A CONVERSATION BETWEEN SPIRITUALITY AND THEOLOGY

Learning Objectives:

1. Explain spirituality as the experience of conscious involvement in the project of life-

integration through self-transcendence toward the ultimate value one perceives;

2. Distinguish and relate spirituality and religion, presenting the need for both roots and wings in
the life of faith as well as in theology; and

3. Appraise the necessity of practice in faith, considering the approach of practical theology.

EXPOSITION

For many of us, talk about spirituality results in descriptions that come off as nebulous and vague.
What do we actually mean when we speak of “spirituality?” Theologian Peter Feldmeier, who specializes
in Christian spirituality and comparative theology, describes the obscurity of spirituality as follows:
Modern interest in spirituality is big and growing. One needs only to enter a major bookstore to
find a plethora of books devoted to the subject. These include works on religious doctrine, the new
age movement, mysticism, self-help books, and many other subjects. Many are practical, dealing
with such topics as how to pray, how to infuse marriage with religious meaning, or how to develop
a twelve-step spirituality. Others are more exotic, promising wisdom from indigenous traditions or
esoteric teachings from the East. Still others use the term “spirituality” quite loosely, applying it to
such things as optimal golf games or wholesome business strategies. What seems clear from such
titles and themes is that the term itself is very unclear. Even trained scholars struggle to agree on a
definition.1

The question of spirituality is a vital one in a human being’s life. All people have spirituality,
whether they live it out in the context of a religion or not. And yet, not many people know how to talk
about it. However, the understanding of one’s spirituality opens many new paths in the human’s quest
for meaning and purpose. A common phrase that has come up in contemporary talk regarding the spiritual
religious enterprise is the self-identification by people as “spiritual but not religious.” In fact, many young
people have begun to identify themselves as such when asked about what they believe in, often in a very
proud and self-assured sort of manner. This prevalent mentality has been described by theologian David
Tracy as follows:
More and more secular persons in Western societies can be heard repeating the refrain (almost by
now a cliché) “I am not religious” (shorthand for I am not a practicing member of any
institutionalized form of religion), “but I am spiritual.” Such declarations should be honoured by all
theologians and churches as, among other matters, a clear call from the hearts of “secular” seekers
for guidance for some vision and way of life beyond secularity. 2

For example, there are many young people who consider themselves “spiritual but not religious.”
Theologian William Spohn, drawing from his own experience with his undergraduate students, shares
what he believes people mean when they say they are “spiritual but not religious”:
Usually this means that the speaker is interested in religious experience but cannot find it in
church. Saying “I’m not a religious person” separates the spiritual pursuit of meaning from
organized communities and traditions of faith. People are realizing that they can experience the
transcendent without accepting all the baggage of organized religion. Many who have no
 religious background experience a hunger for something more, for life that has a reach or depth
that they cannot live without. Some have found that churches promise a vital relationship with
God but fail to deliver on the promise. Institutions of religion are shadowed by the same suspicion
we have toward other social structures that have betrayed our trust: government, medicine,
business corporations, and the like. Indeed organized religion with its formality and doctrines and
self-importance seems to stifle this mysterious hunger for the spiritual. That hunger points to a
freedom and personal authenticity that seem unwelcome in established religions. 3

For many young people, religion represents rigidity and inflexibility that is not consonant with
their search for meaning in the world. This may be the reason why “spirituality” seems to be the favored
word for expressing their experience of the search for meaning and purpose. For young people seeking
fullness of life, to be “spiritual” seems to be the opposite of being “religious.”

Sandra Schneiders, one of the foremost experts on the study of spirituality, describes three ways
people view the relationship between spirituality and religion. The first perspective views religion and
spirituality as “strangers to the banquet of transcendence who never actually meet or converse.”4 For
these people, religion and spirituality are different enterprises with different approaches to the same end.
The second perspective views religion and spirituality as “rivals, if not enemies, vying for the allegiance of
the serious seekers.”5 This perspective can be taken by those who have, at some point in their lives, felt
hurt or betrayed by a religious institution in one way or another, seeking solace in what they have now
called “spirituality.” The final perspective views religion and spirituality as partners, two dimensions of a
single enterprise. These two dimensions are often seen as being at odds with each other, but are actually
complementary and essential aspects of any authentic quest for purpose and meaning in the world. As
partners, they are distinct, but intimately related. This last perspective is the viewpoint taken on in this
lesson.

SPIRITUALITY AS LIFE INTEGRATION

We can begin with a working definition from prominent theologian Roger Haight: “Spirituality
refers to the logic, or character, or consistent quality of a person’s or a group’s pattern of living insofar as
it is measured before some kind of ultimate reality.”6 In this sense, all spirituality is directing the human
life toward some manner of ultimate value or reality. At the same time, it is a pattern of living that one
commits himself or herself to, which indicates a kind of fidelity to a particular manner of being in the
world—a consistent quality of being.

