Ivanĉić, Thomas Norris, Paul Rouhana, Leonard Santedi Kinkupu, Jerzy Szymik and Doctor Thomas Söding.

Since, however, this subcommission had no way of completing its work with the publication of a document, the study was taken up in the following session, on the basis of the work previously undertaken. For this purpose, a new subcommission was formed, presided by Monsignor Paul McPartlan and composed of the following members: Most Reverend Jan Liesen, Reverends Serge Thomas Bonino, O.P., Antonio Castellano, S.D.B., Adelbert Denaux, Tomislav Ivanĉić, Leonard Santedi Kinkupu, Jerzy Szymik, Sister Sara Butler, M.S.B.T., and Doctor Thomas Söding.

The general discussions of this theme were held in numerous meetings of the subcommission and during the Plenary Sessions of the same International Theological Commission held in Rome from 2004 to 2011. The present text was approved on 29 November 2011 and was then submitted to its President, Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who authorized its publication.

1. The years following the Second Vatican Council have been extremely productive for Catholic theology. There have been new theological voices, especially those of laymen and women; theologies from new cultural contexts, particularly Latin America, Africa and Asia; new themes for reflection, such as peace, justice, liberation, ecology and bioethics; deeper treatments of former themes, thanks to renewal in biblical, liturgical, patristic and medieval studies; and new venues for reflection, such as ecumenical, inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue. These are fundamentally positive developments. Catholic theology has sought to follow the path opened by the Council, which wished to express its ‘solidarity and respectful affection for the whole human family’ by entering into dialogue with it and offering ‘the saving resources which the Church has received from its founder under the promptings of the Holy Spirit’. However, this period has also seen a certain fragmentation of theology, and in the dialogue just mentioned theology always faces the challenge of maintaining its own true identity. The question arises, therefore, as to what characterises Catholic theology and gives it, in and through its many forms, a clear sense of identity in its engagement with the world of today.

2. To some extent, the Church clearly needs a common discourse if it is to communicate the one message of Christ to the world, both theologically and pastorally. It is therefore legitimate to speak of the need for a certain unity of theology. However, unity here needs to be carefully understood, so as not to be confused with uniformity or a single style. The unity of theology, like that of the Church, as professed in the Creed, must be closely correlated with the idea of catholicity, and also with those of holiness and apostolicity. The Church’s catholicity derives from Christ himself who is the Saviour of the whole world and of all humanity (cf. Eph 1:3-10; 1Tim 2:3-6). The Church is therefore at home in every nation and culture, and seeks to ‘gather in everything for its salvation and sanctification’. The fact that there is one Saviour shows that there is a necessary bond between catholicity and unity. As it explores the inexhaustible Mystery of God and the countless ways in which God’s grace works for salvation in diverse settings, theology rightly and necessarily takes a multitude of forms, and yet as investigations of the unique truth of the triune God and of the one plan of salvation centred on the one Lord Jesus Christ, this plurality must manifest distinctive family traits.

3. The International Theological Commission (ITC) has studied various aspects of the theological task in previous texts, notably, (1972), (1975), and (1990). The present text seeks to identify distinctive family traits of Catholic theology. It considers basic perspectives and principles which characterise Catholic theology, and offers criteria by which diverse and manifold theologies may nevertheless be recognised as authentically Catholic, and as participating in the Catholic Church’s mission, which is to proclaim the good news to people of every nation, tribe, people and language (cf. Mt 28:18-20; Rev 7:9), and, by enabling them to hear the voice of the one Lord, to gather them all into one flock with one shepherd (cf. Jn 10:16). That mission requires there to be in Catholic theology both diversity in unity and unity in diversity. Catholic theologies should be identifiable as such, mutually supportive and mutually accountable, as are Christians themselves in the communion of the Church for the glory of God. The present text accordingly consists of three chapters, setting out the following themes: in the rich plurality of its expressions, protagonists, ideas and contexts, theology is Catholic, and therefore fundamentally one, if it arises from an attentive listening to the Word of God (cf. Chapter One); if it situates itself consciously and faithfully in the communion of the Church (cf. Chapter Two); and if it is orientated to the service of God in the world, offering divine truth to the men and women of today in an intelligible form (cf. Chapter Three).

:
LISTENING TO THE WORD OF GOD

4. ‘It pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the mystery of his will (cf. Eph 1:9)’, namely that all people might ‘have access to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature (cf. Eph 2:18; 2Pet 1:4)’. ‘The novelty of biblical revelation consists in the fact that God becomes known through the dialogue which he desires to have with us.’ Theology, in all its diverse traditions, disciplines and methods, is founded on the fundamental act of listening in faith to the revealed Word of God, Christ himself. Listening to God’s Word is the definitive principle of Catholic theology; it leads to understanding and speech and to the formation of Christian community: ‘the Church is built upon the word of God; she is born from and lives by that word’. ‘We declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ’ (1Jn 1:3). The whole world is to hear the summons to salvation, ‘so that through hearing it may believe, through belief it may hope, through hope it may come to love’.

5. Theology is scientific reflection on the divine revelation which the Church accepts by faith as universal saving truth. The sheer fulness and richness of that revelation is too great to be grasped by any one theology, and in fact gives rise to multiple theologies as it is received in diverse ways by human beings. In its diversity, nevertheless, theology is united in its service of the one truth of God. The unity of theology, therefore does not require uniformity, but rather a single focus on God’s Word and an explication of its innumerable riches by theologies able to dialogue and communicate with one another. Likewise, the plurality of theologies should not imply fragmentation or discord, but rather the exploration in myriad ways of God’s one saving truth.

6. ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’ (Jn 1:1). The Gospel of John starts with a ‘prologue’. This hymn highlights the cosmic scope of revelation and the culmination of revelation in the incarnation of the Word of God. ‘What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people’ (Jn 1:3-4). Creation and history constitute the space and time in which God reveals himself. The world, created by God by means of his Word (cf. Gen 1), is also, however, the setting for the rejection of God by human beings. Nevertheless, God’s love towards them is always infinitely greater; ‘the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness does not overcome it’ (Jn 1:5). The incarnation of the Son is the culmination of that steadfast love: ‘And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth’ (Jn 1:14). The revelation of God as Father who loves the world (cf. Jn 3:16, 35) is realised in the revelation of Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, the Son of God and ‘Saviour of the world’ (Jn 4:42). In ‘many and various ways’ God spoke through the prophets in former times, but in the fullness of time he spoke to us ‘by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds’ (Heb 1:1-2). ‘No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known’ (Jn 1:18).

7. The Church greatly venerates the Scriptures, but it is important to recognise that ‘the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book”; Christianity is the “religion of the word of God”, not of “a written and mute word, but of the incarnate and living Word”’. The gospel of God is fundamentally testified by the sacred Scripture of both Old and New Testaments. The Scriptures are ‘inspired by God and committed to writing once and for all time’; hence, ‘they present God’s own Word in an unalterable form, and they make the voice of the Holy Spirit sound again and again in the words of the prophets and apostles’. Tradition is the faithful transmission of the Word of God, witnessed in the canon of Scripture by the prophets and the apostles and in the (liturgy), (testimony) and (service) of the Church.

8. St Augustine wrote that the Word of God was heard by inspired authors and transmitted by their words: ‘God speaks through a human being in human fashion; and speaking thus he seeks us . The Holy Spirit not only inspired the biblical authors to find the right words of witness but also assists the readers of the Bible in every age to understand the Word of God in the human words of the holy Scriptures. The relationship between Scripture and Tradition is rooted in the truth which God reveals in his Word for our salvation: ‘the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures’, and through the ages the Holy Spirit ‘leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness (cf. Col 3:16)’. ‘[T]he word of God is given to us in sacred Scripture as an inspired testimony to revelation; together with the Church’s living Tradition, it constitutes the supreme rule of faith.’

9. A criterion of Catholic theology is recognition of the primacy of the Word of God. God speaks ‘in many and various ways’ - in creation, through prophets and sages, through the holy Scriptures, and definitively through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh (cf. Heb 1:1-2).

10. St Paul writes in his letter to the Romans: ‘faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ’ (Rom 10:17). He makes two important points here. On the one hand, he explains that faith follows from listening to the Word of God, always ‘by the power of the Spirit of God’ (Rom 15:19). On the other hand, he clarifies the means by which the Word of God reaches human ears: fundamentally by means of those who have been sent to proclaim the Word and to awaken faith (cf. Rom 10:14-15). It follows that the Word of God for all time can be proclaimed authentically only on the foundation of the apostles (cf. Eph 2:20-22) and in apostolic succession (cf. 1Tim 4:6).

11. Since Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, ‘is himself both the mediator and the sum total of Revelation’, the response that the Word seeks, namely faith, is likewise personal. By faith human beings entrust their entire selves to God, in an act which involves the ‘full submission’ of the intellect and will to the God who reveals. ‘The obedience of faith’ (Rom 1:5) is thus something personal. By faith, human beings open their ears to listen to God’s Word and their mouths also to offer him prayer and praise; they open their hearts to receive the love of God which is poured into them through the gift of the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom 5:5); and they ‘abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit’ (Rom 15:13), a hope ‘which does not disappoint’ (Rom 5:5). Thus, a living faith can be understood as embracing both hope and love. Paul emphasises, moreover, that the faith evoked by the Word of God resides in the heart and gives rise to a verbal confession: ‘if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved’ (Rom 10:9-10).

12. Faith, then, is experience of God which involves knowledge of him, since revelation gives access to the truth of God which saves us (cf. 2Th 2:13) and makes us free (cf. Jn 8:32). Paul writes to the Galatians that, as believers, they ‘have come to know God, or rather to be known by God’ (Gal 4:9; cf. 1Jn 4:16). Without faith, it would be impossible to gain insight into this truth, because it is revealed by God. The truth revealed by God and accepted in faith, moreover, is not something irrational. Rather, it gives rise to the ‘spiritual worship [ ]’ that Paul says involves a renewal of the mind (Rom 12:1-2). That God exists and is one, the creator and Lord of history, can be known with the aid of reason from the works of creation, according to a long tradition found in both the Old (cf. Wis 13:1-9) and New Testaments (cf. Rom 1:18-23). However, that God has revealed himself through the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of his Son for the salvation of the world (cf. Jn 3:16), and that God in his inner life is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, can be known only through faith.

13. ‘Faith’ is both an act of belief or trust and also that which is believed or confessed, and , respectively. Both aspects work together inseparably, since trust is adhesion to a message with intelligible content, and confession cannot be reduced to mere lip service, it must come from the heart. Faith is at the same time a reality profoundly personal and ecclesial. In professing their faith, Christians say both ‘I believe’ and ‘We believe’. Faith is professed within the of the Holy Spirit (cf. 2Cor 13:13), which unites all believers with God and among themselves (cf. 1Jn 1:1-3), and achieves its ultimate expression in the Eucharist (cf. 1Cor 10:16-17). Professions of faith have developed within the community of the faithful since earliest times. All Christians are called to give personal witness to their faith, but the creeds enable the Church as such to profess her faith. This profession corresponds to the teaching of the apostles, the good news, in which the Church stands and through which it is saved (cf. 1Cor 15:1-11).

14. ‘False prophets arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions’ (2Pet 2:1). The New Testament shows abundantly that, from the very beginnings of the Church, certain people have proposed a ‘heretical’ interpretation of the faith held in common, an interpretation opposed to the Apostolic Tradition. In the first letter of John, separation from the communion of love is an indicator of false teaching (1Jn 2:18-19). Heresy thus not only distorts the Gospel, it also damages ecclesial communion. ‘Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same’. Those guilty of such obstinacy against the teaching of the Church substitute their own judgement for obedience to the word of God (the formal motive of faith), the . Heresy serves as a reminder that the communion of the Church can only be secured on the basis of the Catholic faith in its integrity, and prompts the Church to an ever-deeper search for truth in communion.

15. A criterion of Catholic theology is that it takes the faith of the Church as its source, context and norm. Theology holds the and the together. It expounds the teaching of the apostles, the good news about Jesus Christ ‘in accordance with the Scriptures’ (1Cor 15: 3, 4), as the rule and stimulus of the Church’s faith.

