Michael Amaladoss

When we speak of spirituality and theology today there is a common understanding that spirituality concerns the way we live our Christian life, while theology refers to the way we think about reality from a religious point of view. Spirituality has a practical and experiential tone about it focused on an individual, whereas theology has a theoretical ring centred in a community. Some people may even think that spirituality is the practical application in life of the knowledge that we acquire in theology. But the interrelationship between theology and spirituality is much more complex. A look at history will help us to understand this complexity. It may also lead us to consider them in new, more creative ways.

For the first twelve centuries of Christianity people hardly spoke of spirituality, nor of theology either. The term “spirit” referred to the Holy Spirit, her activity in the world and in the humans, her many gifts that enabled the people to serve the community in various ways. St. Paul speaks of this to the Romans and the Corinthians. The Spirit is the giver of freedom and enables us to become God’s children so that we can call God “Abba” – Father. (Rom 8:14-17) The Spirit also enables us to build community through mutual service. (1 Cor 12:1-11) The distinction/dichotomy between matter and spirit in the human will come much later in the Middle Ages.

The First 12 Centuries
The Fathers of the Church did proclaim the Good News and exhorted the people to live according to the Gospel. Their way of doing it was to read the scriptures and comment on them, drawing lessons for life. They looked at God, the humans and the world and tried to understand it in their mutual relationship. They used current philosophical ideas taken from Neoplatonism or Stoicism. But there was no attempt to develop any systematic view on God, the humans and the universe based on these philosophies. Fathers like Irenaeus and Augustine did have grand visions about the plan of God for the world and the role of Jesus Christ in this plan. We see such visions already in the New Testament, but specially St. Paul and St. John. The Synoptics speak about the Kingdom of God. St. Paul talks about gathering up of all things (Eph 1:10), reaching fullness in Christ (Col 1:19) so that God will be “all in all”. (1 Cor 15:28) St. John sees everything united in the Word. (John 1:1-4; cf. 17:21) The Fathers did try to clarify points of belief in the light of their praxis.

1. Cf. Cyprian Vaggagini, Doing Theology. (Bangalore: IJA Publications, 2003), pp. 33-59.

For example, a worship of Jesus as divine leads them to clarify to themselves their understanding of him as divine and human, without confusion and without separation, in the Council of Chalcedon. Even earlier in Nicea, their experience of Jesus as divine and of the Spirit in their lives and ministry leads them to their vision of God as the Trinity. But these doctrinal clarifications do not lead them to much speculation, though they tried to explain the mysteries to the people. It was more mystagogy than theology. It was known as gnosis – sapientia – wisdom. It was an attempt to understand their experience of their Christian life than the elaboration of an abstract system. There was a desire to understand the faith – faith seeking understanding. But the explanations were done in terms of the symbols and stories of the Bible. They spoke of the four senses of scripture: literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical. There was a holistic approach to Christian life. Their focus was on a way of life rather than an explanation of a doctrinal system. It was “a synthesis of biblical exegesis, speculative reasoning and mystical contemplation.” In contemporary terms one can speak of it as a ‘spirituality’ rather than theology. Orthodoxy followed orthopraxis. This situation continued for the first twelve centuries of the Christian era.

The Middle Ages
Around the thirteenth century, the scholars in Europe discover the philosophy of Aristotle. Aristotle shows them not only a scientific way of looking at the material world (physics), but also a systematic manner of organizing concepts abstracted from the world in a philosophy (metaphysics). There was then an effort to think of the realities of Christian life in the framework of Aristotelian metaphysics. It seemed to reach out to the mysteries in terms of analogy, starting with the concepts drawn from the material world. The categories of metaphysics – essence and existence, form and matter, substance and accidents, the efficient, formal, material and final causes – are used to provide a framework to understand the mysteries of Christian faith. This is called theology, which becomes an objective, context and experience free science about God and other divine realities that are understandable in and adequate to themselves. Theology has a priori first principles starting with the nature of God, the humans and the universe from which the whole meaning system can be logically deduced. Christian life then becomes an application of this meaning to life. The scriptures themselves are read through the prism of metaphysics. St. Thomas Aquinas is the dominant theologian of this period. The head and its reason dominate. Though there were others like Bonaventure who sought to speak also of the heart and its emotions, they were not able to withstand the thrust of reason as something objective, context-free and therefore universal and normative. Reflection on the faith loses its character as a holistic commentary on life and becomes a scientific discourse focused on knowledge deduced from abstract concepts. The Bible becomes illustrative material. Moral theology applies the principles of systematic theology to life in the world and evolves rules for behavior. Like the universal concepts of systematic theology, moral theology too acquires universal principles of action. Orthopraxis follows orthodoxy.

