THE

ANALOGICAL
IMAGINATION
Christian Theology and
the Culture of Pl uralism

DAVID TRACY

CROSSROAD • NEW YORK

8iBtlOTECA--0E FILOSOFÍA, Y
liQLOGIA
. 'MARlO VALENZUELA, S.J.
 To
D. M cC . and J. J. H . Contents

Prefa ce xi

Part I : Publicness in Systematic Theology

1. A Social Portrait of the Theologian:

The Three Publics of Theology: Society , Academy , Church 3
i. Introduction 3
ii. The Public of Society: The Three Realms of Society 6
iii. The Public of the Academy:
Theology as an Academic Discipline 14
iv. The Public of the Church:
A Sociological and Theological Reality 21
v. Conclusion: Theology as Public Discourse 28

2. A Theological Portrait of the Theologian:

The Crossroad Publishing Company Fundamenta l , Systematic and Practica[ Theologies 47
www.CrossroadPublishing.com i. A Theological Portrait of the Theologian 47
Copyright © 1981 by David Tracy ii. 'Fhree Disciplines in Theology:
Ali rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced. Fundamental, Systematic, Practica! 54
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form iii. Conclusion: Publicness in Fundamental, Systematic
or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of and Practica} Theologies 79
The Crossroad Publishing Company.
3. The Classic 99
Printed in the United States of America
i. Introduction: Systematic Theology as Hermeneutical 99
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data ii. The Nonnative Role of the Classics: Realized Experience 107
Tracy, David. iii. The Interpretation of the Classics and
The analogical imagination.
Includes indexes. the Pluralism of Readings 115
1. Theology, Doctrinal. l. iv. The Production of the Classic: A Thought Experiment 124
Title. BTI5.2.T645 230 v. Conclusion: Systematic Theology as Hermeneutical
81-629
ISBN 0-8245-0031-8 AACR I Revisited 130
ISBN 0-8245-0694-4
4. Interpreting the Religious Classic 154
i. The Convt!rsation and Conflict of
Grateful acknowledgment is made to Líttle, Brown and Company in association with the Interpretations of Religion 154
Atlantic Monthly Press for permission to reprint "Entries" by James Tate from Absences:
New Poems, copyright © 1970 by James Tate. ii. The Religious Classic 167
Chapter 1

A Social Portrait
of the
Theologian
The Three Pu blics of Theology:
S ociety, Acad emy, Church