16. The act of faith, in response to the Word of God, opens the intelligence of the believer to new horizons. St Paul writes: ‘it is the God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness”, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ’ (2Cor 4:6). In this light, faith contemplates the whole world in a new way; it sees it more truly because, empowered by the Holy Spirit, it shares in God’s own perspective. That is why St Augustine invites everyone who seeks truth to ‘believe in order to understand [ ]’. We have received ‘the Spirit that is from God’, St Paul says, ‘so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God’ (1Cor 2:12). Moreover, by this gift we are drawn into an understanding even of God himself, because ‘the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God’. By teaching that ‘we have the mind of Christ’ (1Cor 2:16), St Paul implies that by God’s grace we have a certain participation even in Christ’s own knowledge of his Father, and thereby in God’s own self-knowledge.

17. Placed in possession of ‘the boundless riches of Christ’ (Eph 3:8) by faith, believers seek to understand ever more fully that which they believe, pondering it in their hearts (cf. Lk 2:19). Led by the Spirit and utilising all the resources of their intelligence, they strive to assimilate the intelligible content of the Word of God, so that it may become light and nourishment for their faith. They ask of God that they may be ‘filled with the knowledge of God’s will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding’ (Col 1:9). This is the way of the understanding of faith ( ). As St Augustine explains, it unfolds from the very dynamism of faith: ‘One who now understands by a true reason what he previously just believed is surely to be preferred to one who still desires to understand what he believes; but if one does not desire and if one thinks that only those things are to be believed which can be understood, then one ignores the very purpose of faith’. This work of understanding faith contributes in turn to the nourishment of faith and enables the latter to grow. Thus it is that ‘Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth’. The way of the is the path from believing, which is its source and permanent principle, to seeing in glory (the beatific vision; cf. 1Jn 3:2), of which the is an anticipation.

18. The takes various forms in the life of the Church and in the community of believers in accordance with the different gifts of the faithful ( , meditation, preaching, theology as a science, etc.). It becomes theology in the strict sense when the believer undertakes to present the content of the Christian mystery in a rational and scientific way. Theology is therefore in as much as it is a rational participation in the knowledge that God has of himself and of all things.

19. A criterion of Catholic theology is that, precisely as the science of faith, ‘faith seeking understanding [ ] , it has a rational dimension. Theology strives to understand what the Church believes, why it believes, and what can be known . As , theology aims to understand in a rational and systematic manner the saving truth of God.

:
ABIDING IN THE COMMUNION OF THE CHURCH

20. The proper place for theology is within the Church, which is gathered together by the Word of God. The ecclesiality of theology is a constitutive aspect of the theological task, because theology is based on faith, and faith itself is both personal and ecclesial. The revelation of God is directed towards the convocation and renewal of the people of God, and it is through the Church that theologians receive the object of their enquiry. In Catholic theology, there has been considerable reflection on the ‘ ’ of theology, that is, the fundamental reference points for the theological task. It is important to know not just the but also their relative weight and the relationship between them.

21. The ‘study of the sacred page’ should be the ‘very soul of sacred theology’. This is the Second Vatican Council’s core affirmation with regard to theology. Pope Benedict XVI reiterates: ‘where theology is not essentially the interpretation of the Church’s Scripture, such a theology no longer has a foundation’. Theology in its entirety should conform to the Scriptures, and the Scriptures should sustain and accompany all theological work, because theology is concerned with ‘the truth of the gospel’ (Gal 2:5), and it can know that truth only if it investigates the normative witness to it in the canon of sacred Scripture, and if, in doing so, it relates the human words of the Bible to the living Word of God. ‘Catholic exegetes must never forget that what they are interpreting is the word of God…. They arrive at the true goal of their work only when they have explained the meaning of the biblical text as God’s word for today.’

22. sees the task of exegesis as that of ascertaining ‘what God has wished to communicate to us’. To understand and explain the meaning of the biblical texts, it must make use of all the appropriate philological, historical and literary methods, with the aim of clarifying and understanding sacred Scripture in its own context and period. Thus the historicity of revelation is methodologically taken into account. 12 makes particular reference to the need for attentiveness to literary forms: ‘for the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetic texts, and in other forms of literary expression’. Since the council, further methods which can unfold new aspects of the meaning of Scripture have been developed. 12 indicates, however, that in order to acknowledge ‘the divine dimension of the Bible’ and to achieve a truly ‘theological’ interpretation of Scripture, ‘three fundamental criteria’ must also be taken into account: the unity of Scripture, the witness of Tradition, and the analogy of faith. The council refers to the unity of Scripture because the Bible testifies to the entire truth of salvation only in its pluriform totality. Exegesis has developed methodological ways of taking account of the canon of Scripture as a whole as a hermeneutical reference point for interpreting Scripture. The significance of the location and content of the different books and pericopes can thereby be determined. Overall, as the council teaches, exegesis should strive to read and interpret the biblical texts in the broad setting of the faith and life of the people of God, sustained through the ages by the working of the Holy Spirit. It is in this context that exegesis searches for the literal sense and opens itself to the spiritual or fuller sense ( ) of scripture. ‘Only where both methodological levels, the historico-critical and the theological, are respected, can one speak of a theological exegesis, an exegesis worthy of this book.’

23. In saying that the study of sacred Scripture is the ‘soul’ of theology, has in mind all of the theological disciplines. This foundation in the revealed Word of God, as testified by Scripture and Tradition, is essential for theology. Its primary task is to interpret God’s truth as saving truth. Urged on by Vatican II, Catholic theology seeks to attend to the Word of God and thereby to the witness of Scripture in all its work. Thus it is that in theological expositions ‘biblical themes should have first place’, before anything else. This approach corresponds anew to that of the Fathers of the Church, who were ‘primarily and essentially “commentators on sacred Scripture”’, and it opens up the possibility of ecumenical collaboration: ‘shared listening to the Scriptures … spurs us on towards the dialogue of charity and enables growth in the dialogue of truth’.

24. A criterion of Catholic theology is that it should draw constantly upon the canonical witness of Scripture and should promote the anchoring of all of the Church’s doctrine and practice in that witness, since ‘all the preaching of the Church, as indeed the entire Christian religion, should be nourished and ruled by sacred Scripture’. Theology should endeavour to open wide the Scriptures to the Christian faithful, so that the faithful may come into contact with the living Word of God (cf. Heb 4:12).

25. The Acts of the Apostles describes the life of the early Christian community in a way that is fundamental for the Church of all times: ‘They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers’ (Acts 2:42; cf. Rev 1:3). This succinct description, at the end of the account of the feast of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit opened the mouths of the apostles to preach and brought many of those who heard them to faith, highlights various essential aspects of the Spirit’s ongoing work in the Church. There is already an anticipatory outline of the Church’s teaching and sacramental life, of its spirituality and commitment to charity. All of these began in the apostolic community, and the handing on of this integral way of life in the Spirit is Apostolic Tradition. (the rule of prayer), (the rule of belief) and (the rule of life) are all essential aspects of this Tradition. Paul refers to the Tradition into which as an apostle he has been incorporated when he speaks of ‘handing on’ what he himself ‘received’ (1Cor 15:1-11, cf. also 1Cor 11:23-26).

26. Tradition is therefore something living and vital, an ongoing process in which the unity of faith finds expression in the variety of languages and the diversity of cultures. It ceases to be Tradition if it fossilises. ‘The Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on…. Thus, as the centuries go by, the Church is always advancing towards the plenitude of divine truth, until eventually the words of God are fulfilled in her’. Tradition occurs in the power of the Holy Spirit, who, as Jesus promised his disciples, guides the Church into all the truth (cf. Jn 16:13), by firmly establishing the memory of Jesus himself (cf. Jn 14:26), keeping the Church faithful to her apostolic origins, enabling the secure transmission of the Faith, and prompting the ever-new presentation of the Gospel under the direction of pastors who are successors of the apostles. Vital components of Tradition are therefore: a constantly renewed study of sacred Scripture, liturgical worship, attention to what the witnesses of faith have taught through the ages, catechesis fostering growth in faith, practical love of God and neighbour, structured ecclesial ministry and the service given by the magisterium to the Word of God. What is handed on comprises ‘everything that serves to make the People of God live their lives in holiness and increase their faith’. The Church ‘in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes’.

27. ‘The sayings of the Holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of … Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.’ Because the Fathers of the Church, both East and West, have a unique place in the ‘faithful transmission and elucidation’ of revealed truth, their writings are a specific reference point ( ) for Catholic theology. The Tradition known and lived by the Fathers was multi-faceted and pulsing with life, as can be seen from the plurality of liturgical families and of spiritual and exegetical-theological traditions (e.g. in the schools of Alexandria and Antioch), a plurality firmly anchored and united in the one faith. During the major theological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries, the conformity of a doctrine with the consensus of the Fathers, or lack of it, was proof of orthodoxy or heresy. For Augustine, the united witness of the Fathers was the voice of the Church. The councils of Chalcedon and Trent began their solemn declarations with the formula: ‘Following the Holy Fathers…’, and the council of Trent and the First Vatican Council clearly indicated that the ‘unanimous consensus’ of the Fathers was a sure guide for the interpretation of Scripture.

28. Many of the Fathers were bishops who gathered with their fellow bishops in the councils, first regional and later worldwide or ‘ecumenical’, that mark the life of the Church from the earliest centuries, after the example of the apostles (cf. Acts 15:6-21). Confronted with the Christological and Trinitarian heresies that threatened the faith and unity of the Church during the patristic period, bishops met in the great ecumenical councils – Nicaea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II – to condemn error and proclaim the orthodox faith in creeds and definitions of faith. These councils set forth their teaching, in particular their solemn definitions, as normative and universally binding; and these definitions express and belong to the Apostolic Tradition and continue to serve the faith and unity of the Church. Subsequent councils which have been recognised as ecumenical in the West continued this practice. The Second Vatican Council refers to the teaching office or magisterium of the pope and the bishops of the Church, and states that the bishops teach infallibly when, either gathered with the bishop of Rome in an ecumenical council or in communion with him though dispersed throughout the world, they agree that a particular teaching concerning faith or morals ‘is to be held definitively and absolutely’. The pope himself, head of the college of bishops, teaches infallibly when ‘as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful … he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals’.

29. Catholic theology recognises the teaching authority of ecumenical councils, the ordinary and universal magisterium of the bishops, and the papal magisterium. It acknowledges the special status of dogmas, that is, statements ‘in which the Church proposes a revealed truth definitively, and in a way that is binding for the universal Church, so much so that denial is rejected as heresy and falls under an anathema’. Dogmas belong to the living and ongoing Apostolic Tradition. Theologians are aware of the difficulties that attend their interpretation. For example, it is necessary to understand the precise question under consideration in light of its historical context, and to discern how a dogma’s meaning and content are related to its formulation. Nevertheless, dogmas are sure points of reference for the Church’s faith and are used as such in theological reflection and argumentation.

30. In Catholic belief, Scripture, Tradition, and the magisterium of the Church are inseparably linked. ‘Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church’, and ‘the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone’. Sacred Scripture is not simply a text but and , testified initially by the prophets of the Old Testament and ultimately by the apostles in the New Testament (cf. Rom 1:1-2) Having arisen in the midst of the People of God, and having been unified, read and interpreted by the People of God, sacred Scripture belongs to the living Tradition of the Church as the canonical witness to the faith for all time. Indeed, ‘Scripture is the first member in the written tradition’. ‘Scripture is to be proclaimed, heard, read, received and experienced as the word of God, in the stream of the apostolic Tradition from which it is inseparable.’ This process is sustained by the Holy Spirit, ‘through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church – and through her in the world’. ‘Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching. Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone’. She draws it also from the Apostolic Tradition, because the latter is the living process of the Church’s listening to the Word of God.

31. Vatican II distinguished between Tradition and those traditions that belong to particular periods of the Church’s history, or to particular regions and communities, such as religious orders or specific local churches. Distinguishing between Tradition and traditions has been one of the major tasks of Catholic theology since Vatican II, and of theology generally in recent decades. It is a task profoundly related to the Church’s catholicity, and with many ecumenical implications. Numerous questions arise, for instance: ‘Is it possible to determine more precisely what the content of the one Tradition is, and by what means? Do all traditions which claim to be Christian contain the Tradition? How can we distinguish between traditions embodying the true Tradition and merely human traditions? Where do we find the genuine Tradition, and where impoverished tradition or even distortion of tradition?’ On one hand, theology must show that Apostolic Tradition is not something abstract, but that it exists concretely in the different traditions that have formed within the Church. On the other hand, theology has to consider why certain traditions are characteristic not of the Church as a whole, but only of particular religious orders, local churches or historical periods. While criticism is not appropriate with reference to Apostolic Tradition itself, must always be open to critique, so that the ‘continual reformation’ of which the Church has need can take place, and so that the Church can renew herself permanently on her one foundation, namely Jesus Christ. Such a critique seeks to verify whether a specific tradition does indeed express the faith of the Church in a particular place and time, and it seeks correspondingly to strengthen or correct it through contact with the living faith of all places and all times.