This was also the period when monasticism was flourishing in the Church. The common people were nourished by the liturgy which structured their Christian life through the sacraments. But the religious life of the monks, male and female, was nourished by the reading of and meditation on scripture. This was called lectio divina. Some saints did witness, in writing, to their ‘spiritual’ and mystical experiences of prayer. As a matter of fact, Scholastic philosophy distinguished between the ‘spirit’ and the body in the human. The term ‘spiritual’ no longer referred only to the Holy Spirit, but also to the human spirit. Methods of prayer and contemplation, always centred round the scriptures, were taught.

2. Philip Sheldrake, “Spirituality and Theology”, Peter Byrne and Leslie Houlden (eds), Companion Enclyclopedia of Theology. (London: Routledge, 1995), p. 516.
3. Cf. Ibid., pp. 60-75.

Theologians (and the Magisterium) were always suspicious about these ‘spiritual excercises’. Theology remained conceptual and dry, though it tried to integrate the spiritual practices as dimensions of practical theology, grouped around moral theology. Slowly there are efforts to classify and systematize them from a theological point of view. The focus was not on the ordinary people and their liturgical practices, but on the elite in the monasteries who were seeking perfection in ‘spiritual’ life – as opposed to intellectual reflection. One speaks of the purgative, illuminative and unitive ways in divine-human relationship. The focus is on the individual. By the 18th century, ascetical and mystical theology become sections of moral theology. Later one considers them as spiritual theology. There is also a growing distinction, if not dichotomy, between the soul and the body. The soul is the ‘spirit’ in the human. One speaks of saving or improving one’s soul. Religion is seen as rituals and practices that concern the soul. The body and matter (the world) are perceived as burdens on the soul from which it has to be liberated.

Modernity
It is at this time that Christianity is impacted by the Enlightenment in the 18th century. There is a twofold movement. On the one hand the physical sciences, in its different branches like mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology, develop, increasing the body of exact knowledge concerning the material world. On the other hand, at the level of philosophy, there is a turn to the subject and an exploration of the process of knowing with philosophers like Kant. Eventually the possibility of knowing reality-in-itself – metaphysics – is questioned and even denied by the post-moderns. The human becomes an individual, focused on him/herself. Experience and emotion is separated from intelligence and reason. Religion is considered un-scientific and becomes privatized and subjective.

4. Cf. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1962)

However, the Romantic movement prizing imagination, emotion and experience also develops as a counter balance. Side by side, the human and social sciences like psychology, sociology and cultural anthropology emerge, thanks to students of human and social behavior like Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim. Though they cannot be studied as ‘scientifically’ as the physical sciences, an objective and systematic study of personal and social behavior is possible in so far as they are structured in some way by culture and society. Besides, people also become aware of the impact of history on knowledge and life. Like the humans they too are historical. Human knowledge and its expressions are no longer abstract, universal and eternal beyond space and time. They are conditioned by contextual as well as personal factors and therefore need to be interpreted. Scholars would soon realize that this is true also of scientific knowledge.

