Миф о едином богословском методе: обоснование методологического плюрализма в современной теологии

Following the Traces of God in Art: Aesthetic Theology as Foundational Theology: An Introduction Davide Zordan and Stefanie Knauss In the last forty or so years, the field of aesthetics has provided a rich source of stimuli for new developments in theological thinking. For far too long, theology has remained focused on the study of texts, theories, and concepts, neglecting the experiential, affective, and sensory dimensions of human life. And even in those respects that underscore the intrinsic relation of the theological to the aesthetic, theology has limited itself to a strictly metaphysical framework, such as with regard to the concept of the beauty of God, which was conceptualized abstractly as an “attribute” of the divine, but an attribute that is sensitively unattainable and thus merely nostalgically evoked. It is certainly Hans Urs von Balthasar's merit to have rediscovered the aesthetic dimension of theology and to have opened up theological reflection to the contributions of aesthetic theory. His theological aesthetics, based on the concepts of “form” and “splendor/glory,” combines a theme of foundational theology, namely the discovery of the figure of God who reveals Godself (i.e., the issue of how God's revelation can be perceived and received by human beings), and a dogmatic theme, the doctrine of participation in the divine life (in the form of ravishment or entrancement in God's beauty). Von Balthasar is revolutionary for his time in that he declares that a theology that takes seriously the challenge of the aesthetic cannot be content with an analogical reflection on concepts like “beauty,” “light,” or “measure,” but has to dare to take new roads looking for new categories. “Aesthetics must surrender itself and go in search of new categories.” As such, von Balthasar has had a decisive influence on the development of theology and in particular aesthetic theology, which also reflects in some of the papers collected here. These articles, however, also point to a second aspect that has motivated and shaped the development of aesthetic theology in recent years, namely the challenge that contemporary culture, the aesthetic sphere itself, issues to theology. Paul Tillich has prepared the ground for this with his thesis of the absolute ground of being that appears in creative activity itself and in its products and artworks, to varying degrees, depending on style and form. However, his method of correlation between the existential questions implied in human existence that emerge in culture or cultural products such as visual arts, and the answers supplied by theology on the basis of revelation (as transmitted in Scripture and tradition) has been criticized later on. Indeed, art itself can provide, if not perfect answers to these questions, at least building stones that can contribute productively to theological reflection, and be a part of the continuous self‐revelation of God in history. In a theological‐aesthetic perspective understood as hermeneutic and epistemological, art is truly a locus theologicus in the classical sense, a space where new theological insight is generated, and where religious experience is possible. More recent theological approaches to the aesthetic therefore appreciate the autonomy of art and aesthetic experiences and take it seriously as an authentic expression of existential human questions, sincere attempts at meaning and sense, and reflections of a (maybe anonymous or unconscious) human desire for the transcendent. If the developments of theological aesthetics have seemed slow and at times even to turn in circles, this is due to the fact that apart from a general, and easy enough recognition of the proximity between the theological and the aesthetical, the further delineation of their relationship and their respective positions has not been easy. On the one hand, it is all too tempting to use art as a simple appendix to, or illustration of, theological concepts, or to limit aesthetic‐theological reflections to an enumeration of religious motifs in artworks. On the other hand, aesthetics and art theory appear hesitant to appreciate a religious dimension of arts, insisting on the separation of cultural and religious spheres. What would be needed to move out of this impasse and define better the relationship between aesthetics and theology? On the part of theology, it would be helpful to appropriate a concept of...

Can Eastern Orthodoxy apply the term “church” to other Christian communities? Emerging from the 2016 Pan-Orthodox Council, this issue sparked one of the most heated ebated in contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy. According to Maican, grappling with this question within the current framework of Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology presents significant challenges. In this unifying work, he argues that neither the emphasis on the Eucharist nor the adherence to the Tradition of the Fathers is capable of accommodating legitimate Christian otherness. Instead, Maican proposes a cruciform ecclesiology, positing the cross as not only foundational to doctrines and sacraments but also as the primary criterion for discerning the ecclesial nature of a community. Through dialogue with Dumitru Staniloae, Hans Urs von Balthasar and Paul Tillich, this book employs a conversationalist approach to this intricate problem. Ultimately, Maican provides a nuanced examination of the cross in ecclesiology, yielding bold propositions for recognizing the ecclesial status of other Christian communities.