However, who determines what that ultimate value or reality might be? This is the task of religion.
For Haight, religion refers to “a set of beliefs, values, and practices that together identify what ultimate
reality is and help establish the relationship that obtains between this ultimate reality and the
practitioners.”7 Religion becomes that which aids people in developing spirituality within its defined
beliefs and practices, and in doing so, according to that religion’s tradition, a person can grow closer and
closer to the ultimate value or reality. For some religions, like Christianity, that ultimate reality is named
as God.

Can a person practice spirituality without religion? Yes. There are people who claim that they have
spirituality even outside of religious institutions. However, in theory this is incredibly difficult to do.
Without a religion that determines for us what ultimate value might be, a person practicing this so-called
“secular spirituality” has to find ultimate value on their own terms, by their own capacity. There is,
therefore, a case to be made that a vast majority of secular spiritualities are actually derivative in nature,
whereby its practitioners actually borrow patterns of living from already existing religion and utilize it in
their distinctly secular practice.

Whether secular or religious, spirituality aims to provide a pattern of living for its practitioners
that hopes to bring them to ultimate reality. Given this foundational understanding, we can borrow
Sandra Schneiders definition of spirituality to add to our working definition. She says spirituality is “the
experience of conscious involvement in the project of life-integration through self-transcendence toward
the ultimate value one perceives.”8

In this sense, spirituality can provide foundation (life-integration) and direction (self-
transcendence) for a generation of youth seeking answers to their existential questions. In particular,
beyond secular spiritualities lived outside religious institutions, one can also speak of a Christian
spirituality. This spirituality’s foundation of life-integration and direction of self-transcendence finds its
ground in the person of Jesus Christ. Very simply, Christian spirituality is “the lived experience of Christian
faith.”9

Although we can claim that there exists a general understanding of what Christian spirituality is,
one can actually categorically describe what one’s spirituality is within the bigger umbrella of Christian
spirituality:
We distinguish among spiritualities according to various criteria. For example, we may
distinguish qualitatively between a healthy and a rigid spirituality. We may distinguish
spiritualities by religious tradition or family as Catholic or Lutheran, Benedictine or Carmelite.
Or we may distinguish spiritualities by salient features, e.g., as Eucharistic, biblical, or feminist.
These distinctions are not necessarily mutually exclusive nor is this listing comprehensive. A
healthy spirituality may be Catholic, Benedictine, Eucharistic, and feminist. Conversely, a rigid
spirituality may also be Catholic, Benedictine, Eucharistic, and feminist. In short, although all
humans are spiritual in the basic anthropological sense, and all Christian spiritualities share a
deep commonality, each individual develops her or his spirituality in a unique and personal way,
analogously to the way individuals develop their common humanity into a unique personality.
Therefore, the spiritualities of Christians, even within the same denomination, Religious order,
or movement, may differ enormously.10

Deconstructing the definition of Schneiders can provide us a better understanding of spirituality,

and its role in the lives of people today. First, spirituality as we are using it in this definition denotes
experience. Therefore, “spirituality is not an abstract idea, a theory, an ideology, or a movement of some
kind. It is personal lived reality which has both active and passive dimensions.”11

Second, spirituality is an experience of conscious involvement in a project which means that it is

neither an accidental experience such as the result of a drug overdose, nor an episodic event such as being
overwhelmed by a beautiful sunset. Many young people have come to a misunderstanding that spirituality
is reliant on random spontaneous occurrences of closeness to transcendence. William Spohn described
this same misconception in his students:
Most of my undergraduate students who do not go near a church still claim that they have
their own personal spirituality. When asked to elaborate, they will say they find God in walking
along the seashore or that they feel in touch with the cosmos when watching the sunrise. One
student said he felt close to God when he went rock climbing without ropes, giving new
meaning to the hymn “Nearer My God to Thee.” Usually these spiritual moments are random
 and spontaneous occurrences. While giving an individual some assurance that he or she is
spiritual, such moments make no demands in terms of conviction or commitment to do
anything in response.12

A spirituality reliant on random and spontaneous experiences is not sustainable. Experience has
to be consciously taken on, and the collective narrative of these experiences freely taken on results in the
project of spirituality. “It is an ongoing and coherent approach to life as a consciously pursued and ongoing
enterprise.”13

Third, spirituality is a project of lifeintegration which means that it is holistic, “involving body
and spirit, emotions and thought, activity and passivity, social and individual aspects of life. It is an effort
to bring all of life together in an integrated synthesis of ongoing growth and development. Spirituality,
then, involves one’s whole life in relation to reality as a whole.”14

