John Webster and Dietrich Bonhoeffer are two theologians invested in prioritising certain conceptions of divine transcendence within their respective theological projects. Specifically, both appeal to conceptions of divine transcendence and agency amidst what they understand to be the problematic naturalisation of theological discourse in modern Protestant theology, particularly within its liberal German traditions. The way they understand transcendence, however, and the doctrinal loci they choose to affect it, leads to different conceptualisations of the possibilities, scope and organisation of systematic theology. Where Webster (especially in his later work) seeks to prioritise God's immanent perfection and aseity through theology proper, Bonhoeffer instead emphasises God's freedom pro me within the person of Jesus Christ. These differences in first theological foundations have important consequences for the shape of theological method and doctrinal architecture within the practice of contemporary systematic theology.

Drawing on the theological method of one of Anglicanism’s foremost theologians, this article defends key proposals of the recent Church of England-Methodist report, Mission and Ministry in Covenant. Some Anglicans have argued that it would be inconsistent with Anglican order to accept the proposed temporary period where Methodist ministers who had not been ordained by a bishop could serve in presbyteral Church of England roles. It finds clear theological rationale for the move in Hooker’s understanding of the episcopate which is matched in Anglicanism’s official formularies and its recent ecumenical dialogues. Highlighting clear historic and recent precedents for such a move, it demonstrates that bishops have never been considered so essential for Anglican order that they could never be dispensed with. Proposals like those in MMC can therefore be conscientiously accepted as consistent with Anglican self-understanding by the Church of England and other provinces considering such steps.

This paper explores the claim made by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologiae, I, q. 1, a. 3 that ‘sacred doctrine’ is ‘scientific.’ After reviewing some of the key historical commentators on the question, I propose an examination of Thomas' treatment of the gift of prophecy as providing an important clue into discerning more clearly his evolution from an Aristotelian understanding of knowledge or ‘science’ (scientia) to a fuller sense of the term scientia as used by Thomas. Chief among these is a clue into how Thomas resolves the difficulty between necessity and history. His treatment of prophecy in the Summa Theologiae gives one a glimpse into how Thomas is a historical thinker, despite weighty authorities such as Etienne Gilson arguing otherwise. Closer attention to prophecy permits one to rethink Thomas' account of sacred doctrine in Question One and appreciate how pivotal the fact of divine revelation having been made to prophets in history is for its ‘scientific’ character.

Neo-Thomism, the reading of Thomas Aquinas that became the dominant Catholic theological school in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, was eclipsed during the Second Vatican Council but has recently seen a resurgence on the American scene, in terms of both publications and influence among the church hierarchy. This article explores that resurgence in terms of the history of neo-Thomism, the important texts that have come out of this new movement, and signs of its influence on the bishops. In so doing, it critiques the movement for failing to learn the lessons of its fall from favor—in particular, that it has relied on claims to orthodoxy based on authority rather than the power of its own arguments. This article thus argues that theologians should pay careful attention to this movement both to reassert the validity and importance of more contemporary theological methods and to encourage neo-Thomists themselves to develop a greater appreciation of methodological pluralism and reliance on the strength of arguments.

Hans Urs Von Balthasar's lament that coincidence of the theologian and the saint has not been the norm since the Middle Ages can be emblematic of a methodological issue impacting both academic theology and the Church wholly by separation of that which as a faith tenet should be unified—word and witness. Theologians’ intent today to speak from but not be confused with their location, the theological discipline's reach for respectability in an increasingly secular academy, market forces deliberately shrinking theology's influence except in such as interdisciplinary endeavors supporting other publics’ aims, the contemporary narrow specialization of the theologian, and the sometime view that narrow tasks serving theology are theology itself all result in conflations of theology and religion. So “theology” and “spirituality,” as Balthasar identified the breach, will be separate. Yet we hope that theologians, with all others, will be saints. Does this not, particularly to students, transmit the faith? Although Bernard Lonergan's method might seem to exacerbate the separation given its numerous theological specialties and conversion types, it also offers the way of reunification—without threat to academic integrity. The theological method, with its turn to the subject, can ground a theology (and method) of pedagogy.

The paper discusses three theological ways of responding to modernity, all of which rely in some way upon the analogy of the church as a culture. First, Friedrich Schleiermacher represents the turn to the subject and the turn to the church. Second, Stanley Hauerwas's rejection of the turn to the subject is shown to require a sharper turn to the church. Third, David Kelsey's recent work is used to present a modification of that turn substantial enough to constitute a third way. Kelsey's analysis of various theological logics and how they are often conflated in modern theology, together with his account of church practices, is used to integrate a more traditional theocentric theological approach with a more contemporary focus on the church's practices. Some conclusions are then drawn for critical congregational study of enactments of church practices.