Understanding Theology Brennan Hill, et. al. Theology is a complex human activity.

It is related to faith and religion, yet is not identical with them. Theology is both a process and a product. It involves practice as well as theory. The primary purpose of this chapter is to provide a description of theology that conveys some of the complexity and richness of contemporary theological activity. In Part Two of this book we saw that there are many different religions. The same is true of theology. There are many different ways of understanding theology and doing theology. Some Christians may not even choose to use the word theology, but may prefer to speak of reflections upon holy Scripture or biblical applications to ones life. An introductory tex t cannot address all these different interpretations. The interpretation we offer here is one way to understand theology. It does not claim to provide n interpretation of Christian theology that all contemporary Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox Christians would endorse. But because it draws on insights from many different theologians and traditions, most Christians will find elements in this description that they can affirm. This chapter will identify what theology is, who does theology, and how theology is done. It will describe some of the resources and methods used in theology. This chapter will also explain why theological activity takes different forms and why the content of theological statements is often different from one Christian community to another, from one individual to another. In the subsequent chapters of this book, we will examine in greater details the resources of theology (Chapters Ten and Eleven) and some of theologys global responsibilities (Chapter Twelve). What is Theology? When people first hear the word theology, they might think of an abstract discipline engaged in by ivory-tower intellectuals. Or they might think of theology as the baggage of religionthat collection of reflections about religious beliefs, rules, and practices that their parents attempted to pass on to them. Theology, however, is much more than that.

Process and Product

Theology is first and foremost the process of reflecting critically upon the way people of a particular religious tradition should live out their faith. By speaking first about theology as a process, we wish to emphasize that theology is a dynamic and ongoing human activity. Theology is the creative process of interpreting ones religious tradition (its beliefs, moral n orms, and practices; what in Part Two we called creed, code, and ceremony) in light of the contemporary situation, and of interpreting the contemporary situation in light of ones religious tradition. Theology is a dynamic conversation involving three b asic conversation partners: a religious tradition, a contemporary situation, and a person engaged in understanding the tradition and the situation, and in relating them to each other. Theology is not the activity of uncritically giving the answers of pa st religious tradition to our contemporary questions. Nor is it the activity of uncritically replacing the insights of religious tradition with the insights of contemporary society. Theology is neither thoughtless chatter nor a monologue. Each partner in the conversation must be heard. And what each says must be carefully examined and thoughtfully understood. Theology is a dynamic, thoughtful activity that seeks to bring a religious tradition into genuine conversation with some aspect of contemporary experience.

Like other conversations, theology is an ongoing process. It is not a conversation that can ever come to a definitive end. Although it can be stopped temporarily, the conversation eventually has to be resumed for at least two reasons. First, our ability to understand ourselves, others, and the world around us changes as we grow and develop. We saw in the first section of this book how the faith of individuals can develop and change as they mature and develop. The same is true for groups of individuals and for the human race as a whole. As we develop, we can sometimes see and understand things that previously escaped our grasp. For this reason we will regularly have new things to say in the theological conversation. Second, theology is ongoing not only because we change, but also because our context and environment change. Previous generations did not have to reflect on the morality of in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, or genetic engineering, because the necessary technology had not yet been invented. The total ecological or nuclear destruction of the planet was not a real danger for previous generations, but it is for us. Our context is different. Because we are continually confronted with new possibilities and new experiences arising from social, political, and scientific changes, the conversation between the present situation and our religious tradition cannot help but to continue. Theology, of course, is also the product of this process of relating ones religious tradition to some aspect of contemporary experience. As product, theology is the formulation in words of the meaning, truth, and significance of a particular religious tradition for human living. When we speak of medieval or modern theology, Roman Catholic or Protestant theology, we are usually referring to the product of theological reflection in a particular historical period or in a particular Christian church. These two aspects, process and product, are integrally related. Every new process of theological reflection starts in some measure from what has been produced by previous generations or by ones contemporaries. And every new process of theological reflection yields, sooner or later, its own product (that is, its own interpretation). The product may be tentative and temporary, but it is a product nonetheless. Today many people are acutely aware that it is not possible to engage in the process of reflection and conversation, theological or otherwise, without being influenced by the traditions that have preceded us and the contexts in which we live. This insight, an essential part of what is sometimes referred to as postmodern consciousness, acknowledges that ones historical, social, and personal location influences us, even when we dont want i t to and even when we are not aware of it. The words we use and the assumptions we carry shape and make possible our experiences. Although human beings at all times have pondered the meaning of existence and have had experiences common to all (e.g., the desire for food, shelter, comfort; the experiences of joy and suffering), the way in which people have understood their experiences varies according to the contexts in which they live. In short, culture, historical period, social location, sexual, ethnic, and racial identity will all influence and shape the kinds of experiences we have. Consequently, when we engage in theological reflection and conversation, we need to be aware of the particularities of our individual experience and the limitations of our interpretations. At the same time, we need to be open to the diversity of others experiences and their interpretations. The very title of this chapter exemplifies this point. In this chapter we wish to talk about critical reflection upon the way people of a particular religious tradition should live out their faith. Because I am a Christian, I refer to this critical reflection as theology, a term composed from two Greek words: theos, meaning God, and logos, meaning word or reason. Because Christians understand Ultimate Reality to be a personal God whom they can trust, they refer to critical reflections about this Ultimate Reality as theology. But what about Buddhism or Taoism? Do not people in these religious traditions engage in critical reflection about their faith, even though

their faith is not directed toward God? Our answer is yes. For this reason, we distinguish between the narrow and broad senses of the term theology. Theology in the narrow sense is a critical reflection upon faith in God and the expression of the meaning and significance of this faith for living ones life. In the narrow sense, the term theology can be used to describe the basic reflections of the Western religious traditions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In this section of the book, theology will usually be used to refer to Christian theology. Theology in the broad sense is the rational reflection upon, and the systematic expression of, the meaning and significance of any religious faith. In this extended sense, one could speak of Buddhist theology, even though Buddhism is not oriented to God. Two important elements are common to both the narrow and broad senses of the term. First, theology involves careful study and rational reflection. It is not the same thing as belief or religious conviction. Thinking theologically involves critical thought and questioning. It entails study of the origin, development, and meaning of the various elements that have made up a religious tradition. It also asks how that tradition needs to be expressed or reshaped to meet the needs of our contemporary situation. Second, theology is reflection from the standpoint of faith. Instead of describing a religious tradition from the outside, theology attempts to understand and describe it from the inside.

