Search

This chapter employs genealogy of religion, critical race theory, and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka Buddhism to call into question the way in which uninterrogated notions about “religion” and “religions” compromise theologies of religious diversity. At the heart of the argument is the claim that both the categories “religions” and “races” were invented to reify traditions and peoples over against each other and to develop hierarchies of valuation. Reification is the precondition for ranking, and where there is reification there can be no learning. These reifications persist and complicate and compromise theologies of religious diversity and comparative theology. If Christian theology is to take up the project of interreligious learning, then a variety of extant theories of religion must be called into question. Nevertheless, the chapter concludes that there is no way to simply jettison “religion” and “religions.” These categories must be given new meaning.

Analytic theology seeks to utilize conceptual tools and resources from contemporary analytic philosophy for ends that are properly theological. As a theological methodology relatively new movement in the academic world, this novelty might render it illegitimate. However, I argue that there is much in the recent analytic theological literature that can find a methodological antecedent championed in the fourteenth century known as declarative theology. In distinction from deductive theology—which seeks to extend the conclusions of theology beyond the articles of faith—declarative theology strives to make arguments for the articles of faith. It does it not to provoke epistemic assent to the truth of the articles, but serves as a means of faith seeking understanding. In this paper, examples are drawn from recent analytic discussions to illustrate the manner that analytic theology has been, is, and can be an instance of declarative theology, and thus a legitimate theological enterprise for today.

Recent developments in the sciences and philosophy have contributed to a burgeoning interdisciplinary approach to the academic study of religion which utilizes diverse methodologies and draws from ...

This essay employs the thought of Thomas Aquinas to explore the differences between natural theology, a theology of nature, and religious naturalism. The scriptural foundation of Aquinas’s theology and the similarities he finds between the methods of theology and natural science provide a framework for understanding the ways in which a theology of nature may influence religious doctrine.

The subject of this study is the points and tasks of public theology. First, this study makes an introduction about the definitions of public theology. Second, it clarifies that the theological ground of public theology is offered by the Kingdom of God proclaimed and practiced by Jesus Christ and the universality of divine reality. Third, it explains how public theology is distinguished from civil religion, political theology, and liberation theology. Fourth, it discusses the methodology of public theology. Fifth, it argues that the publicness of public theology is to be found between privatization and politicization. Sixth, it introduces Volf’s concepts of ‘internal difference’ and ‘religious political pluralism’ which he proposes as an alternative strategy against both secularist exclusion and totalitarian intervention. Seventh, it envisions the way toward which public theology is to be directed in the contemporary context of globalization. And finally, as a conclusion, it suggests the points and tasks of public theology in terms of four points of view, especially including the one reflecting Korean context.

It is often said that analytic theology is not really systematic theology; it is something else entirely. However, specifying what this “something else” amounts to has proven a little more difficult. In this article I argue that analytic theology may be a species of systematic theology. I show that there is no agreed view on the nature of systematic theology amongst several leading practitioners of systematic theology by comparing the work of John Webster, Brian Gerrish, and Gordon Kaufman. I then set out the Shared Task of Systematic Theology (Shared Task), which is a conceptual threshold for systematic theology that reflects the thought of Webster, Gerrish, and Kaufman. With this in mind, I argue that analytic theology can meet this threshold, and count as a version of systematic theology.

Current debates on ‘the postsecular’ focus on the alleged new visibility of religion in the public sphere. They overcome earlier neglect or indifference toward religion by acknowledging its importance and cast doubt on traditional binaries between ‘secular’ and ‘religious’. How should systematic theology take up the challenge of these debates? Is ‘the postsecular’ a chance to reconsider religion beyond modernist critiques or should one be critical of too easy celebrations of ‘the return of religion’? As an introduction to a special issue on this theme, this article argues that theology should take it as a chance for new dialogues with unexpected allies, opponents, and critics. This calls for an attitude of openness and a willingness to think anew, without losing one’s roots in a specific orientation. Theology’s contribution can be (1) rethinking core notions from the theory of religions, (2) asking for the specific perspective that religion may introduce and (3) the constructive reinterpretation of – part...

This contribution engages in presenting the underdeveloped thematic cluster of twentieth-century theological research designated by the umbrella-term, ‘Christian anthropology’ and in particular, the contribution of the Louvain Faculty of Theology to that field. It proposes a new structure for this (international) field of Christian anthropology by focusing on theological reflection of the human being (Christian humanism), the temporal order as such (Théologie des réalités terrestres), the history in which humanity is placed (theology of history), the social context (theology of society), as well as the identity of the laity and their role within the Church and society (theology of the laity). In each section the active efforts of different members of the Belgian Faculty of Theology to make progress in these different areas shall be presented for the period 1942–1962.