i. Introduction

Theology as a discipline has many peculiarities. For sorne critics, the

theologian seerns, at best, a useful generalist who wanders too widely; at
worst, a narrow particularist. As a generalist, so the argument runs, the
theologian can sornetirnes prvide penetrating analyses of trends, princi
pies, syrnbolic resources and human needs..:- Too often, however, the
theologian as generalist seems, like Mr. Dooley's Suprerne Court, simply
to follow the election returns. As a particularist (more accurately as a
confessional theologian), the theologian speaks for a partkular group,
cornmunity or tradition whose clairns to meaning and truth may seem
doubtful to a wi!l_er public.
These comrnon criticisrns of theology have sorne ernpirical truth par
ticularly when one considers how undisciplined reflection can hide behind
sorne books and articles published under the rubric "theology" or how
special interests do provide the real motivation for sorne theological
clai.!!!S·'And yet, on the whole, the charges are unjust to theology and
damaging to the wider culture which needs the particular form of public
meaning that genuine theology provides. This book will argue that ali
theology is public discourse. But before the meaning and waqants for that
claim can be argued , it is necessary to examine the social reality of the
theologiap.
-If one G"" concerned to show the public status of ali theology, it
becomes
imperative first to study the reference groups, the "publics," of the
theologian. 1 The fact is that theologians do not only recognize a plurality
of "publícs" to whorn they intend to speak, but also more and more the
theologians are intemalizing this plurality in their own discourse. The
results are often internal confusion and externa!chaos. Júst whom does
the theologian attempt to address in theological discourse?
 4 : CHA PTER ON E
A SOCI A L PORTR A I T OF TH E TH EOLOGI AN : 5
A sociology of theology remains beyond my competence and distinct answer , however passionate or tentative, is ultimately also singular and
from the central task of the present work. Still, sorne initial analysis of the deeply pe:s2!1l. Yet the addressees of our reflections, including the con
social reality of the theologian must be attempted befare the question of flict of addressees in each self, are several.
theology as public discourse is directly addressed. Like the earlier rise of Each theologian addresses three distlnct and related social realities :
historical consciousness among theologiansthe-cfontemporary emergence the wider society, the academy and the church. 8 Sorne one of these
of a sociological imagination is, however initially unnerving, crucial for publics will be a principal, yet rarely exclusive;a'<l<lssee. The reality of
theological self-consciousnE,SS.2 For every theologian, by the very acts of a particular social locs will, to be sure, affect the choice of emphasis.
speaking and writing, makes a claim to attention. What is that claim? A The tasks of theology in a seminary , in a church-related universi Cf;"
claim to public response bearing meaning and truth on the most serious ína pas toral setting, in a program for religious education, in a small
and difficult questions, both personal and communal , that'any human community , in the secular academy, in an involvement in a particular
being or society must face: Has existence any ultimate meani ? Is a cultural, politi cal or societal movemen!9-each of these realities and
others-will a:ffect
fundamental trust to be found amidst the fears, anxieties a_11cl !rior the self-understanding of any theologian. Sometimes that influence will
of
existence? Is there sorne reality, sorne force, even sorne one, who speaks prove so powerful that it will effectively determine the theology. More
a word of truth that can be recognized and trustep? Religions ask and often a social locatioh will provide "elective affinities" for a particular
respond to such fundamental questions of them;-ning and truth' of our emphasis in theology , including the emphasis on what will count as a
existence as human beings in solitude, and in society, history and the genuinely theological statemt;l!J.t.
cosmos. 3 Theologians, by definitiorr, risk an intellectual Iife on the wager The more general question "What is theology?" first demands, there
that rligious traditions can be studied as authentic responses to just foch fore, a respo11se to a prior question : What is the self-understanding o.fthe
. questjpns. The nature of these fundamental questions cuts across the theologian?í)To ask that question as a personal and in that sense an
--· ·, spectrum of publics. Lurking beneath the surface of our everyday lives;- irrevocalJiy existential one is entirely appro_priate. Yet to do so with the _i
- exploding into explicitness in the limit-situations inevitable in any life, are questionable assumption that the theologian-1s,-Clearly a single self-an
questions which logicálly"must be and historically are called religious ques - individual in the Western sense of Burckhardt, Kierkegaard and
tiops J 4 ·¡ Nietzsche-is to beJ.ray the real demands of the passionate reflection of
,, ·To formulate such questions honestly and well, to respond to them with true . indivíua_Ij!y . !,!;( exactly , one risks ignoring the actual com
passion and rigor, is the work of ali theology ; Yet who, finally , is the plextty of different selves related to the dístinct socíal locations and there
addressee of the theologian's reflections OIÍ-fhese existentially vital and fore to the distinct plausibilíty structures present in each theolian. Be- "
logically odd question ? By definition, i.e., by the very nature of the hind the pluralism of theological conclusions Hes a pluralism' of Public
question as._fündamental for any authentically human existence, any fel roles H- .,Publics as reference groups for theological disco_.!![§e. -- ""'
low human being. In that sense-,· theology has always been, as Beneath both forros of pluralism , externa! and interna!, líes a common
........;.Kierkegaard observed , a question of "the single one" to the single 9!,_le. commitment among ali theologians to genuíne public discourse .12 What-c'.t
Yet who now is ever the social location of a particular theology , that common ommít
a single o,ne? Who now does not recognize that existentialist thought in all ment demands a commitment to authentic publicness, the attempt to
its forros, once so promising, still so rich a quarry of passionate reflec speak from a particular social locus in such manner that one also speaks
tion, speaks more indirectly than directly to us aU7_.For at its best, as in across the rnge of ali three publi In this chapter 1have suggested that
Kierkegaard, existential thinking speaks indiredfy to an ideal reader, a there are three princi pal "publics " for a contemporary theologian: the..-
limit-concept of the authentic nader. 6 The concept of the "single one'' is wider society, the academy and the chur:sh,. In studying each, I have
the ultimate yet not the penultimate ground for the complex reality of the chosen to use certain relatively non-theory-laden analyses: We first need a """'
contemporary self of the theologian. more descriptive account of the "publics" of the theoloifan rather than
The pluralism of cultural worlds has enriched us ali with new visions of another stríctly prescríptive account.\For the,,Present, a tentative descrip tion
our common lives and new possibilities for an authentic fe. 7 Yet it does of the common social reality--of every theologían, whatever the more
so at a price we can seldom face with equanimity. For each of us seems to particular positions or prescriptíons, seems in der. 1The assumption of _
become nót a single self but severa! selvesat once. Each speaks not this analysis is strtforward: However personally committed to a single
merely to severa! publics externa} to the self b-uúo several internalized public (society, academy or church) a particular theologian may be, each
publics in one's own reflections on authentic exis!ne. The fundamental strives, in principie and in fact, for a genuine publicness and thereby
questions are indeed questions by and to a single one. An individual 1J'r
 6 : CHAPTER ON E A SOCI A L PORTR A IT OF TH E TH EOLOG I A N : 7
-·implicitly addresses ali three public.)'he very character of the fundamen 1. The realm of the technoeconomic structure is concerned with the
tal existential questions which theology addresses provides the basic organization and allocation of goods and services. This structure forms
war rant for this state nt as principie. The analysis of the occupation and stratification systems of the society and uses modero
representative technology for instrumental ends .
. societal, academic and church-related theologies throughout this book 2. The realm of the polity is concerned with the legitimate meanings of
- will provide the warrants for the statement as fact. ,. social justice and the use of power. 17 This involves the control of the
...¡ To refuse to face the complexity of the social reality of the theologian legitimate use of force and the regulation of conflict (in libertarían soci
may well prove as damaging as an earlier theological generation's refusal eties within the rule of law), in order to achieve the particular conceptions
-\ to face historical consciousne_§S.\For the results of that refusal lie all of justice embodied in a society's traditions or its constitution.
about i us in the contemporary theoIOgical context: a relaxed if not lazy 3. The realm of culture-chiefly , but not solely, art and religion-and
pluralism contenting itself with sharing private stories while both the reflection upon it in various forms of cultural criticism, philosophy and
authentically public character of every good story and the real needs of theology is concerned with symbolic expressions. Those expressions,
the wider society go unremarked; a passionate intensity masked as au- . whether originating (as in art or religion) or reflective upon the symbols
thentic prophecy that resists necessary pleas for empirical evidence while • (as in art criticism or theology) , attempt to explore and express the mean
demanding compliance to a particular ideofogy; a rush to the right for the ing and values of individual, group and communal existence . More
false security o( yet another restoratioO-:ioo often a restoration which, exctly, culture is, in Clifford Geertz ' s careful definition, "an historically
like that of the Bourbons, has forgotten nothing and leamed nothing; a transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of ihher
reigning pathos among those who still demand argument and evidence (in ited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by meaos of which men
a word , publicness) and whose inabilíty to cut through the swamp of communicate, perpetuate and develop their knowledge about and at-
privateness may finally force them to become those who lack all convic . titudes towatd life."18 The realm of culture, therefore, will provide the
ti_on.\ We ali know the truth in Kierkegaard's description of the modero clues to both the ethos of a society's life (i.e., the tone, character and
intellectual as one become "pathologically reflective" or, for the theolo quality of life-its "style") and its correlative worldview (i.e. , the picture
gian, the harsh realities in E. M. Cioran's description of many modero people have of the way things in actuality are, their most comprehensive
intellectuals as "religious minds . . . without religion." 13 ideas of order). 19 All cultural analyses, including the theological , will con-
A Yet perhaps sorne explicit reflection on the several publics of the con -
temporary theologian, indeed of several interoalized selves, may aid us
all at least to hear one another once again. In that renewed conversation, centrate upon the relationships between ethos and world vie,...w..., : for exam--
we may well find that anyone who reflects on ultimate issues is ple, whether in a particular instance ethos and worldview are either con-
really a "single one," but, precisely as such, one who <loes not retreat to frontational or mutually supportive, and how they relate to altemative
private ness. 14 Each will attempt , in fidelity to a profoundly personal possibilities of both.
but not prívate vision, to find the skills to speak publicly again. "1Whether or not particular theologians are explicitly involved in the
tasks of responsible citizenship in so complex a society, they are clearly
affected by specific roles in that society. One need not become an or
ii. The Public of Society: The Three Realms of Society thodox Marxist in order to recognize tlíe obvious and, in sorne cases,
determinative influence of the technoeconomic realm on past and
Most Euro-American theologians are involved , we have noted, in three contem porary theologians. 20 One need not accept either Daniel Bell 's
publics: the wider society, the academy and the church. The first of these neoconser vafive prescriptióñs for our society, nor Leo Strauss'
publics may be described by the generic word "society."15 In highly antimodern "returo to the polis " suggestions, nor Jürgen Habermas'
developed societies (i.e., those advanced industrial , technological soci claim that our society is one involved in "systematically distorted
eties with democratic polities and capitalist , socialist or mixed economies) communication," nor any other theory-laden prescription 21 to agree
the word '.' society" seems preferable to the other natural chgice of with this initial description of the three interrelated realms that
"culture." For "society" is a word coined by social scientists as the comprise as complex a society as our own.
broadest term available to encompass three realms: the technoeconomic Indeed , before one engages in any form of prognosis for the present
realm, the realm of polity and the realm of culture . In relatively non situation, the following comments may serve as a possible consensus
theory-laden terms these three realms may be further specified as fol statement across the spectrum of conflicting prescriptions. lfany society is
lows. 16 a complex one with the three realms of advanced industrial societies, then
any member of the society (including the theologian) needs to reflect
 8 : CH APTER ON E
A SOCI A L PORTRA IT OF TH E TH EOLOG I A N : 9
explicitly on that complexity . Nothing is accomplished by retreats to 27
spirit " wherein a marginalized art, a privatized religion , a scienticized
-sorne romantic notion of thesolitary individual tinaffected by social real politics , an ineffectual philosophy and cultural criticism may continue theír
ity. We are ali, in fact, social selves. We are ali in constant interaction now harmless pleasures. Indeed , like the ancient Sybarites, humanists
wfth the three realms constituting our present society. Our need is to may even flourish on the assumption that they do not stray too far from
recognize that fact and its inftuence on ali theolqgy. the reservation and do not offer other than "personal preference" options
In the interests of clarity and brevity I shall state my own assumptions to the instrumentalist discussion of values for the society as a whole.
far the description of each realm. The appeal of these assumptions, if Narcissus may be allowed bis curious pastimes. The polis, however , is
any, must be, in accordance with the present limited purposes of this both unaffected and unimpressed.
analysis, intuitive or counterintuitive for the reader. 22 My hope is that 2. In the realm of polity, the one realm where ali the citizens of the polis
by stating my assumptions as explicitly as possible, the reader will find presumably meet , civic discourse and a genuinely public philosoph y
it easier to accept or reject them. grou nded in comprehensive notions of rationality and the demands of
,,.:•1 1 . In the technoeconomic realm, I assume the value of technology but practica) reason are imperati .28 In American society , one need not
also the disvalue of an all-embracing technocracy for the whole societ y. In romanticize the genuinely public discourse of the "Founding Fathers "29
brief, functional or instrumental rationality is both necessary and appro: nor minimize the vast differences between their basically agrarian society
priate for questions in the technoeconomic structure. The standard un and our own advanced industrial, technological one3º in order to realize
derstanding of instrumental rationality seems appropriate here: a use of that a public discussion of polity issues appealing to all intelligent, reason
reason to determine rational means for a determined end. In the tech able and responsible persons is a necessity, not a luxury, for any humane
noeconomic sphere, that "end" is ordinarily sorne far- of success or polity. In the wider Euro-American society, one need not romanticize the
failure in feasibility or efficiency. The major problem of instrumental rea polittcs of Plato and Aristotle, nor minimize the lack of correlation be
son is also obvious: its relati inability to define ends for the polity and tween the original Greek polis and modero society, in arder to realize that
culture on other than either an instrumental or a merely intuitive basis. the Greek ideal of civilized discussion of issues for the polis remains an
Except for the strict technocrat, most observers agree that instrumental exemplary limit-concept even in our present vastly more complex soci
rationality becomes dangerous to the wider society when its evident suc ety.31 Ifwe continue to assume the value of reasoned, public discourse in a
cesses in the technoeconomic realm encourage us to employ only instru ;rrtical and argued fashion, if we continue to affirm the related values of -
mental reason for articulating and resolving value questions for either the individual liberties and equality as shared and often conflicting values for
polity or the culture. Here the most difficult questions for the wider soci a democratic polity, then the discussion of these conflicts cannot be left to
ety emerge when one reflects upon the societal consequences, in both either a technological and bureaucratic elite nor to the happenstance of
polity and culture, of technological advance.23 For if instrumental ra special-interest groups.
tionality provides the sale paradigm for public, reasoned discourse in -l In the Western tradition of ethical philosophy , for example, one finds-
society, then we are not dealing only with a technological society but with authentically public ways to discuss policy issues. Whether those ways be
an emerging technocracy, where the eclipse of practical reason for politic based upan teleological , deontological, axiological or responsibility mod
cal decision and action is assured .24 Then the more usual alternatives for els for ethkal reasoning, or upon sorne "mixed theory, "32 there seems
rational, public discourse on societal issues too often turn out to be either little doubt that ali ethical arguments are in principie open to ali intelligent,
unexamined and naive intuitions on value issues by a technological and reasonable and responsible persons . As grounded in comprehensive no
bureaucratic or Hobbesian elite, or the conflict of special-interest tions of practical reason, they arepublic-not prívate . As a single example
groups.25 Ineither case, a truly public discussion of issues of value for the in recent American history, one may recall the many discussions of John
whole society on other than either an intuitive or instrumental basis is Rawls ' A Theory of Justice. 33 Rawls' work, as most critics admit, provides
uickly short-circuited. one clear focus for arguing about the concept of justice for a society like
·- What John Courtney Murray named "civic discourse" or Walter our ow_n. Rawls' commitment to the tradition of analytical philosophy
Lippmann articulated as "a public philosophy" for the society is dis does nof disallow the discussability of bis arguments by alternative ethical
owned as perhaps applicable to an earlier and simpler age but clearly tradition s (e.g., Marxist or "natural law" traditions). His use of an initial
inappropriate to our complex technological society.26 Humanistic reflec model of "retlective equilibrium" allows ali participants in the discussion
tion on values seems ever more confi ned to humanistic enclaves in the to make appeals to their own informed intuitions and distinct theories of
real m of cultu;:.e. And that realm can itself become a "reservation of the go d. His use of what is, in fact, a mixed theory for ethical reflection
the
 10 : CH A PTER ON E A SOCIA L PORTRA IT OF TH E THEOLO GI A N : 11
allows any intelligent and rational person to enter the argument on in principie , a realm where technocracy and bureaucracy reign and
genuinely common grounds without prior commitments to Rawls' own where both mediating structures and institutions 38 along with more
"personal preferences. " His distinction between "thin" and "fuller" comprehen sive notions of rationality other than the purely technical
theories of the good should also allow, in principie, the employment of one for use in rational policy making are now ruled out as impossible,
resources from particular traditions for the wider common good.34 Nor indeed, as frivo lous options. An initial step of clarification in this
should this discussion be limited only to professional philosophers:For no crucial realm is further reflection-·upon the full range of what will and
--retlective person in our society can avoid the issues of presentpolity, will not count as reason giving procedures.
especially those issues grou ped under the rubric of social justice and 3. In the realm of culture, intuitive and developed senses of values may
specified for a democratic polity as the complex, conflicting and ever be found in the classical symbolic expressions of the major traditiohs
shifting set of relationships between individual liberties and equality. informing the cuJt11-_re. 39 Both ethos and worldview, affectivi ty, style
These questions affect us all. Ifanyone, including the and cognitive principies of order may be analyzed by appropriate
theologiañ:claims not to be thus affected , then that person , as Aristotle methods in all humanistic studies, including philosophy and theology. It
long since reminded us, is either a god or a beast, not a human being, a seems cor rect to observe that theologians , whatever their parÚcÜlar
social and political social locus (a particular university, seminary, political movement, base
animal. 35 Do we not need to ask ourselves anew whether our society can :
commu nity, etc.), relate princi pally to the realm of culture and, through
coniÍnue to allow itself the fatal luxury of demanding professional compe that realm and its notions of practica! reason , to the realm of polity.
tence in every major area of our communal lives except value issues? Religion, after all, is a key cultural index. lndeed, in its cultural fuétlons,
..,...Perhaps our awe at the astonishing achievements of technology and our religion serves, to recall Clifford'·aeertz's widely accepted definition, as
correct and healthy recognition of our individual ignorance in the area of "a system of sym bols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and
technology tempt us to be too willing to hand over the realm of polity to a long-lasting moods and motjy_a,tü:ms . . . by formulating conceptions
technological and bureaucratic elite whose own sense of ethical issues is of a general order of existence and clothing those conceptions witb such
ín fact highly unprofessional. 36 Indeed , that sense ís often sorne forro of an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely
personal íntuition heavily i'"ñfluenced by bureaucratic imperativs. Do we realistic. "40 The presence of the religious reality in a culure , whether in
not seem too content to retreat from the realm of polity and retire with the form of a religious dimension to the everyday disclosed in limit-
whatever remaining dignity we can muster to the sphere of our private situations and limit-questions or, more usually , in the symbols of explicitly
lives where "personal preferences" are stíll allowed to reign? 37 religious traditions, demands careful analysis from ali those interested in
- Yet this attitude cannot but be judged dangerously naive and values, including those in terested in "fuller" theories of the good for
eventually fatal. In fact, if our society applied only "intuitions" to the polity.
the techno economic realm, society would wreck the technoeconomic It is in the realm of culture that both participatfon in and critical
structure itself with more than deliberate speed. The application of reflec tion upon symbols, including religious symbols, principally
instrumental reason alone to ethical questions (ithe manner of sorne occur. The artist, the religious personality, the pbilosopher, the
proponents of social engineering and systems analysis) is similarly theologian, th social scientist, the literary critic devote major energy
destru.c.tjye. Instrumental reason is justly praised for its expertise in to interpreting participa tory symbols, including tbeir relevance to the
determining rational "means" for agreed upon "ends" and in needs of the whole society . In the original meaning of a "liberal
determining "feasibility " rationally, but "validity" only intuitively. education, " that knowledge worthy of a free mind , all informed
Ordinarily that same use of reason is merely ''intuitive'' in determiniiig participants in the realm of culture were both humanists and involved
''ends'' for the common good of the polity itselL The more in practica! reason. 4 1
comprehensive notions for practica! rationality, and thereby for In earlier and less complex societies, the role of culture in polity
"publicness," articulated in such paradigmatic ideal societies as the was usually more direct than in our ,.g n. No doubt the very
ancient Greek polis or the New England town meeting, and refined complexity of present society-a complexity which includes a
through centuries of moral reasoning and ethical reflection, need far technology demanding specialized knowledge for informed judg!flent,
wider recognition in the realm of polity than present circumstances and an accelerating cen tralization of power in an elite bureaucracy
admit or sometimes even allow. Otherwise we should honestly admit that which tends to level the power and role of ali mediating institutions
the pres ent complexify -of our society entails a scenario something like (family , church, neighborhood, school, etc.)-affec!§__ _all rªlms .-
this: The realm of cultu re is, in fact and in principie, to be shunted into Those effects are clear: a widespread tendency towards privateness; a
the margins of society , into the realm of the prívate; the realm of polity diminishment of belief in the possibility of authentic civic discussion in
is to become, the community; and, finally , the tendency
12 : CHAPTER ON E A SOCIA L PORTRAIT OF TH E THEOLOGIAN : 13