Fourth, this project of life-integration is pursued by consistent self-transcendence toward ultimate value.
“This implies that spirituality is essentially positive in its direction. A life of narcissistic egoism, self-
destructive addiction, or social violence even though it may involve the totality of the person’s being, is
not a spirituality. The focus of self-transcendence is value that the person perceives as ultimate not only
in relation to oneself but in some objective sense. One might perceive life itself, personal or social well-
being, the good of the earth, justice for all people, or union with God as ultimate value. Sometimes, of
course, the perception of ultimate value is mistaken.”15 One example of misguided practice of spirituality
is in cultic activity, like the tragic mass suicides of the Heaven’s Gate cult.16 As such, it is vital that a person
discerns in spirituality, and critical engagement of the spiritual beliefs, values and practices is essential to
a healthy spiritual life.

AUGUSTINIAN SPIRITUALITY AS PATTERN

There are many kinds of spirituality that exists within the Catholic Church, but collectively,
various kinds of spiritualities in community have emerged within our history in order to provide guidance
and pattern for developing proper practice and belief, in order to provide a pattern for directing our
progress in self-transcendence toward God.

One possible pattern is the Augustinian spirituality, patterned after the Rule of Augustine, as
well as through the lives of Augustinians over the many centuries since the time of Saint Augustine.

In Augustinian Spirituality, three principles are most apparent. They are veritas (truth), unitas
(unity), and caritas (love):

1. Veritas. In a letter to his friend Honoratus, Saint Augustine wrote: “I felt that I should not keep from
you my tough about finding and holding to the truth. This, as you know, has been my burning passion
since early youth.”17 This passion for truth is something that led Augustine to much self-questioning and
introspection. However, Augustine’s self-questioning was not just psychological introspection or mere
general curiosity. “By probing the spirit again and again, he came to discover his heart—and to listen to
the truth that has been placed there.”18 Therefore, within Augustinian spirituality, one important
aspiration is the understanding of the truth of oneself, and in that, the truth of God: Domine Iesu, noverim
me, noverim te. “O God, let me know myself, so I may know you.”19 At the same time, truth also exists
beyond oneself. “ Augustine insists that “if the truth is the object of the aspirations of all human beings,
it cannot be the exclusive personal property of any person. The truth cannot be exclusively mine or yours
precisely because it must be both yours and mine.”20 Thus, the Augustinian community must always be
open to seeking the truth in each other, in the greater world, while at the same time respecting the well-
reasoned differences among people.

2. Unitas. As emphasized in the Rule of Augustine, Augustine’s first expectation for members of the
Augustinian community is to live harmoniously together in oneness of mind and heart. As such, any
Augustinian community strives to live with mutual concern for one other, making sure to give mutual
assistance to each other in every way possible. However, unity is not uniformity. Therefore, there must
be openness and willingness for collaboration amongst members of the community, as well as with those
engaged by the community. In this way, there is still respect for differing contexts and experiences, while
being united in the foundational and essential aspects of the faith. This was something Augustine himself
practiced, especially in his commentaries on Scripture: “In his commentary, Augustine is always—in more
or less subtle ways—connecting the Gospel [. . .] to the experience of the local community. Such theology-
in-context thus asks the reader to appreciate more than the interpretation of the gospel text itself, since
Augustine interprets it according to the socio-cultural experiences and the thought patterns of his
people.”21

Caritas. For Augustine, love is the why and how of our knowledge. “Use knowledge as a kind of scaffolding
to help build the structure of love and understanding, which will last forever even after knowledge
destroys itself. Knowledge is useful when it is used to promote love. But it becomes useless, even harmful
in itself, if separated from such an end.”22 Augustine highlights that spirituality denotes life in the Holy
Spirit. It is the Spirit that conforms persons to Christ, by giving them the caritas that enables them to pray,
“Abba, Father.” In solidarity with such a value, the Augustinian community puts love at the heart of
practice and life. According to Augustinian Saint Thomas of Villanova, “Love renders everything precious.
If a rich man gives away the whole of his property and everything he has yet withholds love, his giving
means nothing. Every gift is to be tested against the touchstone of charity.” 23 In any Augustinian
community, what we give is not nearly as important as why we give.

Having some kind of pattern for living spirituality is very important. Spirituality is difficult to do
alone, and even more so if it is done without some kind of basis that grounds one’s practice of spirituality.
The next section explains the importance of this balance, suggesting that all spirituality must have roots
and wings.

THE NEED FOR ROOTS AND WINGS

William Spohn, drawing from research done by sociologist Robert Wuthnow, describes three
types of spirituality that has emerged since the 1950’s.24 These are the dwelling, seeking and practicing
spiritualities.