32. Fidelity to the Apostolic Tradition is a criterion of Catholic theology. This fidelity requires an active and discerning reception of the various witnesses and expressions of the ongoing Apostolic Tradition. It implies study of sacred Scripture, the liturgy, and the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and attention to the teaching of the magisterium.

33. In his first letter to the Thessalonians, St Paul writes: ‘We constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers’ (1Thess 2:13). These words illustrate what Vatican II referred to as ‘the supernatural appreciation of the faith [ ] of the whole people’, . The subject of faith is the people of God as a whole, which in the power of the Spirit affirms the Word of God. That is why the council declares that the entire people of God participates in the prophetic ministry of Jesus, and that, anointed by the Holy Spirit (cf. 1Jn 2:20, 27), it ‘cannot err in matters of belief’. The pastors who guide the people of God, serving its faith, are themselves first of all members of the communion of believers. Therefore speaks first about the people of God and the that they have, of the bishops who, through their apostolic succession in the episcopate and the reception of their own specific (sure charism of truth), constitute, as a college in hierarchical communion with their head, the bishop of Rome and successor of St Peter in the apostolic see, the Church’s magisterium Likewise, teaches that the Word of God has been ‘entrusted to the Church’, and refers to the ‘entire holy people’ adhering to it, before then specifying that the pope and the bishops have the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God. This ordering is fundamental for Catholic theology. As St Augustine said: ‘ ’.

34. The nature and location of the or must be properly understood. The does not simply mean the majority opinion in a given time or culture, nor is it only a secondary affirmation of what is first taught by the . The is the of the people of God as a whole who are obedient to the Word of God and are led in the ways of faith by their pastors. So the is the sense of the faith that is deeply rooted in the people of God who receive, understand and live the Word of God in the Church.

35. For theologians, the is of great importance. It is not only an object of attention and respect, it is also a base and a for their work. On the one hand, theologians depend on the , because the faith that they explore and explain lives in the people of God. It is clear, therefore, that theologians themselves must participate in the life of the Church to be truly aware of it. On the other hand, part of the particular service of theologians within the body of Christ is precisely to explicate the Church’s faith as it is found in the Scriptures, the liturgy, creeds, dogmas, catechisms, and in the itself. Theologians help to clarify and articulate the content of the , recognising and demonstrating that issues relating to the truth of faith can be complex, and that investigation of them must be precise. It falls to them also on occasion critically to examine expressions of popular piety, new currents of thought and movements within the Church, in the name of fidelity to the Apostolic Tradition. Theologians’ critical assessments must always be constructive; they must be given with humility, respect and charity: ‘Knowledge ( ) puffs up, but love ( ) builds up’ (1Cor 8:1).

36. Attention to the is a criterion for Catholic theology. Theology should strive to discover and articulate accurately what the Catholic faithful actually believe. It must speak the truth in love, so that the faithful may mature in faith, and not be ‘tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine’ (Eph 4:14-15).

37. In Catholic theology, the magisterium is an integral factor in the theological enterprise itself, since theology receives its object from God through the Church whose faith is authentically interpreted by ‘the living teaching office of the Church alone’, that is, by the magisterium of the pope and the bishops. Fidelity to the magisterium is necessary for theology to be the knowledge of faith ( ) and an ecclesial task. A correct theological methodology therefore requires a proper understanding of the nature and authority of the magisterium at its various levels, and of the relations that properly exist between the ecclesiastical magisterium and theology. Bishops and theologians have distinct callings, and must respect one another’s particular competence, lest the magisterium reduce theology to a mere repetitive science or theologians presume to substitute the teaching office of the Church’s pastors.

38. An understanding of the Church as communion is a good framework within which to consider how the relationship between theologians and bishops, between theology and the magisterium, can be one of fruitful collaboration. The first thing to acknowledge is that theologians in their work and bishops in their magisterium both stand under the primacy of the Word of God, and never above it. Between bishops and theologians there should be a mutually respectful collaboration; in their obedient listening to this Word and faithful proclamation of it; in their attention to the and service of the growth and maturing of faith; in their concern to transmit the Word to future generations, with respect for new questions and challenges; and in their hope-filled witness to the gifts already received; in all of this bishops and theologians have their respective roles in one common mission, from which the magisterium and theology each derive their own legitimacy and purpose. Theology investigates and articulates the faith of the Church, and the ecclesiastical magisterium proclaims that faith and authentically interprets it.

39. On the one hand, the magisterium needs theology in order to demonstrate in its interventions not only doctrinal authority, but also theological competence and a capacity for critical evaluation, so theologians should be called upon to assist with the preparation and formulation of magisterial pronouncements. On the other hand, the magisterium is an indispensable help to theology by its authentic transmission of the deposit of faith ( ), particularly at decisive times of discernment Theologians should acknowledge the contribution of magisterial statements to theological progress and should assist with the reception of those statements. Magisterial interventions themselves can stimulate theological reflection, and theologians should show how their own contributions conform with and carry forward previous doctrinal statements of the magisterium. There is indeed in the Church a certain ‘magisterium’ of theologians, but there is no place for parallel, opposing or alternative magisteria, or for views that would separate theology from the Church’s magisterium.

40. When it comes to the ‘authentic’ interpretation of the faith, the magisterium plays a role that theology simply cannot take to itself. Theology cannot substitute a judgement coming from the scientific theological community for that of the bishops. Acceptance of this function of the magisterium in relation to the authenticity of faith requires recognition of the different levels of magisterial affirmations. These different levels give rise to a correspondingly differentiated response on the part of the faithful and of theologians. Not all magisterial teaching has the same weight. This itself is relevant to the work of theology, and indeed the different levels are described by what are called ‘theological qualifications or notes’.

41. Precisely because of this gradation, the obedience that theologians as members of the people of God owe to the magisterium always involves constructively critical evaluation and comment. While ‘dissent’ towards the magisterium has no place in Catholic theology, investigation and questioning is justified and even necessary if theology is to fulfil its task. Whatever the situation, a mere formal and exterior obedience or adherence on the part of theologians is not sufficient. Theologians should strive to deepen their reflection on the truth proclaimed by the Church’s magisterium, and should seek its implications for the Christian life and for the service of the truth. In this way, theologians fulfil their proper task and the teaching of the magisterium is not reduced to mere decorative citations in theological discourse.

42. The relationship between bishops and theologians is often good and trusting on both sides, with due respect for one another’s callings and responsibilities. For example, bishops attend and participate in national and regional gatherings of theological associations, call on theological experts as they formulate their own teaching and policies, and visit and support theological faculties and schools in their dioceses. Inevitably, there will be tensions at times in the relationship between theologians and bishops. In his profound analysis of the dynamic interaction, within the living organism of the Church, of the three offices of Christ as prophet, priest and king, Blessed John Henry Newman acknowledged the possibility of such ‘chronic collisions or contrasts’, and it is well to remember that he saw them as ‘lying in the nature of the case’. ‘Theology is the fundamental and regulating principle of the whole Church system’, he wrote, and yet ‘theology cannot always have its own way’. With regard to tensions between theologians and the magisterium, the International Theological Commission said in 1975: ‘wherever there is genuine life, tension always exists’. ‘Such tension need not be interpreted as hostility or real opposition, but can be seen as a vital force and an incentive to a common carrying out of [their] respective tasks by way of dialogue.’

43. The freedom of theology and of theologians is a theme of special interest. This freedom ‘derives from the true scientific responsibility of theologians’. The idea of adherence to the magisterium sometimes prompts a critical contrast between a so-called ‘scientific’ theology (without presuppositions of faith or ecclesial allegiance) and a so-called ‘confessional’ theology (elaborated within a religious confession), but such a contrast is inadequate. Other debates arise from consideration of the believer’s freedom of conscience, or of the importance of scientific progress in theological investigation, and the magisterium is sometimes cast as a repressive force or a brake on progress. Investigating such issues is itself part of the theological task, so as properly to integrate the scientific and confessional aspects of theology, and to see the freedom of theology within the horizon of the design and will of God.

44. Giving responsible adherence to the magisterium in its various gradations is a criterion of Catholic theology. Catholic theologians should recognise the competence of bishops, and especially of the college of bishops headed by the pope, to give an authentic interpretation of the Word of God handed on in Scripture and Tradition.

45. As is the case with all Christian vocations, the ministry of theologians, as well as being personal, is also both communal and collegial; that is, it is exercised in and for the Church as a whole, and it is lived out in solidarity with those who have the same calling. Theologians are rightly conscious and proud of the profound links of solidarity that unite them with one another in service to the body of Christ and to the world. In very many ways, as colleagues in theological faculties and schools, as fellow members of theological societies and associations, as collaborators in research, and as writers and teachers, they support, encourage and inspire one another, and also serve as mentors and role models for those, especially graduate students, who are aspiring to be theologians. Moreover, links of solidarity rightly extend in space and time, uniting theologians across the world in different countries and cultures, and through time in different eras and contexts. This solidarity is truly beneficial when it promotes awareness and observance of the criteria of Catholic theology as identified in this report. No-one is better placed to assist Catholic theologians in striving to give the best possible service, in accordance with the true characteristics of their discipline, than other Catholic theologians.

46. Nowadays, collaboration in research and publication projects, both within and across various theological fields, is increasingly common. Opportunities for presentations, seminars and conferences that will strengthen the mutual awareness and appreciation of colleagues in theological institutions and faculties should be cultivated. Moreover, occasions for inter-disciplinary encounter and exchange between theologians and philosophers, natural and social scientists, historians, and so on, should also be fostered, since, as is indicated in this report, theology is a science that thrives in interaction with other sciences, as they do also in fruitful exchange with theology.

47. In the nature of their task, theologians often work at the frontiers of the Church’s experience and reflection. Especially with the expanded number nowadays of lay theologians who have experience of particular areas of interaction between the Church and the world, between the Gospel and life, with which ordained theologians and theologians in religious life may not be so familiar, it is increasingly the case that theologians give an initial articulation of ‘faith seeking understanding’ in new circumstances or in the face of new issues. Theologians need and deserve the prayerful support of the ecclesial community as a whole, and particularly of one another, in their sincere endeavours on behalf of the Church, but careful adherence to the fundamental criteria of Catholic theology is especially important in such circumstances. Theologians should always recognise the intrinsic provisionality of their endeavours, and offer their work to the Church as a whole for scrutiny and evaluation.

48. One of the most valuable services that theologians render to one another is that of mutual questioning and correction, e.g. by the medieval practice of the and today’s practice of reviewing one another’s writings, so that ideas and methods can be progressively refined and perfected, and this process generally and healthily occurs within the theological community itself. Of its nature, however, it can be a slow and private process, and, especially in these days of instant communication and dissemination of ideas far beyond the strictly theological community, it would be unreasonable to imagine that this self-correcting mechanism suffices in all cases. The bishops who watch over the faithful, teaching and caring for them, certainly have the right and the duty to speak, to intervene and if necessary to censure theological work that they deem to be erroneous or harmful.

49. Ecumenical dialogue and research provides a uniquely privileged and potentially productive field for collaboration between Catholic theologians and those of other Christian traditions. In such work, issues of faith, meaning and language are deeply pondered. As they work to promote mutual understanding on issues that have been contentious between their traditions, perhaps for many centuries, theologians act as ambassadors for their communities in the holy task of seeking the reconciliation and unity of Christians, so that the world may believe (cf. Jn 17:21). That ambassadorial task requires particular adherence to the criteria outlined here on the part of Catholic participants, so that the manifold gifts that the Catholic tradition contains can truly be offered in the ‘exchange of gifts’ that ecumenical dialogue and collaboration more widely always in some sense is.

50. A criterion of Catholic theology is that it should be practised in professional, prayerful and charitable collaboration with the whole company of Catholic theologians in the communion of the Church, in a spirit of mutual appreciation and support, attentive both to the needs and comments of the faithful and to the guidance of the Church’s pastors.

51. ‘The people of God believes that it is led by the Spirit of the Lord who fills the whole world’. The Second Vatican Council said that the Church should therefore be ready to discern in ‘the events, the needs and the longings’ of today’s world what may truly be signs of the Spirit’s activity. ‘At all times the Church carries the responsibility of reading the signs of the times [ ] and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel, if it is to carry out its task. In language intelligible to every generation, she should be able to answer the ever recurring questions which [people] ask about the meaning of this present life and of the life to come, and how one is related to the other. We must be aware of and understand the aspirations, the yearnings, and the often dramatic features of the world in which we live’.

