Theological Method

In this paper I shall interact explicitly with David Tracy's revised correlational approach as a potentially viable method for theology of culture. The first section describes Tracy's 1 approach and gives an initial critical assessment. Tracy owes his formulation to Paul Tillich, and thus, the reference to the latter as another conversational partner. What emerges as a constructive response is a dialogical Reformational perspective flowing from the fruits of my advanced theological training at Fuller Theological Seminary and my earlier years at the Institute for Christian Studies, where one of the formative influences in my theological journey was my indefatigable ecumenical and evangelical mentor, George Vandervelde. Tracy on Method: Mutually Critical Correlation of Bipolar Theological Sources This essay is adapted from the conclusion of my doctoral dissertation at Fuller Theological Seminary. See Timoteo 1 D. Gener, The Catholic Imagination in a Theology of Culture: A Conversation with David Tracy on Theology of Culture. I have chosen David Tracy's work for two reasons: First, he has made a fundamental contribution to the theology of culture. Oxford scholar F. W. Dillistone points to this. For him, Tracy's The Analogical Imagination ranks as "the most valuable contribution to theology and culture since the writings of Paul Tillich." ("Review of The Analogical Imagination," 325). Don Browning does the same and labels Tracy's approach as a "revised correlational approach to theology of culture." See his Religious Thought and Modern Psychologies, 15-16. Second, Tracy's correlational model of doing theology has been a congenial partner to the practice of theological inculturation in the Philippines. See Jose de Mesa, In Solidarity with the Culture, 1-42, esp., 20-21, 40-41; Cf. Stephen Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, 81-96; Lode Wostyn and Jose de Mesa, Doing Theology; Dionisio Miranda, Loob: The Filipino Within. ! 1

This essay aims to show why it is important to ask questions about the way Christians raise the question of disability. The central, animating concern has to do with metaphysically thin and philosophically problematic understandings of disability and the way that concept is inflected within contemporary Catholic moral discourse in the areas of biomedical ethics and social theorizing. The essay has three parts. First, through the lens of Gaudium et spes, the author discusses the source of our contemporary questions about disability and related themes. Second, the author surveys overlapping ways of framing the concept disability, as formulated within biomedical ethics, American jurisprudence, the social critique from disability studies, and the sociopolitical subversion of the biomedical outlook from critical disability theorists. Third, given those contemporary frames and in conversation with Fides et ratio, the author sketches some preliminary considerations relevant to a faithfully Christian and distinctively Catholic account of disability. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 20.2 (Summer 2020): 277–310.

On February 8, 1971, Michel Foucault announced the formation of Le Groupe d’information sur les prisons (the Prisons Information Group [GIP]), a group of activist intellectuals who worked to amplify the voices of those with firsthand knowledge of the prison—reflected in their motto, “Speech to the detainees!” In highlighting and circulating subjugated knowledges from within prisons, the GIP not only pursued political and material interventions, but also called for epistemological and methodological shift within intellectual labor about prisons. This essay turns to the work of the GIP, and philosophical reflection on that work, as a resource for contemporary theological methodology. Counter to the optimistic and positive trend in theological turn to practices, this essay draws on Foucault’s work with and reflection on the GIP to argue for a negative theology of practice, which centers on practice (those concrete narratives found in any lived theological context) while, at the same ti...

THIS STUDY EXPLORES David Tracy's approach to public theology with theology of culture as background to the topic. More specifically, writing as an evangelical theologian from the Philippines, I seek to develop a basic understanding of 'public theology' for Philippine theological engagement.

Au dire de Jean-Paul II, les chrétiens sont porteurs d’une « diaconie » de la vérité. Cela pose la question de savoir si la Parole dont vit la foi est pertinente pour la discussion dans l’espace public. Nous nous poserons deux questions : la théologie est-elle une science, au sens où nous définissons aujourd’hui ces dernières ? Nos « sciences », au sens usuel, sont-elles encore au service de la vérité ?