Faith and Reason

Initial consideration of this description of theology might lead one to conclude that these two elementscritical reflection and faith commitment are contradictory. We would like to suggest, however, that they are not. As was pointed out in the first section of this book, we all have faith commitments. We may place our faith in friends or in parents; we may place our faith in science or in God. Each of these commitments carries with it a certain set of orientations and assumptions about reality, meaning, and truth. And we bring these orientations and assumptions to everything we study. This is true for those who engage in scientific studies as well as for those who engage in theology. Consequently, theology is not necessarily more subjective than any other form of human interpretation. But insofar as theology involves critical reflection, we need to look critically not only at the beliefs and practices of our tradition, but also at the ways our life-orientation and social location color our understanding of reality. If we become aware of our presuppositions, and if we regularly and carefully submit them to examination, we can offer tenable and fair (and, in that sense, objective) interpretations of reality. Pure objectivity, that is, an interpretation without presuppositions and without cultural, historical, or personal coloring, however, is impossible. Theology, then, starts from within a particular religious faith tradition and reflects upon that faith critically. Although it is not the same thing as faith or belief, theology is a natural consequence of mature faith. Whereas belief may exist without theology, mature faith cannot. The Christian thinkers Augustine (354-430) and Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) expressed this conviction when they described theology as faith seeking understanding. It is part of the natural process of growing out of childlike faith into adult faith to ask questions about the meaning, truth, and relevance of ones religious tradition. To do this in a serious way is to theologize. The Western Christian tradition has long maintained the appropriateness of seeking to integrate faith and reason in ones life. The second-century apologist, Justin the Martyr, declared that Christ is the principle of reason enlightening all those who know the truth and who live morally.

Thirteenth-century theologian Thomas Aquinas asserted that faith and reason ultimately cannot contradict each other because both derive from the same source, namely, God. Although the validity of faith in God may defy rational proof, it is not contradictory to reason. Christians can offer reasons for their faith and hope. Particularly in the Roman Catholic tradition, faith commitment and rational inquiry about faith are regarded as compatible and good.

Theory and Practice

Theology, however, is not just a matter of the head. It is more than thinking rationally about what it means to be a Christian today. It is more than understanding the meaning of past products of theological reflection. As we saw in Chapter Two with regard to faith, theology also is a matter of heart and life. It involves acting as well as thinking. In short, theology entails both theory and practice, understanding and living. As we have seen in the second section of this book, there is an integral connection between belief and behavior. What we believe influences the way we behave. How we are presently living (our behavior) also shapes what we believe. Christians over the centuries have affirmed the truth of the first statement: what we believe as Christians (theory) does affect or should affecthow we live (practice). Thus, if we believe that God is Love or that being Jesus disciple requires us to emulate him, then we should love all and, in a special way, stand with the poor and the marginalized in their struggle for a better life. Awareness of the truth of the second statement, that behavior shapes belief, is a more recent discovery. In fact, two major shifts have occurred in recent understanding of the relationship between belief and behavior or between theory and practice. The first shift has been from an individualistic to a social understanding of the relationship. In previous centuries, Christians were prone to understand the connection between theory and practice in an individualistic sense. When Christians sought to put their beliefs about God and Christian discipleship into practice, they did this, by and large, in their personal lives. Being a Christian meant being fair and honest, being considerate and compassionate in ones personal dealings with others. Usually it did not also mean working to change those economic, political, or social institutions that denied others just and compassionate treatment. The failure to understand or to acknowledge the social implications of being a follower of Jesus made Christianity vulnerable to the critique of Karl Marx and others. Today, increasing numbers of Christians have begun to perceive and affirm the social as well as personal implications of Christian faith. As we observed in Chapter Four, they pay attention to the social implications of faith not only because human beings are social beings, but also because Christ specifically calls people to form a community of equality, justice, and love (Kingdom of God). In other words, these Christians insist that we hold together the vertical dimension (relationship to God) and the horizontal dimension (relationship to other creatures) of our lives. Robert McAfee Brown gives an excellent example of this shift to understand Christian faith socially. In Spirituality and Liberation: Overcoming the Great Fallacy, he argues that spirituality (the development of my relationship to God and the cultivation of my personal spiritual life) and liberation (my solidarity with the poor and marginalized in their struggle to become liberated) are not two different things, but two sides of one reality. We saw that, when we adopt a holistic understanding of the human person, we must consider the role of feeling, imagination, and action in the life of religious faith. Applied to theology, this means that instead of separating theory from practice, the individual from community, the personal from the social, we must connect them. The second shift in the contemporary understanding of the relationship between theory and practice is the increased awareness of the influence of practice upon theory. This insight has

been highlighted particulary by those who are referred to as liberation theologians. Their point is this. The relationship between theory and practice is not linear: that is, first get the right theory, then put it into practice. Rather, the relationship between theory and practice is circular: that is, how we currently live, what we are doing or not doing to promote Gods reign in the world (practice), affects the way we understand what it means to be a Christian (theory), which, in turn, supports and promotes a particular form of Christian living. From this perspective, practice is the first and the last word. Liberation theologians use the term praxis to refer to this circular understanding of the relationship between theory and practice. Praxis is a more complex term than practice because it holds theory and practice together and emphasizes their mutual influence upon each other. We shall explore liberation theology in more detail in Chapter Eleven.

Putting the Pieces Together

So far we have considered theology as both the process and the product of critically relating the Christian tradition to some aspect of our contemporary situation. We have also explored how theology attempts to relate faith to reason and theory to practice. Now it is important to bring these different components together to form a more cohesive description. Christian theology is the human activity of bringing a religious tradition into conversation with our contemporary situation in a mutually critical way so as to deepen our understanding of, and commitment to, living out our faith in this situation as well as to transforming the world for the better. This description of theology contains three important elements. First, theology is an activity of reflection and interpretation. It seeks to understand important features of the Christian tradition and of our contemporary situation. In going beyond a superficial understanding of both, theology draws upon tools from other disciplines, such as historical and literary criticism, psychology, and political economy. Without genuine understanding of both the Christian tradition and the contemporary situation, effective conversation is not possible. Theology, then, is reflective and interpretative. Second, theology is an activity of construction. If it is successful in bringing a viable interpretation of Christian faith into actual conversation with a viable interpretation of the contemporary situation, theology may have to construct new interpretations of Christian doctrines, practices, and moral laws, or construct new interpretations of what contemporary society should be. Theology, then, is constructive and creative. Third, theology is an activity of transformation. The ultimate goal of interpretation and construction is personal and social transformation. When theology is effectively done, we come to a deeper and richer understanding of what it means to be a human person and what it means to be an authentic community in relation to God. Theology can develop our faith; it can facilitate our spiritual journey. When theology is effectively done, we feel more strongly the challenge to live out our discipleship of Jesus in a way that brings greater justice, love, and healing to the world around us. Theology moves our faith into action. Theology can facilitate the growth of Gods reign in the world. Different theologians, of course, may emphasize different aspects of this description of theology. Some may focus more on the task of interpretation; others may focus more on the task of construction or transformation. From our perspective, however, theology is done best when all three tasks receive serious attention. Who Does Theology?