52. As they live their daily lives in the world with faith, all Christians face the challenge of interpreting the events and crises that arise in human affairs, and all engage in conversation and debate in which, inevitably, faith is questioned and a response is needed. The whole Church lives, as it were, at the interface between the Gospel and everyday life, which is also the boundary between the past and the future, as history moves forward. The Church is always in dialogue and in movement, and within the communion of the baptised who are all dynamically engaged in this way bishops and theologians have particular responsibilities, as the council made clear. ‘With the help of the Holy Spirit, it is the task of the whole people of God, particularly of its pastors and theologians, to listen to and distinguish the many voices of our times and to interpret them in the light of the divine Word, in order that the revealed truth may be more deeply penetrated, better understood, and more suitably presented’.

53. Theology has a particular competence and responsibility in this regard. Through its constant dialogue with the social, religious and cultural currents of the time, and through its openness to other sciences which, with their own methods examine those developments, theology can help the faithful and the magisterium to see the importance of developments, events and trends in human history, and to discern and interpret ways in which through them the Spirit may be speaking to the Church and to the world.

54. The ‘signs of the times’ may be described as those events or phenomena in human history which, in a sense, because of their impact or extent, define the face of a period, and bring to expression particular needs and aspirations of humanity at that time. The Council’s use of the expression, ‘signs of the times’, shows that it fully recognised the historicity not only of the world, but also of the Church, which is in the world (cf. Jn 17:11, 15, 18) though not of the world (cf. Jn 17:14, 16). What is happening in the world at large, good or bad, can never be a matter of indifference to the Church. The world is the place in which the Church, following in the footsteps of Christ, announces the Gospel, bears witness to the justice and mercy of God, and participates in the drama of human life.

55. Recent centuries have seen major social and cultural developments. One might think, for instance, of the discovery of historicity, and of movements such as the Enlightenment and the French revolution (with its ideals of freedom, equality and fraternity), movements for emancipation and for the promotion of women’s rights, movements for peace and justice, liberation and democratisation, and the ecological movement. The ambivalence of human history has led the Church at times in the past to be overly cautious about such movements, to see only the threats they may contain to Christian doctrine and faith, and to neglect their significance. However, such attitudes have gradually changed thanks to the of the People of God, the clear sight of prophetic individual believers, and the patient dialogue of theologians with their surrounding cultures. A better discernment in the light of the Gospel has been made, with a greater readiness to see how the Spirit of God may be speaking through such events. In all cases, discernment must carefully distinguish between elements compatible with the Gospel and those contrary to it, between positive contributions and ideological aspects, but the more acute understanding of the world that results cannot fail to prompt a more penetrating appreciation of Christ the Lord and of the Gospel since Christ is the Saviour of the world.

56. While the world of human culture profits from the activity of the Church, the Church also profits from ‘the history and development of mankind’. ‘It profits from the experience of past ages, from the progress of the sciences, and from the riches hidden in various cultures, through which greater light is thrown on the mystery of man and new avenues to truth are opened up’. The painstaking work to establish profitable links with other disciplines, sciences and cultures so as to enhance that light and broaden those avenues is the particular task of theologians, and the discernment of the signs of the times presents great opportunities for theological endeavour, notwithstanding the complex hermeneutical issues that arise. Thanks to the work of many theologians, Vatican II was able to acknowledge various signs of the times in connection with its own teaching.

57. Heeding God’s final Word in Jesus Christ, Christians are open to hear echoes of his voice in other persons, places, and cultures (cf. Acts 14:15-17; 17:24-28; Rom 1:19-20). The council urged that the faithful ‘should be familiar with their national and religious traditions and uncover with gladness and respect those seeds of the Word which lie hidden among them’. It specifically taught that the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is ‘true and holy’ in non-Christian religions, whose precepts and doctrines ‘often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens’ all people. Again, the uncovering of such seeds and discernment of such rays is especially the task of theologians, who have an important contribution to make to inter-religious dialogue.

58. A criterion of Catholic theology is that it should be in constant dialogue with the world. It should help the Church to read the signs of the times illuminated by the light that comes from divine revelation, and to profit from doing so in its life and mission.

:
GIVING AN ACCOUNT OF THE TRUTH OF GOD

59. The Word of God, accepted in faith, gives light to the believer’s intelligence and understanding. Revelation is not received purely passively by the human mind. On the contrary, the believing intelligence actively embraces revealed truth. Prompted by love, it strives to assimilate it because this Word responds to its own deepest questions. Without ever claiming to exhaust the riches of revelation, it strives to appreciate and explore the intelligibility of the Word of God – – and to offer a reasoned account of the truth of God. In other words, it seeks to express God’s truth in the rational and scientific mode that is proper to human understanding.

60. In a threefold investigation, addressing a number of current issues, the present chapter considers essential aspects of theology as a rational, human endeavour, which has its own authentic and irreplaceable position in the midst of all intellectual enquiry. First, theology is a work of reason illuminated by faith ( ), which seeks to translate into scientific discourse the Word of God expressed in revelation. Second, the variety of rational methods it deploys and the plurality of specialised theological disciplines that result remain compatible with the fundamental unity of theology as discourse about God in the light of revelation. Third, theology is closely bound to spiritual experience, which it enlightens and by which in turn it is nourished, and of its nature it opens into an authentic wisdom with a lively sense of the transcendence of the God of Jesus Christ.

61. This section considers some aspects of the history of theology from the challenges of early times to those of today, in relation to the scientific nature of theology. We are to know God, to know the truth of God. ‘This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent’ (Jn 17:3). Jesus came to bear witness to the truth (cf. Jn 18:37) and presented himself as ‘the way, and the truth, and the life’ (Jn 14:6). This truth is a gift which comes down from ‘the Father of lights’ (James 1:17). God the Father initiated this enlightenment (cf. Gal 4:4-7), and he himself will consummate it (cf. Rev 21:5-7). The Holy Spirit is both the Paraclete, consoling the faithful, and the ‘Spirit of truth’ (Jn 14:16-17), who inspires and illuminates the truth and guides the faithful ‘into all the truth’ (Jn 16:13). The final revelation of the plenitude of God’s truth will be the ultimate fulfilment of humanity and of creation (cf. 1Cor 15:28). Correspondingly, the mystery of the Trinity must be at the centre of theological contemplation.

62. The truth of God, accepted in faith, encounters human reason. Created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27), the human person is capable, by the light of reason, of penetrating beyond appearances to the deep-down truth of things, and opens up thereby to universal reality. The common reference to truth, which is objective and universal, makes authentic dialogue possible between human persons. The human spirit is both intuitive and rational. It is intuitive in that it spontaneously grasps the first principles of reality and of thought. It is rational in that, beginning from those first principles, it progressively discovers truths previously unknown using rigorous procedures of analysis and investigation, and it organises them in a coherent fashion. ‘Science’ is the highest form that rational consciousness takes. It designates a form of knowledge capable of explaining how and why things are as they are. Human reason, itself part of created reality, does not simply project on to reality in its richness and complexity a framework of intelligibility; it adapts itself to the intrinsic intelligibility of reality. In accordance with its object, that is with the particular aspect of reality that it is studying, reason applies different methods adapted to the object itself. Rationality, therefore, is one but takes a plurality of forms, all of which are rigorous means of grasping the intelligibility of reality. Science likewise is pluriform, each science having its own specific object and method. There is a modern tendency to reserve the term ‘science’ to ‘hard’ sciences (mathematics, experimental sciences, etc.) and to dismiss as irrational and mere opinion knowledge which does not correspond to the criteria of those sciences. This univocal view of science and of rationality is reductive and inadequate.

63. So, the revealed truth of God both requires and stimulates the believer’s reason. On the one hand, the truth of the Word of God must be considered and probed by the believer – thus begins the , the form taken here below by the believer’s desire to see God. Its aim is not at all to replace faith, rather it unfolds naturally from the believer’s act of faith, and it can indeed assist those whose faith may be wavering in the face of hostility. The fruit of the believer’s rational reflection is an understanding of the truths of faith. By the use of reason, the believer grasps the profound connections between the different stages in the history of salvation and also between the various mysteries of faith which illuminate one another. On the other hand, faith stimulates reason itself and stretches its limits. Reason is stirred to explore paths which of itself it would not even have suspected it could take. This encounter with the Word of God leaves reason enriched, because it discovers new and unsuspected horizons.

64. The dialogue between faith and reason, between theology and philosophy, is therefore required not only by faith but also by reason, as Pope John Paul explains in . It is necessary because a faith which rejects or is contemptuous of reason risks falling into superstition or fanaticism, while reason which deliberately closes itself to faith, though it may make great strides, fails to rise to the full heights of what can be known. This dialogue is possible because of the unity of truth in the variety of its aspects. The truths embraced in faith and the truths discovered by reason not only cannot ultimately contradict one another, since they proceed from the same source, the very truth of God, the creator of reason and the giver of faith, but in fact they support and enlighten one another: ‘right reason demonstrates the grounds of faith, and, illumined by the latter’s light, pursues the understanding of divine things, while faith frees and protects reason from errors and provides it with manifold insights’.

65. This is the profound reason why, even though religion and philosophy were often opposed in ancient thought, from the start Christian faith reconciled them in a broader vision. In fact, while taking the form of a religion, early Christianity frequently thought of itself not as a new religion but rather as the true philosophy, now able to attain the ultimate truth. Christianity claimed to teach the truth both about God and about human existence. Therefore, in their commitment to the truth, the Church Fathers deliberately distanced their theology from ‘mythical’ and ‘political’ theology, as the latter were understood at that time. Mythical theology told stories of the gods in a way that did not respect the transcendence of the divine; political theology was a purely sociological and utilitarian approach to religion which did not care about truth. The Fathers of the Church located Christianity alongside ‘natural theology’, which claimed to offer rational enlightenment about the ‘nature’ of the gods. However, by teaching that the , the principle of all things, was a personal being with a face and a name, and that he was seeking friendship with humanity, Christianity purified and transformed the philosophical idea of God, and introduced into it the dynamism of love ( ).

66. Great Eastern theologians used the encounter between Christianity and Greek philosophy as a providential opportunity to reflect on the truth of revelation, i.e. the truth of the . In order to defend and illumine the mysteries of faith (the consubstantiality of the persons of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc.), they readily but critically adopted philosophical notions and put them in service to an understanding of faith. However, they also strongly insisted on the apophatic dimension of theology: theology must never reduce the Mystery. In the West, at the end of the patristic period, Boethius inaugurated a way of doing theology that accentuated the scientific nature of the . In his , he marshalled all the resources of philosophy in the service of clarifying Christian doctrine and offered a systematic and axiomatic exposition of the faith. This new theological method, using refined philosophical tools and aiming at a certain systematisation, was also developed to some extent in the East, for example by St John of Damascus.

67. Throughout the medieval period, especially with the eventual founding of universities and the development of scholastic methodology, theology steadily became differentiated, though not necessarily separated, from other forms of the (e.g. , preaching). It constituted itself truly as a science, in accordance with Aristotle’s criteria of a science set forth especially in his : that is, by reasoning it could be shown why something was so and not otherwise, and by reasoning conclusions could be reached from principles. Scholastic theologians sought to present the intelligible content of the Christian faith in the form of a rational and scientific synthesis. In order to do this, they considered the articles of faith as principles in the science of theology. Then, theologians made use of reason to establish revealed truth with precision and to defend it by showing that it was not contrary to reason, or by showing its internal intelligibility. In the latter case, they formulated a hierarchy ( ) of truths, seeking which were the most fundamental and therefore the most illuminating of others. They articulated the intelligible connections between the mysteries ( ), and the syntheses they achieved expounded the intelligible content of the word of God in a scientific way, in accordance with the demands and capacities of human reason. This scientific ideal, however, never took the form of a rationalistic hypothetical-deductive system. Rather, it was always modelled on the reality being contemplated, which far exceeds the capacities of human reason. Moreover, even though they undertook various exercises and used literary genres distinct from scriptural commentary, the Bible was the living source of inspiration for scholastic theologians – theology precisely aimed at a better understanding of the Word, and St Bonaventure and St Thomas Aquinas thought of themselves primarily as . The role played by the ‘argument from fittingness’ was crucial. The theologian does not reason , but listens to revelation and searches the wise ways God has freely chosen in his plan of love. Firmly based on faith, therefore, theology understood itself as a human participation in God’s knowledge of himself and of all things, ‘ ’. That was the primary source of its unity.