The primary question that is addressed in an analysis of method is "how." The "how" looks at the tools, techniques, approaches and sources brought to the method of study. Because the "how" of method is influenced by a person's socio-spiritual location 1 , this analysis will also seek to place Elizabeth Johnson and our primary text, Ask the Beasts in their socio-spiritual context. As a methodological analysis, this essay will not go into depth on the "what" or an analysis of the results of theology and content of Ask the Beasts. Johnson is a brilliant theologian, writer and educator that makes my methodological analysis much easier. She is transparent in her methodological approach even to the point of stating what approach she is going to use. Johnson states that, "Ask the Beasts explores this subject by conducting a dialogue between Charles Darwin's account of the origin of species and the Christian story of the ineffable God of mercy and love recounted in the Nicene Creed." 2 This methodological study of Ask the Beasts will have three main sections: 1) Methods of engagement between theology and science, 2) Theological and Scriptural methods and 3) Contextual factors.

This course is dedicated to introducing students to the academic discipline of Theology. According to its Greek etymological roots, Theology—theos + logos—is preoccupied with “God-talk”, that is, applying the very human (and, thus, limited!) capacities of thought, speech, writing, and artistic composition to wrestle with some of the most enduring questions of ultimate concern: Is there a God? Who is He (or She or It)? Can this God be intellectually grasped or affectively experienced? If so, how? Why is there something and not nothing? What does it mean to be created by God? What moral obligations does such createdness entail, if any? How does an infinite, eternal God relate to or even enter into the finitude of created history? How are finite creatures to relate to this God in turn? How is there evil in creation if God is good? And so many more questions! Answers to these questions are not easily given, nor, some would rightly argue, are they given once and for all. For if indeed God is utter, endless mystery, then the task of Theology is always ongoing, ever meant to be taken up by new thinkers in new times and in new places.

In this course, we are going to join the long, venerable tradition of Christian Theology in order to ponder these questions with some of the tradition’s greatest minds. Through our readings and collective work, we will roam widely in this tradition with respect to chronology, geography, denomination, genre, and gender and state of life of the theologian. Too often in the past the academic study of Theology has limited its canon of texts to systematic treatises by ordained male clerics. Not so for this class. We will read and interrogate works by women and men; vowed religious, ordained, and lay; ancient, medieval, and modern; personal essayists, preachers, mystics, musicians, poets, painters, fiction writers, and much, much more.

This thesis examines Fr. William A. Van Roo's contribution to the wide field of theological reflection on the relationship between theological method and the religious experience of the theologian as believer. While the 'turn to experience' became a hallmark of theology after 1952, and much was written on the topic, no solid consensus emerged. The thesis concludes that Van Roo's contribution, which passes through his reflection on symbols and symbolizing, offers a synthesis of the important elements of the question, around which a consensus could be built.

This paper takes the methods of John Milbank (radical orthodoxy) and Leonardo Boff (liberation theology) to task. Even as they find themselves at opposite sides of the ideological spectrum - in fact they possess a common weakness. Both enthrone the "theologian" as the ultimate arbiter of theological meaning at the expense of voices from the ground. I argue that the voices, sentiments, reflections and praxis from the rough grounds are necessary to develop, change, modify or subvert the way we have formulated our doctrines, dogmas and beliefs - so that the saving message of the God of surprises can be heard in our times.

A talk given to the hierarchs, clergy, professors, students and guests of Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary, in Jordanville, NY, who gathered for the feastday of the school, that of the Three Hierarchs, Ss. Basil the Great, John Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian, on January 30, 2017 (February 12, according to the civil calendar). 

The talk examines the two types of wisdom (ἄνωθεν and θύραθεν), the process of coming to the knowledge (επίγνωσης) of Truth, the work of a seminary, which is to create mystagogues, the presuppositions of dogmatic theology and knowledge, and the inrelation of dogma and ethos, faith and life.