All persons of mature faith engage in theological reflection at some time or other. Although this personal theologizing is different from the work of professional theologians, it is no less a form of theological thinking. A few examples may illustrate what we mean by this process of personal theological reflection. Lois, a freshman finance major, was very disturbed by the recent death of her younger brother, who had been suffering for some time from leukemia. Loiss Lutheran parents had taught her that God is good and loving, and she had believed it. Now, however, all kinds of difficult and disturbing questions welled up within her. How could a good and loving God permit her innocent, lovable brother to die so young? What had he done to deserve this? In confronting these questions, in struggling to make sense of her brothers tragic death in light of her religious beliefs, Lois was engaged in the process of theological reflection. Another student, Adam, had been raised in a solid, conventional Roman Catholic home. Unlike many of his college peers, he regularly attended Mass and took his faith commitment seriously. Adam considered himself a good Catholic. At the end of his first year in college he became a criminal justice major. As he completed more and more of the course requirements for his major, he became increasingly sure that he had made the right choice. He was looking forward to graduation and a career in corrections. During his final semester of college, Pope John Paul II issued an encyclical entitled The Gospel of Life. After sketching the long Catholic tradition for human life, the pope concluded that the cases in which the death penalty could be justified are practically nonexistent. What was Adam to do? He felt that he should take the popes words to heart, yet he also felt that justice required murderers to be killed. If he worked at a maximum security prison, surely he would have to deal with prisoners on death row. If he were the warden and the state required him to perform an execution, what should he do? Should he abandon his career goals now, so as not to betray his Catholic identity later? What kind of authority did the popes encyclical have for him as a Roman Catholic? Adams wrestling with these questions in the light of his religious upbringing is another example of theologizing. Besides Lois and Adam, there are some people who pursue an extensive education in their religious tradition and acquire academic competency to teach theology. These professional theologians generally make use of a variety of academic disciplines (e.g., philosophy, psychology, sociology, historical analysis, literary criticism) in formulating their theological judgments. In a university setting, their practice of theology requires rigorous, critical reflection, credible substantiation of theological claims, and rational argument. The work of professional theologians requires a deeper and broader grasp of Christianity and a more sophisticated articulation of its meaning. Nonetheless, the basic dynamics of their theological reflection are the same as that of other believers who are not theological experts.

Context and Location

As many people have come to realize, who we are and where we are shape our understanding of reality. This assertion finds immediate confirmation if we think about historical location. Prior to the work of Copernicus in the sixteenth century and the work of Galileo in the seventeenth century, people generally understood our solar system to be geocentric. They though that the Sun and the planets revolved around Earth. Today, however, we understand our solar system to be heliocentric. Due to scientific developments over the centuries, we have come to realize that the planets of our solar system, including Earth, revolve around the Sun. Differences in historical locationwhether we live in the fifteenth century or the twentieth century can lead to differences in our understanding of ourselves and our world. But what about difference among people living in the same historical period? Most of us would not hesitate to admit that people from different countries or cultures might have different values, customs, and beliefs, even though they all live in the same historical period. We saw in Part Two

of this book, for example, that religious traditions developed in different parts of the world, and that religious traditions of the East differ noticeably from religious traditions of the West. Differences in cultural location, therefore, can also lead to differences in understanding ourselves and the world. In addition to historical and cultural location, social location can also have quite an influence upon us. The effects of social location upon our perception of reality are, however, often not as obvious as the effects of historical or cultural location. The effects are nonetheless real. Consider the following. Is it mere coincidence that many upper-middle-class Americans want drastic reform of the welfare system because they think the system costs too much and affords benefits to many people who neither need nor deserve them? Is it mere coincidence that many lower-class Americans see reduction in welfare benefits as simply one more way in which the poor are punished for being poor or one more way in which the well-to-do use their power to keep others from ever sharing in the American dream? If historical, cultural, and social location all shape who we are and how we see the world, then we should also be attentive to the influence of gender and race and ethnicity. Many of the differences between genders are well known. Anthropologists have observed, for example, that, although societies differ in their predilection toward violence, the men in any given society are usually more physically violent than women. Conversely, females of all ages seem better able than males to read peoplethat is, identify and understand their emotionswithout the help of verbal cues. To what extent are these differences the result of biology? To what extent are they the result of social conditioning and upbringing? However those questions are answered, it is becoming clearer that men and women often feel, understand, and react differently. In the matter of theology, does this mean that women and men might see moral responsibility differently or that they might feel differently about the ordination of women or the use of inclusive language in prayer and worship? The same questions can be raised about race and ethnicity. Perceptions, perspectives, and values can vary from one racial or ethnic group to another. In the United States, people of color often face challenges quite different from the challenges and concerns of the white majority. In any country, ones sense of self may develop differently from that of the social majority if one belongs to a minority group. We need only to recall how differently people reacted to the O.J. Simpson murder trial in 1995 to become aware of how people of different races can see, feel, or interpret the same event differently. People who have never personally experienced serious discrimination have difficulty understanding what it is like regularly to be denied equal and fair treatment. Those who hold minority status in a society, on the other hand, are often more perceptive of the powers and interest that maintain the status quo. As in the case of gender, so too in the case of race, academics dont agree on whether racial differences derive primarily from biology, educational opportunity, social conditioning, or a combination of factors. Some would suggest that race is not a viable category for describing differences among human beings. But all seem to agree that race and ethnicity have a profound effect on our experiences and the way we interpret them. If so, then how we think theologically will also be affected, in some degree, by our race and ethnicity. Robert Hood, in Must God Remain Greek?, observes that white European Christians and African Christians think differently about sin, salvation, and death. Many African Christians, he notes, emphasize the doctrine of creation more strongly than has been the case with many European and American Christians. And in many African cultures, the concept of salvation has been broadened to include not only deliverance from our moral failings, but also deliverance from daily hardships (e.g., crop failure, infant mortality), evil spirits, and a lack of good relationship with the spirits of ones ancestors .

