This essay forms part of Prolegomena to Disputationes Theologicae, a series in philosophical theology produced through the Department of Philosophical Theology at Christ School of Theology. The essays together articulate the methodological foundations of the larger Disputationes Theologicae project by recovering the proper order of theological inquiry. They proceed from the conviction that theology exists because these questions exist, and that theology's first responsibility is to render Christian doctrine intelligible without diminishing, translating away, or replacing the reality to which it refers.
Christian theology begins with revelation, but theological inquiry begins with intelligibility. Revelation gives theology its subject matter; intelligibility makes responsible theological judgment possible. Theology therefore does not seek intelligibility because intelligibility creates truth. It seeks intelligibility because finite knowers cannot responsibly affirm what they do not understand.
Much of modern theology has quietly reversed this order. It has assumed that doctrine can be defended, proclaimed, appropriated, or revised before asking whether the doctrine itself has first been rendered intelligible. The result has been a theology that often knows what it wishes to affirm while remaining uncertain about what, precisely, it is affirming.
Christian theology has often assumed that its principal task is to state the doctrines of the Christian faith correctly. The assumption is understandable. Doctrine matters because truth matters, and the Church cannot confess faithfully if it no longer knows what it is confessing.
Yet a doctrine may be repeated correctly without being understood. It may retain its inherited vocabulary while the distinctions that once gave that vocabulary meaning have disappeared. It may be defended with great conviction even though no one can say clearly what would have to be true for the doctrine itself to be true.
The problem is therefore deeper than doctrinal disagreement. Before theology can ask whether a doctrine ought to be affirmed, rejected, defended, or revised, it must ask whether the doctrine has first become intelligible.
Intelligibility comes before doctrine.
This claim does not mean that theology exists before revelation, Scripture, or confession. Christian theology receives its subject from revelation and its language through the scriptural and ecclesial traditions that bear witness to it. Nor does it mean that the theologian must first construct a neutral philosophical foundation upon which Christian doctrine may later be placed.
It means something more modest and more demanding. Before a theological judgment can be responsibly affirmed, theology must understand what is being claimed, what distinctions the claim requires, what realities its terms identify, and what would follow if the claim were true.
This methodological ordering may be expressed in a single governing principle: intelligibility is not the source of theological truth; it is the condition under which theological truth can be responsibly affirmed or denied.
Theology therefore seeks intelligibility not because revelation requires philosophical completion, but because theological judgment requires conceptual clarity concerning what revelation gives. Its task is not to supplement revelation but to understand it responsibly.
A sentence can be grammatically familiar while remaining conceptually obscure. Christians may say that God is triune, that the Word became flesh, that Christ is present in the sacrament, that God acts providentially, or that the dead will be raised. Each sentence belongs recognizably to Christian confession. Yet familiarity does not by itself secure intelligibility.
What does it mean to say that God is one and three? In what respect is God one, and in what respect three? What is meant by person and nature? What must be true if the one who suffered under Pontius Pilate is the eternal Son? What kind of presence is claimed when the Church says that Christ gives his body and blood? What relation between divine and creaturely causality is implied by providence? What makes the person raised numerically identical with the person who died?
These are not questions imposed upon doctrine from outside. They arise from doctrine itself. They are required if doctrine is to become more than the repetition of inherited expressions.
The first discipline of intelligibility is conceptual distinction. Theology must distinguish what should not be confused.
Person is not nature. Cause is not ground. Reference is not meaning. Truth is not usefulness. Divine action is not one finite cause alongside another. Presence is not necessarily spatial location. Participation is not identity. Mystery is not contradiction. Incomprehensibility is not unintelligibility.
Much theological confusion arises because one term is asked to perform the work of several. The Holy Spirit is invoked to solve a problem of reference, warrant, sanctification, ecclesial authority, or personal experience without distinguishing those questions. Participation is used to explain likeness, causality, communion, transformation, and identity as though these were one relation. Divine mystery is appealed to when an argument has merely failed to specify what it means.
Philosophical theology begins by resisting such conflations. Its first service is not invention but distinction. Before proposing new constructions, it seeks to clarify inherited judgments by identifying the conceptual boundaries within which responsible theological reasoning becomes possible.
Yet conceptual intelligibility is only one part of the matter. There is also semantic intelligibility: the question of how theological language means anything at all.
Words acquire meaning through histories of use, patterns of inference, relations of contrast, practices of correction, and the realities to which they are directed. The word “resurrection,” for example, cannot mean whatever a speaker wishes it to mean. It belongs within scriptural narratives, Jewish expectations, apostolic testimony, creedal confession, liturgical practice, and disputes concerning bodily identity and death. To redefine resurrection as the survival of influence, the persistence of memory, or the continuing significance of Jesus may preserve a religious function while changing the subject.