In order to better understand the divide which occurred within the “progressive majority” at Vatican II as “Schema XIII” (eventually Gaudium et Spes) was under discussion, this essay considers the contributions and objections of Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger, two of the document’s most salient critics. After offering a brief history of Schema XIII, I demonstrate that both theologians reacted to it with very similar concerns which centered upon the issue of “nature and grace.” However, their proposed remedies for the schema’s shortcomings differed significantly. Unlike other of its critics, Rahner did not call for jettisoning the schema’s “outside-in” methodology, which began on common ground and culminated in the person of Christ, but rather sought to imbue that methodology with robust supernatural orientation. Rahner’s (often-overlooked) complex relationship to Schema XIII and his own vision for an ideal version (which was fulfilled in many, though not all, ways in the promulgated version) offers a particularly helpful way forward as we read Gaudium et Spes today.

The imagination can provide a welcome vacation from reality, but what serious role could it play in the search for theological understanding? In an academic community committed to the truth of the faith-its correspondence to reality-what could the imagination hope to contribute?

Published from 1899 to 1950 the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique has long been considered the incarnation of conservative doctrinal positions. Revisiting articles that examine areas and methods of theology, such as the canon Albert Michel’s « Fondamentale ou générale (théologie) », Ambroise Gardeil’s « Lieux théologiques », Thomas Deman’s « Salamanque (théologiens de) », Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s « Thomisme » or even Yves Congar’s « Théologie », one in fact realizes the extent to which the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique actively contributed to the major epistemological debates and helped revitalize the field of contemporay catholic theology.

Publié de 1899 à 1950, le Dictionnaire de théologie catholique a longtemps été considéré comme l’incarnation de positions doctrinales conservatrices. À parcourir les articles qui traitent en son sein des domaines et des méthodes de la théologie, comme les articles « Fondamentale ou générale (théologie) » du chanoine Albert Michel, « Lieux théologiques » d’Ambroise Gardeil, « Salamanque (théologiens de) » de Thomas Deman, « Thomisme » de Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange ou encore « Théologie » d’Yves Congar, force est de constater que le Dictionnaire de théologie catholique a en réalité activement participé aux grands débats épistémologiques qui ont contribué à renouveler profondément le champ de la théologie catholique contemporaine.

I would like to begin with a playful reflection on the phrase 'Theology of Development' which for our purposes this morning necessarily would mean a 'theologizing about development' which is what we hope to achieve. But 'theologizing' requires a theologian or at least someone masquerading as a theologian, to put it light-heartedly - a person who does the theologizing. She definitely would use a theological method, although as Hauerwas begins his book The work of Theology by saying that 'I am, of course, the declared enemy of any attempt to identify "a method" for doing theology…' Although he quickly adds a rejoinder, 'but the denial of "method" can be understood to reflect some methodological commitments that can and should be made candid' (11). The second insight that comes out is that one theologizes always to someone. There is for an intended even if not for an actual audience for whom the theologizing is being performed. Hauerwas claims that theologians are at least 'committed to write for people who identify themselves as Christians' (22). Likening theology to the letters of Paul he continues that such a theology intended for an audience, has 'a concreteness that resists false, universalizing tendencies' and is necessarily a response to 'the challenges of trying to discern what being a Christian entails in this place and at this time' (24). The final insight we get from this reflection on the title is that theologizing is always about 'something', and one could cheekily add, even if that something is a 'nothing', following Sarte. In other words, theologizing is always about a subject. Although the particularities of the subject may vary from each act of theologizing, a general theme about the subject of theologizing, if there be one, can be best summed up in the words of Hauerwas, 'theology must be the ongoing effort to construe the world as God's good work' (23).
To sum up these reflections, to explore a theology of development is then necessarily to (a) explicate the theological method being employed, (b) clearly identify the audience or the context to whom the theologizing is being done, which is the development worker not dissimilar to this audience of mission scholars and practitioners, and (c) then to theologize on a subject-matter, which for us is development, that will necessarily construe the world as God's work. These three parts will consist of the three sections of the paper.