The Consequences of Context: The Doctrine of Redemption

Even though consideration of the effects of location upon ones theology is a recent development, the products of theological reflection throughout the ages have shown the influence of the place and time in which they were created. The Christian doctrine of redemption can serve as an example. For at least seven centuries, from the fourth through the eleventh century, the dominant conception of redemption was this: by sinning turning away from God in disobedienceour original ancestors willingly handed themselves over to the power of the devil. The devil thus had the right to keep human beings in its power, in effect, to keep them as its slaves. God sought the release of humanity from captivity to the devil by paying a ransom, the death of Gods son. Christs voluntary death was the price that bought humanitys freedom. This conception of redemption draws upon the social fact of slavery to explain the belief in our liberation by Christ from the power of sin and the devil. In the ancient world, people could be released from servitude only if their freedom was bought or if their owners permitted it. This social-political experience of paying the required price to obtain freedom from slavery was applied to the Christian concept of redemption by St. Augustine (354-430) in On the Trinity and by others, such as Gregory the Great (540-604). In the late eleventh century, St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) proposed an alternative theory about the nature of redemption. He rejected the devil-ransom theory because he believed that God owed nothing to any creature, including the devil. Because the devil has no rights over God, God is not obligated to pay the devil a ransom for the release of humankind. According to Anselm, what is fundamentally wrong about the original sin is that dishonor was done to God. Instead of showing gratitude to the God who had created them and showered them with the many gifts of the earth, Adam and Eve showed disregard for God by disobeying Gods commands. Moreover, their sin of disobedience was infinitely heinous, for it involved dishonoring an infinite superior (God) by inferiors (human beings). The only way to restore proper order to the world and to right the relationship between God and humanity was to make appropriate satisfaction to God. Due to the infinite magnitude of the sin, humans could not make restitution. Yet they were the only ones who ought to make restitution, since they had dishonored God. The solution was to have a God-man, namely Christ, make the necessary satisfaction for humanity. As divine, his action (freely choosing to die for our sake) had infinite value; as human, his action came from the required party, namely the human race, which had dishonored God. This satisfaction theory of redemption, which dominated theology in the late medieval and early modern periods, reflects the influence of both feudalism and the medieval penitential system. Feudal European society valued social order and honor. In this society, social subordinates were expected to show respect toward their social superiors. Dishonor required satisfaction, and the seriousness of the crime increase with the stature of the person offended or victimized. In the sacramental system of the medieval church, satisfaction or penance had to be done in order to obtain full forgiveness of the guilt and punishment incurred by sin. In short, the experiences medieval Christians had of their world shaped the way they understood and expressed the doctrines of the Christian tradition. Today, many Christians who live in the two-thirds of the world that is poor and underdeveloped are expressing the meaning of Christian redemption in a new way. Their experience of abject poverty and dehumanizing exploitation has led them to conceive of the salvation that Christ brings in terms of liberation from both spiritual and physical oppression. They have come to recognize that the biblical story of the suffering Jesus is reflected and repeated in their own life as a suffering people. This recognition, together with their growing awareness of the social injustice committed against them, has caused these Christians to take Jesus inaugural address with new seriousness: The Spirit of the Lord has been given to me, for he has anointed me. He has sent me to bring the good news to the poor, to proclaim liberty to captives and to the blind

new sight, to set the downtrodden free, to proclaim the Lords year of favor (Luke 4:18). Salvation has come to include the fulfillment of material, as well as spiritual, needs. Awareness of the effects of ones location should make us cautious about universal statements. People can see the same reality differently. They can express the same meaning of the gospel in different terms. For this reason, it is good to be self-critical when we make statements about the meaning of a Bible passage, the role of religion in society, or the tasks of theology. Similarly, it is good to try to discern the influence of location upon others interpretations of what it means to be a Christian. In Chapter Ten we will explore in more detail how Christians can and do interpret the Bible differently. In Chapter Eleven we will examine how differences in gender, race, and class can affect our understanding of God, Christ, and the Church.

Individual and Community

As we saw in Part Two of this book, the relationship between a religious believer and a religious community is important, yet delicate. As we noted there, religious faith properly belongs in a community of faith. Without the community, our individual faith cannot develop and grow. On the other hand, we saw that the community should not take the place of the individuals faith or ignore the individuals experience of God and lifes meaning. There needs to be a creative interaction between the individuals beliefs and decisions and the communitys beliefs and values. The same is true for theology. Christian theology is a process of constructive interpretation that takes place within a given community of faith. Whether professional theologian or typical believer, the person engaged in theological reflection and action needs to attend to the church communitys understanding of faith and its witness to faith. Without vital contace and active dialogue with the voices of others in the church, the theologizing of the individual can take wrong turns or end up in blind alleys. From the time of Jesus forward, his followers have formed themselves into communities. All these communities faced challenges. They had to find language to express their basic beliefs about God and Christian living. They had to map out a course of action in order to meet the needs of society or the churchs own needs for renewal and reform. In confronting thes e challenges, individual Christians made theological proposals. Some proposals resonated well with the communitys general sense of faith (sensus fidelium); others did not. Some theological proposals were deemed inappropriate or heretical by the leaders of the church. Other proposals, although judged false by church leaders, found support within the Christian community sufficient to create a new church. A few examples from the history of the church might illustrate this dialectic.

Arius, Alexandria, and the Council of Nicaea

In the fourth century, Arius, a priest in Alexandria, Egypt, attempted to explain the uniqueness of Christ, without undermining belief in one God. He declared that Christ was the divinely created instrument through which God the Father created the rest of the universe. Although, from this perspective, the Son of God was a creature who had not always existed, Arius was convinced that his understanding of Christ was a good theological interpretation of the churchs Scripture and tradition. After all, didnt Johns gospel say that the Word was present to God in the beginning and that through this Word all things came into being (John 1:2-3)? Insofar as he was the instrument of divine creative activity, the Son could be called God i n a qualified sense. But he was not God in the strictest sense of the term. Alexander, the overseer or bishop in Arius diocese, was deeply troubled by Arius theological interpretation. They discussed the issue, but came to no agreement. Alexander moved to censure Arius. Arius sought and received support from church leaders in other parts of the Roman Empire. The dispute concerning a proper understanding of Christ caused such agitation

