Review of Theological Method: A Guide for the Perplexed – By: Paul L. Allen
Allen, P., Theological Method: A Guide for the Perplexed. New York, NY: T&T Clark International, 2012.
Paul Allen illuminates the shadowy realm of theological methodology through an insightful analysis its historical development. Using the methodological categories of Bernard Lonergan, Allen unpacks the methods of influential theologians, from the apostle Paul to modern-day thinkers, in order to show the reader the evolution and growing emphasis on theological method.
Allen summarizes each theologian’s methodology in the context of five fundamental questions:
- The role of philosophy and related epistemological and metaphysical presuppositions in theology.
- The coherence of individual criteria that serve as theological starting points.
- How one emphasizes various sources of theology such as the Bible.
- The nature of the theological task, such as the conception of critical correlation with other disciplines.
- Procedure for doing theology, e.g. Lonergan’s functional specialties.
As Allen moves chronologically from one theologian to the next, he explains which of these five fundamental topics were significant for each, and how these questions were answered. Allen demonstrates his intellectual agility in avoiding ensnarement in doctrinal or dogmatic specifics, focusing instead on the methodological moves behind the specifics. The actual beliefs of the theologians are examined only insofar as they shed light on the five fundamental questions.
Allen shares Lonergan’s definition of method: “For Lonergan, method is ‘a normative pattern of recurrent and related operations yielding cumulative and progressive results’”. (Allen, p 8) It should be mentioned here that many past theologians had either no clearly developed method to their work or only a partially developed methodology. Since most of the theologians Allen examines have left no explicit record of their methods, he is forced to reach methodological conclusions based upon theological writings – an inductive process which is inherently subjective. Therefore, Allen’s conclusions of each theologian’s methodology is highly interpretive. He fails to allow for the possibility that his conclusions are subjective readings into the work of other thinkers, and thus potentially incorrect. Though he is very convincing in his interpretations of the methods of the theologians he examines, one must keep Allen’s own methodology in mind and judge each theologian’s writings for oneself. With this qualifier in place, we will proceed to briefly summarize Allen’s analysis of each theologian’s methods, and the picture thus painted of the evolution of theological methodology.
Allen begins with an examination of the apostle Paul. He interprets Paul’s method as that of a student of the Jewish scriptures who has had a vital encounter with the risen Christ. “…[Paul’s] experience of Christ and his interpretation of the Hebrew Bible are unique, partly because of the fusion of distinctive Jewish elements with his Christian faith.” (Allen, p 24) Thus for Paul, his beliefs draw upon two primary sources, his Jewish religious training and his religious experience with Christ. These two sources operate coherently, in that Paul’s Christology compels him to reinterpret the Old Testament in light of Jesus the Messiah. Allen draws from this coherence the motivation behind Paul’s emphases on justification by faith, original sin, the Trinity and his ethical teachings in the Epistles. Allen concludes that Paul’s methodology of experience informed hermeneutics sets the biblical groundwork for theological advances in relation to ecclesial praxis, such as lex orandi est lex credendi – ‘the rule of prayer becomes the rule of belief’. Here the reader should also notice Allen’s affection for the New Perspective on Paul when he says, “…this perspective provides a helpful, and perhaps necessary, corrective to the older, traditional view of Paul’s view of justification.” (Allen, p 30) Allen apparently embraces the New Perspective emphasis on Jewish thought over Greek philosophy in Paul’s methodology. This may be further influencing his implication that Paul values experience over reason, as well as shaping Allen’s narrative in which later theologians prefer spiritual experience to philosophy.
Allen moves on to discuss the methods of the Patristic era, specifically Irenaeus, Origin and Athanasius. During this era we see the birth of tradition as source of theological authority. This was the result of the use of theology as a means of defining orthodoxy and resisting the growth of heretical groups. Methodologically, the Patristics were therefore required to systematize and homogenize their doctrines to be used by the church at large as tools of ecclesial law. Building on Paul’s application of Christology to interpreting the Old Testament, the Patristics developed an allegorical hermeneutic, wherein Christ could be found as the theme throughout the scriptures. This led to Irenaeus’ famous recapitulation hermeneutic. “Recapitulation for Irenaeus is a term that captures the summing up of scripture and history in the headship of Christ in contrast to that of Adam.” (Allen, p 56) Origen goes further in his method, searching the scriptures through allegory for a tri-part – historical, moral, and spiritual – meaning. However, the speculative nature of the allegorical reading of scripture leads Origen to distinguish between necessary and optional doctrines, molding the definition of orthodoxy and shaping the methods of future theologians.
