torically real; and (2) because it employs a specific method
for taking possession of this datum and organizing its com-
plex content in a coherent intellectual way. This method,
moreover, is not naive but critical, making use of the rational
disciplines that study the religious fact: history, philology,
critical exegesis, psychology, sociology, sociology of knowl-
edge, and so forth. Theology is thus able to enter into com-
petition with these disciplines, which, because they offer var-
ious interpretations of religious facts, are in danger of being
reductionist. Theologians, however, must maintain the two-
fold fidelity mentioned above. They would cease to be theo-
logians if they were to betray the originality of the faith, even
as they employ the methods of other disciplines to analyze
it. Theology may not, therefore, be reduced to a philosophy
of religion. Contrary to David S. Adam, in his essay “Theolo-
gy,” philosophy of religion is not “the highest stage or form
of theology” (Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by
James Hastings, vol. 12, 1921, p. 299). The philosophy of
religion analyzes the religious fact and reflects on religious
experience as thematized in religions. This is, after all, one
area of human experience. The philosophy of religion may
therefore have the same material object as theology. It differs
from the latter, however, (1) because it does not consider the
objects of belief—the mysteries—as such, but studies reli-
gion as an activity, along with its conditions and the catego-
ries it uses, and (2) because it does not take revelation as a
normative source of true propositions. On the other hand,
unlike the science of religions or even religious psychology,
the philosophy of religion is not purely descriptive. It studies
the whole range of religious activity in order to discover the
rational structures implied in it, examines these in a critical
way, and sometimes strives to provide a critical justification
of them. Theology goes further: it pursues its task while cer-
tain about the supernatural reality of what faith
asserts.
Parts and forms of theology. Considered in its own
proper nature, theology has some constituent parts. Materi-
ally, it includes various statements its object calls into being,
for example, doctrines concerning the Trinity, Christology,
the sacraments, ecclesiology, and Mariology. Formally it in-
cludes positive theology and speculative theology. Positive
and speculative theology are two parts, or phases, that must
not be separated but must rather be cultivated together. They
incorporate the necessary appropriation of the “given” (the
positive phase) by a scientifically competent study of the
sources (scripture, monuments of tradition, magisterium, ex-
perience of the Christian people and of mankind generally)
and the act of contemplation (the speculative phase) leading
to the organization of a developed and communicable dis-
course.
Dogmatic theology and moral (or practical) theology
are two different types of knowledge, but since no mystery
is proposed for our belief except insofar as it is a source of
salvation for us, the faith that seeks understanding (dogmatic
theology) finds in this understanding the rules for our living
(morality or ethics). In Protestant theology, practical theolo-
gy includes what Catholics call pastoral theology, and even
ecclesiology. In the fifteenth century, when Scholasticism
was getting lost in purely logical or dialectical subtleties,
writings on spiritual or mystical theology multiplied in isola-
tion, being connected less with the mysteries than with spiri-
tual experience. Pietism played a comparable role in seven-
teenth and eighteenth century Protestantism. The separation
was not a fortunate one; it pointed to a lack of spiritual depth
in scholastic methodology. Similarly, we must not distin-
guish or separate “kerygmatic theology”—the communica-
tion of the essential gospel message—from dogmatic theolo-
gy, a position proposed in 1936 in Austria by Franz Lackner.
There must certainly be a connection between knowledge
and a life-giving communication of a message. This connec-
tion is the problem of the apostolate and may call for an out-
put of adapted works of theology, but it must not be turned
into a division of theology.
The term negative theology comes from the unknown au-
thor at the end of the fifth century who wrote under the
name of Dionysius the Areopagite (Pseudo-Dionysius).
Apophatic theology would be a better term. This is not a spe-
cial theology but a way of respecting the “unknowableness
of God” (which is the title of a work of John Chrysostom).
In it positive statements are put negatively, as in the Chalce-
donian christological definition: “a union without confu-
sion, without separation.”
It is commonly assumed today that one person’s work
can no longer embrace all areas of theology because theology
has become so comprehensive and complex and requires
such a variety of knowledge. We may think, however, of the
work of Barth, Michael Schmaus, and others. It is even more
legitimately acknowledged that theology can no longer claim
to control the culture through an all-embracing body of
knowledge, as it could do in the West in the thirteenth cen-
tury. It might more accurately be said that a pluralism is re-
quired in a world that has grown complex and secularized
and in which ideas are exchanged without any possible com-
partmentalization. It should be observed, however, that there
has always been a pluralism in theology: Alexandria and An-
tioch; Augustinianism, Thomism, and Scotism; realism and
nominalism; pietism and rationalism; liberalism and confes-
sional tradition; and so on. Pluralism is valuable. It is a quali-
ty of unity itself, provided the unity involves plenitude and
communion. Nevertheless, all theology is required to be
faithful to the apostolic confession of faith.
Contemporary theology. In contemporary theology
three dimensions or functions in particular are being
developed.- In a world of secularized cultures, fundamental theology
is being developed as a critical justification of the foun-
dations of faith and therefore of theology. It has re-
placed the apologetics of a bygone time. Apologetics
sought to provide rational proof of the suitability and
existence of a revelation, and of the divine authority of
THEOLOGY: CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 9139