Comparative theology is a relatively novel theological approach that revolves around a practice of comparative reading of authoritative religious documents. The International Theological Commission’s Theology Today: Perspectives, Principles and Criteria (2012) develops a systematic-theological elaboration of the specificity of Catholic theology. Our author investigates the question whether and to what extent Theology Today may endorse comparative theology as a genuine expression of Catholic theology.

This book is, or may be, a career “retrospective” (viii) by the inimitable Duke Divinity School theologian-ethicist Stanley Hauerwas.It is a career retrospective in that the author does restate, de...

This study focuses on the relevance of business ethics for contextual theological education in Asia particularly with the background of Protestant traditions. There are professional reasons why business ethics could be worth offering to students who are in preparation to become pastors and prospective church leaders as well as those who are already in those positions. With an area of theological study, such as biblical studies, systematic theology, practical theology, or contextual theology and religious studies, selected as entry point, business ethics learning could be fittingly placed in theological education. Ethical issues which have been widely discussed both in the theological forum and that of business studies are worth developing as key topics of theological business ethics.

At the end of his well-known conference on ethics, Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote (L. Wittgenstein, Lectures and conversations on aesthetics, psychology, and religious belief, 1966) [1]. «Ethics so far as it springs from the desire to say something about the ultimate meaning of life, the absolute good, the absolute valuable, can be no science . What it says does not add to our knowledge in any sense. But it is a document of a tendency in the human mind which I personally cannot help respecting deeply and I would not for my life ridicule it.»

This article aims to draw attention, first, to the need to explore the inner plurality of theological discourse, as such plural discourses serve to promote a certain dynamism and fullness of the human person in theology as a field, especially in relation to religious studies today. Second, such a potential fullness is reflected in the modern struggle to characterize the relationship between faith and reason. Comprehending the misunderstandings, often construed as an impasse between faith and reason, could foster new relations between scientific methods and theological imaginations. Third, understanding these tensions from a systematic theological perspective also entails a more precise analysis of the structural dynamics between theology and the Church. Our contention is that there must be a permanent, dynamic tension between theology and the institutional structures that are the Church in order for self-critical impulses to be maintained as well as for the individual’s life of faith to come to its highest fruition.

Within a general attempt to reconceptualise theology and its position in the modern university, the paper argues that the cognitive science of religion offers a great opportunity to modern theology to engage into interdisciplinary research that could be proven especially profitable to its future. By drawing examples from contemporary Greece and a religious ritual that is disputed by the official Christian Orthodox Church as well as from historical theology and the Arian controversy in the fourth century CE, I argue that Justin Barrett’s cognitive theory of religion, known as ‘Theological Correctness’, can provide to theology a useful tool in understanding the religious beliefs of everyday believers. Without discounting other methodologies, theories, and interpretations, this paper argues that there is space for cognitive theories within theological research that could only benefit theology and its future in the twenty-first century.

Abstract: In view of current challenges in the Brazilian public sphere, discussion on the presence of crucifixes in courthouses in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, as well as on the activities of evangélico congressmen, this article offers a first overview of the reflection on a public theology in Brazil. It presents four lines of thought in the emerging Brazilian discussion, starting in 2001 and getting new energy with the creation of the Global Network of Public Theology in 2007. The first tendency focuses on the academic citizenship of theology, the second seeks to recover a liberal Protestant tradition in contrast to the dominant fundamentalisms, while the third, situated in Latin American left-wing evangelicalism, promotes a dialogue with post-metaphysical and post-secular thinkers, namely Jürgen Habermas. The fourth tendency is being presented more at large, a public theology as theology of citizenship, stemming from Hugo Assmann, incorporating central elements of liberation theology and theological assets from the Lutheran tradition. Finally, the article seeks to show the pertinence and potential of a public theology in Brazil—both with boldness and humility. Underlying is the constant question, what is public theology? The article seeks to answer it, but not with a clear-cut and uniform definition. Rather, it explores opportunities, reviewing concrete challenges and current trends, and tries to argue why a public theology is relevant to and fruitful for the Brazilian context—and probably beyond it.