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the theological relevance and significance of Paul Tillich’s ‘method of correlation’ with regard to the Korean political situation, with a particular focus on the issue of the unification of North and South Korea. The first part of the article critically appropriates Tillich’s philosophical‐theological concepts such as the ‘demonic’, the ‘polarities’ and the ‘kingdom of God’ in order to analyse how the historical existence of the Korean people has been deeply shaped by the division of Korea. The second part of the article constructively applies an in-depth reading of Tillich’s theology of peace, in presenting a theological perspective on how the unification of the two Koreas might be attained through a co-reconstructive endeavour between the divided peoples of North and South Korea.

Pediatric patient and family engagement is an active and collaborative process, that involves children, adolescents, and family members with lived experience contributing to the design, implementation, and evaluation of healthcare services. Prior studies have highlighted the patient engagement methods and impact in clinical care, education, and research. However, gaps remain in understanding the commonalities and distinctions of engagement approaches, patient/family partner roles, and outcomes in clinical care, education, and research contexts. Further, research examining the nuances of pediatric patient and family engagement within healthcare delivery, education, and research in pediatric institutions is needed to streamline efforts. This scoping review will identify the commonalities of and distinctions between pediatric patient and family engagement in clinical care, education, and research contexts in pediatric healthcare institutions. A scoping review, conducted in collaboration with a team of adolescent, young adult, and family partners, will allow us to systematically map out key concepts, evidence, and knowledge gaps regarding pediatric patient and family engagement in clinical care, education, and research. We will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute framework in the design and conduct of the review and guidance on engaging knowledge users within scoping reviews. The protocol for this scoping review has been registered with the Open Science Framework database (https://osf.io/63qx5). This study will describe the engagement types, approaches, and outcomes of pediatric patient and family engagement employed within clinical care, education, and research settings, highlighting commonalities and distinctions across contexts. In doing so, it will identify potential opportunities for collaboration and resource-sharing based on the context of engagement and provide needed clarity on streamlining pediatric patient and family engagement approaches within pediatric institutional settings. It is anticipated that the results will produce preliminary evidence of relevance to pediatric institutions seeking to consolidate engagement practices across clinical care, education, and research domains.