in the eastern portion of the Empire that the Emperor Constantine felt compelled to convene a general council of church leaders to resolve the controversy. This Council of Nicaea, which met in 325, considered Arius teaching, Alexanders teaching, and the viewpoint of other bishops. After evaluating these different theological interpretations concerning Christ, the several hundred bishops gathered together rejected Arius teaching. They declared that Christ was the Son of God, begotten of the same substance as the Father from eternity. In short, the council members proclaimed Christ to be truly divine. In this case we can clearly see at least three levels of interaction between individuals and the rest of the Christian community. First, we see that one persons theological interpretation (Arius) caused the Christian community to think through more precisely its understanding of God and of Christs relation to God. Second, we see how the leadership of the church came to a decision after careful evaluation of different theological proposals. In the course of their discussion, some minds were changed, others were not. Arius, for example, did not abandon his theological statements about Christ. As a consequence, he was removed from his church position. Some of his supporters, however, did change their minds and they endorsed the statement of faith drawn up at Nicaea. Third, we see that the lived faith experience of the community helped to determine what was the most appropriate expression of the communitys beliefs about Christ. As Maurice Wiles pointed out in The Making of Christian Doctrine, theological reflection upon the Christian communitys continuing practice of invoking the name of Jesus in worship argued against Arius explanation of who Christ was. The communitys worship of Christ and its conviction that only a divine being could redeem them from separation from God demanded that Christ be acknowledged as truly divine. The Nicene Creed, which was formulated at the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, remains one of the oldest and most important creeds in the Christian church. The theological reflections and arguments that led up to it clearly illustrate the creative tension between individual and community.

Martin Luther

The story of Martin Luther (1483-1546) provides another illustration of the tensions that can develop between the theological reflections of individual and community. To live out his Christian commitment, Luther decided to become a monk and a priest. He took to heart what he was taught; namely, he should do his very best so that God would love him and grant him eternal life. In the judgment of his superiors, Luther was a good monk. In his own eyes, however, he always felt that he could do better. Luther was tormented by what appeared to be Gods high standards and his inability to meet them. As he himself admitted, he came to hate God. Amidst this crisis of faith, Luther completed work on his doctoral degree and took up the position of professor of Scripture at the University of Wittenberg. In the course of his intensive study of the Bible, Luther came to a new insight. As he reflected on the Bible, especially St. Pauls letters to the Romans and the Galatians, he came to see that righteousness is not something people can earn by doing good deeds. It is rather a gift that God freely gives. By faith alone, not by doing ones best, one is held by God to be righteous. Gods work, not our work, brings salvation. This theological insight brought Luther great peace of mind, but also placed him at odds with some of the churchs beliefs and practices. In 1517 he publicly opposed the practice of selling indulgences. Such a practice seemed to suggest that a person could buy forgiveness of sins and purchase Gods favor. Luther, however, had come to believe that Gods favor or grace wa s freely given, without any regard for our merits. Although he was told by his superiors to abandon his public criticism, Luther refused. Convinced that the church should follow the authority of Scripture over the authority of the pope, Luther used the Bible in defense of his critique of church teaching and practice. Luthers refusal to renounce his individual judgment about the meaning of

the Bible split the Western church, ushered in the Protestant Reformation, and made him an outlaw in the Holy Roman Empire. Here we see another example of the tensions that can arise between individuals and church leadership in matters of theology. As in the case of Arius, so too in Luthers case a general council of the churchthe Council of Trentwas convened to address this tension. As in the case of Arius, so too in this case, the churchs leadership declared Luther no longer to be a member of the church in good standing. But there are also at least three significant differences between the case of Arius and the case of Luther. First, Luthers theological ideas found resonance with a large enough group of Christians that they formed their own community, a church that continues in existence from Luthers day to our own. Second, Luthers theology was an important positive catalyst in the reform of the Roman church. Luthers critique not only forced the Council of Trent to convene but also contributed to its decision to abolish the office of indulgence-seller and other abuses in the church. Third, some of Luthers ideas that were rejected by church leadership in the sixteenth century later received implicit approval. The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the most important council in the Roman Catholic church since the time of the Reformation, affirmed the notion of the common priesthood of baptized Christians. In his day Luther had criticized the church for erecting a wall between the clergy and the laity and for regarding the clergy as occupying a higher spiritual station. He called for recognition of the priesthood of all believers. Centuries later the Roman church endorsed the essence of this idea, even though it used slightly different language.

Recent Voices

Of course, we can find importan examples of tension between individual, community, and church Leadership in our own day. We can look to John Courtney Murray, S.J., the twentieth-century Jesuit who was criticized by church leaders early in his career for his views concerning religious freedom. For a long time the Roman Catholic church had endorsed the position that not all churches should be on an equal footing in society. Only that church which possessed divine truth merited support and protection. In many European countries, the Roman Catholic church had enjoyed state support for centuries. Murray, however, believed that, because we are created in Gods image with intelligence and freedom, individuals should be free to choose their religion without interference or coercion from the state or other outside forces. At Vatican II, Murrays ideas were incorporated into the Declaration on Religious Freedom, which declared that people must not be forced to act contrary to conscience or prevented from acting according to conscience, especially in religious matters. Yves Congar provides another example of a theological voice that was once silenced, only to be heard and approved at a later time. Congar, a Dominican priest who was named cardinal one year before his death in 1995, worked his entire life to promote better ecumenical relations among Christian churches. Since the time of the Reformation, the different churches in the West each regarded itself as the authentic church of Christ. Other churches were not seen as the true church. It was common for Christians to think that outside my church, there is no salvation. Before Vatican II, standard Roman Catholic teaching held that the Roman Catholic church was the only true church and that it was properly structured as a hierarchy. Congar, however, emphasized the ancient idea of church as a communio, a community of persons, rather than the then current idea of church as a hierarchical society. Consequently, during the 1940s and 1950s, he was forced to suspend his ecumenical activities, and his talks were suppressed. But after Pope John XXIII took office in 1958, Congar was named a consultant to the preliminary sessions of Vatican II. Congar held that the church is the people of God, to which all people are called. He believed that there are elements of truth and goodness outside of

the visible Roman Catholic church. These theological ideas found expression in Vatican IIs Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. In fact, understanding church to be fundamentally a community was perhaps the councils leading idea. What can we learn from these historical illustrations? We can learn that the tension between individual and community can be exciting as well as difficult, divisive as well as creative. We have seen how the theological activity of an individual can become the occasion for the community as a whole to reflect more critically upon its inherited theological products, that is, its traditional beliefs and practices. In some cases, this further reflection leads to reform and renewal. In other cases, it leads to division and separation. We have also seen that the leadership of the church regularly plays a decisive role in the resolution of tension between new theological proposals and the status quo. But what about the individual who is not a professional theologian? Does he or she have the theological competence to propose theological ideas that differ from the official position of their church? Do they have the right to expect that their ideas will at least be tolerated, if not endorsed? These are important questions. And for many Americans, the answer seems obvious. As Ryan, a political science major, once put it in class, You better believe I have the right to speak my mind on religious matters, political matters, or whatever. After all, this is the United States of America. Our freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution. What are the responsibilities of the individual believer when his or her personal beliefs or values sometimes differ from those officially held by the church community?

