Theological Multilingualism | Neville Ann Kelly, D.Min., Ph.D.

Pope Francis recently invited worldwide Catholics to step outside the calm center of Christianity to see itself from its periphery. He suggested that reality becomes more clearly understood as a complex weave of multiplicity when seen from the margins, rather than from a perceived center of ideological unity.

No longer looking out from its own center, Christianity—whether Catholic or non-Catholic—can turn its gaze to look in on itself, promising the transformational impact much like space travellers’ documented “Overview Effect.”

In light of the (quite literally) spacious abstraction this visual metaphor evokes, I suggested in Part 2 that another sense could help us more concretely—and immediately—begin to “look in” on ourselves. The sense of hearing, used abundantly in Christianity’s mystical literature, is the starting place for this more comprehensive vision of our whole.

Learning an Integral Christian Multilingualism becomes our metaphorical spacecraft to the margins’ comprehensive view, an effort that requires a preliminary description of theology, Christianity’s fundamental experience and concept.

Theologia: A Shifting Understanding

The term theology, or theologia, is derived from the Greek roots theos (θεόσ, god) and logos (λόγοσ, word, language, discourse). Originally understood as personal and communal discourse about God (McGrath, 1998; Schüssler Fiorenza, 1991), theology became more theoretical and speculative “study of God” with the ninth-century rise of urban, clerical schools and the subsequent medieval universities (LeClerq, 1982).

The scholastic theology of the Middle Ages provided an ordered discipline of sacred learning, encompassing systematic study of Christian revelation, belief and doctrine. However, the post-Enlightenment rise of secularism eschewed perceived constraints of sectarian scholarship, ultimately diminishing the presence of theology within public academia.

By the late twentieth century, the divergent needs of increasing religious pluralism led public universities to develop inter-religious departments of Religious Studies, while the Christian theology of denominationally sponsored seminaries and universities became an increasingly disparate group of specialized academic subdivisions seemingly much removed from their classical (LeClerq, 1982; Schüssler Fiorenza, 1991) and more sapiential origins (Barnhart, 2008; Farley, 1983). [1]

Concurrently, some theorists marked paradigmatic collapse and deconstruction of meta-narrative as the necessary postmodern “condition” (Lyotard, 1984), radically reorienting the course of contemporary theological discourse (Vanhoozer, 2006). Challenged with the need for contemporary intelligibility, theological scholarship nonetheless continues to flourish with an extraordinary outpouring of seminal Christian thought. [2]

The Seminal and Often Surprising Description of Theology

Despite this vast corpus of well-reasoned theological discourse and scholarship, the casual inquirer’s exposure is frequently limited to its most rudimentary forms. Easily accessed Web blogs, televangelism or other forms of evangelistic diatribe and sectarian polemic lead some hearers to “assume a stereotypical understanding of theology as an essentially supernaturalistic, dogmatic, and parochial discourse, a caricature that ignores countless developments in the tradition of modern theology” (Nicholson, 2009, p. 610). The specialization of theology as a remotely erudite (and frequently abstruse) academic discipline has furthered this lacuna of popular comprehensibility.

Early Christian theologians however, understood and articulated their craft quite differently than either of these popularly experienced extremes. For example, the fourth century monastic Evagrius Ponticus (345 – 399 CE) articulated a seminal description of the Christian theologian as “one who prays” (trans. 1978, p. 65), an understanding continued—and practiced—throughout the historical unfolding of Christian monasticism (Barnhart, 2008; Frigge, 1992; LeClerq, 1988).

Theology as Transcendence

Contemporary theologian David Tracy (2010) similarly reflects this more sapiential interpretation in his description:

theology is an attentive, contemplative attempt to understand God and all things in their relationship to God” (p. 288).

Such contemplative attentiveness engenders, it is hoped, an authentic practice reflective of transcendent wisdom, capable of holding the particularities of a religious tradition within its greater whole, authentically upholding its mythos while critically—and charitably—appraising its historical interpretation (Farley, 1983).

This view of theology inspires and empowers what has traditionally been known as connaturality (Dych, 1999), a personal and collective, transforming participation in divine love, a self-transcending union with all that is divine. Grounded in a personal encounter with infinite mystery (Rahner, 1970), it is generative of ongoing conversion that is “not a set of propositions that a theologian utters, but a fundamental and momentous change in the human reality that a theologian is” (Lonergan, 1972, p. 270).

Theology is dynamic and alive, capable of authentic self-transcendence, wherein

becoming must be understood as becoming more, as the coming to be of more reality as reaching and achieving a greater fullness of being. But this more must not be understood simply added to what was there before. Rather it must on the one hand be the effect of what was there before, and on the other hand it must be an intrinsic increase in its own being. But this means that if becoming is really to be taken seriously it must be understood as real self-transcendence, as surpassing oneself, as emptiness actively achieving its own fullness. (Rahner, 2002, p. 184)

As this transforming dynamism occurs, theology simultaneously becomes both an interior—even contemplative—way of life, as in its monastic approach, and as a contemporarily relevant, exterior academic discipline initiated but never completely fulfilled by the scholasticism of the Middle Ages.