The late John Webster advocated both for a theological theology and a robust recovery of God’s intrinsic perfection. This paper examines how both occupations are related in Webster’s thought by setting forth six statements summarizing his doctrine of God and his theological approach to it. According to Webster, the doctrine of God is theological to the extent it upholds the principle of solus Deus in theology’s formal and material consideration of God’s perfection. Only thus does theology articulate the crucial distinction between and yet correspondence of God’s antecedent perfection and God’s intimate presence with us.

ABSTRACT:

Karl Barth is perhaps most clearly differentiated from Friedrich Schleiermacher when the two are compared in the context of their unphilosophical vs. philosophical soteriology. They each seek to answer the core question, ‘How can we be saved?’ but in radically different ways.

Schleiermacher’s answer is plainly philosophical. He argues that redemption is a ‘sense and taste for the Infinite’ where redemption takes place in the coincidence of opposites (coincidentia oppositorum) when the Infinite (the Whole) and the finite (the individual) participate in Christ’s perfect God-consciousness. Romantic rhetoric, i.e., the ‘feeling of absolute dependence,’ also enters into this Neoplatonic-panentheistic construct when the individual relates to God as a redemptive contact. Thus Schleiermacher’s soteriology is romantic, Neoplatonic and subjectively Christocentric, and is thus philosophized.

On the other hand, Barth is decidedly unphilosophical. He seeks to erase all philosophical tenets from his theology, in particular rooting it out of his entire soteriological structure in the process. For Barth, redemption is not Schleiermacher’s fulfillment of the coincidentia oppositorum where God is ‘the whole’. God is instead the ‘Wholly Other’; it is Immanuel who fulfills the covenant and reconciles God and human beings. Barth holds that redemption is grounded objectively ‘in Christ by Christ,’ not in romantic rhetoric or existential or subjective experience. The whole redemptive process is concentrated in Christ the electing God and the elected or rejected man, not in romanticized philosophy. Barth’s soteriology is objectively Christocentric and thus unphilosophized.

Through the comparative study, theological strengths and weaknesses of subjectively philosophized soteriology and objectively unphilosophized soteriolgy will be beneficially appeared.

한글 초록:

본고는 철학적 구원론과 비철학적 구원론의 맥락 속에서 칼 바르트와 프리드리히 슐라이어마허의 구원론의 차이점을 대비시키는데 목적을 두고 있다. 바르트와 슐라이어마허는 ‘우리가 어떻게 구원에 이를 수 있는가’라는 질문에 대해 극명히 다른 대답을 내놓았다.

이 질문에 대한 슐라이어마허의 답변은 대단히 철학적이었다. 슐라이어마허에게 구원은 그리스도의 완전한 신의식에 참여함을 통해 유한이 무한을 느끼고 맛보는 지점에서 일어나는데 이는 극단과 극단이 만나는 구원론적 일치점이다. 유한이 무한과 만나는 구원론적 일치점은 신플라톤주의-만유재신론적 구조 속에서 낭만주의적 ‘절대 의존 감정’으로 이루어진다. 그러므로 슐라이어마허의 구원론은 낭만주의적-신플라톤주의적-주관적 구원론이므로 철학적 구원론이다.

이와 반대로 바르트의 구원론은 명백히 비철학적 구원론이다. 바르트는 구원론 내에 서려 있는 철학적 요소들을 최대한 제거하려고 노력했다. 바르트의 구원론은 유한과 무한이 만나는 일치점이 아니었는데 그 이유는 바르트에게 하나님은 ‘전적 타자’였기 때문이다. 바르트의 구원론은 하나님과 인간 사이에서 벌어진 ‘그리스도를 통한, 그리스도 안에서의’ 임마누엘 그 자체였다. 이는 낭만주의적 수사도 아니며 실존적, 혹은 주관적 느낌 및 경험도 아니었다. 오히려 바르트의 구원론은 홀로 선택되고 동시에 홀로 유기되는 그리스도에게만 집중된 그리스도-중심주의 구원론이다. 그러므로 바르트의 구원론은 지나치게 객관적으로 비철학화된 구원론이다.