Individual, Conscience, and Community

We often hear the sentiment expressed that everyone has the right to his or her opinion. This idea is strongly endorsed by many Americans. It is one of the civil rights that we hold dear. We are accustomed to uphold the right of others to say what they want, even if we think what they say is mistaken. Many Americans carry this same attitude into the area of religion and theology. Faith and theological expression, after all, are very personal matters. Who has the right to tell someone else how they must feel or how they mst see things? There are two sets of issues we must consider. First, how can we decide whether a theological statement is a good one? This is the question of meaning and truth. Second, how can we establish the boundaries of church membership while respecting the individuals integrity? This is the question of community requirements and individual conscience. We will address the first question in the next section. Let us begin with the second question. In order for any community to establish and maintain its identity, it needs to create boundaries. For countries, there are territorial boundaries. For other human communities, there are boundaries of common beliefs, values, and practices. As we saw in the second part of this book, the boundaries that distinguish one religion from another are the specific creed, moral code, and ceremonies of that religion. In order to regard themselves as members of a particular religious community, therefore, individuals must generally share in its creed, code, and ceremonies. Individual members are expected to make the perspective and fundamental values of their religious community a significant part of their lives. Roman Catholics, for example, are generally expected to accept the gospel message of Christ and the apostles as it is expressed in Scripture and tradition. For Catholics, tradition includes the decisions of the general or ecumenical councils throughout church history as well as the official teaching of popes and bishops on matters of faith and morals. The question naturally arises: must Catholics believe everything that has ever been taught by council, pope, or bishop in order to retain the right to call themselves Catholic? This is an important and complex question. T he answer given here will only touch on three important dimensions: ones general attitude toward

the hierarchical teaching authority (magisterium) of the church, levels of assent, and individual conscience. The first thing to say is that a Catholics general attitude toward the teaching authority of the church should be respect. In Catholic belief, the bishops of the church enjoy the special assistance of Gods Spirit when they teach publicly on matters of faith and morals. They are believed to share in the authority that Christ imparted to his apostles. For this reason, their official teaching is not simply one opinion among others. Rather, their teaching bears the presumption of truth. Consequently, the proper basic response to such teaching should be respect. As Vatican II notes: Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth.4 The Catechism of the Catholic Church characterizes this general attitude of respect as docility.5 Although docile bears connotations of passivity and servile submission, it is important to note that the word derives from the Latin word docilis, which has its root from the word meaning to teach or give instruction (docere). Docility, therefore, denotes the ability to be taught. In this context, docility means the openness to being taught by the hierarchy of the church. This general response, however, will need further specification in each concrete case. Second, what specific form this openness or respect will take depends upon the centrality of the belief or norm in question and upon the authority with which it is taught. Central beliefsfor example, the trinitarian nature of God and the humanity and divinity of Christ obviously call for the fullest level of assent and acceptance.6 These doctrines have been taught with the highest degree of authority, namely, infallible authority. Such doctrines are sometimes called dogmas. They are believed to express truths that have been revealed by God and that are binding on all Christians. Yet there are other beliefs that are not as central, though still important. Vatican II officially recognized the validity of this distinction between beliefs when it noted, with regard to ecumenical dialogue, that there is an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.7 How to respond appropriately to the official teaching of ones church is a very complex issue. In Roman Catholicism, distinctions are drawn between dogmas and doctrines, between infallible and non-infallible statements, between the extraordinary exercise of the hierarchys teaching authority or magisterium (in papal ex cathedra statements or the doctrinal definitions of ecumenical councils) and its ordinary exercise (in pastoral letters, etc.). As we have noted earlier, Catholics believe that, throughout all these different forms of teaching, the presumption of truth rests with the bishops and the pope. Does this mean that a Catholic may never withhold assent from any official teaching of the church? As Ryan, one of my students, put it: Are you telling me that I cant privately disagree with what the bishops say? I dont accept that, Drew added. If I want to dissentprivately or publiclythat is my right. It is a matter between me and God. My parents dont accept the churchs teaching on artificial contraception, observed Jenny. And they are good people. Dissent on some issues doesnt mean you are no longer Catholic. Here we enter into the third dimension of the relation between individual and community, the matter of conscience. But before we consider the matter of conscience, it is important to make a couple of remarks about the language of dissent.

In American culture dissent suggests protest and defiance. It conjures up images of public criticism and resistance. But one can experience difficulty in assenting to an official teaching without resorting to public protest. Difference of opinion, the private refusal to assent, and radical public opposition are not the same thing. It is, therefore, with good reason that scholars such as Ladislas Orsy find the word dissent problematic. It is too negative, sweeping, and ambiguous to cover the different ways in which one might withhold assent to official teaching.8 For many Catholics, the issue of withholding assent arises with greatest urgency in regard to moral matters. What should I do if I experience a conflict between my conscience and the churchs official teaching? Moral theologians such as Timothy OConnell distinguish three levels of conscience. The first level refers to a general sense of value, an awareness of personal responsibility to do good and avoid evil. The second level of conscience refers to the process of moral reasoning by which people come to perceive certain concrete values. For example, telling the truth is right; doing shoddy work or charging exorbitant prices for my products is wrong. The third level of conscience refers to my final judgment that I ought to do this in this particular situation. Committing ourselves to a particular action is the result of a judgment of reason whereby we recognize the moral quality of our action.9 The individuals relationship with the communit y has a most decisive bearing upon the second level of conscience. The community to which we belong, whether religious or not, helps to shape the process by which we as individuals come to hold specific moral values and follow specific moral norms. In the Roman Catholic tradition, this interaction between church community and individual is referred to as the formation of conscience. It is a lifelong task. Although Catholics are expected to form their conscience in the light of Gods word and the church s authoritative teaching, the final judgment of conscience is an individual decision that must be followed. Thomas Aquinas declared in the thirteenth century that it is wrong for someone to make an act of faith in Christ if in ones conscience one is convinced, however absurdly, that it is wrong to carry out such an act. More recently, Pope John Paul II reiterated this Catholic tradition when he declared that we must always listen to our conscience, even when it is, in fact, erroneous, but appears to us to be unquestionably true. 10 Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk, in a 1986 pastola letter on dissent, describes what he thinks should happen when an individual Catholic believer is unable to give assent to church teaching. He writes: If, in a given case, I find myself unable to accept the moral principles which the church teaches or I am convinced that the expected application of those principles is simply wrong in this case, I must, of course, follow my conscience. At the same time, though, I must continue to strive to assimilate, understand and make operative in my faith and my behavior the principles of Catholic teaching. Responsibility for forming our conscience correctly never ceases. Conscience is complicated. So is individual conscientious dissent from church teaching. It is dangerous and oversimplified to tell ourselves or other people, Just go ahead and do what you think is right. There is more to it than just that.11 As we can see, the relationship between individual conscience and church authority is complex. Although we have focused on the contours of this relationship in the Roman Catholic church, the issue exists in other Christian churches as well. In general, Protestant churches historically have given greater latitude to individual believers in determining the meaning of Christian faith. Protestants have historically affirmed the right of the individual to exercise his or her private judgment, enlightened by the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit, in the interpretation of Scripture.