The first kind of spirituality is the dwelling spirituality. Its emphasis is the reliability of traditional
religious institutions, and the living out of person’s spiritual lives within the traditionally drawn bounds of
such institutions:
A spirituality of dwelling characterized the American religious landscape of the ‘50s. A time of
home-centered family life cherished sacred space and the settled world of tradition. Church-going
reached record heights as an emerging suburban middle class found roots in mainstream
congregations. Often the price of respectability was conformity without much introspection,
 combined with uncritical acceptance of the official doctrine and mores. The spirituality of dwelling
had rather shallow roots and no wings to travel on. 25

As a direct critique of the spirituality of dwelling, many people who became dissatisfied with a
spiritual life within what seemed to be a cage of tradition left for new horizons of spiritual living. This
resulted in the second kind of spirituality, the seeking spirituality, which sought to abandon the roots of
institutional religion. Without a religion dictating them what ultimate value to follows, those who adopted
the seeking spirituality worked to find paths to ultimate value on their own terms:
A spirituality of seeking emerged in the ‘60s and ‘70s. Americans asserted their freedom to pursue
their own path beyond the confines of the “house of the Lord” as they moved out of the sacred
space of traditional churches to seek religious experience on their own terms. They embarked on
private journeys of self-expression and self-discovery. They sampled sweat lodges, tantric yoga,
transcendental meditation, rolfing, Buddhist chanting, and the like. Unfortunately these spiritual
tourists were not very deeply affected by their experiments. Since they rarely investigated the
worldview behind these practices, their own convictions went unchallenged. In addition, their
behavior did not change much because there was no actual community that could make demands
upon them. The spirituality of seeking had wings but no roots. 26

There is a danger to a “spirituality” that does not find its roots in a religious context in some way.
“There is, to be sure, always a danger in our consumerist and individualistic modern societies that
‘spiritualities’ can become new consumer-goods, new divertissements without ethical demands toward
others and Others.”27 The ultimate failings of the “spiritual but not religious” trend is the movement
toward more and more privatized kinds of spiritual practice, that brings people away from reality, the
world, community and the transcendent. As such, this may lead seekers of this kind to an “appalling
loneliness that a privatized spirituality can bring.”28

This age of individualism is an age of insecurity. Possibly, this is the reason why many people of
this time, especially the youth, turn to new centers and categories of meaning. Partly, it might be because
of an escapist urge to turn away from that which is dark and difficult to deal with in the world. Many
young people, for example, look for meaning in the experience of leisure and acquiring access to endless
sources of pleasure. And yet despite the hedonistic escapism, there are still widespread occurrences of
clinical depression, as well as a pervasive sense of meaninglessness and anxiety, which may be resultant
of the spiritual vacuum in which many youth live their lives.29

Young seekers of today live in a time of great fear: “wars, murder, abuse, institutional violence,
terrorism and our destruction of the environment, not to mention earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes.
In the face of all this, feelings of insecurity and hopelessness are inevitable.”30 The “end of the world”
trope, with its post-apocalyptic settings, has begun to dominate literature and pop culture. We find it in
films such as A Quiet Place, Snowpiercer, and Pacific Rim. We find it in video games such as the Fallout
series and The Last of Us series, and in comic books such as the zombie apocalypse of The Walking Dead.
These popular culture examples show how dominant the apocalypse trope is in all forms of media. Even
the scientific community foretells of various doomsday scenarios, like meteors, gamma ray bombardment
or solar flares. It can be described as an “apocalypse now” motif. What people see all around are images
of “the labyrinth of doom and gloom, both the false prophecies and the unheeded warnings, the fin-de-
siècle pessimisms, and the fears that time is running out in the world.” 31
 As such, it is of great import to recover the communal dimension of spirituality that can help
ground its direction. This leads directly to the final kind of spirituality—the practicing spirituality:
In recent years, a spirituality of practices has moved to the fore. People grew tired of sporadic trips
into the sacred and realized that dabbling in the spiritual would not lead to lasting healing or
transformation. They came to adopt certain spiritual disciplines to focus and deepen their quest for
the sacred. Though not retreating back into the settled religion of the ‘50s, many individuals
selected elements from established traditions: meditation, Biblereading, fasting, hospitality,
service to the poor, rituals of worship. These practices integrated the spiritual quest into ordinary
life and gradually worked to transform its fabric [. . .] this new spirituality combines the best
features of its predecessors while avoiding their shortcomings. Even when they borrowed spiritual
practices like Zen meditation from other religions, they incorporated them into a critical religious
tradition. The committed spiritual practices of the ‘90s and beyond have both roots and wings. 32

SPIRITUALITY AND PRACTICE

From the perspective of an understanding of secular spirituality, Peter Van Ness characterizes
spirituality as: “the quest for attaining an optimal relationship between what one truly is and everything
that is; it is a quest that can be furthered by adopting appropriate spiritual practices and by participating
in relevant communal rituals.”33

