Introducing Theological Method

A Survey of Contemporary Theologians and Approaches

Mary M. Veeneman

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9780801049491
• eBook ISBN: 9781493411542
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

Sound theological method is a necessary prerequisite for good theological work. This accessible introduction surveys contemporary theological methodology by presenting leading thinkers of the 20th and 21st centuries as models. The book presents the strengths and weaknesses in each of the major options. Rather than favoring one specific position, it helps students of theology think critically so they can understand and develop their own theological method.

1
The Work of Theology

Looking at the history of Christianity, as well as the variety of modern church practices, makes one important point clear: Christians do not always agree about how the Christian life is to be led. Disagreement about Christian belief and practice is ultimately disagreement about theology. Ongoing questions about Christian faith and practice require that Christians continue to do the work of theology. This book seeks to take a step back from that work and instead consider how one goes about doing the work of theology.

What Is Theology?

The Greek roots of the term theology are theos, “God,” and logos, “word” or “words.” Alister McGrath refers to theology as “talking about God” and to Christian theology as “talking about God in a Christian way.”1 “To study theology,” McGrath writes, “is to think systematically about the fundamental ideas of Christianity. It is intellectual reflection on the act, content, and implications of the Christian faith.”2 Daniel Migliore writes this about theology: “I propose to describe the work of theology as a continuing search for the fullness of the truth of God made known in Jesus Christ. Defining the theological task in this way emphasizes that theology is not mere repetition of traditional doctrines, but a persistent search for the truth to which they point and which they only partially and brokenly express.”3 Shortly after that statement, Migliore refers to Augustine’s description of “faith seeking understanding.”4 Thomas Oden describes theology this way: “The study of God is an attempt at orderly, consistent, and reasoned discussion of the Source and End of all things. . . . The term theology is itself a rudimentary definition indicating discourse about God.”5

There are a number of reasons for taking up theological work. Some undertake theological work to help explain reality. Others do so to organize Christian teaching. Still others do so to critique the contemporary life and thought of the church. Of course, these reasons for doing theology are not mutually exclusive. Many people will take up the theological task with all three of these aims in mind. Knowing the goals and the purposes for undertaking theological work is important—these things can help give us a focus and direction for our work. At the same time, knowing the reason for doing theological work is only the first step—it is important to also spend some time thinking about how theological work should be done, or what theological method should be. We must ask some key questions about method: Where should we begin? What sources should we use? What specific questions should we ask?

The Work of Theology

McGrath suggests a few ways we might go about answering the question of how to “do” theology. One way would be to study some prominent theologians and examine how they carry out this task.6 Here are some examples of two theologians from earlier in the history of Christianity and two theologians from the twentieth century.

• Thomas Aquinas: He wrote during the medieval period and is well known for taking the philosophy of Aristotle and trying to synthesize it with Christian theology. He also drew heavily on the work of Augustine and on the Bible.
• John Calvin: He was one of the second generation of leaders during the Protestant Reformation. He is well known for emphasizing the providence of God in his theological system, though the role of providence in his thought has often been misunderstood. He saw the Bible as the primary source of Christian theology.
• Karl Barth: Probably the best-known Protestant theologian of the twentieth century, he reacted strongly to the Protestant theology of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and called for a theology that starts with God and focuses on the Word of God.
• Karl Rahner: The best-known Catholic theologian of the twentieth century, he reacted to the common Catholic theology of the early twentieth century and believed that theology must be made comprehensible to contemporary people. He argued that theology should start with religious experience that all people have.7

There are a couple of problems with trying to make determinations about methodology by studying one particular theology. Each of these theologians has written thousands of pages. There are scholars who devote their entire careers to studying one of them and still never get through all of the writings! That makes this approach to studying theological method very difficult. Additionally, each of these theologians has a very different approach.8 If you were able to put them in a room and talk with them about method, you would probably have a very interesting and lively discussion, but you would quickly see that each of them has a different starting point for undertaking theological work:

• Thomas Aquinas would draw on the philosophy of Aristotle, the theology of Augustine and the Bible, giving significant weight to each of those.
• John Calvin would insist on giving a place of primary importance to the Bible.
• Karl Barth would say that theology must start with God and the Word of God, but he would explain that somewhat differently than Calvin would.
• Karl Rahner would want to start with a particular kind of human experience—this would be a universal religious experience that he claims each person has whether or not he or she is aware of it.

Because of this, how would you know which approach is the best one to take? You might go with the one that is closest to you in historical location, but Barth and Rahner worked in roughly the same time period and clearly have very different approaches. We are going to have that discussion across the pages of this book. We are going to talk about method, and we will do that by looking at various theologians. In order to get to the place where we can have that conversation, though, we need to first talk about the various sources of theology and look at method in general before we will be in a position to compare the methodological proposals of various theologians.