But the Protestant churches have also established boundaries within which their members are expected to live. Confessions of faith, such as the Augsburg Confession (1503) or the Westminster Confession (1648), have been used as a touchstone for Christians in the Lutheran or the Reformed churches respectively. And the practices of individual congregations continue today to be held up to scrutiny by the broader assembly of churches, as the controversy over the ordination of homosexual elders in the Presbyterian church indicates. There is not getting around the fact that the relationship of individual, conscience, and community is a vital issue in all the Christian churches. And it is important to remember that a theological proposal that is different from the official teaching can sometimes contribute positively to the churchs understanding of doctrine and morality. How is Theology Done? As we have seen, Christian theology is a complex human activity. It involves critical reflection upon the Christian tradition and upon our present situation. It often leads to creative reinterpretations of Christian doctrines and practices. It moves us to put our faith commitment into action. We have also explored the effect of location upon theology and the interrelatedness of individual and community in doing theology. We now need to consider two final issues. First, what are some of the differences that result from doing theology in a particular way or with a particular focus? Second, how can we distinguish good theology from bad theology?

Different Kinds of Theology

We have seen that in all the different forms of Christian theology, there is always some interplay between human experience and the Christian tradition. Different kinds of theology, however, emerge when we focus more intently on one or other dimension of theology. Over the centuries, many different kinds of theology have developed: biblical theology, systematic theology, moral theology, sacramental theology, historical theologyto name only a few. Different theologians have proposed different schemes for bringing some sense of order to this often bewildering array of theologies. Gerald OCollins, a contemporary Catholic theologian, speaks of three styles of contemporary theology: academic, practical, and contemplative. The first style of theology, academic, is so named because it predominates in colleges and universities. This style of theology seeks scientific knowledge or understanding of Christian faith. Academic theology involv es careful research and serious dialogue with academic colleagues in other disciplines. Practical theology, the second style of theology, seeks to promote justice and the common good. This style of theology looks particularly to the situation and experience of marginalized and oppressed peoples. It encourages serious dialogue with the poor and suffering in matters of faith and morality. Contemplative theology, the third style of theology, seeks a deeper understanding of faith from within the context of prayer and worship. It is an expression of faith seeking a fuller appreciation of Gods beauty and a more adequate expression of adoration of God. According to OCollins: Where the first style of theology focuses characteristically on truth (understood more theoretically) and the second on justice and the common good, the third style centers on the divine beauty.12 Other theologians, such as Catholic David Tracy and Protestant Schubert Ogden, focus not on the different styles of theology, but on the different questions asked by different types of theology. Whereas Tracys division focuses upon questions of truth, meaning, and transformation, Ogdens

division focuses upon the past, present, and future.13 Blending their insights together, let me identify four major types of theology.

Fundamental or foundational theology is that form of theology that critically reflects upon the

very foundations of theological activity. It examines human experience for pointers to God. Fundamental theology asks how God has been revealed in nature and in history. It studies the credibility of revelation and the transmission of Gods revelation through Scripture and the churchs tradition. In short, fundamental theology attempts to give a positive answer to the question: Is the reality and the nature of God, which Christian faith claims has been revealed, true?

Historical theology is that type of theology that seeks to reconstruct and understand the process
by which the Christian tradition was formed. Specifically, it examines the factors, cultural as well as religious, that contributed to the formulation of Christian doctrines and practices. Historical theology shares with secular history the same tools and the same means for determining what occurred in the past. It seeks to enrich life today by demonstrating the continuing viability of past insights or by showing where and to what extent we need to go beyond past understandings of the Christian faith. One very important branch of historical theology is biblical studies.

Systematic theology is that form of theology that seeks to express the meaning of contemporary

Christian faith. Systematic theology attempts to understand the churchs faith and doctrine and to express their meaning in ways that are appropriate to our contemporary situation. It is called systematic because it shows how the various Christian doctrines are related to one another. Some of the doctrines or topics that systematic theology studies are God, Christ, the human person, and the church.

Practical or pastoal theology is that form of theology that is concerned primarily with serving and

building up the Christian community. Formerly, this kind of theology involved study of the best techniques for educating others about Christian faith and for ministering to them. It included study of liturgy, techniques for effective preaching, counseling, and principles of religious education. So conceived, this form of theology was of interest primarily to ordained ministers. More recently, practical theology has been more broadly conceived. The term is now used by some theologians to refer to attempts to use the resources of the Christian tradition to meet not only the spiritual needs of the Christian community, but also their practical needs. For Christians living in situations of abject poverty or oppression, this means addressing in concrete, practical ways the reality of social injustice. The various forms of contemporary liberation theology are examples of this newer understanding of practical theology. Whereas the older approach to practical theology, appropriately named pastoral, has been concerned with spirituality, the newer approach is concerned with both spirituality and liberation. This reference to liberation raises the question of what Christians ought to do or how Christians should behave. This area of study has been the usual domain of moral theology or ethics. Moral theology, the usual term in Roman Catholic contexts, or Christian ethics, the usual term in Protestant contexts, can be regarde as a branch of systematic theology because it articulates the values that arise from a contemporary understanding of Christian faith. Moral theology examines how these values are expressed in moral norms and guidelines. It evaluates whether specific intentions and acts are compatible with Christian faith. Whereas practical theology and social ethics address moral issues arising from society, moral theology usually addresses the individuals formation of conscience and moral decision making. It may seem by now that these different types of Christian theology overlap. Insofar as practical theology considers what the Christian response should be to social injustice, it seems to involve

moral decision making (the area of ethics or moral theology). Insofar as systematic theology attempts to express the meaning of Christian doctrines, it seems to require attention to how the doctrines came to be and what they meant in a previous age (the area of historical theology). The appearance of intermingling is accurate. The different topics considered and the different approaches used in each of the different types of theology generally have some bearing for the other types of theology. On account of the dramatic increase in specializations among professional theologians during the past century, no one individual can be equally competent in understanding all the different dimensions of the Christian tradition or all the different dimensions of the contemporary world situation. Professional theologians have to work hard to become competent in their own special area of concentrated study. They need to rely on the work of experts in other areas. For this reason, theology today is a cooperative enterprise.