Queer Systems: The Benefits of a More Systematic Approach to Queer Theology Ivy Helman Queer theology often struggles to convince many Christians of its message of acceptance.1 This occurs in spite of the fact that queer theology hopes to bring about a more just, humane and liberating manifestation of Christianity for all humanity, queers and non‐queers alike. Queer theology, it seems, needs to strengthen and develop itself as a theological discipline in order to have a greater impact. Among the many current theological disciplines now available, systematic theology could help queer theology do just that. Systematic theology has three salient characteristics that could strengthen queer theology’s arguments; queer theology could also benefit from an acknowledgment of its systematic tendencies. One characteristic of systematic theology seems to be a logical, coherent argument based on a unifying principle. Another salient feature appears to be the way systematic theology is an ordered, in‐depth investigation of a broad range of topics. Finally, the third characteristic of systematic theology that could benefit queer theology is the way systematic theology suggests exploring cultural and social components of society and reinterpreting Christian truth in a way that accounts for this context. This often means advocating for change in order to make the Christian message more suited to the times. One can acknowledge the first tendency of systematic theology—it appears to be a logical, coherent argument with a unifying principle— in the theories of three authors: Paul Tillich, A. N. Williams and Christine Helmer. Helmer writes, “System represents a partial or total comprehension by thought of the reality of particular entities or actions” (1). In other words, systematic theologians try to make sense out of the world around them. One can see the principle of coherence in Helmer’s writing. A. N. Williams suggests systematicity’s characteristic of being logical in his article for The International Journal of Systematic Theology entitled “What Is Systematic Theology?” Williams seems to argue that systematic theology is “simply theology which makes explicit that rationality and that relationality” (55). Williams suggests that all systematic theology has three key characteristics: coherence, relationality and rationality (41, 48 and 53, respectively). This emphasis on rationality could be interpreted as an emphasis on logic. In addition, one can see that Williams stresses coherence as well. Finally, a well‐known and oft‐cited author on systematic theology, Paul Tillich indicates the need for unity, what he calls a “method of correlation” (8). This unifying idea coordinates “questions and answers, situation and message, human existence and divine manifestation” (Tillich, 8). Tillich seems to be arguing for the need for systematic theology to unify its message as it addresses its many areas of interest. Systematic theology also seems to consist of an ordered, in‐depth examination of a variety of topics. In their definitions of systematic theology, Leo Garrett Jr. and Daniel Jenkins seem to agree on the significance of these systematic tendencies. Specifically Jenkins seems to stress the in‐depth inquiry into a broad range of topics. He believes ethics to be part of systematic theology (Jenkins, 108). Likewise, “… to be systematic, theology must include a statement of the nature of theological method, of the doctrine of the Trinity, of God and [God’s] attributes or perfections; of creation; of Jesus Christ, his person and work, and related to him, of Christian anthropology in terms of [hu]man[ity], sin and grace; of the Spirit and the Church” (Jenkins, 107). Jenkins’s list appears to be quite comprehensive in scope and seems to demand quite detailed theological work. There seems to be no part of Christianity that systematic theology can or should ignore. Garrett, in his book Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical and Evangelical, recommends that systematic theology concern itself with the relationship of doctrines to each other and an ordered presentation of material (3 and 16). Here, one can see a range of topics Garrett believes systematic theology should address. Likewise, in Garrett’s work, the reader can see the ordered characteristic of systematic theology. One could argue that the third salient characteristic of systematic theology seems to be its evaluation of contemporary society and its appeal for change. Here again one can see...

Where do Paul Tillich's views of the relationship between religion and science fit in Ian Barbour's four classifications of conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration? At different levels of analysis, he fits in all of them. In concrete religions and sciences, some conflict is evident, but religion and science can be thought of as having parallel perspectives, languages, and objectives. Tillich's method of correlation itself is a form of dialogue. His theology of nature in “Life and the Spirit” (Part 4 of his Systematic Theology) fits the integration type. His strong “Two Types of Philosophy of Religion” (in Theology of Culture) is a latent natural theology. His system of the sciences is a form of synthesis, a type of integration.

It is widely acknowledged that Paul Tillich's engagement with the arts was the most sustained of any theologian of his generation. Indeed, more than that of any other theologian of the twentieth century, it is Tillich's theological encounter with art that has been the most profound, creative and influential (albeit often indirectly). Moreover, Tillich's reflections on the relationship between theology and art were crucial, indeed in many ways formative, for his wider project of a theology of culture, itself fundamental to his reformulation of theology as correlative to the concerns of his contemporaries. From our perspective, it is perhaps all too easy to overlook the dramatic - and profoundly unsettling - transformations that took place in the artistic spheres in Tillich's lifetime. Among other factors, new movements (e.g. impressionism, expressionism and modernism), new media (e.g. photography and film) and new estimations of the role of the artist (e.g. art for art's sake, readymades and popular art) all led to a need for a new theological engagement, one deeply rooted in the Christian tradition, inspired by the German Idealist tradition of art theory, and immersed within the new art of the avant garde . It is to Tillich's great credit that he took up this challenge and it is his great achievement that he gave to theologians and religious people a means of engaging with the new artistic situation of the twentieth century. Drawing on theological, philosophical and cultural analyses, Tillich gave his contemporaries a language with which they could enter into a genuine dialogue with the arts, both in terms of theological interpretation of art and of theological development through art.