There are two important things to keep in mind as we move forward. First, while there is not complete agreement on how we should go about doing theology either historically across the tradition or today, there is some broad agreement on what sources we should generally consider. McGrath reminds us that “throughout its long history, Christian theology has made an appeal to three fundamental resources: the Bible, tradition, and reason.”9 Christians generally agree on the importance of the Bible for theological work (as well as living the Christian life), even though there are disagreements over how to interpret it and what its relationship to other theological sources might be.

In addition to this, theological work has been shaped by the historical location of those who do theology, whether or not the theologian is aware of it. Certainly, Thomas Aquinas’s work was significantly shaped by the rediscovery of Aristotle’s philosophy during the medieval period. Calvin’s outlook in his major work, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, is clearly shaped by his context—his writings reflect many of the debates that were taking place during the Protestant Reformation. Barth’s theological work reacted strongly to nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Protestant theology. Rahner’s work reflects both the influence of twentieth-century philosophy and a reaction to late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Catholic theology. Further, that theological work is historically influenced also makes sense in that Christianity is fundamentally a faith that is rooted in history. Christian theology is focused on the person of Christ, and the story of Christ tells us about God breaking into history in a particular time and place. Because we also live in a particular time and place, we must take that into consideration. Taking the time and place or location of the theologian into account will result in some theological questions being the same, while others will be different; this will be apparent in subsequent chapters as theologians are introduced.

Sources for Theology

Theology must be done with consideration to such things as revelation, sources, orienting questions, and starting point. We need to address these topics before talking about specific theological methodologies.

Above all else, if theology is talk about God, it is crucial to gain knowledge about this God. Christians believe that God has chosen to reveal Godself to humanity. This act is referred to as “divine revelation.” Divine revelation generally comes in two forms: general revelation and special revelation.10 General revelation comes from an understanding of the entire world as created by God. If God created all that is, then all that is can be seen as a communication from God. As a result, investigations of creation can reveal true things about God. Often, general revelation is explored through the natural sciences (which investigate the created order) and philosophy (which investigates reality via the use of human reason). Special revelation is revelation from God to a particular group of people. This is revelation that goes beyond what is revealed in God’s act of creating. In Christian theology, the chief act of special revelation is in the Christ event. God’s word as revealed in the biblical text is also understood by most theologians to constitute special revelation.

Some have argued that the best way to describe the difference between special revelation and general revelation is to hold that general revelation is revelation for all people, while special revelation is revelation for a select group of people (i.e., Christians). The problem with this view is that, outside of certain circles that heavily emphasize predestination, most Christians have held that Christ died for all people. If this is the case, the group “Christian” is potentially universal, even if it is not universal in actuality. Perhaps it is better to argue that general revelation is that revelation from which all people can know some truths, regardless of religious persuasion. Special revelation is potentially for all people, but in order for one to receive it as revelation, a prior religious decision is required. Avery Dulles’s Models of Revelation offers a helpful extended treatment of this particular issue.11

Thinking about revelation leads to a consideration of a larger issue in Christian theology. What sources should be used? The answer to this question largely depends on who is asked. All Christian theologians will argue that the Bible is important, but they will differ on exactly what role the Bible should have.

Martin Luther, along with other Reformers, argued for a principle of sola scriptura. Although it was not Luther’s intention, some have interpreted the sola scriptura principle to insist that the biblical text must be the only source of theology and that no other sources have any bearing on that work.

There are two problems with this view. The first problem is one of history: Luther did not intend the sola scriptura principle to suggest that scripture should be the only source of theology. His understanding of sola scriptura was that scripture is to be the chief source of theology. In other words, scripture holds the trump card or has veto power over any other potential sources. An added problem comes when considering the question of what it might mean to have scripture as the only source of theology. One need only look at the history of Christianity and the breadth of contemporary Christianity to know that not all Christians read the Bible in the same way. Despite claims about the Bible being self-interpreting, it seems that there often isn’t an immediately apparent plain reading of the text. Further, the ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Introduction
• 1. The Work of Theology
• 2. Ressourcement and Neo-orthodox Theologies
• 3. Theologies of Correlation
• 4. Postliberal Theologies
• 5. Evangelical Theologies
• 6. Political Theologies
• 7. Feminist Theologies
• 8. Theologies of Religious Pluralism and Comparative Theology
• Conclusion
• Suggested Reading List for Students
• Bibliography
• Index
• Back Cover