to discourage, in both piecemeal and systematic fashion, any significant

role in the realm of polity for those whose principal home is the realm of This remains especially true of a society like our own, characterized in
culture. fact by cultural pluralism and committed in principie to a democratic
Whether avant-garde artists or countercultural movements in our cen polity. W re artjs marginalized, religion is privatized. Indeed, religion
tury have chosen or have simply recognized their effective absénce from suffers even greater losses than art by being the single subject about
the realm of the public remains a moot poi!!t.42 It is the case, however , which many intellectuals can feel free to be ignorant. Often abetted by
that art has become increasingly marginalized in our society. Indeed, as the churches, they need not study religion, for "everybody" already
we shall see in later chapters, art seems to live principally
of
as the realm knows what religion is: It is a private consumer product that sorne people
seem to n!!cl.: Its former social role was poisonous. Its present
private taste and omnivorous consumptipn. The claim that the work of privatization is harmless enough to wish it well from a civilized
art, often through its powerful consci0t1- or unconscious negations of distance. Religion seems
present actuality, 43 discloses a truth about our common human condition _to be the sort of thing one likes "if that' s the sort of thing one likes."
often strikes both artists and the general public as counterintuitive.'. We The oft-quoted dictum of Paul Ricoeur is relevant here: "The symbol
have been too well socialized into the belief that the artist is, really, "a gives rise to thought, but thought always returns to and is informed by
bird of paradise," a romantic soul yeaming to express sorne purely prívate the symbol.' '47 Inthe present context: If society is to employ the
vision of the self. resources of the realm of culture for value questions in the realm of
ef, -··Unfortunately, the artist can intemalize this image and spend too polity, then we must find better ways, as a society, to discover, recover
mu ch effort in "advertisements for myself." The same socialization and analyze the symbolic expressions in our culture. Ifone recalls the role
process frees the public to allow these diversions. What, after ali, is art of the Calvinist understandings of covenant in its ntributions to the
but a now attractive, now repulsive expression of another's private American Constitu tion, if one recalls the theological principies of
self? It ali de pends, after ali, on one's "private" tase. Exhausted by Martín Luther King' s struggle in the civil rights movement, one will
the paramount reality of the everyday, a reality itself ambiguously realize how religious sym bolic resources have in fact functioned as
transformed by the same technology and bureaucracy, we can use the important factors in American socie,!y. Martín Luther King, through his
escape route of the artist to effect our own temporary vicarious escapes personal appropriation of the symbolic resources of his religious and
from our other, our "real" responsibilities. With neither Plato's insight cultural heritages, was able to articulate, and to express in action,
nor his honesty in demanding that we remove the arts from the polis,44 otherwise unnoticed and untapped ethical resources for the societal
we effectively force the artist into a romantic and finally private struggle for social justice.
misconception of a role. Thereby do we, contra Plato and his Other intellectuals did not need to share the Protestant ;;-mmitments of
unconscious successors, impoverish our communal lives by evicting the Reinhold Niebuhr in arder to leam from his analysis of the dialectical
symbolic resources of art from the realm of the public into the world of relationship of the Christian symbols of "grace" and "sin" that Amer
fancy and privateness. One need not romanticize the role of the artist icans had ignored a deeper dimension of our social and political life.48 Nor
to realize the truth of Ezra Pound's dictum that artists serve as did one need to share the explicitly Catholic warrants in John Courtney
''antennae of the race. '' They are antennae to new visions of human Murray's correlation of Catholic "natural law" theory with the theories
possibility, new values and forros of personal and communal life, new informing the principies of the American tradition in order to find new or
fuller theories of the good. Indeed, beauty, as I shall argue in later renewed in_§.ig_hts for present polity issu .49
chapters, is a signa! clue to truthitslf. It is difficult to envisage King or Niebuhr or Murray willingly accepting
In an analogous fashion, one need not (indeed, should not) absolutize
a privatization of religion. Indeed it is impossible. Yet it is ali too possible
the claims of any religion 45 in order to realize that any majar religious to imagine many contemporary theologians eag;;rly moving to sorne local
tradition <loes disclose in its symbols and in its reflections upan those "reservation of the spirit." Less obviously, perhaps, than those artists
symbols (i.e., its theologies) sorne fundamental vision of the meaning of who accept their margiii'alized status in society, but no less fatally, theolo
individual and communal existence providing disclosive and transforma
gians can also rest easily on the reservation. They can even learn to sing
tive possibilities for the whole society. Both ethos and worldview are
its praises and embrace its privateness. They tÓo can define their public
disclosed in any religion. One need not minimize the need for reasoned
not as the wider public of the society and its current alinost desperate
public discourse upon ali claims to truth in order to recognize the indis
impasse on serious reflection on vaj.Qes. Rather they can rest content with
pensable role that cultural symbols, including the religious, can play in the
widér society.46 the public of sorne smaller group of equally charming, equally prívate
--··--- selves in sorne particular resting place in the increasingly marginalized
realm of culture. If the whole realm has become marginalized, why com-
 14 : CHAPTER ON E A SOCI AL PORTRAIT OF THE THEOLOGIAN : 15