68. Towards the end of the middle ages, the unified structure of Christian wisdom, of which theology was the keystone, began to break up. Philosophy and other secular disciplines increasingly separated themselves from theology, and theology itself fragmented into specialisations which sometimes lost sight of their deep connection. There was a tendency of theology to distance itself from the Word of God, so that on occasion it became a purely philosophical reflection applied to religious questions. At the same time, perhaps because of this neglect of Scripture, its -logical dimension and spiritual finality slipped from view, and the spiritual life began to develop aside from a rationalising university theology, and even in opposition to the latter. Theology, thus fragmented, became more and more cut off from the actual life of the Christian people and ill equipped to face the challenges of modernity.

69. Scholastic theology was criticised during the Reformation for placing too much value on the rationality of faith and too little on the damage sin does to reason. Catholic theology responded by maintaining in high esteem the anthropology of the image of God ( ) and the capacity and responsibility of reason, wounded but not destroyed by sin, and by emphasising the Church as the place where God could truly be known and the science of faith truly be developed. The Catholic Church thus kept open the possibility of dialogue with philosophy, philology and the historical and natural sciences.

70. The critique of faith and theology made during the Enlightenment, however, was more radical. In some ways, the Enlightenment had a religious stimulus. However, by aligning themselves with deism, Enlightenment thinkers now saw an irreconcilable difference between the factual contingencies of history and the genuine needs of reason. Truth, for them, was not to be found in history, and revelation, as an historical event, could not serve any longer as a reliable source of knowledge for human beings. In many cases, Catholic theology reacted defensively against the challenge of Enlightenment thinking. It gave priority to apologetics rather than to the sapiential dimension of faith, it separated too much the natural order of reason and the supernatural order of faith, and it gave great importance to ‘natural theology’ and too little to the as an understanding of the mysteries of the faith. Catholic theology was thus left damaged in various respects by its own strategy in this encounter. At its best, however, Catholic theology also sought a constructive dialogue with the Enlightenment and with its philosophical criticism. With reference to Scripture and Church teaching, the merely ‘instructional’ idea of revelation was criticised theologically, and the idea of revelation was reshaped in terms of the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ, such that history could still be understood as the place of God’s saving acts.

71. Today there is a new challenge, and Catholic theology has to deal with a post-modern crisis of classical reason itself that has serious implications for the . The idea of ‘truth’ seems very problematic. Is there such a thing as ‘truth’? Is there only one ‘truth’? Does such an idea lead to intolerance and violence? Catholic theology traditionally operates with a strong sense of the capacity of reason to go beyond appearances and attain the reality and the truth of things, but today reason is often viewed weakly, as unable in principle to attain ‘reality’. There is therefore a problem in that the metaphysical orientation of philosophy, which was important for the former models of Catholic theology, remains in deep crisis. Theology can help to overcome this crisis and to revitalise an authentic metaphysics. Catholic theology is interested, nonetheless, in dialogue about the question of God and truth with all contemporary philosophies.

72. In , Pope John Paul II rejected both philosophical scepticism and fideism and called for a renewal of the relationship between theology and philosophy. He recognised philosophy as an autonomous science and as a crucial interlocutor for theology. He insisted that theology must necessarily have recourse to philosophy: without philosophy, theology cannot adequately critique the validity of its assertions nor clarify its ideas nor properly understand different schools of thought. Theology’s ‘source and starting-point’ is the word of God revealed in history, and theology seeks to understand that word. However, God’s word is Truth (cf. Jn 17:17), and it follows that philosophy, ‘the human search for truth’, can help in the understanding of God’s word.

73. A criterion of Catholic theology is that it should strive to give a scientifically and rationally argued presentation of the truths of the Christian faith. For this, it needs to make use of reason and it must acknowledge the strong relationship between faith and reason, first of all philosophical reason, so as to overcome both fideism and rationalism.

74. This section considers the relationship between theology and theologies, and the relationship also between theology and other sciences. Catholic theology, fundamentally understood with St Augustine as ‘reasoning or discourse about God’, is one in its essence and has its own unique characteristics as a science: its proper subject is the one and only God, and it studies its subject in its own proper manner, namely by the use of reason enlightened by revelation. At the very start of the , St Thomas explains that everything in theology is understood with regard to God, . The great diversity of matters that the theologian is led to consider finds its unity in this ultimate reference to God. All the ‘mysteries’ contained in diverse theological treatises refer to what is the single absolute Mystery in the strictest sense, namely, the Mystery of God. Reference to this Mystery unites theology, in the vast range of the latter’s subject matter and contexts, and the idea of can be valuable as an expression of the dynamism that deeply unites theological propositions. Since the Mystery of God is revealed in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, Vatican II directed that all theological treatises ‘should be renewed through a more vivid contact with the Mystery of Christ and the history of salvation’.

75. The Church Fathers knew the word ‘theology’ only in the singular. For them, ‘theology’ was not ‘myth’ but the of God himself. In so far as the human spirit is impressed by the Spirit of God through the revelation of the and led to contemplate the infinite mystery of his nature and action, human beings also are enabled to do theology. In scholastic theology, the diversity of questions studied by the theologian might justify the use of various methods but it never placed in doubt the fundamental unity of theology. Towards the end of the middle ages, however, there was a tendency to distinguish and even to separate scholastic and mystical theology, speculative and positive theology, and so on. In modern times, there has been an increasing tendency to use the word ‘theology’ in the plural. There is talk of the ‘theologies’ of different authors, periods or cultures. In mind are the characteristic concepts, significant themes and specific perspectives of those ‘theologies’.

76. Various factors have contributed to this modern plurality of ‘theologies’.

- There is within theology more and more internal specialisation into different disciplines: e.g. biblical studies, liturgy, patristics, Church history, fundamental theology, systematic theology, moral theology, pastoral theology, spirituality, catechetics, and canon law. This development is inevitable and understandable because of the scientific nature of theology and the demands of research.

- There is a diversification of theological styles because of the external influence of other sciences: e.g. philosophy, philology, history, and the social, natural and life sciences. As a result, in central fields of Catholic theology today very different forms of thinking co-exist: e.g. transcendental theology and salvation historical theology, analytic theology, renewed scholastic and metaphysical theology, political and liberation theology.

- There is with regard to the practice of theology an ever-increasing multiplicity of subjects, places, institutions, intentions, contexts and interests, and a new appreciation of the plurality and variety of cultures.

77. The plurality of theologies is undoubtedly necessary and justified. It results primarily from the abundance of divine truth itself, which human beings can only ever grasp under its specific aspects and never as a whole, and moreover never definitively, but always, as it were, with new eyes. Then also, because of the diversity of the objects it considers and interprets (e.g. God, human beings, historical events, texts), and the sheer diversity of human questioning, theology must inevitably have recourse to a plurality of disciplines and methods, according to the nature of the object being studied. The plurality of theologies reflects, in fact, the catholicity of the Church, which strives to proclaim the one Gospel to people everywhere, in all kinds of circumstances.

78. Plurality, of course, has limits. There is a fundamental difference between the legitimate pluralism of theology, on the one hand, and relativism, heterodoxy or heresy, on the other. Pluralism itself is problematic, however, if there is no communication between different theological disciplines or if there are no agreed criteria by which various forms of theology are understandable – both to themselves and to others – as Catholic theology. Essential to the avoidance or overcoming of such problems is a fundamental common recognition of theology as a rational enterprise, and , such that each theology can be evaluated in relation to a common universal truth.

79. The search for unity among the plurality of theologies today takes a number of forms: insisting on reference to a common ecclesial tradition of theology, practising dialogue and interdisciplinarity, and being attentive to preventing the other disciplines with which theology deals from imposing their own ‘magisterium’ on theology. The existence of a common theological tradition in the Church (which must be distinguished from Tradition itself, but not separated from Tradition ) is an important factor in the unity of theology. There is a common memory in theology, such that certain historical achievements (e.g. the writings of the Fathers of the Church, both East and West, and the synthesis of St Thomas, ), remain as reference points for theology today. It is true that certain aspects of prior theological tradition can and must sometimes be abandoned, but the work of the theologian can never dispense with a critical reference to the tradition that went before.

80. The various forms of theology that can basically be distinguished today (e.g., biblical, historical, fundamental, systematic, practical, moral), characterised by their various sources, methods and tasks, are all fundamentally united by a striving for true knowledge of God and of God’s saving plan. There should therefore be intensive communication and cooperation between them. Dialogue and interdisciplinary collaboration are indispensable means of ensuring and expressing the unity of theology. The singular, ‘theology’, by no means indicates a uniformity of styles or concepts; rather, it serves to indicate a common search for truth, common service of the body of Christ and common devotion to the one God.

81. Since ancient times, theology has worked in partnership with philosophy. While this partnership remains fundamental, in modern times further partners for theology have been found. Biblical studies and Church history have been helped by the development of new methods to analyse and interpret texts, and by new techniques to prove the historical validity of sources and to describe social and cultural developments. Systematic, fundamental and moral theology have all benefited from an engagement with natural, economic and medical sciences. Practical theology has profited from the encounter with sociology, psychology and pedagogy. In all of these engagements, Catholic theology should respect the proper coherence of the methods and sciences utilised, but it should also use them in a critical fashion, in light of the faith that is part of the theologian’s own identity and motivation. Partial results, obtained by a method borrowed from another discipline, cannot be determinative for the theologian’s work, and must be critically integrated with theology’s own task and argument. An insufficiently critical use of the knowledge or methods of other sciences is likely to distort and fragment the work of theology. Indeed, an over-hasty fusion between faith and philosophy was already identified by the Fathers as a source of heresies. In short, other disciplines must not be allowed to impose their own ‘magisterium’ on theology. The theologian should indeed take up and utilise the data supplied by other disciplines, but in light of theology’s own proper principles and methods.

82. In this critical assimilation and integration by theology of data from other sciences, philosophy has a mediating role to play. It pertains to philosophy, as rational wisdom, to insert the results obtained by various sciences into a more universal vision. Recourse to philosophy in this mediating role helps the theologian to use scientific data with due care. For example, scientific knowledge gained with regard to the evolution of life needs to be interpreted in the light of philosophy, so as to determine its value and meaning, before being taken into account by theology. Philosophy also helps scientists to avoid the temptation to apply in a univocal way their own methods and the fruits of their researches to religious questions that require another approach.

83. The relationship between theology and religious sciences or religious studies (e.g. philosophy of religion, sociology of religion) is of particular interest. Religious sciences/studies deal with texts, institutions and phenomena of the Christian tradition, but by the nature of their methodological principles they do so from outside, regardless of the question as to the truth of what they study; for them, the Church and its faith are simply objects for research like other objects. In the 19 century, there were major controversies between theology and religious sciences/studies. On the one side, it was claimed that theology is not a science because of its presupposition of faith; only religious sciences/studies could be ‘objective’. On the other side, it was said that religious sciences/studies are anti-theological because they would deny faith. Today these old controversies sometimes reappear, but nowadays there are better conditions for a fruitful dialogue between the two sides. On the one hand, religious sciences/studies are now integrated into the fabric of theological methods because, not only for exegesis and Church history, but also for pastoral and fundamental theology, it is necessary to investigate the history, structure and phenomenology of religious ideas, subjects, rites, etc.. On the other hand, the physical sciences and contemporary epistemology more generally have shown that there is never a neutral position from which to search for truth; the enquirer always brings particular perspectives, insights and presuppositions which bear upon the study being conducted. There remains, however, an essential difference between theology and religious sciences/studies: theology has the truth of God as its subject and reflects on its subject with faith and in the light of God, while religious sciences/studies have religious phenomena as their subject and approach them with cultural interests, methodologically prescinding from the truth of the Christian faith. Theology goes beyond religious sciences/studies by reflecting from the inside on the Church and its faith, but theology can also profit from the investigations that religious sciences/studies make from the outside.

84. Catholic theology acknowledges the proper autonomy of other sciences and the professional competence and the striving after knowledge to be found in them, and has itself prompted developments in many sciences. Theology also opens the way for other sciences to engage with religious issues. Through constructive critique, it helps other sciences to liberate themselves from anti-theological elements acquired under the influence of rationalism. By expelling theology from the household of science, rationalism and positivism reduced the scope and power of the sciences themselves. Catholic theology criticises every form of self-absolutisation of the sciences, as a self-reduction and impoverishment. The presence of theology and theologians at the heart of university life and the dialogue this presence enables with other disciplines help to promote a broad, analogical and integral view of intellectual life. As and , theology plays an important part in the symphony of the sciences, and so claims a proper place in the academy.

