Commentary 25/01/13 Thinking about the future of theology

[성기화 요셉]

It is critical that theology be truly a light that empowers and inspires us in living the Gospel faithfully

Pope Francis poses for a photo with participants at the International Conference 'The Future of Theology: Legacy and Imagination,' held at the Lateran University, Rome, from Dec. 9-10, 2024. (Photo: VATICAN MEDIA Divisione Foto)

By Ruben C. Mendoza 

Published: January 13, 2025 11:38 AM GMT

Updated: January 13, 2025 11:39 AM GMT

The Dicastery of Culture and Education (DCE) recently held a Congress, “The Future of Theology: Legacy and Envisioning,” at the Lateran University, Rome, from Dec. 9-10, 2024.

The gathering aimed to “initiate a joint journey that will benefit from the contribution of each theologian, and from their various ecclesial and cultural contexts.” That is why the DCE employed “a methodology that encouraged a process of communal thinking.”

Remarkably, the event brought together more than 500 theologians from all over the world. In this piece, I’d like to share my thoughts about its significance as a participant. 

As part of its program, conference participants had an audience with Pope Francis. For me, his speech set the tone and direction of the Congress. He emphasized the role of theology in ecclesial life and likened it to “light,” which “works quietly and humbly so that the light of Christ and his Gospel can emerge.”

He challenged theologians to “rethink our thinking,” especially as they pertain to matters of the faith. After all, “Reality is complex; challenges are varied; history is full of beauty and at the same time marred by evil.”

Each person is influenced by their social location in interpreting matters of life and faith.

There is a need to be aware of the strengths and limitations of our own epistemologies. It is critical that our way of thinking be truly liberating and life-giving.

In his motu propio, Ad Theologiam Promovendam, Pope Francis argued that theology must make room for "an epistemological and methodological rethinking." He underscored the need for "a fundamentally contextual theology" that is "capable of reading and interpreting the Gospel in the conditions in which men and women live daily, in different geographical, social, and cultural environments."

Moreover, an “antidote” to the oversimplification of theology and a means of doing it contextually is for theology to be interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and cross-disciplinary in its approach.

And secondly, the pope stressed that theology must be made accessible. The fact is that when many theologians write, they use a language that is intelligible to like-minded theologians, but which is unintelligible to the public.

It also happens that when many of them write, they tackle issues that are meaningful theologically but do not address the lived realities of ordinary people. When that happens, the theologies crafted by such theologians are for all intents and purposes irrelevant to the lives of people. They are not only inaccessible but are not accessed at all because of their irrelevance.

Moreover, the programs of many a theological school are geared for those preparing for the presbyterate. Hence, Pope Francis issued the challenge, “Make sure that these women and men find in theology an open house, a place where they can resume their journey, a place where they can seek, find and seek again. Be prepared for this. Make imaginative adjustments to your programs of study so that theology can be accessible to all.”

The Congress itself was not like other academic conferences since there was an earnest attempt on the part of the organizers to be truly synodal in their approach — one that promoted “communal thinking.” It was divided into three sessions.

The first session dealt with the question of the WHERE of theology. The second session was devoted to "inputs of non-theological voices.” And the third session was about the WHY of theology.  

For the first and third sessions, speakers from each of the continents and the Eastern Churches were invited. I represented Asia for session one.

Although I was identified as being with Ateneo de Manila University (which I am), I was there as the president of the International Network of Societies for Catholic Theology (INSeCT).

The second session had presenters who talked about music, literature, physics and cinema, “a listening to non-theological reasoning.” What I find significant is that after each session, we had spiritual conversations in our assigned small groups, like what the Vatican did during the Synod on Synodality.

The conversations provided us with an opportunity to react to the various plenary presentations, to listen to other participants’ reactions and be open to how their sharing questions our own assumptions, to learn from one another, and to discern where the Spirit was leading us.

It is noteworthy for me that representatives from different parts of the world were invited to present during the first and third sessions. It has often happened at the Vatican that they invited the “usual suspects” but the fact that the organizers really tried to be inclusive of diverse perspectives was commendable.

In that way, the Congress participants had the opportunity to listen and hopefully learn from theologians as they do theology contextually.

The spiritual conversations were also critical in the fruitfulness of the event. They not only gave us the opportunity to know theologians from different countries but also to know how they understand the task of theologizing.

Each participant in my group freely shared how they understood what theologizing meant for them and even if there were obvious differences in theological orientations, there was evident effort to listen to one another.  

In my view, the Theology Congress was not meant to come to a consensus with regard to the task of doing theology. Since it was the very first gathering of that nature, it served as a leveling-off — the beginning of a dialogue among theologians and how they understand their vocation and ministry.

It was obvious to me, particularly in my small group, that theologians had different understandings of doing theology. For instance, for some, the starting points and sources of theologizing are scriptures and tradition.

Perhaps, that was why they regrettably titled the second session as “listening to non-theological reasoning.” For others, particularly for those who do theology contextually, the starting point is one’s context. Even contextual theologians vary on how they understand the word “context.”  

What the Theology Congress showed is the need for theologians to engage each other in dialogue about the craft of theologizing. I think that the dialogue will lead to a deeper understanding and appreciation of doing theology, and challenge those who are in dialogue, to recognize the strengths and limitations of one’s way of doing theology.

In this manner, one can be enriched by the various ways of doing theology and hopefully, interpret the faith in ways that are meaningful and intelligible. 

The DCE’s Theology Congress will hopefully be the first such gathering. Much work remains to be done in order to respond to the invitation of Pope Francis to do theology contextually and to “rethink how we think,” and to respond to his challenge of making theology truly accessible.

In all our efforts to do theology, it is critical that theology be truly a light that empowers and inspires us in living the Gospel faithfully as individuals and as a community.

*The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official editorial position of UCA News.