plain? One will, after ali, find civilized persons with whom to share the joys
of privaten.s<s. ..s. With luck, one might even find a religious gumentation," the latter specified by a linguistic philosophy and "value
Bloomsbury. free'' motif_r_ search. 52 In the German context the major work on this
A major assertion of this book may now be stated as a claim: lf any issue is clearly Wolfhart Pannenberg's recent attempt to demonstrate the
human being, if any religious thinker or theologian, produces sorne strictly scientific (in the European sense of Wissenschaft) character of
classical expression of the human spirit on a particular journey in a theology, leading to his constructive proposal for the reordering of
particu lar tradition, that person dis permanent possibilities for theological studies around the basic rubric of a theology of reljgi.9ns. 53
human exis tence both personal and communal. Any classic, as we shall In the more pluralistic Anglo-American setting many proposals have
see below, is always public, never prívate. ·Yet even before studying the been put forwd. As a major example, Bernard Lonergan has developed
warrants for that claim, there is sorne utility in raising to explicit an empirical transcendental method in Insight , and correlated his earlier
consciousness the dilemma that ali in the realm of culture fc;.e. Then, studies on the medieval notion of theology ·as a science with his later work
at least, certain realities of our actual situation may surface for serious on the contemporary notion of empírica! science and the centrality of
attention: dissatis faction with the marginalization of the realm of culture, method over \ggjc. 54 His method is designed to meet the needs of a situa
a discontent with an ever more privatized self on a deceptively tion formed by historical consciousness and the emergence of the many
harmonious reservation, a recognition of one's responsibility to that specializations in ali modern fields of study, including theology. Loner
wider public we call society and its ever more complex present gan's important constructive proposal for scholarly collaboration in
actuality and sometimes frightening future prosct. Perhaps one may theology consists in rethinking the present range of field and subject
even hope that rendering these realities explicit may impel sorne specialities as eight functionally related specialties (research, interpreta
tion, history, dialectics, foundations, doctrines, systematics, communi
theologians, whatever their particular social locus, to recognize their
cation). 55
public responsibilities to genuinely public dis course for the society as a
whole. If humanists, including theologians, in the realm of culture Lonergan's extraordinary achievements in methodology, still too
continue to accept their marginalized status,50 then the alternatives are widely overlooked, consist principally in employing his own empirical
the short-run enchantment of self-fulfillment and the long-run despair transcendental method as the key by which the present diversity of field
of societal value bankruptcy. If publicness is to be exhaustively and subject specialties can be transformed into functional §pecialities.
defined by instrumental reason, then the adventures of rea son will never Precisely as newly forged functional specialities, the ideaÍf collabora
again inform an authentically public civic discourse in the realm of tion in religious and theological studies can become the actuality of func
polity-the realm where, finally, we all must m t. tional interdisciplinary work. Ali these recent proposals have united with
recent historical work on st paradigms for theological method to focus
the attention of many theologians on formal questions of "method."
An influential although not determinative reason for this interest in
) iii. The Public of the Academy:
method is the continuing presence of theology in major secular and
Theology as an Academic Discipline
church-related universities. lndeed, both Pannenberg's and Nygren's
The "academy" serves as a generic word to describe the social proposals are explicitlyrelated to the crisis of legitimation for theology in
locus where the scholarly study of theology most often occu.· The the contemporary German and Swedish state universities. The same kind
journey from the emergence of theology as a "science" in the of process of legitimation emerges in the more pluraíiStic North American
medieval University of Paris to contemporary discussions of the scene. Here theology may be done in several distinct academic settings:
place of theology in a univer sity setting is a long and complex one.51 the urch context of the seminary where professional training for minis
A helpful focus for the discussion is the modern notion of an acad try is the primary responsibility; the departments of religion and/or theol
mic "discipline." Just as the medieval ogy in the major church-related colleges and uníversities; the divinity
theologians struggled to articulate the claims ·10 meaning and truth of schools of the older secular universities; the departments of religious
theology on the model of an Aristotelian science, §.9 too modern theolo studies i n other private or state colleges and universities. All proposals for
gians attempt to understand theology as an academic disciplil},_e. theological method are affected by the particular acádemic location of a
,.-.\ Various. proposals for articulating that question have been espoused particular theologian.
in our period, usually under the rubric of discussions of theological For sorne theSituation seems so confusing that they argue, in effect,
method. Among the major proposals, for example, one may note in the that theology, in its confessional and professional modes, belongs solely
Swedish university context Anders Nygren's lifelong attempt to
demonstrate the strictly "scientific" character of theology as a mode
of "objective ar-
16 : CHAPTER ON E A SOCI AL PORTRAIT OF TH E TH EOLOGI A N : 17