Two theological disciplines are contrasted in this article: philosophical theology and fundamental theology. The former evolved in Great Britain and the United States and may be considered a type of philosophical and inter-cultural deepening of natural theology. The latter was developed principally in Western Europe and especially in German Roman Catholic schools as Fudamental-Theologie and deals mostly with theology from the standpoint of Christian apologetics. The contrast between the two types is based on the fact that each of them presents differing ways of theologia naturalis (with apology of theism at its heart), both entering the area of theologia revelata. This article is an attempt at mapping out the beginnings of an Eastern Orthodox philosophical theology as an innovative theological program. The author is therefore interested in examining exactly what constitutes such a philosophical theology and in defining the limits which Eastern Orthodox tradition necessarily places upon the evolution of such a system. He also tries to learn what past methodological discussions occurring in the environment of the Russian Orthodox theological schools can contribute to the development of such a system. The author argues that these contributions need to be confined merely to the courses offered by theological schools during the synodal period. Finally, the author wishes to define how philosophical theology and fundamental theology can relate to each other in spite of their theoretical differences. The fields of apologetics and hermeneutics would certainly profit from the development of the school of philosophical theology but exactly in what way remains a question for further research.

As pentecostal theology develops, it will become more sophisticated philosophically. Pentecostal theology should benefit from the gains of analytic theology, an approach to systematic theology characterized by certain tendencies within analytic philosophy. In addition to qualities like clarity and precision, such methodology may also enhance spiritual practice by encouraging meditation and discursive prayer in connection with speculative theology.

This article suggests a theoretical and methodological perspective primarily hinging on the categories of Horizon, Totality and conditionalism, with an outspoken mystical orientation, radically relativising yet simultaneously treasuring diverse religious expression. This model was developed with a view to interpreting the history of religions, in this case applied to the history of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Pretoria from 1917 to 2017.Utilising this perspective, the history of the faculty is analysed in terms of three qualitatively distinct yet continuous epochs, overlapping with the three epochs of South African history during the twentieth century: 1902–1948, 1948–1994 and 1994 to present. In particular the article focuses on two dimensions of theological existence at the University of Pretoria: firstly, its interaction with the state over this century, that is, its political existence during the decades prefiguring apartheid, during apartheid and during the aftermath of apartheid; secondly, its relationship with the wider world of religious pluralism over the past century, implying its notion of religious truth. Differences of emphasis and conflicts during the century, involving both sets of problems, are explained and understood conditionalistically and with reference to Totality and Horizon. Racial exclusion and religious exclusion are understood as mutually determining and are both informed by and dependent on a certain view of religious truth.In the context of its own ambit this article has a reconciliatory intention, not evaluating the mistakes of the past in terms of the categories of sin and guilt, but rather in terms of tragic misjudgements of situations: shortcomings in historical hindsight, sufficiently wide peripheral vision, realistic foresight and sufficient insight into the epochal conditions of the times and the essence of religion. Greed and hatred, seemingly ingrained in human nature, are taken to feed on such lack of insight.

The religious turn in continental philosophy has opened the door for postmetaphysical mystical theology. Postmetaphysical mystical theology seeks to understand the non-relation relation of language (text) to the Other. Yet, this non-relation relation to the Other, who is every other, can also be interpreted differently to the mystical understanding. For example, Žižek argues that the Other, which is often experienced as the uncanny, the unpredictable and the contingent (lived spirituality), is not necessarily the result of some mystical unknowable Otherness but is a consequence of the way the subject’s own activity is inscribed into reality. These experiences of lived spirituality or experiences of Otherness can, rather than being interpreted as an in-breaking of the mystical Other, be interpreted otherwise, as a grammatological consequence of the inability and impossibility of language (Lacan). Therefore, in this article, Žižek’s thoughts function as a bridge to bring this mystical turn back into critical conversation with continental philosophy and particularly with the thoughts of Derrida, Laruelle and Stiegler. The contemporary mystical turn in theology rediscovers something of this non-religious religion. Derrida’s thoughts are in close proximity to negative theology and yet there is an important difference. This difference will be explored and further developed towards Laruelle’s non-philosophy, which does not translate into a non-religion religion or postmetaphysical metaphysics but remains a non-philosophy or maybe a science of Christ. This article will conclude with a tentative exploration of a postmetaphysical Christ-poetics beyond the mystical turn.

The criteria for what is considered as science have been debated for a very long time. This article assumes the scientific nature of Theology as a given. This article discusses in three concentric circles the scientific nature of Theology and the type of contribution Theology can make. The first circle addresses the nature of science. This broader look at what is considered to be science sets the context for the ensuing discussion. Secondly, Theology as science is investigated. The criteria which make Theology an indispensable part of the scientific project is identified as the ability to collaborate with other sciences based on a shared interest in reality and creation. Further, Theology as science has the ability to contextualise the products of scientific efforts to be relevant not only to the faith community but to society at large. Theology as science requires a critical self-reflection which does not only include a self-understanding but also a self-renewal. The third concentric circle focusses on the scientific nature of Theology as practised at the Faculty of Theology at the University of Pretoria. The Faculty of Theology endeavours to produce life-giving Theology. To prove itself to be scientific Theology needs to act credible by contributing to the wellness of society.