이런 비교 탐구를 통해 주관주의적 철학적 구원론과 객관주의적 비철학적 구원론의 신학적 장단점과 기여점을 살펴볼 수 있는 유익이 있다.

One of the most colossal editorial undertakings was the publication, by the publishing house Letouzey and Ané, of the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique (Dictionary of Catholic Theology). Covering more than half a century from 1899 to 1950, the fifteen tomes divided in thirty volumes, represent one of their most beautiful achievements. Successively headed by Abbots Alfred Vacant (1852-1901), Eugène Mangenot (1856-1922) and Émile Amann (1880-1948), the work was barely finished, such that Letouzey and Ané, from 1951, published the first of eighteen fascicles of the Tables générales, whose compilation, led by Canon Albert Michel (1877-1972), would require a further twenty years of work. Until 1972, the Tables générales represented a commendable insight, albeit measured, into the most recent themes of theological reflection, albeit progressive, aggiornamento, the effects of which this article attempts to quantify.
La publication du Dictionnaire de Théologie catholique par les éditions Letouzé et Ané constitue une œuvre colossale, étalée de 1899 à 1950 : 15 tomes répartis en 30 volumes. Le DThC a été successivement dirigé par Alfred Vacant (1852-1901), Eugène Mangenot (1856-1922) et Émile Amann (1880-1948). À peine le dernier fascicule était-il publié que l’éditeur offrait, en 1951, le premier des 18 fascicules des Tables générales dues au chanoine Albert Michel (1877-1972). Leur mise au point prit finalement une vingtaine d’années, jusqu’en 1972, et permit l’introduction, méritoire et mesurée, de thèmes nouveaux, récemment abordés par la recherche théologique, une sorte d’aggiornamento progressif du DThC, que cet article se propose d’étudier.

T 4 Piaget was studying the development of intelligence in children, an enterprise naturally cognate to Lonergan's interests. The encounter seems to have catalyzed, or at least contributed to, a significant transformation in Lonergan's thought; he found Piaget's ideas fecund for questions that might have surprised Piaget, such as a general account of the stages of cultural development. See, for instance, Lonergan, Method, 27-30. The rather brisk summary in Method is the distillation of years of reflection evidenced in the papers and theological method institutes of the 1960s. 5 Here I am summarizing Lonergan, "Time and Meaning," 109-10. There are parallel discussions. 6 Piaget, The Psychology of Intelligence, 20-55. Though the construction of a spatial field does not exhibit "reversibility" in precisely the same way as an operational field, nevertheless insofar as the subject is considered as an element within the field, changes of position are "reversible" in the sense that they can be countered by (actual or imagined) movements of one's own body; thus the complete group of (potential) displacements exhibits equilibrium: see ibid., 125.

Once upon a time (when theology was a 'thing' and doctrine mattered, but before anyone thought it should actually help us exist as those who pretend to believe and live differently because of Christian faith), I taught courses in Christian Theology.

At schools like Wheaton College, Northern Seminary and several guest lectureships at institutions I promised I'd never advertise I was invited to contribute my thoughts, I taught coursework and graduate seminars on the subject of theology. This introduction to the task of theology was just another hand-out serious students would pretend to read and colleagues would use to raise suspicions about 'fit' and statements of faith to Provosts and Deans. So I share this with you in hopes of steering you away from criticism and you, like so many others, will learn to 'just blame Callahan' for this or that.