-
and exclusively to the churches . Theology should not be present in a
university setting where ali "normative" claims for a discipline-
especially one which seems to possess an "exclusivist" norm-are sus
pect. Indeed, the choice of the title "religious studies" rat.her than
nenberg, Ogden, Harvey , Küng, Kaufman , Gilkey , Metz, et al.)57 have
been engaged in the construction of proposals for the fully public, here
integrally academic, character of theology in the context of the modern
university and its interna! debate on the character of a scholarly disci
"theology" for university departments often serves to indicate the dis pline . Other theologians in the same setting effectively enter into
tance which its proponents desire from theology's traditionally normative various ''nonaggression'' pacts with their colleagues in religious studies
claims. "Religious studies," therefore, indicates an objective, nonnorma and the wider university. In the time-honored Anglo-American fashion,
tíve7cholarly study of religion as distinct from what is viewed as, at best, we hope to muddle through. Fortunately, we are spared sorne of the
the theologian's use of special "confessional" criteria or, at worst, special legal and political complexities of the French, Italian, rman or
pling for traditional norms. Swedish scenes, so that by and large we do in fact muddle through. That
Indeed the conventional alternatives for the academic study of religion English, empírica( habit is, in my judgment, ali to the good. And yet,
are sometimes posed in sorne such manner as the following: Religious the very drive to publicness which defines theology 's task, the
studies is a study of religion in keeping with the standards, methods and normative status of theolog ical and philosophical discourses, does
criteria of all scholarly study of any phenomenon. 56 lt cannot and should demand explicit reftection upon theology's constitution as an academic
not allow for the use of special criteria (for 7xample, a demand for per discipline . .
sonal faith in a particular religion in order to understand that religio1_!1· "" One appropriate focus for that discussion is the character of an aca
Theology, conventionally understood, demands just such special criteril.l· demic discipline itself. Stephen Toulmin's recent analysis of what consti
As a discipline, theology belongs, therefore, to the churches and its tutes a discipline 58 has helped clarify the otherwise vague term "disci
seminaries and possibily to church-related institutions of learning. 1t <loes pline'' in such manner that all disciplines in the u- versity may find a new
not belong in a secular university in a pluralistic cultur_e. In that Sénse, this focus for their e ss methodological diE!!tes. Toulmin's analysis, which
familiar conventional wisdom on the American scenéls analogous to the is marked by careful attention to historical and social realities (for exam
insistence in Sweden, Germany or France that the university setting is not ple, the historical emergence of new disciplines and the role of profes
the proper one for normative, especially "confessional" enterprj_w_. Thus sional organizations and journals), 59 refocusses the discussions from more
does one find the proposals of Nygren and Pannenberg, which effectively formal analyses of "method" and more -global studies of "paradigm
both dispute this common misunderstanding of theology and reconstruct shifts''60 to more concrete historical and empirical analyses of the actual
theology along the lines of other modern sciences in the modern European functioning of the various disciplines. Insum, the Anglo-American empir
univ, .rsi..!_y. ical approach to thes iss-üesrecei s in Toulmin's work its best
In a curious union of unlikely allies, sorne church leaders agree with the exponent. Rather than just "muddling through," we are called upon to
secular critics of theology. Indeed, sharing the same conventional under study the empirical (i.e., historical and sociological) realities informing
standing of theology's slrictly confessionalist role, these church leaders every aca demic discipline. 61
join sorne secular academics to insist, for their own distinct reasons to be Toulmin distinguishes three kinds of rational enterprises in terms of
sure, that theology belongs only in church-related institutions , not in the their disciplinary status: "compact" disciplines, "diffuse" disciplines
secular university. In Italy, for example, this position is adopted by sorne and "would-be" disciplines. The paradigm for a discipline is, of course,
church leaders with the result that there are few departments of theology the "compact" discipline, especially as found in the "hard" sciences.
in Italian secular universities. Even in church-related universities prob The remaining two forms (the "soft disciplines" and/or the "humanities")
lems of legitimation emerge:There the arguments about theology's rela diverge in distinct ways from that paradigm.
tionship to the sponsoring church institution can become acute and usu ·-! The "compact" discipline is characteri.Zed by five principal features:
ally focus on the issue of acad om. The issue then is not the need
to legitimate theology's presence as a scholarly discipline. Rather, the ( 1) The activities involved are organized around and directed towards a
issue becomes how to relate the academic "norms" of the theologians to specific and realistic set of agreed collective ideals. (2) These collective
the "ecclesial" norms of church authorities. ideals impose corresponding demands on ali who commit themselves to
the professiona:I pursuit of the activities concerned. (3) The resulting
Other theologians, myself among them, believe that theology clearly discussions provide disciplinary loci for the production of "reasons," in
belongs as an academic discipline in the modern university. Impelled by the context ofjustificatory arguments whose function is to show how far
that concern, many university-related theologians (Nygren, Ebeling, Pan- procedural inoovations measure up to these collective demands , and so
improve the current repertory of concepts or techniques. (4) Por this
18 : CH APTER ON E A SOCIA L PORTRAIT OF TH E THEOLOGIA N : 19
purpose, professional forums are developed, within which recognized (e.g., fundamental, systematic and practica! theologies) can command
"reason-producing" procedures are ernployed to justify the collective serious attention from fellow professionals. Like social science, modero
acceptance of novel procedures. (5) Finally, the sarne collective ideals theology as a discipline clearly does not possess a "compact discipline"
determine the criteria of adequacy by appeal to which the arguments
produced in support of those innovations are judged. 62 in the way it once seemed to. Neither the medievaltheologians' notion
of theology as a subaltemated science, with its clear Aristotelian criteria
"Diffuse" and "would-be" disciplines diverge from the paradigm in and warrants, nor earlier notions of dogmatics no §uffice.
several ways. The two most important divergences (applicable to such The present search for a new paradigm for the'ology is complicated
disciplines as psychology, sociology, anthropology and, I suggest, to both further by the relative decline .in recent years of earlier neoorthodox
religious studies and theology) are: first, a lack of a clear sense of disci paradigms in Protestant theology and the decline of neo-Thomism and its
plinary direction and thereby a host of unresolved problems; second , a lack clear set of criteria and its ge:µre of the "manual" in Roman Catholic
of adequate professional organization for the discussion of new results. theology. 65 Other complexities ·intensify this situation: the different aca
To consider the latter factor first: in contemporary American theology, demic settings of theology; the plurality and diversity of standards for
a university-related theologian is likely to be involved in severa} profes performance in professional organizations and joumals; the positive
sional organizations whose membership includes a de facto diversity of emergence of the altemative discipline of "religious studies'' and its own
paradigms on the nature of theoloy. More specifically, in the United search for paradigms, with the accompanying debates on the relationship
States, besides professional responsibility for different journals, an indi between religious studies and theolgy; the continuing emergence of
vidual theologian is likely to have professional involvement in such socí sects, individual virtuosi, and ofteñ::-Outright fads under the cover of the
eties as the American Academy of Religion, the American Theological now leaking umbrella of that once proud discipline, theology. All these
Society, the Society for Values in Higher Education or the Catholic factors are present to disorient any theologian in any academic setting. Ali
Theological Society of America, as well as involvement with particular these factors encourage every theologian to reflect more explicitly upon
groupings of theologians and other scholars for specific theological proj criteria of adequacy and more deliberately upon the disciplínary character
e14 . The membershíp in each group sometimes overlaps but often <loes of theology it§lf.
not. More importantly, the membership within each group is sufficiently From this. prspective, theology's present diffuse disciplinary status
diverse to assure that there is no clear consensus on a particular paradigm should and often does encourage both bold and tentative proposals for
for theology as a wole. In fact, there is a constant conftict of interpreta criteria and paradigms for understanding theology as an academic disci
tions over traditi;nál or contemporary paradigms. pline. A major contribution alo'ng those lines-indeed, a bold proposal
As participation in any national convention of any one of these societies remains Bemard Lonergan's development of a theological method which
will demonstrate, there exists in theology a host of unresolved problems understands theology as a collaborative, field-encompassing enterprise
for its practitioners. More basically still, there exists no clear set of crite constituted by eight functional specialities.
· -- e_
ria for adjudícatiñg these disputes. There is little doubt for any alert partic In the present discussion, Lonergan 's prop osal has certain clear
ipant in any one of those professional organizations or for any reader of merits.
the major journals in theology and religious studies that Toulmin's two First, it recognizes what might be named the disciplinary autonomy of
signs for "diffuse" and "would-be" disciplines are here amply verified: each specialíty. Second, it argues for the possibility of genuine collabora
preoccupation with methodological debate and a tendency to splinter the tion amoñgthe disciplines on a publicly adjudicable basis: the functional
field into competing "sects." In that fluid situation, the dangers for a relationships among the distinct specialities and theír distinct criteria
discipline are obvious: the continuous diffusion of energies; the unending based on an empirical-as-transcendental method. 66 Moreover, Lonergan
emergence of sects, schools, paradigms, even :fuds; too little real collab usually explicates criteria for each discipline67 that allow for public, criti
oration among theologians; too little mutual criticism upon agreed-upon cal attention from practitioners of each disc_ipl.ine. Whatever the ultimate
standards, criteria and norms for theological performance. 63 fate of Lonergan' s paradigm (or alternatives like those named above), the
In that same situation, however, there are genuirie possibilities for sig fact remains that every theologian is engaged in making claims to meaning
nificant discussion and contributions from those who recognize the com an truth. 68 Every theologian, therefore, should render those claims
plex nature of the problem. Then, the search for criteria of adequacy, the explicft by rendering disciplinary criteria as e:x,,pljiLas possiPle. The
demand for evidence, warrants, backing (in a word, for publicness), 64 the field-encompassing character of both religious studies and theology (more
construction and proposal of paradigms for distinct theological disciplines exactly, the fact that they are constituted by severa} disciplines) inevita
bly gives rise to their character as "diffuse" or "would-be" disciplines in
20 : CH APTER ON E A SOCI A L PORTRA IT OF TH E THEOLOG I AN : 21