Such transformative theology, furthermore, initiates and discloses the often divergent depths and complexities of its own interpersonal communication, often finding the mutual silence of mystery as explanatory of meaning as its many interpretive voices.

Listening In

Rather than exclusive domains, theology ideally remains an energetic enactment of interior monastic subjectivity effectively united with the Scholastic objectivity of its academic exteriors. The integrative union, furthermore, of spiritual praxis and cognitive theorization, while historically so often at odds with one another, are reconciled by their mutual interdependence upon the distinct insight and wisdom generated by each of their singular proficiencies.

To see ourselves and the Christian tradition from the empowering margin, we must be capable of not only recognizing and enacting this crucial interior and exterior union, but must also be able to do so across the multiple traditions that define and interpret its own apparently unitive themes with vastly different verbiage. With such bracing linguistic challenges in view, contemporary interpretations of the classic “Tower of Babel” narrative from the Hebrew Scriptures (Gen 11: 1- 9) can next offer insight toward development of Integral Christian multilingualism.

References

Barnhart, B. (2007). The future of wisdom: toward a rebirth of sapiential Christianity. New York: Continuum.

Dych, W. (1992). Karl Rahner (Re-issue 2000 ed.). New York: Continuum.

Evagrius Ponticus. (1978). The Praktikos: Chapters on prayer (J. Bamburger, Trans.). Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications.

Farley, E. (1983). Theologia: The fragmentation and unity of theological education. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Frigge, M. (1992). Schola Christi Benedictine insight for theological education (Doctoral thesis, Boston College Dept. of Theology, Boston, MA).Leclerq, J. (1982). The love of learning and the desire for God: A study of monastic culture. New York: Fordham University Press.

Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

McGrath, A. E. (1998). Historical theology: An introduction to the history of Christian thought. Oxford; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers.

Nicholson, H. (2009). The reunification of theology and comparison in the new comparative theology. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 77(3), 609-646.

Rahner, K. (1970). Rahner, K. (1970). Reflections on method in theology (C. Ernst, Trans.) Theological Investigations (Vol. 11). Oxford: The Way Publishing.

Rahner, K. (2002). Foundations of Christian faith: An introduction to the idea of Christianity (W. V. Dych, Trans.). New York: Crossroad.

Schüssler Fiorenza, F. (1991). Systematic theology: Roman Catholic perspectives (Vol. 1). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Tracy, D. (2010). Theology for Pilgrims By Nicholas Lash. Modern Theology, 26(2), 287-289.

Vanhoozer, K. J. (Ed.). (2006). The Cambridge companion to postmodern theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Endnotes

[1]Schüssler Fiorenza (1991) identifies three classical approaches (the Augustinian, Thomist and Neo-Scholastic) that consistently remain “intricately linked with specific philosophical and theoretical background theories” (p. 35) and yield contemporary perspectives in theological method. LeClerq (1982) notes two theological divisions in his influential examination of monastic culture, wherein scholastic and monastic models yet “draw in common on Christian sources and both enlist the aid of reason” (p. 223), albeit utilizing distinct methodologies to do so. Farley’s three major theological periods (early Christian, Middle Ages, and post-Enlightenment) all possessed the two “fundamental meanings” (p. 44) of 1) the theology/knowledge of sapiential episteme to “practical know how” identified with monasticism and 2) its original extension and deepening through the theology/discipline of a unitive scientia in Scholasticism ultimately generating aggregated specialization (pp. 31- 44). According to Farley, contemporary theological education has witnessed the disappearance of both meanings, a retrieval his text has—at least in part—inspired. See also Congar, Y. (1968). A history of theology. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Additional Protestant perspectives on the history of Christian theology include Olson, R. E. (1999). The story of Christian theology: Twenty centuries of tradition & reform. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity; and Plancher, W. C. (1983). A history of Christian theology: An introduction. Philadelphia: Westminster.

[2] Historical surveys of modern and postmodern twentieth century theologians and their influences include Kerr, F. (2007). Twentieth-century Catholic theologians: From Neoscholasticism to nuptial mysticism. Malden, MA: Blackwell; Ford, D., & Muers, R. (Eds.). (2005). The modern theologians: An introduction to Christian theology since 1918 (3rd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell; and Livingston, J. C., Coakley, S., Evans, J. H., & Schüssler Fiorenza, F. (2006). Modern Christian thought. Vol. 2, The twentieth century. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. For a compendium of postmodern theological approaches collected into seven typologies, see (Vanhoozer, 2006). Particular theological styles, approaches and methods provide varied conceptions of “models” of theology, such as Avery Dulles’ (1974/ 2002). Models of the church (Expanded ed.). New York: Image Books, Doubleday; Francis Schüssler Fiorenza’s (1991) “Five Contemporary Approaches to Theology”; and David Tracy’s (1975/1996) “Models in Contemporary Theology” discussed in a subsequent article.