To achieve life integration, people often rely on tangible and concrete ways in which their
spirituality is lived out. This living out of spirituality is often referred to as “practice.” We hear, for instance,
of people who claim to be “non-practicing Catholics,” who seem to think that practice only involves the
prayer and liturgical aspects of one’s spirituality. But practice captures a wide range of realities, which not
only includes prayer, but also includes moral living. At the same time, practice is not just private activity,
but is something that touches entire communities and society at large. The Scottish-American philosopher
Alasdair MacIntyre defines a practice as:
any coherent and complex form of socially established cooperative human activity through which
goods internal to that form of activity are realized in the course of trying to achieve those standards
of excellence which are appropriate to, and partially definitive of, that form of activity, with the
result that human powers to achieve human excellence, and human conceptions of the ends and
goods involved, are systematically extended.34

According to MacIntyre, in the secular sense, practices can include scientific inquiry, musical
artistry, and even expertise at games such as chess. And although these practices are indeed secular, it is
not to say we cannot attribute some religious significance to them. Especially considering the Catholic
faith’s understanding of sacramentality, all of reality has the potential to become an avenue of grace to
believers, giving credence to the Ignatian maxim of “finding God in all things.”

For example, the specifically secular practice of sports is something that can bear a spiritual
significance, both to its participants and the audience. For many, sport has become a secular ritual that
many people can relate to and participate in actively. In the Philippines, basketball has long been a
beloved sport. In recent years, volleyball has also enjoyed a great deal of popularity. Both have become
popular pastimes for Filipinos. In some way, sports have brought many people to go beyond and transcend
themselves.
 In fact, in the ritual of sports, there is a possibility to see traces of God and his creative energy.
Sport expresses this creative energy through the athletes and the fans who support those athletes. The
games and competitions showcase some of the most powerful and artful ways in which gifted human
beings can use and experience this creative energy. For athletes, their God-given talents and capacities
are in full show for others to see in various electrifying competitions. Through sports, athletes participate
in the creative energy of God. But the empowerment is not only found in the athletes. The fans too are
connected to this energy through the imagery that the competition creates for them. For example, when
their team wins, the fans feel powerful and important, even though they know they had nothing to do
with the result. The team has become a higher expression of themselves. Through this identification, the
fans’ lives are elevated to a higher symbolic level. This connection can move them to feel closer to the
original Creator. Past civilizations left behind stadiums and colosseums, where sports were birthed into
existence. These arenas became sacred space where sports were celebrated. For many of us today,
various sporting venues have become quite important sacred spaces as well. These venues become the
setting for great celebrations, not only of human capacity and talent, but ultimately of the Creator God
behind those capacities. In a special way, sport has become our shared religion, and, when practiced
properly, we become closer to God through it.35

However, there must be a distinction made between practice and other kinds of activity known
as techniques:
Techniques are not worthwhile in themselves, they are worthwhile because they produce certain
results. Although a technique requires certain skills, skills are a means to an end beyond the
technique. A practice usually involves certain skills, but these are wrapped up in the activity itself.
Learning to be a good listener and being faithful to your friends, for example, are skills that are
wrapped up in the practice of friendship. We do these things for the sake of the friendship, not to
develop certain moral qualities. If you try to use people for your own development, you are missing
the whole point of friendship. You will develop listening and fidelity only indirectly and only if the
friends are more important to you than enhancing yourself.36

Techniques are deemed to be worthwhile only because they produce some kind of output or
effect, but beyond that expected result, they are not in themselves worthwhile. For example, in the
practice of basketball, shooting free throws is one important technique, a skill that produces points within
the game. Contrast free throws with the very activity of basketball, which we can consider a practice, as
its participants and audience find a great deal of value in the activity in and of itself. Basketball, especially
to the players, coaches and fans, becomes rewarding in and of itself, even if it can produce other beneficial
effects as a consequence. Teams play to win, but for the most part, they play for the love of the game.

Techniques, however, can develop to become practices. Alasdair MacIntyre gives the example
of how he got his young nephew interested in game of chess. At first, he promised the boy that he would
get a piece of candy any time he defeated his uncle in a chess match. This piqued the boy’s interest in the
game. The boy learned to play well, and this resulted in him collecting his share of candy. However, after
a while, the boy became fascinated with the strategy and competition of chess. Eventually, the prize candy
became an afterthought. He began playing chess as a technique but eventually got drawn into it as a
practice.37 Chess has its own rewards, just like friendship or marriage or fiction writing, which are all good
examples of practices. Doing them well brings us joy beyond the pragmatic benefits they give.
 Therefore, practices that are done for their own sake within a spiritual setting, especially within
religious traditions, are what might be considered spiritual practices. Like their secular counterparts,
spiritual practices are worthwhile in themselves. However, spiritual practices are done within the context
of spirituality. Secular practices can themselves develop into spiritual practices. At the same time, spiritual
practices are the committed activity of spirituality. Since they are committed activity, they are done
constantly as to bring a person closer and closer to the ultimate value that they have directed themselves
to. In the words of William Spohn:
Spiritual practices are journeys, not day trips into the realm of the sacred. They are not hobbies or
occasional exercises that depend on our moods. Practices require commitment, the deliberate
setting aside of time to do them regularly, like reading scripture 20 minutes a day or worshiping
every Sunday with a particular community. Spiritual practices are usually cooperative enterprises,
like showing up every Saturday afternoon to work at a soup kitchen or becoming involved in the
lobbying efforts of Amnesty International.38