constant methodological strife for a more relatively adequate paradigm .69

The characteristic which distinguishes theology as a discipline from reli spectrum of different paradigms for theology's disciplinary status, most
gious studies, moreover, is the fact that scholars in religious studies may theologians do recognize their responsibility to produce theological dis
legitimately confine their interests to "meaning" while theologians must, course which meets the highest standards of the contemporary academy.
by the intrinsic demands of their discipline, face the questions of both In that sense alone, the academic emphasis of much contemporary theol
meaning and. truth. 70 ogy is a fully positive force for both theology and for the university and,
As the later chapters of this book shall attempt to demonstrate, every through the university, for the wider soc!yty .74 Theology aids the public
theologian must make such claims.71 Theology's setting in the modern value of both academy and society when it remains faithful to its own
academy and explicit, deliberate reflection upon the character of argu interna! demand-publicness. Without that demand for publicness-for
ments and criteria in ali the relevant disciplines in the academy have criteria, evidence, warrants;disciplinary status-serious academic theol
helped theology immensely. For that setting has forced theologians to ogy is dead. The academic setting of much of the best theology, precisely
reftect explicitly and-·systematically upon criteria of relative by its demands for public criteria in all disciplines, assures that an
adequacy, and upon distinct paradigms for distinct theological nouncements of that death remain premature.
disciplines and for theology as a whole, with renewed vig.or.
Most former models of theology (for example, theology as an
Aristote lian science and thereby as a "compact" discipline) are as clearly
spent as is the Aristotelian paradigm in science. The present proposals iv. The Public of the Church:
for theolo gy's disciplinary status are, to repeat, still in the realm of A Sociological and Theological Reality 75
"would-be" or "diffuse" discipliº'"es.72 Sorne theologians, of course,
"solve" this prob lem by joining a particular theological school or sect The theologian, therefore, must strive for publicness in both society and
and then announcing the presence of a "compact" discipline to their academy. Yet the theologian, unlike other intellectuals, must also speak
initiates. Most recognize that this is a nonsolution to the difficulty . explicitly to a third public, the church . Indeed, on inner-theological terms
Theology, like the hmnanities and the social sciences in the modern ali Christian theology is, in sorne meaningful sense, church theology. 76 For
university, must and can presently content itself with a "diffuse" or the present discussion, however, our primary interest is not in an ade
"would-be" disciplinary status. 73 More over, theology, like its traditional quate theology of the church but in the church as a sociological phenome
and similarly normative conversation partner, philosophy, must always non, i.e., as one of the three publics of every füeology.
struggle in every age to constitute itself anew as a normative and self- ,Jn sociological terms, the church functions for the theologian, as do
constituting discipline concemed with that elusive reality ''trl!t.h.'' society and academy, as one "reference group" or "generalized other"
That struggle, in the context of the kind of rigorous methodological and (in present terms, one "public") to which theological discourse is ad
disciplinary reftection already existing in both religious studies and theol dres..d. More exactly, the church as a public may be considered a
ogy, may take the route of an explication of criteria of adequacy . Yt ''community of moral and religious discourse" which the theologian ad
whether or not that particular focus develops, theology must take the dresses.77 Altemativel y, the churches are voluntaty associations xercis
route of "publicness." Otherwise theology will soon forfeit its right to ing a mediating function between individualfu and society as a whole.1s As
serious academic attention, and thereby betray its own heritaae. To ask voluntary associations, the churches include. both communal and institu
the question of the truth of religious claims is not a luxury for theology. tional components. Indeed, as institutions the churches involve both pri
Even those theologians who "will not stay for an answer" to that question mary and secondary functions in the process of socialization and the
soon find that the drive to speak a truth about religious meaning-and formation of personal ide11tity.79 Unlike participation in a family, partici
thereby about the most fundamental, existential questions of our common pation in a church is now a strictly voluntary matter. Anyone may join or
humanity-will not down. Ieave at any time. The ethos and the worldview Of the churches affect the
Despite sorne confused disclaimers to the contrary, ali theologians are larger society usually indirectly. Through their individual members and
in fact involved in publicness. The "public" of the modern academy for more rarely through their institutional weight, the churches may directly
theology serves to render explicit, and thereby to clarify, that traditional affect the policies of the society as a whcll.e,. At any rate, sociologically the
drive with new disciplinary resources. Across the broad spectrum of dif church is a voluntary association and one public of every theology.
ferent academic settings and different cultures, across the even broader The voluntary association of any individual with a particular church is a
relationship to the church as "an historically continuous body of persons
22 : CH APTER ON E A SOCI A L PORTRAIT OF TH E THEOLOG IA N : 23