85. A criterion of Catholic theology is that it attempts to integrate a plurality of enquiries and methods into the unified project of the , and insists on the unity of truth and therefore on the fundamental unity of theology itself. Catholic theology recognises the proper methods of other sciences and critically utilises them in its own research. It does not isolate itself from critique and welcomes scientific dialogue.

86. This final section considers the fact that theology is not only a science but also a wisdom, with a particular role to play in the relationship between all human knowledge and the Mystery of God. The human person is not satisfied by partial truths, but seeks to unify different pieces and areas of knowledge into an understanding of the final truth of all things and of human life itself. This search for wisdom, which undoubtedly animates theology itself, gives theology a close relationship to spiritual experience and to the wisdom of the saints. More broadly, however, Catholic theology invites everyone to recognise the transcendence of the ultimate Truth, which can never be fully grasped or mastered. Theology is not only a wisdom in itself, it is also an invitation to wisdom for other disciplines. The presence of theology in scientific debate and in university life potentially has the beneficial effect of reminding everyone of the sapiential vocation of human intelligence, and of the telling question Jesus asks in his first utterance in St John’s Gospel: ‘What do you seek?’ (Jn 1:38; RSV).

87. In the Old Testament, the central message of wisdom theology appears three times: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Ps 111:10; cf. Prov 1:7; 9:10). The basis of this motto is the insight of the sages of Israel that God’s wisdom is at work in creation and in history and that those who appreciate that will understand the meaning of the world and of events (cf. Prov 7ff., Wis 7ff.). ‘Fear of God’ is the right attitude in the presence of God ( ). Wisdom is the art of understanding the world and of orientating one’s life in devotion to God. In the books of Ecclesiastes and Job, the limits of human understanding of God’s thoughts and ways are starkly revealed, not so as to destroy the wisdom of human beings, but to deepen it within the horizon of the wisdom of God.

88. Jesus himself stood in this Wisdom tradition of Israel, and in him the revelation theology of the Old Testament was transformed. He prayed: ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants’ (Mt 11:25). This confounding of traditional wisdom comes in the Gospel context of the proclamation of something new: the eschatological revelation of the love of God in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus continues: ‘no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him’, and this prefaces his famous invitation: ‘Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls’ (Mt 11:27-29). This learning comes from discipleship in the company of Jesus. He alone unlocks the Scriptures (cf. Lk 24:25-27; Jn 5:36-40; Rev 5:5), because the truth and wisdom of God have been revealed in him.

89. Paul the apostle criticises the ‘wisdom of the world’ which sees the cross of Jesus Christ only as ‘foolishness’ (1Cor 1:18-20). This foolishness he proclaims to be ‘God’s wisdom, secret and hidden’, ‘decreed before the ages’ and now revealed (1Cor 2:7). The cross is the crucial moment of God’s salvific plan. Christ crucified is the ‘power of God and the wisdom of God’ (1Cor 1:18-25). Believers, those who have ‘the mind of Christ’ (1Cor 2:16), receive this wisdom, and it gives access to the ‘mystery of God’ (1Cor 2:1-2). It is important to note that, while the paradoxical wisdom of God, manifested in the cross, contradicts the ‘wisdom of the world’, it nevertheless does not contradict authentic human wisdom. On the contrary, it transcends the latter and fulfils it in an unforeseen way.

90. Christian faith soon encountered the Greek quest for wisdom. It drew attention to the limits of that quest, especially regarding the idea of salvation by knowledge ( ) alone, but it also incorporated authentic insights from the Greeks. Wisdom is a unifying vision. While science endeavours to give an account of a particular, limited and well defined aspect of reality, highlighting the principles that explain the properties of the object being studied, wisdom strives to give a unified view of the whole of reality. It is, in effect, a knowledge in accordance with the highest, most universal and also most explanatory causes. For the Fathers of the Church, the sage was one who judged all things in the light of God and eternal realities, which are the norm for things here on earth. Therefore, wisdom also has a moral and spiritual dimension.

91. As its name indicates, philosophy understands itself as a wisdom, or at least as a loving quest for wisdom. Metaphysics, in particular, proposes a vision of reality unified around the fundamental mystery of being; but the Word of God, which reveals ‘What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived’ (1Cor 2:9), opens up for human beings the way to a higher wisdom. This supernatural Christian wisdom, which transcends the purely human wisdom of philosophy, takes two forms which sustain one another but should not be confused: theological wisdom and mystical wisdom. Theological wisdom is the work of reason enlightened by faith. It is therefore an acquired wisdom, though it supposes of course the gift of faith. It offers a unified explanation of reality in light of the highest truths of revelation, and it enlightens everything from the foundational mystery of the Trinity, considered both in itself and in its action in creation and in history. In this regard, Vatican I said: ‘Reason illuminated by faith, when it seeks zealously, piously and soberly, attains with the help of God some understanding of the mysteries, and a most fruitful understanding, both by analogy with those things which it knows naturally, and also from the connection of the mysteries among themselves and with the final end of man’. The intellectual contemplation which results from the rational labour of the theologian is thus truly a wisdom. Mystical wisdom or ‘the knowledge of the saints’ is a gift of the Holy Spirit which comes from union with God in love. Love, in fact, creates an affective connaturality between the human being and God, who allows spiritual persons to know and even suffer things divine ( ), actually experiencing them in their lives. This is a non-conceptual knowledge, often expressed in poetry. It leads to contemplation and personal union with God in peace and silence.

92. Theological wisdom and mystical wisdom are formally distinct and it is important not to confuse them. Mystical wisdom is never a substitute for theological wisdom. It is clear, nonetheless, that there are strong links between these two forms of Christian wisdom, both in the person of the theologian and in the community of the Church. On the one hand, an intense spiritual life striving for holiness is a requirement for authentic theology, as the example of the doctors of the Church, East and West, shows. True theology presupposes faith and is animated by charity: ‘Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love’ (1Jn 4:8). Intelligence provides theology with clear sighted reason, but the heart has its own wisdom that purifies intelligence What is true of all Christians has a particular resonance for theologians, namely that they are ‘called to be saints’ (1Cor 1:2). On the other hand, the proper exercise of theology’s task of giving a scientific understanding of faith enables the authenticity of spiritual experience to be verified. That is why St Teresa of Avila wanted her nuns to seek the counsel of theologians: ‘The more the Lord gives you graces in prayer, the more it is necessary that your prayer and all your works rest on a solid foundation.’ With the help of theologians, it is ultimately the task of the magisterium to determine whether any spiritual claim is authentically Christian.

93. The object of theology is the living God, and the life of the theologian cannot fail to be affected by the sustained effort to know the living God. The theologian cannot exclude his or her own life from the endeavour to understand all of reality with regard to God. Obedience to the truth purifies the soul (cf. 1Pet 1:22), and ‘the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy’ (James 3:17). It follows that the pursuit of theology should purify the mind and heart of the theologian. This special feature of the theological enterprise by no means violates the scientific character of theology; on the contrary, it profoundly accords with the latter. Thus, theology is characterised by a distinctive spirituality. Integral to the spirituality of the theologian are: a love of truth, a readiness for conversion of heart and mind, a striving for holiness, and a commitment to ecclesial communion and mission.

94. Theologians have received a particular calling to service in the body of Christ. Called and gifted, they exist in a particular relationship to the body and all of its members. Living in ‘the communion of the Holy Spirit’ (2Cor 13:13), they along with all their brothers and sisters should seek to conform their lives to the mystery of the Eucharist ‘from which the Church ever derives its life and on which it thrives’. Indeed, called as they are to explicate the mysteries of the faith, they should be particularly bound to the Eucharist, in which is contained ‘the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself our Pasch’, whose flesh is made living and life-giving by the Holy Spirit. As the Eucharist is ‘the source and summit’ of the life of the Church and ‘of all preaching of the Gospel’, so it is also the source and summit of all theology. In this sense, theology can be understood as essentially and profoundly ‘mystical’.

95. God’s truth is thus not simply something to be explored in systematic reflection and justified in deductive reasoning; it is living truth, experienced by participation in Christ, ‘who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption’ (1Cor 1:30). As wisdom, theology is able to integrate aspects of the faith both studied and experienced and to transcend in the service of God’s truth the limits of what is strictly possible from an intellectual standpoint. Such an appreciation of theology as wisdom can help to resolve two problems facing theology today: first, it offers a way of bridging the gap between believers and theological reflection; and second, it offers a way of expanding understanding of God’s truth, so as to facilitate the mission of the Church in non-Christian cultures characterised by various wisdom traditions.

96. The sense of mystery which properly characterises theology leads to a ready acknowledgement of the limits of theological knowledge, contrary to all rationalist pretensions to exhaust the Mystery of God. The teaching of Lateran IV is fundamental: ‘between creator and creature no similarity can be noted without noting a greater dissimilarity’. Reason enlightened by faith and guided by revelation is always aware of the intrinsic limits of its activity. That is why Christian theology can take the form of ‘negative’ or ‘apophatic’ theology.

97. Nevertheless, negative theology is not at all a negation of theology. Cataphatic and apophatic theology should not be placed in opposition to one another; far from disqualifying an intellectual approach to the Mystery of God, the simply highlights the limits of such an approach. The is a fundamental dimension of all authentically theological discourse, but it cannot be separated from the and the . The human spirit, rising from effects to the Cause, from creatures to the Creator, begins by affirming the presence in God of the authentic perfections discovered in creatures ( ), then it denies that those perfections are in God in the imperfect way in which they are in creatures ( ); finally, it affirms that they are in God in a properly divine way which escapes human comprehension ( ). Theology rightly intends to speak truly of the Mystery of God, but at the same time it knows that its knowledge though true is inadequate in relation to the reality of God, whom it can never ‘comprehend’. As St Augustine said: ‘If you comprehend, it is not God’.

98. It is important to be aware of the sense of emptiness and of the absence of God that many people feel today and that imbues much of modern culture. The primary reality for Christian theology, however, is God’s revelation. The obligatory reference point is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In these events, God has spoken definitively by means of his Word made flesh. Affirmative theology is possible as a result of obedient listening to the Word, present in creation and in history. The Mystery of God revealed in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit is a mystery of , love, communion and mutual indwelling among the three divine persons; a mystery of , the relinquishing of the form of God by Jesus in his incarnation, so as to take the form of a slave (cf. Phil 2:5-11); and a mystery of , human beings are called to participate in the life of God and to share in ‘the divine nature’ (2Pet 1:4) through Christ, in the Spirit. When theology speaks of a negative path and of speechlessness, it is referring to a sense of awe before the Trinitarian Mystery in which is salvation. Though words cannot fully describe it, by love believers already participate in the Mystery. ‘Although you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and rejoice with an indescribable and glorious joy, for you are receiving the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls’ (1Pet 1:8-9).

99. A criterion of Catholic theology is that it should seek and delight in the wisdom of God which is foolishness to the world (cf. 1Cor 1:18-25; 1Cor 2:6-16). Catholic theology should root itself in the great wisdom tradition of the Bible, connect itself with the wisdom traditions of eastern and western Christianity, and seek to establish a bridge to all wisdom traditions. As it strives for true wisdom in its study of the Mystery of God, theology acknowledges God’s utter priority; it seeks not to possess but to be possessed by God. It must therefore be attentive to what the Spirit is saying to the churches by means of ‘the knowledge of the saints’. Theology implies a striving for holiness and an ever-deeper awareness of the transcendence of the Mystery of God.

100. As theology is a service rendered to the Church and to society, so the present text, written by theologians, seeks to be of service to our theologian colleagues and also to those with whom Catholic theologians engage in dialogue. Written with respect for all who pursue theological enquiry, and with a profound sense of the joy and privilege of a theological vocation, it strives to indicate perspectives and principles which characterise Catholic theology and to offer criteria by which that theology may be identified. In summary, it may be said that Catholic theology studies the Mystery of God revealed in Christ, and articulates the experience of faith that those in the communion of the Church, participating in the life of God, have, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, who leads the Church into the truth (Jn 16:13). It ponders the immensity of the love by which the Father gave his Son to the world (cf. Jn 3:16), and the glory, grace and truth that were revealed in him for our salvation (cf. Jn 1:14); and it emphasises the importance of hope in God rather than in created things, a hope it strives to explain (cf. 1Pet 3:15). In all its endeavours, in accordance with Paul’s injunction always to ‘be thankful’ (Col 3:15; 1Thess 5:18), even in adversity (cf. Rom 8:31-39), it is fundamentally doxological, characterised by praise and thanksgiving. As it considers the work of God for our salvation and the surpassing nature of his accomplishments, glory and praise is its most appropriate modality, as St Paul not only teaches but also exemplifies: ‘Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen’ (Eph 3:20-21).