Although tomes have been written on Paul Tillich's "method of correlation" as an organizing principle of his systematic theology, his own understanding of his procedure, absorbed from writing two dissertations on Schelling, is more accurately labelled "dialectics." Tillich's importance in the history of twentieth century theology rests in good part on his critical and systematic appropriation of existential insights in theology, which turn on the philosophical sense of dialectics that he imbibed from Schelling and Kierkegaard. This paper, more expository than argumentative, is especially for those who, like me, were educated in an Anglo-American history of philosophy which took seriously only Hegelian and Marxist versions of dialectics. In what follows, I shall (1) note some notions of the term "dialectics" in the history of philosophy leading up to Tillich; (2) reflect on some motifs in Soren Kierkegaard's existentialist responses to Hegelianism; and (3) consider Tillich's early conception of theonomous culture and related components of his systematic theology. I do not go into other possible readings of the Kierkegaardian corpus, which focus more on Kierkegaard's later work.

HE purpose of Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology is present method and structure of a theological written from an apologetic point of view and carried through in a continuous with philosophy.' A help in questions: this is exactly purpose of this theological system, Tillich announces in preface to Volume One (viii.). His apologetic is an answering theology which questions implied in human in power of eternal message and with means provided by whose questions it answers (I, 6). His entire attempts to use the method of correlation as a way of uniting Christian message and existential situation; and he observes that it will be a positive judgment concerning his if both theological and non-theological thinkers acknowledge that this method has helped them understand Christian message as answer to questions implied in their own and in every human situation (I, 8). In applying method of correlation, he proceeds by first making an analysis of human out of which man's existential questions arise and then by demonstrating that symbols used in Christian message are to these questions (I, 62). The structure of Tillich's theological is determined by method of correlation. method dictates that each part of contain both a section in which questions are developed by an analysis of human existence and of existence generally and a section in which theological are given on basis of sources, norm, and medium of systematic theology. This division must be maintained. It is backbone of present system (I, 66). The main body of is comprised of Being

This chapter examines how Paul Tillich’s method of correlation is challenged but potentially compatible with the questioning of binaries that occurs in new materialism. In particular it examines how Karen Barad’s agential realism, and its primordial ontological unity of the ‘phenomenon’ understood as a relation without relata, disrupts the axiomatic reliance on a distinction between self and world that underpins the method of correlation specifically and many forms of correlational theology more generally. Giving weight to Tillich’s broad understanding of existentialism and its potential connection to his account of theonomy provides a way forward that gives credence to the ‘intra-action’ that has become critical to many forms of posthumanism and new materialism.

This chapter discusses Paul Tillich's conceptual elaborations with regards to his philosophy of religion as well as his particular way of understanding metaphysics as a 'theoretical and universal function of meaning' that opens the door to a unique connection with the sciences. It presents several of his arguments in search of a method which is most favourable to the philosophy of religion and then attempt to reveal how Tillich develops his theology of culture, differentiating between content, form and substance of reality. It is not possible to speak with Tillich about a theology of culture without also considering the philosophy of religion and the history of cultural values. The chapter explores what Tillich means by 'the dimension of depth', as it is an inherent function of life; a part of the human being in all his possibilities and dimensions. It finally contrasts these arguments with regard to the current debate on the relationship between science and religion.