Criteria for Evaluating Theological Statements

Theology is not only of different types, but also of different qualities. Anyone who has read books written by contemporary theologians knows that there is a wide diversity of theological points of view. This pluralism is evident not only between major Christian denominations, but also within the same denomination. All Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, or Catholics do not come to the same theological conclusions. How, then, can we decide if a theological statement is valid? Are there any criteria by which we can determine whether one theological viewpoint is better than another? Obviously, different denominations will have different answers to these questions. Evangelical Christians will place greater weight upon a statements compatibility with the testimony of Scripture. Roman Catholics will give greater weight than Protestants to a statements compatibility with tradition as well as with Scripture. The following list contains criteria that many Christian theologians would use to judge the validity and appropriateness of theological statements. First, does the theological statement have a sound basis in the Bible? This criterion is endorsed by all three major groups of ChristiansRoman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. This criterion requires that theological statements be consistent with the fundamental themes and essential thrust of Scripture. The requirement of consistency with a central, rather than a marginal theme of the Bible has three distinct consequences. First, it helps people to sort their way through difficulties that arise when one passage of Scripture seems to conflict with or even contradict another. Second, it rules out proof-texting as inappropriate. Proof-texting refers to the practice of pulling biblical passages out of their context and then using such isolated passages as proof of the truth of ones theological assertion. Third, this requirement offers some basis for evaluating theological statements that deal with issues not specifically addressed by the Bible. For example, the Bible does not speak of the use of biological or nuclear weapons in war. It does, however, address the general themes of war and peace, defense of self, and love of neighbor. Second, does the theological statement have significant support in the Christian tradition? Most Protestants, Orthodox Christians, and Roman Catholics would understand this criterion to require a theological statement to be compatible with the past understanding of faith as expressed officially in the form of creeds (e.g., the Nicene Creed) or early church conciliar definition (e.g., the Council of Chalcedons definition of the two natures of Christ). For Roman Catholics, the tradition is also expressed in the official teaching of the hierarchical magisterium. For Protestants, the tradition is also expressed in the major confessional statements of the respective Protestant churches. This second criterion arises from recognition of the church as a community that extends in both time and space. Contemporary expressions of the faith need not be identical to past expressions. They do need, however, to stand in some kind of continuity with the past if they are legitimately to be regarded as statements of the same Christian church.

Third, is the theological statement coherent and credible? Minimally, this criterion requires theological statements not to be self-contradictory or unintelligible. More broadly understood, this criterion requires theological statements to be consistent with what we now know about reality from other sources of knowledge besides Christian revelation. This criterion expects theology to draw upon the best insights of the physical and social sciences for understanding our contemporary situation before attempting to relate Christian faith to that situation. Although it does not ask for scientific proof, this criterion asks a theological statement to make sense in the judgment of our intellectual faculties. Fourth, is the theological statement adequate and relevant with regard to contemporary human experience? This criterion asks two things of theological statements. First, it asks that theological statements be consistent with the present experience of faithful Christian believers (sometimes referred to as the sensus fidelium). This sense of the faithful refers to the understanding of faith held by mature, committed believers today. This criterion assumes that the Spirit of God is at work within the people of the church as well as within the churchs leaders. Second, this criterion asks theological statements to be expressed in terms that are relevant to the believing community. Although theological statements will often fare better when measured against one criterion rather than another, the overall validity, truth, and meaningfulness of a theological statement depends upon how well it meets all of the criteria, it cannot be considered a Christian statement. If it fails the second two criteria, it cannot be regarded as meaningful. Christian theology, therefore, needs always to attend to these criteria if it is to be able to communicate Christian truth effectively to people who live in an everchanging world. Summary In this chapter we have explored the what, the who, and the how of theology. We have seen that theology is a process and a product that involves faith and reason, theory and practice. We have learned that theology brings the Christian tradition into conversation with our contemporary situation so as to deepen our understanding of Christian faith and our commitment to transform the world for the better. We considered how mature, reflective Christians naturally engage in theological reflection, and we examined how our interpretations of Christian faith are influenced by our social and historical location. We studied the relationship between the individual believer and the larger faith community as well as some of the major types of theological reflection. We concluded the chapter by considering the criteria for distinguishing good theology from bad. Now we are ready to move on to Chapter Ten, where we will examine in more detail the sacred Scriptures and tradition, central resources in theological reflection. Questions for Reflection and Discussion: 1. How is theology different from belief? How are faith and reason, theory and practice related in theology? Describe an example of theologizing from your own personal experience. 2. How does ones historical or social location affect ones understanding of the Christian Tradition? What is the most important issue you think that Christianity should address today? How might your answer to this question be shaped by your location? 3. Describe what you think is the proper relationship between the individual believer and the larger faith community. May you withhold assent to any aspect of the official teaching of your church and still regard yourself as a good member of that church? Is public dissent ever permissible? On what issues may you withhold assent? On which may you not? 4. What are the major types of Christian theology? What do they have in common? How are they different?

5. How can we distinguish good theology from bad theology? Which criterion for assessing theological statements is the most important? Why? Suggested Readings Brown, Robert McAfee. Spirituality and Liberation: Overcoming the Great Fallacy. Louisville: Westminster Press, 1988. Chopp, Rebecca S. and Mark Lewis Taylor, eds. Reconstructing Christian Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994. Dulles, Avery. The Assurance of Things Hoped For: A Theology of Christian Faith. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Hill, Brennan R. Exploring Catholic Theology: God, Jesus, Church, and Sacraments . Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1995. Hodgson, Peter C. and Robert H. King, eds. Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks. Second ed. Philadephia: Fortress Press, 1990. McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1994. Orsy, Ladislas M. The Church: Learning and Teaching. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987. Overberg, Kenneth R. Conscience in Conflict: How to Make Moral Choices. Cincinnati: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1991. Portier, William L. Tradition and Incarnation: Foundations of Christian Theology. New York: Paulist Press, 1994. Rausch, Thomas P., ed. The College Students Introduction to Theology. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1993. Wiles, Maurice F. The Making of Christian Doctrine: A Study in the Principles of Early Doctrinal Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.