Augustine is awarded his own chapter in Allen’s text, due to his profound influence on Christian theology and method. Augustine’s most important contribution to theological method regards the interpretation of scripture. Allen asserts that Augustine balances the excesses of allegorical interpretation by his attention to the meaning of the biblical languages. Quoting Jeanrond, Allen says, “The semiotic dimension of Augustine’s interpretation theory frees the reader of biblical texts both from any crude literalism and from the dangers of arbitrary allegorization.” (Allen, p 75) This further opens the field of acceptable theological sources by allowing, “…Christians to interpret the Bible with the insistence of secular disciplines, specifically the trivium and the quadrivium.” (Allen, p 75) Augustine’s hermeneutic is therefore cognizant of both internal textual factors as well as external social contributions to understanding. This is important for Augustine, as his methodology assumed the possibility of multiple meanings of a passage of scripture, as long as none of those meanings contradicted the whole of the Bible. Allen concludes of Augustine, “…his various hermeneutical rules – the theme of love, God’s revelation in and through the human heart, and the rule of interpreting the difficult passages through clearer ones – together constitute a single hermeneutical vision, a theological method.” (Allen, p 81)
Allen moves on from the Patristics to cover the methodological innovations of notable medieval theologians such as Pseudo-Dionysus, Anselm, and Aquinas. During this period Allen traces the growing confluence of philosophy with theological methodology. Pseudo-Dionysus embraces Neo-Platonism’s concept of God as essentially unknowable. Anselm further attempts to fuse philosophy with theology, “…a movement away from a reverential approach to sources to an approach in which disputation and interdisciplinary collaboration are formally incorporated into the teaching and writing of theology.” (Allen, p 96) Anselm incorporates philosophy by coining the phrase ‘fides quearens intellectum’ – ‘faith seeking understanding’. Thus, “For Anselm, the church’s faith is conceived as a rule by which the fruits of philosophical reasoning can be measured.” (Allen, p 97) Later, Allen will show the reversal of this position, where theology lays in submission to philosophy. Before this reversal, however, Aquinas undertakes his tremendous systematization of Christian doctrine, wherein he clearly looks to revelation as the source of doctrine while allowing that revelation does not oppose reason. This juxtaposition of revelation and reason can be seen in Aquinas’ natural theology. His famous ‘Five Ways’ begins with the revelation of God as Creator, and uses philosophy to bolster the revelation with rational evidences. Also of great importance is Aquinas’ development of theological language. “At a time when church doctrines become more numerous and complex, the forging of a distinct language of systematic theology is crucial for the development of theological method.” (Allen, p 116) This accounts for Aquinas’ fundamental theological influence beyond the Protestant Reformation until today.
Allen tackles the development of theological methodology by next examining the Reformers Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin. The theme of sola scriptura is traced to Augustine’s influence, but with a distinct Reformed twist. “Take Martin Luther’s approach towards reason, for instance…his characterization of reason is hostile to say the least.” (Allen, p 118) Reason is fallen and sinful, and so must be fully submitted to revelation in scripture alone. Nevertheless, Luther is adept in his use of reason and rhetoric when developing and spreading his primary doctrine of justification by faith. Methodologically, we see in Luther an anthropocentric theology. The Bible is the story of man falling into sin and being saved by God. Revelation trumps reason repeatedly in Luther’s thought. For instance, God is revealed to be just, and so His justice is not to be questioned when considering His treatment of unbelieving men. In respect to scriptural sources, Luther goes so far as to question the canonicity of James and Hebrews when they seem to contradict his theory of justification. So while Luther intends to annul the medieval union of theology with philosophy, we find him resorting to philosophical reason to support his theological assertions.
Moving forward into the early modern era, Allen characterizes this time period as one of theological unrest, due to the rising influence of Enlightenment secular thought. In response to the growing emphasis on method in science, theological methodology becomes more explicit in the writings of theologians such as Schleiermacher, Newman and Ritschl. In Particular, Schleiermacher developed principles for the inclusion of personal experience in theological reflection. “The label of foundationalism is applied because Schleiermacher conceptualizes religious experience rather than particular ideas or doctrines as the basis for constructing theological claims.” (Allen, p 146) Methodologically, Schleiermacher downplays the role of scripture, while exalting philosophy and experience in theology. Schleiermacher, “…lauds the role of dialectic and hermeneutics as key to the theological method…the importance of hermeneutics is due to the practical demands of pastoral ministry, the demand for adequate preaching, for instance.” (Allen, p 150) This approach to the interpretation and application of scripture is a precursor to postmodern theology, since, “For Schleiermacher there is no pure experience apart from language.” (Allen, p 150) The biblical text must therefore be read in light of both the intention of the author as well as the historical-cultural context of the reader. These principles lead critics to judge Schleiermacher’s theology as potentially pantheistic, or wholly unable to speak meaningfully about the biblical God.