Psalms and Interpretation in Milton's Nativity Ode

Direct Service between Athens and Jerusalem:On the Purpose and Organizing Principles of the Dominican Colloquia in Berkeley Bryan Kromholtz, O.P. and Justin Gable, O.P. Co-organizers The greater part of the current issue of Nova et Vetera comprises articles based on papers presented at the colloquium held at the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology in Berkeley, California, in July 2014 entitled “What has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?” Initiated at the request of the Master of the Order of Preachers, Fr. Bruno Cadoré, the colloquium was the first of a recurring triennial symposium series, the Dominican Colloquia in Berkeley, subtitled “Philosophers and Theologians in Conversation.” As this publication marks the beginning of an ongoing effort, it calls for not only an expression of gratitude to the editors of Nova et Vetera for allowing us to present you with a portion of the outstanding scholarship that is the fruit of the colloquium, but also an explanation regarding the overall aim and value of the colloquia series itself. As its subtitle suggests, the colloquia series is designed to bring philosophers and theologians into conversation concerning matters of mutual interest. Such an undertaking might seem like merely one more example of academia’s current infatuation with interdisciplinary dialogue. While the contemporary trend toward interdisciplinary approaches has much to commend it, we would argue that an ongoing dialogue between philosophy and theology is of the greatest importance for these two disciplines. While there is a unique integrity and proper methodology for philosophy and for theology, neither can do [End Page 403] justice to its subject matter or attain its fullest expression without being in contact with the other. Philosophy’s importance for theology is seen rather readily. Since philosophy is, at least potentially, universal in scope, it touches on the most fundamental questions of human existence that theology, too, must address: the meaning of life, the nature of the world, the ultimate fate of existing things, and the reality of a divine being or beings. Thus, the subject matter of philosophy clearly overlaps with that of theology. Philosophical method, too, is of the utmost importance for theology. Theology is, by its very nature, a human science of the divine, subject to logic and hermeneutic principles. Indeed, divine revelation itself, if it is to be true communication between God and man, must express itself according to the limitations of human language and in continuity with the human intellect’s already existing grasp of the world. While divine revelation illuminates and transforms, it does so through a human medium; while it may provide a glimpse of the ineffable, it does so in a manner still accessible to the human heart and mind. Divine revelation encounters philosophy the moment it is explicated and expounded. Philosophy’s need to reckon with theology is perhaps not quite as obvious. And yet philosophy, if it is to be a search for true wisdom, must ask questions of a universal nature, reflecting on the whole of existence and the meaning, source, and end of everything. Theology, although based in religious belief rather than human reason alone, is similarly oriented to the universal truth of things. Its conclusions, then, should be of interest to philosophy. Can philosophy remain a truly open inquiry if it fails to consider theological or religious answers to the questions it is asking? Can it exclude reasoned reflection on a meaningful mode of human experience and remain an authentic, sincere search for the truth? What is more, in seeking answers to its own questions, philosophy searches for ultimate causes. Such ultimate causes lead us to consider “that thing which we call God” as the source of the existence, intelligibility, and goodness of human life and the world around us. Avoiding theology would seem possible only if philosophy were to refuse to deal with ultimate questions and to content itself with the particular and partial. But such would leave us with a form of rational inquiry much less than philosophy has understood itself to be, and with no plausible claim to be a seeking of true wisdom. That there is something essential for both philosophy and theology in their mutual cooperation is not...

The first round of the discussion is on Paul Tillich’s famous method of correlation. This method implies that the theological answers are connected with the philosophically-existentialist questions humans ask (rather than being unconnected as in Barthianism). Wessel Stoker worries that this method may privilege Christianity and a particular concept of God over other (quasi-)religions and other concepts in unwarranted ways. Dirk-Martin Grube considers those worries unfounded, given the function Tillich ascribes to this method. In the second round, Stoker insists that the method of correlation is ontologically more heavily loaded than Grube suggests and connects this method with the (religious) a priori. In his response, Grube suggests that Tillich’s a priori has different functions than Stoker assumes.

Paul Tillich’s Notion of God Paul Tilich‟s notion of god is closely related with his two important concepts, i.e., “method of correlation” and “ultimate concern.” The method of correlation explains the contents of the Christian Faith through existential questions and theological answers in mutual interdependence. Ultimate concern is what people most concerned about or what they take with unconditional seriousness. According to Tillich God is the ultimate concern and that is the answer for the most serious existential questions. Tillich‟s God is very different than theist god and there is no way to reconcile them. The term used for god is not clear and they make Tillich‟s God more and more obscure.