known as Christians, whose common life is in part institutionalized in

churches. "80 Any voluntary church relationship, therefore, is to both a a concerned body of critica! readership for theological proposals, 88 usually
social institution and to an interpersonal community and tradition of in the fuller sense of one voluntary association to which oñe Is responsibly
shared meaf!ings. 01 committed and whose traditions and authentic demands one has inter
If the theologian's relationship includes explicit commitment to both the nalizeg,,
institutional and the communal aspects of the social reality of the church, For most theologians the reality of the church (like the realities "soci
there occurs an ongoing process of personal decision and renewed com ety" and "academy" understood theologically as "world"), cannot be
mitment, including genuine loyalty to the church tradition and acceptance grasped only in sociological terms. Indeed, even before a theological deci
of certain disciplines consequent upon that decisi2!J..82 In that case, 1 the sion in favor of sorne particular model for understanding the church as
more relatively adequate than others 89 (for example, as ''perfect society,''
concrete church order of the particular church tradition will necessarily
command serious theological attention. . servant, herald, prophet, mission, people of God, communio or prime
In churches with a highly organized church order, like my own Roman sacrament), the reality of church is not theologically reducible to the status
Catholic tradition, for example, responsible participation in that church, of just another social institution. Rather, in most Christian theologies, the
like responsible participation as a citizen of a particular society, will de church is understood as ''gift,'' more exactly, as participating in the grace
mand theological reflection upon the principal questions interna! to that of God disclosed in the divine self-manifestation in Jesus Chrit.90 More
church. In the Roman Catholic instance, theologians will address such over, there now exists among ecclesiologists a broad consensus that the
questins as the nature of magisterium (or magisteria), the Petrine minis church is not identical with the "kingdom of God."91 The importance of
try, the principie of collegiality, the relationship of the theologian to ec this theological consensus is crucial for undercufüng any residual ecclesial
clesially established authorities, the relationship of different theological triumphalism. 92 The Christian church, in its own self-understanding,
models of the church to present ecclesial realities, the reform or conserva stands under the judgment of God and God's eschatological kingdom
tion of present church structures, practices and teachings, e!E.:83 If the revealed in Jesus Christ. 93 An y individual's loyalty to the church stands
individual theologian is in fact related to the communal but not to the under that same eschatological judgment. To confuse those loyalties is, on
institutional reality of the church, then issues like those listed above are strictly theologícal grounds, to risk idolatry.
Iikely to receive little or no theological attentiQn. 84 In either case, the Any properly theological understanding of church, therefore, insists
theologian, like all others in a pluralist and denominational society,85 is both that the church is a strictly theological reality, a grace from God and
involved, consciously or unconsciously, in an ongoing process of reflec as such worthy of loyalty and faith, and that the church and one's loyalty
to it stand under the eschatological proviso of the judgmegtof G..QQ. For
tion upon one's voluntary commitment and loyalty to the Christian church
most theologians (including the present author), the "world" is also un
and, ordinarily, to sorne particular church tradition. The theologian must
derstood as a properly theological reality. Again in the theological sense,
thereby relate that commitment and its attendant responsibilities to one's
the social realities of both society and academy, as expressions of the
other commitments and responsibilities to the wider society and to the
theological reality "world," also bear a theological and not merely a
academy and thereby to their plausibility structures.86
sociological character. 94
Adjudicatin:g these conflicts among plausibility structures from all three
As a generalization, it seems fair to observe that in theology the more
publics is the proper task of fundamental theology. 87 That task should be
usual temptation is to understand society and academy primarily as social
rendered more concrete by theological attention to social-scientific analy
realities and only peripherally as theological: this despite several
ses of the relationships of distinct claims to publicness in distinct plausibil
eloqent, if global, accounts of theological understandings of "world."
ity structures embedded in the structures of the three distinct social
The problem with understanding the third public, church, is usually fue
realities serving as both constituencies and publics: society, academy,
exact opposite. A theological understanding is almost overwhelmingly
church.
operative. A sociological understanding may be implicit but is rarely
Forsome theologians the church seems to function as the sole reference
explicit. The notable exceptions to this rule (Adams, Gustafson, Komon
group for theology. Yet this self-defi nition is somewhat deceptive since
chak, et al.)95 serve to highlight the need among all ecclesiologists, and by
both society and academy also function in their theologies as reference
extension ali theologians, to explicate and correlate both sociological and
groups to various degrees of explicitness. For all theologians, however,
theological understandings of the reality of "church." The church is
including those who are primarily either academic or cultural
primarily considered, in Christian self-understandig, a theological real
theologians, the church functions as a genuine public-at least in the
ity. Even those theologians within a particular church tradítion who may
minimal sense of
24 : CH APTE R ON E A SOCI A L PORTRA IT OF TH E TH EOLOGIA N : 25
be vigorous critics of present teachings and practices of that tradit ion, like
Hans Küng in the Roman Catholic tradition , clearly hold to a strictly instances strictly theological-religiou s considerations de.termine the
theological understanding of church. 96 With equal clarity and force, they church' s relationship to society .1 The latter is especially so when the
argue theologically against any strict reduction of ecclesiological self cburch acts as prophetic critic or'society or as transformative sacrament
understanding to solely sociological terms. of the "world." A sociological interaction model and a theological model
··! The key concept here is reductionism. Indeed , so frightened , by of correlatio , by covering this full spectrum of possibilities, are also
relatively adequate general models for understanding the full spectrum of
this reductiortjst prospect do sorne ecclesiologists seem that they are
incapable of undertaking, or even appreciating, strictly sociological the relationships of particular theologíans to particular ecclesial trad:......
tions. Again the empirical data are complex. Sometimes, for example,
understandings of the reality of the church. For this reason, they become
a particular theologian accepts a particular church's official self
trapped in their own form of reductioni;m. They succumb to what James
understanding and employs it to "judge" society or academy. At other
Gustafson has accui:_ately labelled "theologfoal positivism." Any
times, the theologian (often the same theologian) opposes-T6at
sociological under standing-oflhe,church-as voluntary association, as
ecclesial self-understanding and may eventually affect that self-
institution, as com munity, as social reality-will seem reductionist to
understanding in sorne minor or major way. In every case the
sorne theologians . Yet even without accepting Peter Berger' s
theologian, as an interpreter of tradition , is internally related to the
somewhat confusing phrase "methodological atheism" as descriptive of
church, one of the principal pubJies for theology. That relationship
tíie sociologist' s proper method of studying the church, any analyst can
usually takes the form of an internalized sense of responsibility to the
agree with Berger's basic point: The sociologist must examine the church
church ' indeed a sense of real loyalty to the church community and its
on functional grounds just as one studies any other social reality.
traditions and an internalizing of the plausibil ity structures and the
Granted that the church is both a sociological and a theological reality,
ethical and religious imperatives of the tradition . That loyalty may
how may an individual theologian relate these two distinct understandings
assume either a conservative form or a more critical , even prophetic
of the same social reality? Again: The concrete study would have to be of
one of ''loyal opposition' ' to present church self understanding and
individual theologies to uncov,ei the implicit or explicit concrete and par
practjce. In either case what Josiah Royce analyzed as loyalty to the
ticular understandings of church present in them . As a general rubric,
community , and Gabriel Marcel as ''creative fidelity ,''98 will function as
however, the following observation is appropriate: To account theologi
cally for the full spectrum of possible relationships between church as a dispositions of the tbeologian . In sum , the church is always one publlc
theological and as a sociological reality, the most relatively adequate as addressee for the theologian and usu.ally al so an internalized public as
model is a correlation m<?del. On the sociological side, the closest analogue an object of moral, religious and theological loyalty '"'
would seem to be an "interactionist" model (like that of Max Weber or Although strictly theological judgments must finally play the major role
Ernst Troeltsch.)97 in adjudicating theological conflicts, any theologian 's particular concrete
The theologfa.n should in principie use a correlation model for relating relationships to the other two publics of theology (society and academy)
will also affect the theologian's relationship to the public of th church .
sociological and theological understandings of the reality of the church in
Any theologian , after all will function as an interpreter of the chu h
the same way one uses a correlation model for the more familiar relation
tradition. And any theologian will necessarily interpret the tradition in
ship between philosophy and theo1Qgy. On theological grounds, this
critica! relationship to sorne explicit or implicit contemporary self
model can account for the fuU spectrum of possible relationships between
understanding . Even if the theologian's self-understanding does not in
"church" and "world" from identity through transformation to confron
clude an explicit recognition of the publics of society and academy (and
tation. On sociological grounds as well, a persuasive case has been made
thereby of the theological significance of the "world" as a theological
by such distinct sociologists of religion as Peter Berger, Andrew Greeley,
locus) the influences from those other two publics remain potent. For the
Robin Gill and others that sorne form of Max Weber's interaction model
theologian , like any other human being, has been socialized into a particu
best accounts for the sociological and historical evidence of the
lar society and a particular academic tradition and has been enculturated
compl·éx interrelati9nships of church and society (and, although there
into one particular culture. Even when the relationships to society or
seems to be less social-scientific research here, of church and academy).
academy are negative ones, the theologian will be internally related to the
The historical and social scientific evidence is notoriousÍy complex and
plausibility structures of that society, especially as those structures are
\ awaits sorne new Troeltsch to sort it out. Ingeneral , the church is
formulated and refined into plausibility arguments and criteria of ade
always influenced by society ; sornetimes it is even determined by it.
quacy by the academy.
In other
The range of possible responses to this conflict of plausibility structures
26 : CH APTER ON E
A SOCI A L PORTRAIT OF TH E TH EOLOGIA N : 27
is üie inde_d. The theologian 's conscious or u nconscious attitude to
99
complexity . J n fact, just as the theologian ' s presence in the academy
wads the plausibility structures of the society may , of course, be nega
helps to focus tneological attention upan theology's self-constitution as a
tive . That route of negation, still best symbolized by Tertullian's dramatic
disci pline, so too the present situation, wherein the church is
and confrontational proclamation "What does Athens have to do with
sociologically a voluntary association, demands continuous personal
Jerusalem? " has been taken by many. The theologian 's attitude may be
theological reflection and decision which strengthens religious COIJ1 i!
less purely confrontational and may take instead the form of a critica)
i:n.ent and serious church participation. 1°..
challenge to contemporary secular self-understanding: for example,
One additional complexity in the rela1ionship of an individual
Schubert Ogden's or Langdon:Gilkey's transformationist critique of sec
theolo gian to the public "church" is also worth notjng. In particular
ularism challenge a familiar form of contemporary secular self
church traditions, the role 0f the theologian in -the church 's actual life
understan!!i!lg. 100 Or the theologian may simply make the plea that ulti differs widely. In the mainline Protestant churches that role is likely
ITlately church and culture are identical. This "identity" model may take to be genuinely intluential for the life of the church as a whole because
any form on a wide spectrum ranging from T. S. Eliot 's or Jean Danielou
the role of theology itself is deemed crucial. In the Roman Catholic
's conservative arguments for a "new Christendom" to the Ritschlian
church , the
liberal exact nature of the theologian' s rote is currentiy under discl)sion, with no
arguments for a "cultural Christianity ."1º1 In every case, sorne inter
clear consensus in the church as a whole. ·1ii sorne llberally oriented free
nalized conflict between competing plausibility structure s is likely to be
church traditions , the communal .self-uñderstanding of the reality of the
pre sent in any particular theologian. Hence the complexity of relating
church and its principles of arder often makes the role of the theologian
the public "church" to the publics "society" and "academy." ..
seem relatively marginal, at least for the decision-making processes of
.i There are, therefore, certain general principies and crlteria of relative
church policies. In conservative evangelical churches, on the contrary,
adequacy which can be articulated for understanding the relationships of
the role of the-ology is deemed central but sometimes functions diffusely
church and world (to state it theologically) or the relationships among the
as debates rage on the role of sociological, historical or philosophical
publics of church, academy and society (to state it sociologically). And
claims in relationship to the tr¡1m Lon. Por these reasons, it is sometimes
yet , certain central if often overlooked facts remain. Above ali, one must
impor tant to understand the particular denominational setting of the
note the social reality of the iheologian: an intellectual related to three
theologian and the role of theology in that church's self-understanding in
publics, socialized in each, internalizing their sometimes divergent plausi
order to understand how the public "church" actually functions in the tb
bility structures, in a symbiosis often so personal , complex and sometimes
Q!9gy. Similarly , it is important to know the particular academic setting
unconscious that conflicts on particular issues must be taken singly qr (seffii nary, college, university, religious education program) of a