In the development of the study of religion as a new discipline in the twentieth century, the pioneers of the field were often at pains to stress that what they did was different from theology. As such, it might be asked in what way a theological approach even belongs within the study of religion; many scholars today, who emphasize it as a scientific or historical discipline, distance themselves from any notion that theology, in any form, has a place within it. However, elsewhere the relationship is more ambiguous, while some scholars even argue that theological approaches are essential to understanding, and so truly studying, religion. It is best to start by defining what we mean by 'theology' in relation to the study of religion. We will begin with some negatives. First, it does not mean a confessional approach, where the teachings of one school , tradition, or sect within a religion are taught as the true or correct understanding of that religion. Second, theology does not imply that there is any need for a belief or faith content within the person studying in that idiom. It is not, therefore, under the classic definition of the medieval Christian saint Anslem of Canterbury (1033-1109), an act of 'Faith Seeking Understanding'. We come now to the positives. First, it is about understanding the internal terms within which a religion will seek to explain itself, its teachings, and its formulations. We must be clear here that in some sense 'theology' is used loosely because while it makes sense as a Christian term (literally it is the study of God), and can be fairly clearly apply to other theistic traditions, it is also used elsewhere to talk about broadly philosophical traditions related to transcendence, and so people use the term 'Buddhist theology' (others question whether this usage is appropriate, but space does not permit us to engage in such disputes here). Second, it means engaging with questions of meaning as they would make sense within the religious worldview with a sense of empathy, so it goes beyond reasoning and relates to a way of life. Here, we see clear resonances with phenomenological approaches, where we seek to understand a religion on its own terms. Indeed, without a theological viewpoint it can be argued that the study of religions fails because, on the one hand it is either simply reductionist, that is to say it explains via some chosen system why the religion exists, what it does, and what it means (as tends to be the case with some parts of the sociology or psychology of religion). Or, on the other hand, it becomes merely descriptive, telling us what rituals are performed, what the ethics are, what the teachings are, how it is lived out, and so on (a simply phenomenological approach). A theological approach looks into the religion and seeks to understand what it means to believers within its own terms, and how that system works as a rational worldview to those within it. Two important pairs of distinctions are useful to consider how theological approaches are applied. The first, developed by the anthropologist Kenneth Pike (1912-2000)and often applied to religion, concerns what are called 'emic' and 'etic' approaches (1954). An emic approach attempts to explain things within the cultural world of the believer. An etic approach is the way an external observer would try and make sense of the behaviours and beliefs of a society or group in some form of scientific sense. Within anthropology these basic distinctions are seen as part of the tool of the trade.

40 essays by Ronnie Hsia, Ulrich Leinsle, Marius Reiser, Thomas Marschler, Trent Pomplun, Jean-Louis Quantin, William O'Brien SJ, Stefania Tutino, Carl Trueman, Andreas Beck, Willem van Asselt, Eric Carlsson, Stephen Hampton, Benjamin Mayes, Robert Kolb, Risto Saarinnen, Ola Tjorholm, Sarah Mortimer, Jeff Bach, Keith Stanglin, Hartmut Lehmann, Jonathan Strom, Craig Atwood, Stephen Burnett, Emanuele Colombo, Aza Goudriaan, Carolina Armenteros, Eric Watkins, Maria Rosa Antognazza, Stephen Gaukroger, Jonathan Israel, John Henry.

A review essay on Frederick Lawrence, *The Fragility of Consciousness: Faith, Reason, and the Common Good,* ed. Randall Rosenberg and Kevin Vander Schel (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2016). The version posted here is the version originally submitted to the journal, prior to their editorial process. Any use of this essay should refer to the published version.

This conclusive chapter of the thesis argues that Van Roo's analysis of the complex relationship between theological reflection on the religious experience of the believer in community successfully integrates the fragmentary insights found in other authors into a unified whole. Van Roo thus offers a proposal around which a much needed consensus could be achieved.

The article looks at the influences on Gregory of Nyssa's apophatic theology, and shows how the polemics with the neo-Arian Eunomius and later also with Origen influenced his notions of God's infinity and the infinity of human spiritual progress. It focuses on the relationship between revelation in words and in silence, between participatory knowledge of God and participatory unknowing of God, the kind of darkness that, according to Gregory leads towards restoration, and thus carries on the graced human journey of deification.

his paper is an attempt at conversation. I find it difficult to start since my dialogue-partners are my elders in the Philippine theological family, many of whom were my revered professors or favorite authors from whom I will be forever grateful to have learned the skills of the craft. In a culture which holds 'elders' in great esteem, we have not been trained to tell them a piece of our mind. But as a tribute to their laudable pioneering endeavors, I have tried to muster some courage in order to raise some issues on their theological methods with the view to keeping alive the theological conversation they have started as the Philippines continue to grapple with its new and ever-changing contexts.