PRACTICAL THEOLOGY

Christ is the way, the truth and the life, and thus it is of utmost significance that both spirituality
and theology be encountered in a manner that is not simply emphasizing orthodoxy, or proper
understanding of the faith, but also highlighting orthopraxis, which involves the proper living out of the
faith in practice. The understanding of the doctrinal truths must be dealt with “practically,” in relation to
the current context and situation of the life of the student. In this case, one could argue that all theology
is contextual theology.39 By this we mean theologizing with an understanding of the concerns of the
community of faith, especially in light of their contextual situation. This also means a theology that is
rooted in the practice of the faith, a theology that draws from Catholic spiritual practice, and ultimately
results into further practice.

Practical Theology is a strand of theological thought that attempts to heal the division between
theory and practice that has marred theological discourse throughout the years. 40 Theology has
traditionally been split into the two distinct areas, where there is theology that deals with theories and
concepts, and another kind of theology that focuses on the application of said theories and concepts.
However, the goal of practical theology is to look at theology as “practice,” and that in itself, all theology
is practical in nature as everything that it tackles must be related to practice in some manner. Practical
theology aims at the harmonization of the knowledge of the faith, and the practice of the faith. Orthodoxy
and orthopraxis are not made separate, but two united elements of the same whole. In this way, “theory
proceeds from practical interests, and practice itself is theory-laden.”41

The rise of practical theology comes as a result of a need for theology that resonates with the
signs of the times, as well as the actual life and practice of the faith. The traditional ways of doing theology
are not anymore resonant with the needs of young people of today, especially in the Philippines. Today,
the Church in the Philippines recognizes the distinct need for renewed religious education and catechesis
that is grounded in practice. Thus, the National Catechetical Directory for the Philippines highlights three
important features of teaching about the faith that may be able to reach out to students of theology of
today: integration, inculturation and community-formation.42 These three are the three distinct features
of practical theology in the Philippine setting.
1. Integration

The first feature of practical theology is integration. Integration in theology means the complex
yet holistic approach to the faith that aims interrelate the Christian message and the actual living out of
that same message in the daily life of the people. This approach can be achieved through a structural
approach that looks into the various dimensions and sources of the faith, applying it to specific
environments and contexts.43

One example of integration is Source Integration, referring to the interweaving and interrelating
of the three basic sources of theology, namely the primary sources of Sacred Scripture and Sacred
Tradition, concurrently with the secondary source of human experience. “Scripture and Tradition
together, [make] up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God entrusted to the Church.”44 The primary
sources are then integrated into the concrete human experience of the believers, inclusive of daily life
experience, the economic social-political situation of the believers, as well as the concrete cultural
experience of the people.45

An example of this kind of integration is the approach known as intertextuality. 46 In its simplest
sense, intertextuality refers to the interrelationships of particular texts with other texts, as well as with
the broader context of language and culture. 47 A practical Catholic theology can take on an intertextual
approach when it sees the interrelations between their sacred text found in Scripture, the text of
Tradition, with the world, which in itself is also “text.”

The very world we live in can be viewed as a text that can be engaged. At the same time, the
various texts produced by human hands also contain worlds within them. Great works of art, including
poetry, fiction, paintings, sculptures, film, song and dance all contain worlds constructed by their
respective authors. Scripture itself, being not just a divine product but also a human product, has its own
worlds built into it by the authors of the Scripture. Noted Biblical scholar Luke Timothy Johnson argues
that the Scriptural world contains both the world that is constructed in Scripture, as well as the very world
we live in now.48 In Scripture, we find ways in which our world, both its secular and spiritual elements, can
converse freely with the world of Scripture. This interplay between the world-as-text and the text-as-
world becomes pattern for doing intertextuality in the context of Christian spirituality and, consequently,
of Christian theology.