Second Vatican Council, 3. Unless otherwise indicated, quotations from Vatican II documents are taken from , vol.1, , ed. Austin Flannery (Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Company and Dublin: Dominican Publications, 1996).

For the latter two, see below, paragraphs 92-94, and 10, 25-32, respectively.

Henri de Lubac, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p.298.

These and further ITC texts mentioned below may be found either in , ed. Michael Sharkey (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), or in , eds. Michael Sharkey and Thomas Weinandy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2009).

‘Catholic’, with a capital ‘c’, refers here to the Catholic Church in which the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church founded by Christ and committed to the care of Peter and the apostles subsists (cf. Second Vatican Council, 8, 4, 1). Throughout this text, the term ‘theology’ refers to theology as the Catholic Church understands it.

Second Vatican Council, 2.

Pope Benedict XVI, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, (2010), 6; cf. 2, 6.

3.

Unless otherwise indicated, scriptural quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version throughout.

1; cf. St Augustine, 4, 8 (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina [CCSL] 46:129).

7; cf. (CCC), n.108.

Cf. 7, 11, 16.

21.

Augustine, ‘ ’ ( XVII, 6, 2; CCSL 48:567); cf. Vatican II, 12.

11.

8.

18.

2.

Cf. 5, with reference also to Vatican I, , ch.3 (DH 3008).

Cf. 3; also, Vatican I, , ch.2 (DH 3004).

Cf. also 1Jn 4:1-6; 2Jn 7; Gal 1:6-9; 1Tim 4:1.

CCC 2089.

Augustine, , XXIX, 6 (CCSL 36:287); also, 43, 7 (CCSL 41:511).

Augustine, 120 ( [CSEL] 34, 2:704):

Cf. Augustine, XIV, 1 (CCSL 50A:424):

Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, (1998), opening words.

Anselm, , (in , ed. F. S. Schmitt, t.1, p.94). Because of the close bond between faith, hope and love (see above, paragraph 11), it can be affirmed that theology is also (cf. 1Pet 3:15) and . The latter aspect receives particular emphasis in the Christian East: as it explicates the mystery of Christ who is the revelation of God’s love (cf. Jn 3:16), theology is God’s love put into words.

Cf. in particular, Melchior Cano, , ed. Juan Belda Plans (Madrid, 2006). Cano lists ten : , , , , , , , , , .

24.

35; cf. 31.

Cf. Council of Trent, (DH 1501-1505).

Pontifical Biblical Commission, (1993), III, C, 1; cf. 33.

12.

Cf. 12.

Cf. , I, B-E.

34.

‘[S]ince sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the same Spirit in which it was written [ ], no less attention must be devoted to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture, taking into account the Tradition of the entire Church and the analogy of faith, if we are to derive their true meaning from the sacred texts’ ( 12; amended translation).

Cf. 39.

Cf. Pontifical Biblical Commission, (1993), II, B; also CCC 115-118. Medieval theology spoke of the four senses of Scripture: .

34.

On the central place of Scripture in theology, cf. St Bonaventure, , Prologue.

Second Vatican Council, 16. Cf. Thomas Aquinas, , Ia, q.36, a.2, ad.1: .

37.

46.

21.

Cf. 22.

8.

Cf. 7.

8.

8.

Cf. 16.

Cyril of Alexandria presented a dossier of patristic extracts to the council of Ephesus; cf. Mansi IV, 1183-1195; E. Schwartz, ed., I, 1.1, pp.31-44.

Cf. Augustine, , 4, 8, 20 (CSEL 60:542-543); 4, 12, 32 (CSEL 60:568-569); , 1, 7, 34 (PL 44, 665); 2, 10, 37 (PL 44, 700-702). Also, Vincent of Lerins, 28, 6 (CCSL 64:187): ‘ .’

Cf. DH 301, 1510.

DH 1507, 3007.

Second Vatican Council, 25.

ITC, (1990), B, III, 3; cf. (1972), nn.6-8, 10-12.

Cf. Pope John XXIII, ‘Allocutio in Concilii Vaticani inauguratione’, AAS 84(1962), p.792; Vatican II, 62. For a detailed consideration of the whole question, see ITC, .

10.

9.

24.

Johann Adam Möhler, , Peter C. Erb, trans. and ed. (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1996), p.117.

7.

9.

9.

Cf. 8; 13, 14; 15, 17; 22.

Cf. Yves Congar, , two vols. (Paris: 1960, 1963).

‘Scripture, Tradition and Traditions’, in P. C. Rodger and Lukas Vischer, eds., (New York: Association Press, 1964), n.48, p.52. Strictly speaking, as this document indicates, Tradition (with a capital ‘T’) and tradition (with a small ‘t’) may also be distinguished: Tradition is ‘the Gospel itself, transmitted from generation to generation in and by the Church’, it is ‘Christ himself present in the life of the Church’; and tradition is ‘the traditionary process’ (n.39, p.50).

Cf. 6.

12.

8.

Cf. 35.

12.

Cf. , chapter 2.

Cf. , chapter 3.

Cf. 8; Irenaeus, , IV, 26, 2.

Cf. 21, 24-25.

10; see above, paragraph 30.

Augustine, 340 A (PL 38, 1483).

The Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, (1990), speaks of the truth given by God to his people (nn.2-5) and it locates ‘the vocation of the theologian’ in direct service to the people of God so that they may have an understanding of the gift received in faith (nn.6-7).

10.

The ITC addressed this question in its (1975), as did the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in .

Cf. 10.

Cf. , Thesis 2. Today as in the past, of course, bishops and theologians do not constitute two fully distinct groups.

Cf. 21.

Cf. Second Vatican Council, 21-25, 12, 10.

Thomas Aquinas distinguished the and the , the former pertaining to bishops and the latter to theologians. More recently, ‘magisterium’ or ‘ecclesiastical magisterium’ has come to refer specifically to the first of those two meanings, and is used in that sense in this text (cf. above, paragraphs 26, 28-30, 33). While theologians do have a teaching role, which may be formally recognised by the Church, it is not to be confused with or opposed to that of the bishops; cf. Aquinas, , c.2; , III, q.4, a.9, ad 3; , d.19, q.2, a.3, qa.3, ad.4; also , footnote 27.

Cf. 34.

Cf. 13-20.

Cf. ITC, , B, II, 3. Contradiction of the teaching of the magisterium at various levels by theological propositions gives rise to correspondingly differentiated negative evaluations or censures of such propositions, and possible sanctions against those responsible; cf. Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio, (1998).

Cf. , Thesis 8.

Cf. 21-41.

John Henry Newman, ‘Preface to the Third Edition’, in , ed. H. D. Wiedner (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), pp.10-57, here at 27.

‘Preface to the Third Edition’, pp.29-30. ‘[N]ot all knowledge is suited to all minds; a proposition may be ever so true, yet at a particular time and place it may be “temerarious, offensive to pious ears, and scandalous”, though not “heretical” nor “erroneous”’ (p.34).

Theology, Thesis 9. The ITC also proposed guidelines for good practice in situations of dispute (cf. Theses 11-12).

Cf. , Thesis 8.

, Thesis 8.

See below, paragraph 83.

Cf. 22, 25.

Cf. 11.

See, for example, Augustine, 82, 5, 36 (CCSL 31A:122), where he urges Jerome that in the liberty of friendship and with brotherly love they should be frank in correcting one another; also , I, 3, 5 (CCSL 50:33), where he says he will profit greatly if those who disagree with him argue their case with charity and truth and succeed in refuting his own argument.

Cf. ITC, , C, III, 6.

Cf. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, 28.

11.

11.

4.

44.

Cf. 44.

44.

Cf. Second Vatican Council, 43, 4, 15, 14, 9.

Second Vatican Council, 11.

Second Vatican Council, 2.

Cf. Thomas Aquinas, , IIa-IIae, q.2, a.10.

Cf. Anselm, , ch.1 (in , ed. F. S. Schmitt, t.1, p.100): ‘ ’; also Augustine, , XV, 28, 51 (CCSL 50A:534).

Cf. Anselm, , ch.1 (in , ed. F. S. Schmitt, t.1, p.100): ‘ ’

Cf. Origen, , Prologue, 4 (ed. M. Boret, , vol.132, pp.72-73); Augustine, , I (CCSL 47).

Cf. 73.

Cf. 77.

Cf. Vatican I, (DH 3017); also, Thomas Aquinas, , I, c.7.

Vatican I, (DH 3019).

Cf. Justin, , 8, 4 ( , ed. C. T. Otto, 2, Iéna, 1877, pp.32-33); Tatian, , 31 ( 6, Iéna, 1851, p.118); also Pope John Paul II, 38.

Cf. Augustine, , VI, 5-12 (CCSL 47:170-184).

In reaction against the theological rationalism of ‘radical Arians’, the Cappadocian Fathers and the Greek theological tradition insisted on the impossibility of knowing the divine essence in itself here below, either by nature or by grace, or even in the state of glory. Latin theology, convinced that human beatitude could only consist in the vision of God ‘as he is’ (1Jn 3:2), distinguished rather between the knowledge of the divine essence promised to the blessed and the comprehensive knowledge of God’s essence that is proper only to God. In the constitution, (1336), Pope Benedict XII defined that the blessed see the very essence of God, face to face (DH 1000).

Cf. Thomas Aquinas, , prologue (ed. Leonine, t.50, p.76):

Cf. Thomas Aquinas, , IIa-IIae, q.1, a.7.

Thomas Aquinas, , Ia, q.1, a.3, ad 2.

Cf. Thomas a Kempis, , I, 3.

66.

Cf. 73.

Cf. Vatican I, (DH 3008-3009, 3031-3033).

Augustine, ‘ ’ ( VIII, 1; CCSL 47:216-217).

Cf. Thomas Aquinas, , Ia, q.1, a.7:

16.

Cf. International Theological Commission, (1989).

Cf. International Theological Commission, (1972).

Cf. International Theological Commission, (1990).

See above, chapter 2, section 2: ‘Fidelity to Apostolic Tradition’.

Cf. 16.

Cf. . This text serves as a valuable paradigm in that it reflects on the capacities and limitations of different contemporary methods of exegesis within the horizon of a theology of Revelation rooted in the Scriptures themselves and in accordance with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.

Cf. , Ia, q.1, a.5, ad 2, where St Thomas says of theology: ‘ .’

For example, in his Encyclical Letter, (1993), Pope John Paul called upon moral theologians to exercise discernment in their use of the behavioural sciences (esp., nn.33, 111, 112).

The early Fathers emphasised that heresies, especially the various forms of gnosticism, often resulted from an insufficiently critical adoption of particular philosophical theories. See, for example, Tertullian, 7, 3 ( 46, p.96): ‘ .’

Cf. Pope John Paul II, Message to participants in the Plenary of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 22 October 1996; also, 69.

Pope Benedict XVI observes a pathology in reason when it distances itself from questions of ultimate truth and God. By this harmful self-limitation, reason becomes subject to human interests and is reduced to ‘instrumental reason’. The way is opened for relativism. Given these dangers, Pope Benedict repeatedly proposes that faith is ‘a purifying force for reason itself’: ‘Faith liberates reason from its blind spots and therefore helps it to be ever more fully itself. Faith enables reason to do its work more effectively and to see its proper object more clearly’ (Encyclical Letter, , 2005, n.28).

Cf. Thomas Aquinas, , Ia, q.1, a.6.

Cf. Augustine, , XII, 14, 21 - 15, 25 (CCSL 50:374-380).

Cf. Thomas Aquinas, , Ia, q.1, a.6.

Cf. Thomas Aquinas, , Ia, q.1 , a.6, ad 3.

Vatican I, , ch.4 (DH 3016).

Cf. Dionysius, , ch. 2, 9 (in , I. Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita De divinis nominibus, Herausgegeben von Beate Regina Suchla, «Patristische Texte und Studien, 33», p.134).

Cf. Maximos the Confessor, , 2, 26 (G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, trans. & ed., , vol.2, London/Boston, 1981, p.69): ‘the intellect is granted the grace of theology when, carried on wings of love …, it is taken up into God and with the help of the Holy Spirit discerns – as far as this is possible for the human intellect – the qualities of God; also Richard of St Victor, 13 (PL 196, 10A): ; 3, 23 (G. Dumeige, ed, , 3, Paris: 1955, p.71): ‘ ’ (Richard attributes this phrase to St Augustine).