Is transreligious theology possible? Yes, but only as a very specific practice. If we accept the neologism „transreligious“ then we must understand it in contrast with the more traditional terms „interreligious“ and „comparative“. Interpreted this way, „transreligious theology“ describes religious discourse about ultimate reality between those with no particular religious identity. Their conversation is panreligious, treating all theological resources equally, without preference for any tradition over any other tradition. This conversation will be quite different from interreligious dialogue or comparative theology, in which participants claim a religious identity while remaining open to the insights of other traditions. Hence, „transreligious theology“ is a descriptive term rather than a prescriptive method. It is already practiced by the non-religiously affiliated who hold an interest in the spirituality of all religions. Even though it may be helpful to some, it is not a necessary practice, since effective theological development can still occur between those with specific religious identities, and by those who only study their own religious traditions.

Transreligious theology is possible. The question we now face concerns how to do it. With that question in mind, this paper discusses five interpretative angles on transreligious theology, five resources for transreligious theology, and five challenges facing transreligious theology.

The different contexts of America and Europe have a significant impact on the development of comparative theology, especially in the German-speaking countries. The latter have found other solutions to the problem of religious pluralism that are not really conducive to comparative theology. Hence, the double responsibility of Catholic theology in particular toward the university and toward the Church is a part of the discourse policy of theology, which affects the theology of religions and comparative theology. On the one hand, theology is under the protection of the state, and on the other hand theology is threatened by the risk of unreliability due to ecclesiastical paternalism. But the theology of religions and comparative theology do not evade into science of religion or neo-orthodoxy, rather, they take a risk in a theological engagement with other religions, bringing ones own faith into a deep encounter with other religions and their faiths while delving into points of detail. After giving short descriptions of these tasks, this article shows some examples of practice in comparative theology and gives a prospect into potential further developments of comparative theology in theories of difference and spaces. (VLID)1575345

Individuals who have lived through a serious disease like cancer often have a variety of ideas about life after death. These “polydox” eschatologies often seem far from systematic theology. On the basis of quantitative and qualitative data collected among Danish cancer survivors, this article proposes a positive theological description of the relation between two different repertoires of theological practice: systematic theology (an academic, normative practice) and everyday theology (an individual, lived practice). I argue that everyday theology may contribute to expand the systematic theological understanding of eschatology. In the eschatological practice among cancer survivors, the issue of place appears central, thus complementing the focus on time in traditional systematic theology. I conclude that taking the polydoxy of everyday life into systematic-theological consideration does not debase the matrix of the Christian tradition, but allows different theological interpretations thereof to appear.

Students of political theology need a broad introduction to, and some understanding of how to distinguish between, varying approaches to the discipline. This article argues that differing approaches should be introduced in ways which emphasize the historical, theological, geographical, and ecclesial situatedness of their practitioners. Such introduction to the situatedness of various approaches should not pretend to be objective, but should be sympathetic. Those teaching political theology should also carefully incorporate their own situatedness, showing students how they are working within particular approaches themselves without reducing their teaching to advocacy for their own approaches. The proposal for teaching political theology argued here focuses on inviting students to become active practitioners of political theology, instead of mere consumers of information about the discipline.

Abstract In this article the authors outline and critique two models of public theology in order to advance a new, more helpful, approach. The context is British but the intention is to draw lessons for public theology in the global west. The state of British public theology is briefly surveyed and found to be in some disarray. The most common models—characterized as ‘disciple theology’ and ‘liberal activist theology’—are critically analysed and found in significant ways to be inadequate for purpose. The model of ‘citizen theology’ as an approach to doing public theology is advanced, developed and discussed as an alternate. The central features of citizen theology are put forward for analysis. These include the importance of developing the virtues, creating poetic and parabolic discourse, and creating imaginative theological categories and theories.

This Introduction argues for the importance of theology for the study of organization. It also draws the contours of a possible ‘theology of organization’. Theology of organization, as we use it here, does not refer to a study of organization that is rooted in faith, nor does it refer to a study of religious practices in organizations. Instead, theology of organization recognizes that the way we think about and act in organizations is profoundly structured by theological concepts. In this editorial to the special issue we have three aims: to outline what theology of organization is, to show how it builds upon Carl Schmitt’s ‘political theology’ and Giorgio Agamben’s ‘economic theology’ and finally to propose three different forms that theology of organization can take. These forms of theology of organization respectively (1) analyse organizational concepts as secularized theological concepts, (2) show how theological concepts have survived unaltered in organizational contexts and (3) show how theological concepts have been corrupted or lost their original meaning when deployed in organizational contexts. In the final section of this editorial, we introduce the five contributions to this issue and indicate how they connect to the three forms of theology of organization that we have proposed.