2. Inculturation

The second feature of practical theology is inculturation. Inculturation is the process of

contextualization and dialogue that allows for the engagement between faith and culture. According to
theologian and historian Fr. Walter H. Principe: “Inculturation means that the gospel must be allowed to
take root in the various cultures of the world. The preaching, worship, and spiritual life of the Church must
incorporate the best elements of each culture. At the same time, the whole Church must criticize elements
in any culture that are incompatible with the gospel message.”49

For instance, within Asia, there must be an understanding of how best to deal with matters
relating to faith in light of culture. We can draw from the reflections of Jesuit liberation theologian Aloysius
Pieris regarding this matter:
To regain its lost authority therefore, the Asian church must abdicate its alliances with power. It
must be humble enough to be baptized in the Jordan of Asian religion and bold enough to be
 baptized on the cross of Asian poverty. Does not the fear of losing its identity make it lean on
mammon? Does not its refusal to die keep it from living? The theology of power-domination and
instrumentalization must give way to a theology of humility, immersion, and participation.50

Persuasion, and not power, is the key to freedom. This freedom must come in two ways: a spiritual
emancipation (through evangelization by spreading the Good News), as well as a social emancipation
(which is temporal liberation, by responding to the needs of the weak and marginalized in society). This
social emancipation is part and parcel of the Church’s own direction in the present. 51 As Indian activist
Mahatma Gandhi explained: “It is good enough to talk of God whilst we are sitting here after a nice
breakfast and looking forward to a nicer luncheon, but how am I to talk of God to the millions who have
to go without two meals a day? To them God can only appear as bread and butter.”52

3. Community-Formation

The third feature of practical theology is its community-forming character. Theologizing must be
not just be informative, but formative and transformative for people and communities. 53 An authentic
practical theology touches the lives of both individuals and communities:
One explicit concern that animates much of current Practical Theology is the formation of a
community for transformation, according to God’s salvific reign revealed in Jesus Christ. This is
called by many the foundational praxis around which all other pastoral practices cohere. Christian
conversion always takes place in a specific social situation that demands specific renunciations and
commitments. Practical theology, in a nutshell, seeks to inform, form and help transform that praxis
of both the members of the community and of the community itself.54

A practical theology demands to respond to the urgent needs of the community called Church,
and the greater world community in which that Church dwells. God’s vision of salvation was never on an
individual level alone, but one that extends to the far reaches of the world. The task of theology is to build
up this community of faith, and its call for justice, peace and joy for all people.

SUMMARY

Let us be reminded that “to be spiritual, you need the roots of religious tradition and community,
while to be religious in a Christian way you need the wings of committed spiritual practices.”55 They’re not
supposed to be taken as opposing forces, but complementary realities that help people come to a fuller
life. In this manner, the true challenge of living out an authentic Catholic faith is to be both spiritual and
religious.

References:
1 Peter Feldmeier, Christian Spirituality: Lived Expressions in the Life of the Church (Winona, MN: Anselm Academic,
2015), 7.
2 David Tracy, “A Correlational Model of Practical Theology Revisited,” in Invitation to Practical Theology: Catholic

Voices and Visions, ed. Claire E. Wolfteich (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2014).
3 William Spohn, “The Need for Roots and Wings: Spirituality and Christian Ethics,” Theology Digest 47, no. 4 (Winter

2000): 327.
4 Sandra M. Schneiders, “Religion vs. Spirituality: A Contemporary Conundrum,” Spiritus: A Journal of Christian

Spirituality 3, no. 2 (2003): 164.

5 Schneiders, 164.
6 Roger Haight, Spiritual and Religious: Explorations for Seekers (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2016), 2.
7 Haight, 6.
8 Schneiders, “Religion vs. Spirituality,” 166.
9 Sandra M. Schneiders, “Biblical Spirituality,” Interpretation 70, no. 4 (October 2016): 417
10 Schneiders, “Religion vs. Spirituality,” 166.
11 Schneiders, 167.
12 Spohn, “The Need for Roots and Wings: Spirituality and Christian Ethics,” 327.
13 Schneiders, “Religion vs. Spirituality,” 167.
14 Schneiders, 167.
15 Schneiders, 167.
16 On March 26, 1997, the bodies of thirty-nine men and women were found in an opulent mansion outside San

Diego, California, all victims of a mass suicide. Messages left by the Heaven’s Gate group indicate that they believed
they were stepping out of their “physical containers’” in order to ascend to an unidentified flying object that was
arriving in the wake of the Hale-Bopp comet. The Heaven’s Gate suicides were part of a series of major incidents
involving New Religions in the 90’s, as the new millennium approached. See George D. Chryssides, Heaven’s Gate:
Postmodernity and Popular Culture in a Suicide Group, Routledge New Religions Series (New York, NY: Routledge,
2016).
17 Augustine, The Advantage of Believing 1.1.
18 Allan D. Fitzgerald, “Introduction,” in Homilies on the Gospel of John 1-40, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald, vol. 3, The Works

of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century 20 (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2009), 19.
19 Augustine, Soliloquies 2.1.1
20 Augustine, Explanations of the Psalms, 103.2.
21 Fitzgerald, “Introduction,” 18.
22 Augustine, Letter 55, 33.
23 Thomas of Villanova, Epiphany, Sermon 2, 7
24 See Spohn, “The Need for Roots and Wings: Spirituality and Christian Ethics,” 328–29; Robert Wuthnow, After