Regarding private revelations, which are always subject to ecclesiastical judgement and which, even when authentic, have a value ‘essentially different from that of the one public revelation’, see 14.

Teresa of Avila, , ch. 5.

Cf. ITC, , B, III, 4: ‘the theological interpretation of dogmas is not an intellectual process only. At a deeper level still, it is a spiritual enterprise, brought about by the Spirit of Truth and possible only when preceded by a purification of the “eyes of the heart”’.

Cf. Pope Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter, (2009), 1.

26; cf. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, (2003), 1.

5.

11; cf. 10.

5.

Fourth Lateran Council (DH 806).

Thomas Aquinas, , d.35, q.1, a.1, ad.2: ‘ ’.

Cf. Thomas Aquinas, , q.7, a.5, ad.2, where he gives an interpretation of the teaching of Dionysius.

Augustine, ‘ ’ ( 117, 3, 5; PL 38, 663); ‘ ’ ( 52, 6, 16; PL 38, 360).

  • Featured Essay The Love of God An essay by Sam Storms Read Now
  • Faithfulness of God
  • Saving Grace
  • Adoption by God

Most Popular

  • Gender Identity
  • Trusting God
  • The Holiness of God
  • See All Essays

Thomas Kidd TGC Blogs

  • Best Commentaries
  • Featured Essay Resurrection of Jesus An essay by Benjamin Shaw Read Now
  • Death of Christ
  • Resurrection of Jesus
  • Church and State
  • Sovereignty of God
  • Faith and Works
  • The Carson Center
  • The Keller Center
  • New City Catechism
  • Publications
  • Read the Bible
  • TGC Pastors

TGC Header Logo

U.S. Edition

  • Arts & Culture
  • Bible & Theology
  • Christian Living
  • Current Events
  • Faith & Work
  • As In Heaven
  • Gospelbound
  • Post-Christianity?
  • The Carson Center Podcast
  • TGC Podcast
  • You're Not Crazy
  • Churches Planting Churches
  • Help Me Teach The Bible
  • Word Of The Week
  • Past Conference Media
  • Foundation Documents
  • Regional Chapters
  • Church Directory
  • Global Resourcing
  • Donate to TGC

To All The World

The world is a confusing place right now. We believe that faithful proclamation of the gospel is what our hostile and disoriented world needs. Do you believe that too? Help TGC bring biblical wisdom to the confusing issues across the world by making a gift to our international work.

How to Write a Theological Paper

More by justin.

theology essay 123

John Frame explains his method for writing theology, and gives some advice along the way.

Here is one of his 11 points:

Be self-critical. Before and during your writing, anticipate objections . If you are criticizing Barth, imagine Barth looking over your shoulder, reading your manuscript, giving his reactions. This point is crucial. A truly self-critical attitude can save you from unclarity and unsound arguments. It will also keep you from arrogance and unwarranted dogmatism—faults common to all theology (liberal as well as conservative). Don’t hesitate to say “probably” or even “I don’t know” when the circumstances warrant. Self-criticism will also make you more “profound.” For often—perhaps usually—it is objections that force us to rethink our positions, to get beyond our superficial ideas, to wrestle with the really deep theological issues. As you anticipate objections to your replies to objections to your replies, and so forth, you will find yourself being pushed irresistibly into the realm of the “difficult questions,” the theological profundities. In self-criticism the creative use of the theological imagination is tremendously important. Keep asking such questions as these. (a) Can I take my source’s idea in a more favorable sense? A less favorable one? (b) Does my idea provide the only escape from the difficulty, or are there others? (c) In trying to escape from one bad extreme, am I in danger of falling into a different evil on the other side? (d) Can I think of some counter-examples to my generalizations? (e) Must I clarify my concepts, lest they be misunderstood? (f) Will my conclusion be controversial and thus require more argument than I had planned?

Justin Taylor is executive vice president for book publishing and publisher for books at Crossway. He blogs at Between Two Worlds and Evangelical History . You can follow him on Twitter .

How America’s Premier Theologian Interpreted God’s Providence after Lincoln Was Assassinated

theology essay 123

His Glory and My Good: A New Song from City Alight

theology essay 123

A Conversation with Kevin DeYoung and Jonathan Leeman on Politics and Christianity

theology essay 123

What Does the Great Commission Mean When It Says to Disciple a Nation ?

The man who introduced american evangelicals to c. s. lewis.

theology essay 123

IMAGES

  1. Fundamental Moral Theology Essay Example

    theology essay 123

  2. Essay "Experience with theology essay"

    theology essay 123

  3. Theology Essay week 2- guide

    theology essay 123

  4. How to Write a Theology Paper: A Complete Guide for College

    theology essay 123

  5. Theology Essay

    theology essay 123

  6. What is Theology

    theology essay 123

VIDEO

  1. Talbot School of Theology: Biblical Foundation

  2. Dr Adam Perez

  3. 3 How to research for a theology essay

  4. E.123

  5. The Deity of Christ

  6. Supernatural Theology 123: An Appeal to Reformed Christians to Join the Pentecostals

COMMENTS

  1. The Importance of Theology and Theological Understanding

    The term "theology," combining theos (God) and logos (word about, or study of), refers most literally to the study of God. Yet this term is used for the study of humanity, and sin, and salvation, and the church, and last things (and more). The reason "theology" may rightly be used of these other areas is this: theology is the study of ...

  2. Essays on Important Theological Topics from The Gospel Coalition

    Explore an expansive list of short theological essays from over different 100 authors on key theological terms and concepts. ... Biblical Theology. Covenant and Law. Brandon D. Crowe . Return of the Kingdom. Stephen Dempster . Exodus from Egypt. L. Michael Morales . God's People. Benjamin L. Gladd . Exile.

  3. Theological Method

    The five main theological disciplines are exegesis, biblical theology, historical theology, systematic theology, and practical theology. 1. Exegesis. Exegesis interprets a text by analyzing what the author intended to communicate. It draws the meaning out of a text. Exegesis is simply careful reading. For example, when a young lady who is ...

  4. Theology essay

    Introduction to The ology Survey 104. 8/29/2021. When you hear the word , what comes to your mind? (200 words) The word "theology" gets used a lot, but most people do not fully understand what it mea ns. Prior to starting this class, I was honestly not sure what theology wa s. I knew that "ology" meant.

  5. PDF WRITING THE THEOLGICAL ESSAY WELL

    WRITING THE THEOLOGICAL ESSAY: CONCLUDING CHECKPOINTS (I) Write about what matters to you, or it won't matter to your readers. Write from the strengths of your own style and voice. Provide a preliminary "map" of your essay to make it reader-friendly. Write simply, for "the essay . . . least calls for . . .long words" (Woolf).

  6. How to Write a Theology Essay

    The essential principle: don't distract your reader. 16. How to write well in a theology essay. Be a reader of great writing. Don't be afraid of metaphors. Learn the simple rules of English punctuation. Be clear, and avoid vague words. 17. The art of signposting.

  7. How to write a theology essay : Jensen, Michael P. (Michael Peter

    78 pages : 23 cm "How do you write a theology essay? The aim of this book is to tell you how. With humour and insight, Michael Jensen, who has taught theology for a number of years in the UK and Australia, explains not only what makes for a good theology essay but what makes for good theology."--Back cover

  8. Do a Systematic Theology Paper

    John Frame, professor of Philosophy and Systematic Theology at RTS, wrote a helpful step-by-step process for how to write a theology paper. You can access it for free here . Michael Jensen (D.Phi. at Moore Theological College) has written a short, topically-arranged book, How To Write a Theological Essay (78+pages), available on reference at SBTS.

  9. PDF WRITING THEOLOGICAL RESEARCH WELL

    WRITING THEOLOGICAL RESEARCH THREE TIMES. The goal of the research-driven draft is to order research into a logical sequence with a beginning, middle, and end. The goal of the writer-driven draft is to weave research into a well written essay. The goal of the audience-driven draft is to craft a research essay that the professor (or anyone) will ...

  10. Theology Essays

    Let us first get an understanding of the two by definition. Theology is considered to be "the study of religious faith, practice, and experience along with the study of God and God's relation to the world" (Webster.) We'll come back to theology later; now let us get the definition for faith. Faith. Continue Reading.

  11. (PDF) Theology: Notes and Essays

    THEOLOGY is about God and Creation, or more precisely perhaps about our ideas of them, how they are formed and somewhat justified, although it is stressed that they can be neither proved nor disproved. This book is a thematic compilation drawn from past works by the author over a period of thirteen years. A new essay was added in 2022.

  12. Paul's Theology

    God's saving grace is the basis for his work of transferring us from being in Adam to being in Christ (Eph 2:8-9). For Paul, however, grace is far greater than we sometimes consider it to be. God's sanctifying grace conforms us to the image of his Son (Titus 2:11-12). His sustaining grace brings us through the hard times in our lives ...

  13. An Introduction to a Theological Essay

    An Introduction to a Theological Essay. crucifixion-resurrection sequence. giveness The that is known in the worship of. füll meaning of the crucifixion was God not through Christ is a knowledge recognized, moreover, until the light which views of the crucifixion and resurrec- the resurrection had been shed upon tion in it; the light of a ...

  14. 258 Theology Questions and Answers

    All questions and answers are taken from The Theology Program courses. ##1-44 IT - Introduction to Theology ##45-91 BH - Bibliology Hermeneutics ##92-133 TR - Trinitarianism ##134-174 HUM ... 123. What are some of the difficulties in communicating the doctrine of the Trinity? Questions about Christ (Christology)

  15. Theology Essay

    Theology Essay: While theology is a broad topic, it can be broken up into smaller sections and defined in more detail. For example, the study of theology is the study of what one believes about God. This can be broken down into understanding God's nature, attributes, and interventions. Understanding what one believes about God is […]

  16. Natural Theology Essays

    John Calvin A. brief introduction of the Institutes B. Calvin's theory of epistemology 1. Humans have a natural awareness of God. a. our minds b. nature 2. knowledge of God a. requires holiness b. requires knowledge of self 3. knowledge of Self requires knowledge of God a. man in comparison to God b. evil vs. good IV.

  17. Exploring Theology: A Journey of Understanding and Growth

    1 When you hear the word theology, what comes to your mind? When I hear the word theology now I have a better understanding of what it consists of. After reading the material this week I understand that is just knowing and thinking about God, having any opinion of him at least means that you know he exists. For the longest time I heard the word theology and the only thing that came to mind was ...

  18. Introducing TGC Essays: Theology for the Global Church

    The essays fall into 12 major categories--the Bible, the Christian life, the church, creation, end times, God, the Holy Spirit, humanity, Jesus Christ, salvation, sin, and systems and methods of theology. Free. They're not hidden behind a paywall. You can access, share, print, and distribute them. Non - technical.

  19. "If Men Were Angels": The Augustinian Influence on the US Constitution

    This essay is a lightly edited version of a speech Dr. Horton gave at the Nixon Library in 2018. Part political history and part historical theology, he traces the influence of Catholic and reformational convictions about the fallenness of human nature on the development of early modern political thinkers (especially James Madison) and forms of government (especially the US republic).

  20. Theology's Difficult Position

    The ongoing tension between religious studies and theology is the more focused aim of this essay, but this tension is almost directly analogous to the tension between the academy or the university and the study of religion in general. The assessment and exploratory proposal articulated here deliberately focuses on the narrower question of the ...

  21. Theology Today: Perspectives, Principles and Criteria (2011)

    INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION. THEOLOGY TODAY: PERSPECTIVES, PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA. CONTENTS. Introduction. Chapter 1: Listening to the Word of God. 1: The primacy of the Word of God 2: Faith, the response to God's Word 3: Theology, the understanding of faith. Chapter 2: Abiding in the Communion of the Church.

  22. How to Write a Theological Paper

    John Frame explains his method for writing theology, and gives some advice along the way. Here is one of his 11 points: Be self-critical. Before and during your writing, anticipate objections. If you are criticizing Barth, imagine Barth looking over your shoulder, reading your manuscript, giving his reactions. This point is crucial. A truly self-critical attitude can save you from unclarity ...

  23. The Nature of New Testament Theology

    Books. The Nature of New Testament Theology: Essays in Honour of Robert Morgan. Christopher Rowland, Christopher Tuckett. John Wiley & Sons, Apr 15, 2008 - Religion - 336 pages. This volume brings together some of the most distinguished writers in the field of New Testament studies to provide an overview of discussions about the nature of New ...