The same is true of “God,” “creation,” “incarnation,” “sin,” “grace,” and “judgment.” Theological terms are neither empty containers nor private symbols. They possess histories, identities, inferential commitments, and conditions of responsible use.
Semantic intelligibility therefore requires more than clarity of style. A sentence may be written plainly and still change the meaning of its central terms. Conversely, a difficult doctrine may remain intelligible even when its subject exceeds complete comprehension.
This distinction is essential. To render a doctrine intelligible is not to make it simple, obvious, or exhaustively transparent. God is not made comprehensible by being described coherently. The incarnation does not cease to be mysterious when person and nature are distinguished. Resurrection does not become empirically predictable when its identity conditions are clarified.
Intelligibility is therefore not mastery. It is the disciplined determination of what is being claimed, how the claim holds together, what it excludes, and what reality would have to be like for it to be true. Theology does not remove mystery by rendering doctrine intelligible. It distinguishes genuine mystery from conceptual confusion and thereby allows mystery to remain genuinely theological.
There is, finally, an ontological dimension of intelligibility. Theological language can be meaningful only because reality itself is sufficiently determinate to be known, identified, and judged.
If things possessed no identities, properties, relations, histories, or powers, there would be nothing for language to describe correctly or incorrectly. If Jesus Christ were merely the product of ecclesial interpretation, the Church could not be corrected by the one it confesses. If God were only a function of religious language, theology could never discover that its language had falsified its subject.
The intelligibility of theological discourse therefore presupposes that reality is not created by discourse. Language mediates our access to reality, but it does not bring its referent into existence.
This is the fundamental realist commitment of Disputationes Theologicae. Theology speaks through finite concepts, historical languages, contested traditions, and fallible judgments. Yet it speaks about realities that are not constituted by those concepts, languages, traditions, or judgments.
Theology can therefore be wrong, and that possibility is not an embarrassment to theological reasoning but one of its necessary conditions. A discourse incapable of falsehood is equally incapable of truth.
If every doctrinal formulation becomes valid merely because it functions within a community, theology has ceased to make judgments about reality and has become the description of ecclesial practice.
The demand for intelligibility is therefore also a demand for corrigibility. A doctrine must be stated clearly enough that one can identify what would count against it, what would expose an equivocation, and what would show that the subject has been changed.
This is why inherited language, however venerable, cannot be protected from analysis. The purpose of analysis is not to dissolve the confession but to determine whether the language still performs the work for which it was formed.
The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, must preserve both divine unity and irreducible personal distinction. An account that secures unity by reducing Father, Son, and Spirit to modes of appearance has not clarified the doctrine. It has changed it. An account that secures distinction by positing three independent divine beings has done the same.
The doctrine of the incarnation must preserve the identity of the one Son and the integrity of both divine and human natures. An account that protects divinity by assigning suffering to an independent human subject has changed the subject. So has an account that makes the divine nature itself passible in precisely the same respect as the humanity.
Theological intelligibility therefore has boundaries. It does not mean that every formulation is equally acceptable so long as it can be explained. It means that the reality confessed imposes constraints upon the concepts by which it is articulated.
This is also why intelligibility must precede apologetics. Theology cannot responsibly defend a doctrine it has not first understood. Nor can it translate doctrine for contemporary hearers until it knows what must survive the translation.
Much modern theology has moved too quickly from inherited doctrine to contemporary appropriation. It asks what the Trinity, incarnation, resurrection, or justification might mean for us before asking what those doctrines claim to be true. The result is often a theology rich in significance but uncertain in reference.
A doctrine may matter profoundly and still be false. It may shape identity, generate hope, sustain community, and inspire ethical action while failing to refer to the reality it names. Usefulness therefore cannot substitute for truth, and existential significance cannot substitute for intelligibility.
Theology must therefore first ask what it is saying before it asks whether what it says is true, and only then may it ask how that truth is to be proclaimed, embodied, and lived. This ordering does not diminish doctrine. It protects doctrine from becoming a formula repeated after its subject has disappeared, proclamation from becoming eloquence without reference, ecclesial practice from becoming self-authorization, and faith from being asked to trust what theology has not yet made sufficiently clear to be judged.
The first discipline of theological reason is therefore intelligibility. Its task is neither to simplify Christian doctrine nor to dissolve mystery into conceptual transparency. It seeks to determine as carefully as possible what Christian doctrine actually claims, what distinctions its truth requires, and what realities its language intends.
Theology seeks intelligibility because truth deserves to be understood.
Truth belongs to reality itself. Intelligibility belongs to our responsible apprehension and judgment of that reality. Theology therefore seeks intelligibility not because it creates truth, but because finite knowers cannot responsibly affirm what they do not understand. Only a doctrine rendered intelligible can be responsibly judged, and only what can be responsibly judged can be responsibly affirmed or denied.
The next question therefore follows necessarily:
How does theological language become genuinely about God?
No comments:
Post a Comment