A survey of contemporary theological and hermeneutical sources reveals a disparity between the two, where both often divorce theology from Scripture and concede a rationalistic approach thereto. Systematic theologians in particular tend to advocate a sort of theological method that is justified and regulated by reason, either as an argument from didactic need or as an argument with considerable theoretical distance between the nature of Scripture and its imperative to teach on the one hand and the concept of the redeemed consciousness on the other. The study posits that this fails to determine an actual biblical model and basis for the process of systematic theology. A diachronic study of Scripture determines the fundamental presuppositions posited by the text of Scripture itself, followed by an expansion on these concepts by way of a systematic consciousness on the part of the biblical authors, whereby they look back to prior revelation while drawing conclusions and applying them through the medium of language to their then-present culture and the ideologies, philosophies, and heresies thereof. The sufficient and regulatory nature of Scripture is then considered in relation to the process of systematic theology today.

Summary: The theology of Jean Daniélou follows an itinerary that leads from existential ex-perience to theological speculation. While carrying out his ministry in France, he had always a missionary soul that led him to leave the university and reach the outskirts of existence. This holds true for all areas of his research: dialogue with the contemporary world, dialogue with non-Christian religions, the renewal of theological method, the return to the Fathers. The present article—a summary of doctoral research presented in 2010—analyzes the theological method of Jean Daniélou with the purpose of understanding the reach of his theology of fulfillment and of mission. His method is varied and realistic, and belongs to the long tradition which sinks its roots into biblical typology, passing through the Fathers, and in fidelity to the spirit of St. Thomas Aquinas. The article closes with a mention of the theology of mission, a key component of the French theologian’s entire reflection.

“The use of the Old Testament in the New: Diagnosis and Prescription about the Actual Debate” ― The use of the Old Testament in the New has been one subject of study and debate due the to hermeneutical implications that such use has for the contemporary interpreter. A group of biblical scholars argue that the New Testament makes reference to the Old always in a literal or plain manner or adhere to the original context sense. However another group holds the view that the New Testament uses the texts of Old Testament reinterpreting them in way contrary to its original intentions; it is assumed that these meanings are taken out of context or attribute to an additional meaning that is not evident in the texts themselves. This article makes a “diagnosis” of the current state of debate in its varied lights through a literature review while proposing some “prescriptions” that have the potential to lead the discussion toward a more productive path.

Every Filipino Christian can do theology and this practice of theology will result in a more dynamic mission-oriented, culture-engaging faith. I will be making three points. First, I will define what I mean by local theology or-as I will more commonly call it-contextualization. Here I claim that participation is both an Evangelical ("every believer, a minister") and also a Filipino value (pakikiisa, pakikilahok). Second, I will assert the urgency of making local theology more accessible, participatory and practical for Filipino churches. Finally, I will suggest how every Filipino Christian can practice local theology.

The object of the present essay is to establish the possibility of "theology without anathemas." First, an argument is given for the conclusion that infallible knowledge in matters of theology is not now possible. Both the Protestant doctrine of claritas scripturae and the Roman Catholic understanding of the Magisterium of the Church are rejected. Then, an alternative, "fallibilist" ecclesiology is proposed, according to which (knowingly) to belong to the Church is a matter of (understanding oneself as) having been claimed by Christ as His own. When combined with a universal doctrine of election and a highly objective and actualized doctrine of the Atonement, such a conception of the Church makes it possible to understand theology as a collaborative and cooperative effort on the part of all to understand better this Christ to whom they all always already belong.