Heaven: Spirituality in America Since the 1950s (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998).
25 Spohn, “The Need for Roots and Wings: Spirituality and Christian Ethics,” 328–29.
26 Spohn, 329.
27 Tracy, “A Correlational Model of Practical Theology Revisited,” 83.
28 David Tacey, The Spirituality Revolution: The Emergence of Contemporary Spirituality (New York, NY: Brunner-

Routledge, 2004), 145.

29 Cf. Dorothy Lee, “Hope in a Time of Change: A ‘Johannine’ Perspective,” in Hope: Challenging the Culture of Despair,

ed. Christiaan Mostert (Adelaide: Australian Theological Forum Press, 2004), 21.
30 Albert Nolan, Jesus Today: A Spirituality of Radical Freedom (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008), 15.
31 Mary Grey, The Outrageous Pursuit of Hope: Prophetic Dreams for the Twenty-First Century (London: Darton,

Longman and Todd Ltd., 2000), x.

32 Spohn, “The Need for Roots and Wings: Spirituality and Christian Ethics,” 329.
33 Peter H. Van Ness, “Introduction: Spirituality and the Secular Quest,” in Spirituality and the Secular Quest, ed. Peter

H. Van Ness, vol. 22, World Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest (New York, NY: Crossroad,
1996), 5.
34 Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, Second Edition (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre

Dame Press, 1984), 187.

35 For further reading on the matter of sports and spirituality, see Martin Siegel, “Good Sports: Getting Closer to God

through Athletics,” America 212, no. 6 (February 23, 2015): 22–24.

36 Spohn, “The Need for Roots and Wings: Spirituality and Christian Ethics,” 330.
37 Cf. MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 175.
38 Spohn, “The Need for Roots and Wings: Spirituality and Christian Ethics,” 331.
39 Stephen Bevans, “Contextual Theology as Practical Theology,” in Opening the Field of Practical Theology: An

Introduction, ed. Kathleen Calahan and Mikoski (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014), 45.
40 For further information on practical theology, see Terry Veling, Practical Theology: On Earth as It Is in Heaven

(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2005), 3–22.

41 Joseph L. Roche, “Practical Theology’s Contribution to Religious and Theological Education,” Landas 23, no. 2

(2009): 70.
42 Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, National Catechetical Directory for the Philippines, Third Edition

(Manila: Episcopal Commission for Catechesis and Catholic Education, 2010), paras. 356–393. Hereafter refer to as
NCDP with paragraph number.
43 Cf. Joseph L. Roche, A Companion to CFC (Manila: ECCCE/Word & Life Publications, 1998), 37–51.
44 Pope Paul VI, Dei Verbum (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1965), para. 10.
45 Cf. Roche, A Companion to CFC, 47–48.
46 For an extensive treatment of intertextuality in the context of theology and Biblical exegesis, see Justin Joseph G

Badion, “‘Do Not Be Afraid, It Is I’: Toward an Intertextual Hermeneutic for Filipino Youth,” Pamisulu 5, no. 1 (2017):
81–106.
47 Luke Timothy Johnson and William S. Kurz, The Future of Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A Constructive Conversation

(Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002), 204. This source makes a distinction with the use of the
term intertextuality as distinguished from the “utter indeterminacy of some of its postmodern meanings and uses,
which undermine the referential faith of the church and believers.” It, therefore, warns against the possibility of
reading intertextuality as mere literary influence, or the indeterminacy of deconstructionist forms of intertextuality.
This book will follow a similar line of thinking.
48 See Luke Timothy Johnson, “Imagining the World Scripture Imagines,” Modern Theology 14, no. 2 (April 1998):

165–80
49 Walter H. Principe, “Catholicity, Inculturation, and Liberation Theology: Do They Mix?,” Franciscan Studies 47, no. 1

(1987): 28.
50 Aloysius Pieris, An Asian Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988), 86.
51 Pope Paul VI, Evangelii Nuntiandi (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1975), para. 34.
52 Mahatma Gandhi, as cited in Homer A. Jack, ed., The Gandhi Reader: A Sourcebook of His Life and Writings (New

York, NY: Grove Press, 1994), 270.

53 Thomas Groome, Will There Be Faith? A New Vision for Educating and Growing Disciples (New York, NY: HarperOne,

2011), 94.
54 Roche, “Practical Theology’s Contribution to Religious and Theological Education,” 72–73