Correlation and anti-correlation form the theme of Allen’s next section, which focuses on the methods of Bultmann, Barth and Tillich. Bultmann’s significance to the evolution of theological method is drawn from his de-mythologization of the biblical narrative. Of this method, Allen observes, “His outlook is one of the first explicit attempts to correlate the core insights and themes of Christian theology with that of modern learning and modern science.” (Allen, p 169) Bultmann’s further significance is in his attempt to situate theology in man’s existential encounter with God, rather than through the narratives of scripture, obscured as it is by the mythical language of the biblical writers.
Barth takes an opposing approach to Schleiermacher and Bultmann, embracing an anti-correlationist view that denies the ability of human speech to describe a spiritual God. Instead, for Barth, “The criterion for good theology is not epistemological per se, but strictly in terms of whether it allows God’s own revelation to be clarified. The criterion for theology is the event of the Word of God.” (Allen, p 175) Thus Barth rejects the shaping of theological method along scientific lines, for he describes God as inherently incomprehensible to human understanding, outside His own self-revelation. From this position, Barth is clearly denouncing the use of human philosophy in theology, as well as rejecting practices such as categorizing doctrines into fundamental and non-fundamental groupings – a practice of scientific method. Further, “Barth reiterates that it is the church that produces theology. Theology, therefore is a collective enterprise, one that is ecclesial in character and thrust.” (Allen, p 179) Therefore, we see in Barth a rejection of philosophy, including hermeneutical and theological methods which attempt to impose human philosophy on the Word of God, as revealed in the person of Christ.
Diametrically opposed to Barth is Tillich, who Allen describes as, “…the most methodologically attentive theologian of the twentieth century…and characteristic of twentieth-century theology’s love affair with philosophy.” (Allen, p 182) Tillich is best known for his emphasis on ‘correlational method’, which, “…came to express theological method as the correlation of the questions of modern persons, on the one hand, and the answers of Christian revelation on the other hand. The goal is always to render the Christian faith meaningful to contemporary people.” (Allen, p 182) Allen concludes by noting of both Tillich and Bultmann that, “…we see a tight correlation between the synamics of subject and object, of human and divine action, so tight as to force the reader to wonder…whether Tillich is promoting a form of self-understanding in place of a more genuine notion of religious faith.” (Allen, p 186)
Allen concludes his examination of the historical development of theological method with a brief look at several contemporary theological movements, such as Radical Orthodoxy, Post Liberalism and Liberation Theology. He sees in each of these groups, “…that contemporary theology is increasingly wedded to a fusion of methodical concerns with a clearer theological identity.” (Allen, p 207) Rather than exclusive theological approaches such as traditionalism or correlationism, contemporary theology is attempting to fuse theological method with contextual identity. For example, Allen notes the similarity between post-liberal and post-colonial theology. While the two differ significantly in content, these disparate groups share a method which, “…thinks about God through an explicit recourse to narrative, including the narrative of biblical text, human experience, and especially, both of these together.” (Allen, p 207)
Allen summarizes his exploration of theological methodology by boiling the issues down to five fundamental questions:
- the role of philosophy and related epistemological and metaphysical presuppositions in theology
- the coherence of individual criteria that serve as theological starting points (e.g. Barth’s Word of God)
- how one emphasizes various sources of theology such as the Bible
- the nature of the theological task (e.g. Tillich’s critical correlation)
- procedure (e.g. Lonergan’s functional specialties)
Each of the theologians Allen unpacks for the reader describes how one or more of these questions bear on the theological enterprise. Allen convincingly outlines the changing roles of scripture, philosophy and human experience in theological method. Unfortunately, while Allen mention’s Lonergan repeatedly in the text, we are never given any specific information about Lonergan’s contributions to theological method. His functional specialties are left undefined, and the reader is left to wonder how Lonergan serves as a coalescing principle for understanding methodology as it has developed through the centuries. Though Allen’s subtitle, ‘A Guide for the Perplexed’, suggests the reader ought to have some knowledge of the subject at hand, without the inclusion of a clear explanation of Lonergan’s concepts, we are left with some perplexity on the subject. However, Allen’s overview of theological method does answer many questions and provides a valuable outline for the student of theology to direct his or her further studies.