-
"retail," not globally or wholesª1e. What one can do in a wholesale man particular pro posal for theology's self-understanding, just as it is
ner is to argue for general criteria ofrelative adequacy. On can develop a obviously important to know the particular kind of society to which the
theologian is addresing
general model, both a theological correlation model and, akin to it, a prqp9_s;:iJ. . , The particular understanding of society of those theologians
rn3
sociological interaétionist model , as more relatively adequate to the actual living in advanced industrial societies will obviously be different from
complexity of reality than other alternativ - lf that case can be shown to that of theologians in the Third World-as the debate between Euro-
holg_, then general principies and a general set of criteria of adequacy American "political" and Latin American "liberation" theologies
should inform but not determine discussions of particular conflicts. At the demo3tr. tes .¡
very least, criteria of relative adequacy should help to sort out ffíe exact In every case, the church will serve as at leást one public for ali theolog
nature of the contlict and the relevant questions, criteria, and methods for ical work. In most cases, both church and world will also be understood as
its resolution. Yet no general model or ideal type can be applied in auto properly theological realities. In any particular theology, the intertwined
matic, clianical fashion to any concrete issue. Even aside from the realities of both sociologT;;t and theological understandings of church
more properly theological difficulties with a mechanical method, the social need sorting out befare the exact role of this crucial public, the church,
and personal complexity of any particular theologian's concrete and can be determined fully.104 Whatever its more particular roles , the church
sometimes u nconscious relationships to all three publics militates against will al ways function as-one major public for ali theology . Whatever the
any naively automatic procedures. sociological and·theological complexities inherent in this reality and how
Complex as this portrait of the t heologian' s relationship to the church ever real the frustrations of this relationship may sometimes prove for any
as social reality necessarily must be , there is no reason to bemoan that theologian, the fact is that the church in its innermost tradition serves the
cause of publice_ss. The memories of the tradition along with the present
28 : CHAPTER ON E A SOCI A L PORTRA IT OF THE THEOLOGI A N : 29
practices and self-understanding of the church , despite their many am case for studying the genuine dilemmas of any intellectual in modero
biguities, recall moral , rcligious and intellectual resources and demands society. 105 •
that always aid the struggle for authentic publicness in all theologies. -- Insofar as theologians must render explicit the majar claims and coun
terclaims of each of the three publics, they aid the cause of clarity for the
wider pub1ic. To the theologian, at least, thereis in fact no real choice but
. Conclusion: Theology as Public Discourse explicitness. Unlike their colleagues mreligious studies, who may but need
not render the question of the truth of religion explicit, theologians, no
These obvious if often overlooked social realities of three pu blics matter what public they have principally internalized, cannot avoid that
should not become the occasion to suggest reductionist accounts of any issue .! ?en plausibility tructures must becorne explicit. The drive to -..
particular theological proposal. Indeed, it is rare that a theologian's posi plausd'nhty arguments will become urgent. The need to reftect critically
tion is so determined by a pirticular church order, a particular academic upan real or apparent conflicts of claims i; the different publics becomes
setting or a particular relationship to society that the theology is utterly crucial. ·The drive to personal decision and cornmitment is itself inter
determined by that relationship. But if such were the case the theological nalized with sometimes disturbing, sometimes liberating results .. Every
position would be not mere1y particular in origin and expression.Jt would theologian must face squarely the claims to meaning and truth of all three
in fact be particu1arist and, at the limit, prívate in meaning and uncon publics: the paradigms for truth in the church tradition, the paradigms for
scíously positivist in ínethod,) But such ínstances fortunately are rare. The rational enterprises in the academy, the models for rationality in the three
more likely situation will be one where c1ear or obscured elective affinities overlapping realms of contemporary society. <:::-
exist between the distinct publics and distinct plausibility structures of One focus for these concerns is an explicit recognition of the theolo
particular theologies. ¡For example, there does exist an affinity between gian 's responsibility for authentically public discourse. Indeed, the drive
theology in a seminary-academic base to a clearly defined church em to genuine publicness is not an idiosyncratic program of sorne theologians.
phasis in that theology. There do exist affinities between a university base ,JRather, it is incumbent upan every theologian, no matter which public
and an often less clearly defined ''church'' influence, often allied to a more any single theologian principally addresses. Of course, it is not the case
clearly defined but still academically oriented societal emphasis.¡ that every theologian must make the i of publicness the principal,
.,, In most cases, in fact, sorne theological correlation rnodel will be em explicit focus of theology. Yet it is the case that sorne theologians must
ployed to relate these affinities and to adjudícate the conflicts between address this question explicitly and systematically on behalf of ali.
plausibility structures. In a similar fashion, sorne interactionist sociologi The social complexity is there. The theological complexity will not go
cal model will usually be ernployed to understand any theologian's rela away by at tempts to ignore it.,Those theologians who emphasize the
tionships to the three publics of theology: society, academy and church.'1 public of the larger society , either through prophetic protest and
Sometirnes, to be sure, there can be a lack of consistency in the applica critique or through integrative theologies of culture, are ej..fuer purely
tion of the rnodel.;Such inconsistencies are often occasioned by a lack of prívate visionaries or they should command a public hearing. If the
explicit reflection on the reality of the theologian' s relationships to the latter is the case, they are making public statements to the society and
three publics. For example, one can find radical critiques of society allied should be held accountable for the plaúsibility or implausibility of their
with surprisirigly conservative dernands for rnaintaining the present status advice. Those theologians who ernphasize the public of the academy
quo of a given church onler.' In those cases, one of the oldest secular are bound to demonstrate, through public academic criteria and
political policies finds its theological analogue: externa} liberalisrn, inter- disciplined (i.e., discip1inary) reflec tion, the plausibility of their claims
na! repression.\ to meaning and truth and the relation
•-t To sorne outsidc observers, this social portrait of the theologian's inter ship of hose claims to the Christian tradition they try to intep et. Tose .-
na} relationships to three publics may suggest that theologians are in 1 theologrnns who emphasize the public of the church should show how
volved in, at best, honest but unfortu nate muddle-headedness, or at and why the publicness, indeed the universality t heir tradition claims, is
worst, sheer duplicíty. As this book will argue, such ajudgrnent is ftaed. re lated to that tradition's central vision as well as to other claims to
For the very complexity of the contemporary theologian's social reality public ness. In fact, each theologian implicitly addresses ali three
can also occasion serious and rigorous reflection relevant to the social publics. To render that reality explicit requires sorne criteria of
role of all intellectuals. The theologian 's intemalization of the demands adequacy for those kinds of publicness which cross the permeable
and plausibility stn:ictures of all three publícs may , in fact, prove a boundaries of all three publics . The following chapters will attempt
good test sorne formulations of such criteria.
 30 : CHAPTER ON E A SOCIA L PORTRAIT OF TH E TH EOLOGIA N : 3J
In the meantime, let us recall the gains that the present social portrait of
are not to encourage further moves to privateness, the drive to authenti
,the theologian may occasion for all theologil'l:_!1S. If the kind of cally public discourse on the part of ali theologians must be encouraged.
fundamental 'ti_uestions on the very meaningfulness of our existence does The theologian characterized by this portrait will inevitably be engaged
define the nature of all genuinely religious questions, then any individual's in a complex set of strategies designed to be equal to the complexity of
response is ultimately and irreducibly a personal one, a question and a contemporary reality. If theologians share the understanding of society
response for "the single one.'¡' An yet, however correct this existentialist presented here, they are likely to share the present author's concern to
insight into the irrevocably existential and personal character of religious fight against the privatizing forces which separate the realm of culture
and theolog- 1ical questions undoubtedly is, alone it will nQLsqffice. In from the realm of polity. In sum, they will join other humanists in the
fact, as noted demand for a more comprehensive understanding of rationality' in a dis
1 earlier the individualist character of recent existentialist thought tended to
course rationally and responsibly informed in its fuller theories of the
obscure rather than clarify the fuller complexity of any "single one. · By good by the symbolic resources of art, philosophy and religion. If theolo
that failure, existentialism rendered unavailable the truth of its own gians share the present concrn with the character of all disciplined reflec
passionate and enduring insignts into the ultimatel y and irreducibly per tion in any ratiop.al enterprise (i.e., the question of the nature of ari aca
sonal character of each and ali responses to genuinely religious and demic discipline), they are l!!cely to be impelled to reflect upon criteria of
theological questions, adequacy for the different disciplines constituting theology, ordinarily
-¡Each theologian has, in fact, internalized to varios egees three ub under the rubric of discussions of theological method. If they possess a
lics, not one. Each has experienced the force of confhctmg similar theological understanding of "world" or, alternatively, of "com mon
mterpretattons and conflicting plausibility structures in any attempt to human experience" as a genuine locus for theological reflection, they are
make sense of reality. Most have experienced the evaporation and also likely to realize that, theological concern with the "publics" of
eventual collapse of any first naivete toward any religious tradition, society and academy cannot be dismissed as extra-theological.
while sensing the presence In principie, society and academy arenot purely external relationships
of a second naivete towards that same rªH Y· Many have come to recog- _
nize the presence of rel doubt in authentic contemporary fai!,h. .\ Man y: or publics for the responsible theologian. Infact, the socialization process
will also assure that they are not merely externa!to the attitudes of any
after an earlier exhilaration with "pure reason" when "bliss was it in that theologian. If theologians share a similar understanding of church as
dawn to be alive but to be young were very heaven,'' have experienced both a sociological and a theological reality, they are also likely to
Enlightenment hopes for "pure reason" only to see them become the recognize two further needs. First, they must explícate the basic
106
contemporary bonds of a merely instrumental rationality . Many have plausibility struc tures of ali three publics through the formulation of
witnessed the unmourned collapse of all forms of positivism, whether plausibility argu ments and criteria of adequacy as a general theological
secularist or theological, as inadequate and eventually poisonous articula model for inform ing discussions of apparent or real conflicts on
tions of available meaning and tth. Sorne have recognized that, on .the particular issues. Second, they must continue the drive to reinterpret or
other side of our enjoyment of the enrichment of each by the plurahsm retrieve the classical re sources of the church tradition in genuinely new
present to all, lies thefascinans et tremendum reality of each one's seem applications for the pres- ent <lay. ·
ing inability to become a single self any longer. º
1 1
Theology, in fact, is a generic name not for a single discipline but for
Sorne have recognized that the complexity of the contemporary situa three: fundamental, systematic and practica! theologies. Each of these
tion is a cause not for mourning or retreat, but for resoluteness and even, disciplines needs explicit criteria of adequacy. Each is concerned with ali
at times, for joy. For the pressures and questions of our situation will not three publics. Each is irrevocably involved in claims to meaning and
go away by a refusal to face them. And the giftedness of both church and truth. Each is, in fact, determined by a relentless drive to genuine public
world will not be experienced as the liberating reality it is if an ever more
108 ness to and for ali three publics.
fragile sense of obligation alone commands our minds and hearts. In
authentic Christian self-understanding, we are commanded because we
are first enabled and empowered. We are gifted, in creation and redemp Notes
tion, in world and church, by a grace that is radical and universal. That
1. Representative work in this area may be found in the distinct approaches of
grace <loes. not wait upon our designs. It invites and empowers us to
Van A. Harvey, Peter Berger, Matthew Lamb and Gregory Baum. For Harvey,
decision. As a single one, each theol(i'g¡an finally must decide on her or his
own. But if that decision is not to be merely arbitrary, if its consequences