Theology within a community at home with theology Finally, it is worth observ-
ing that theology does not occur in isolation from the community of those who
write it and those who read it. It is recognizable as it is received, according to
certain audience and professional theological expectations. We have already
seen that the reasoning here proposed as theological is a reasoning which opens
itself for a completion in religious realization, e.g., in that meditation (nidi-
dhya ̄sana) which is subsequent upon a reasoned reflection (manana) on what one
has learned from scripture (s ́ravan.a). Theological reasoning imposes particular
expectations upon persons who read particular texts, texts revered within some
community.
These expectations can be read in two directions. From one vantage point, a
community may have specific expectations regarding particular authors who
are, or aren’t, to be called theologians. If a community expects an intellectual
production to be merely informational or merely the explication of technical
details for the sake of a specialized audience, that writing will probably not be
theological. If a community expects a text to report encounters with God, to
arouse deep inspiration, or offer instruction on moral and ritual practices, the
likely author may be honored as a saint or prophet or teacher, but not as a
theologian. Only if a community (or at least its elite) values the intellectual
content of religious texts and the truth claims generated in relation to those texts
will it interpret texts or commentaries as intelligently explicating the beliefs of
the community, undergirding them with sufficient philosophical foundations,
and defending them against competing philosophical and religious systems.
Received in this way, texts may be properly recognized as “theological,” and their
authors as theologians.
From the author’s vantage point, of course, the matter comes to much the
same thing, since authors intend particular audiences. Communities expecting
theology and authors seeking a theological audience find one another within
larger religious communities. If an author aims at aiding a religious audience
in thinking through the meaning and implications of its faith (in general, and
particularly in its scriptural sources), or at least in defending the intelligibility
and plausibility of faith, then that author’s work is an intellectual production
distinguished by theological intentions. But if the author intends no such com-
munication with a practicing religious community, he or she is likely not to be
a theologian.
Finally, a simpler way to state the preceding is to suggest that theology will
be recognized by those who have theological commitments already. If one has
theological sensitivities, one will be able to decide what is theological and what
is not. It makes no sense to leave the judgment on this matter to those who have
decided that theology is not a possible and useful category by which intellectual
materials can be categorized. This circularity is surely not very different from the
situation evident in other fields; it is no surprise that historical or literary studies
depend on historians or critics for apt recognition of the categories of texts
involved. Indologists recognize other Indologists, subaltern critics their own con-
trary peers, and theologians find their own kind too. I admit this circularity not
462 francis clooney, sj