Disclosure of Material Connection: Some links are affiliate links. This means if you purchase a book by clicking on the link , you contribute to the maintenance of this site. Thank you!

In Part 1 of this series, we pondered the need to see ourselves and our traditions “not from the center but rather from the periphery,” suggesting this shift in perspectives—looking in rather than securely looking out—begins a remarkable expansion of understanding of your faith, spirituality, and world. Learning how to view from the “outside in” is key to every aspect of our growth. Let me explain.

Credit: NASA/NOAA/GSFC/ Suomi NPP/VIIRS/Norman Kuring — “Blue Marble 2012”
Credit: NASA/NOAA/GSFC /Suomi NPP/VIIRS/Norman Kuring

When we turn from immersion in our ordinary experience toward an outer-space view of our whole lives, we are likely to experience what astronaut-philosopher Frank White (1987) termed the “Overview Effect” in interviews with fellow space-traveling astronauts. Those who had seen Earth from space disclosed a consistent pattern of expanding personal insight, overflowing into the complex mid-twentieth century culture that never seemed to get enough of that stunning 1972 “Blue Marble” print.

Through this photograph—no matter how widely traveled or read—humanity was actually seeing itself for the very first time. Suddenly, the vast Earthen territory we had perceived became a small marble suspended in the vacuum of an uninhabitable space. Looking in after millennia of looking out from the small patch of land we called home changed everything.

This is why Christianity needs to see itself from its periphery: we understand who we really are when we relinquish the limited view of the illusory center and head to “outer space.”

Looking in on ourselves, our relationships, and our institutions—rather than simply being embedded in them—is essential for our growth. To know who we are, we need to move beyond the perceptual illusions that so forcefully, yet often imperceptibly, limit our understanding of what is really there. This is risky, and accessing this new view requires a turbulent ride into an unknown, threatening, and ever-so-thin margin. Only by adventuring to this transforming edge can we experience the “Overview Effect.”

Shifting Our Senses

Since a religious tradition is not a planet we can see in space photos, we need help to begin considering how to “see” the whole more abstractly. We will need comparisons, metaphors, and imagination to experience the transformational “Overview Effect.”

We will find, in this task, wisdom of saints, sages, and mystics a guiding example of how a contemplative vision transforms its seer. As Bernard Lonergan (1972) noted,

any notable change of horizon is done, not on the basis of that horizon, but by envisaging a quite different and, at first sight, incomprehensible alternative” (p. 224).

Since of many of us do not consider ourselves to be privileged with mystical vision, we may need to get at this much more concretely. To do so, we can appeal to another of the human senses as our starting point: hearing. The kind of transforming, “overview” vision we need first requires a type of extended listening, an earnest attempt to learn the language of that “incomprehensible” other. Let’s start there.

Listening to the Incomprehensible

Seeking to understand our present context and calling requires an ability to hear the multiple languages the Christian tradition speaks, understands and interprets. This is a move away from the secure clarity of the center toward the disruptive cacophony of uncertainty.

Shifting one’s vision first requires a new kind of listening, translating and comprehending a measure of the multiple languages our tradition has birthed. Such theological multilingualism is a gift transcending Christianity, of course, as I have proposed elsewhere. Nonetheless, the Christian tradition, replete with centuries of development, expands its self-understanding—and its theological wisdom—by listening to its own voices.

In this way, our vision moves away from looking out from a univocal center as we turn to look into ourselves from the periphery.By hearing, we discover what we could never experience in an isolated illusion of common-sense experience. Only by learning the “unknown tongues” so variably voicing our traditions’ wisdom can we begin to see who we actually are.

Learning an Integral Christian Multilingualism

To facilitate learning this challenging theological multilingualism, I will offer a series of longer articles in five thematic parts:

First, we lay a foundation, grasping basics of how Christianity understands “theology” itself. This preliminary understanding is crucial to our process.
Second, we expand the horizon of how the differentiating “Tower of Babel” of our many, often incomprehensible spiritual and theological languages offers a significant key to seeing our whole.
Third, we sketch an orienting geography of how Christianity’s many families have developed over time. This gives us a preliminary sketch of how we might see ourselves from “space.”
Fourth, we survey aspects of the process of how varied theological languages both divide and unify their respective speakers, seeking to understand both their venerable and unintelligible features.
Fifth and finally, we summarily explore how five theological perspectives found across the Christian denominations help us experience a personally transformative “Overview Effect.”

Adequate grasp of the complex, two-thousand year accumulation of Christianity’s comprehensive understanding of itself requires us to stand at multiple margins. Standing at the periphery, we can attentively gaze, listen, and speak in a surprisingly multilingual voice.

Learning an Integral Christian Multilingualism is our metaphorical spacecraft to the farthest reaches of our perimeter, a place we can begin to see the whole/parts of who we really are.

References

Lonergan, B. J. F. (1972). Method in theology. Minneapolis: Seabury.

Spardaro, A. (2014). Wake up the world: Conversation with Pope Francis about the religious life. La Civilta Cattolica(I), 3-17.

White, F. (1998). The overview effect: Space exploration and human evolution (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.