The Development of Spirituality
It is at this time that ‘spirituality’ as a subject of study develops. It still concerns the relationship between the human person and the divine or Absolute, the way it is lived and expressed. It concerns no longer only the ‘spirit’ but the whole human person, body and spirit. It is not an individualistic pursuit, but reaches out to the others and the cosmos, besides the divine. It does not derive its inspiration from systematic theology only, but is a response to the call of the divine as mediated by the scriptural and religious tradition. The quest is not limited to a few individuals seeking perfection, but concerns every one. It is the experiential dimension of religion. As such it interacts with the sources, namely the scriptures. It dialogues with the systematic reflection on the religious dimension of reality dealing with the divine, the human and the cosmic and their inter-relationship, that is theology. As individual and social behavior it relates to the social sciences like history, psychology, sociology and cultural anthropology.

It becomes aware of its various manifestations at different levels, popular and elite, male and female, individual and social. In a global world it realizes that every religious tradition has its spiritual path and therefore it dialogues with the others in view of mutual knowledge and enrichment. We can recall here that even today people speak about the mystical East as different from the more rational West. As a global religion Christianity will also dialogue with various cultures leading to many local incarnations and expressions. In this way spirituality becomes an inter-disciplinary and interreligious project. It is no longer applied theology, though theology remains an essential partner and as the intellectual reflection on the faith tradition it even has a prophetic and critical role. But ultimately life is primary and theological reflection is at the service of life. While spirituality deals with experience and life rather than knowledge and understanding (like theology) it need not concern only individuals. It can also deal with group efforts to relate with each other, with the cosmos and with the divine.

Spirituality is also liberated from a narrow focus on mysticism. The Second Vatican Council spoke about the universal call to holiness. Spirituality is not the preserve of the few but a way of life for all. Depth in spirituality is not to be judged by paranormal phenomena called mystical, but by faithfulness to a good Christian life that is open not only to the divine, but to the others, especially those who need our love and service, and to the cosmos. The goal of life then becomes cosmotheandric communion, in the phrase of Raimon Panikkar.

The Evolution of Theology
Correspondingly, theology also has evolved in new ways in recent decades. Scholastic theology tried to build up a rationally consistent system that claimed to be ‘objective’, context-free and universal. In reaction to the Enlightenment, Scholastic theology had become Neo-Scholastic. This meant that the dogmatic framework of Scholastic theology in terms of a set of theses was kept and was defended with sets of proof texts taken from the Bible and the teachings of the Magisterium. Its source was neither faith-experience nor scripture. This ‘reification’ of theology may have forced spirituality to reach out to God on its own, so to speak. Some groups in the Catholic Church still seem to be holding on to this tradition, though suitably modified.

5. Cf. Raimon Panikkar, The Cosmotheandric Experience: Emerging Religious Consciousness. (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1993)
6. Cf. Cyprian Vagaggini, op.cit., pp. 76-84. He calls it “Positive Scholasticism”.

But theology has changed very much in the field. It is largely context based and experiential. People speak of Third World, Indian and African theologies. Most of these have a liberational thrust. One speaks, for instance, of the pastoral theological cycle. One starts with committed faith experience in a particular context, especially in favour of the poor and the oppressed people. Such an experience raises questions to faith which proclaims love and justice as essential Christian values. The question is then sharpened and made properly theological, and not economical or political, for example, by an analysis of reality and experience. For this the human and social sciences are used. Once the situation is understood and the question sharpened, the sources of faith, namely scripture and tradition are read and interpreted in this context. This correlation between the scriptures and the experiential situation will offer us answers to the question. Based on this answer one explores action plans to make the situation better. This is the time for discernment and decision which lead us to liberative action in view of transformation.

The cycle then starts again. In this pastoral theological cycle the theological moment is the one of correlation between the questioning experience and the sources of faith. It is not the drawing of a conclusion from first principles. On the one hand the experience may be transformed in the light of the faith. On the other hand traditional faith affirmations may have to be corrected in view of experiential questions. Theology is no longer a universal system that is handed down and applied to different contexts. It is dialogical and dynamic. The tensions between liberation theologians and others are illustrations of these.

Even if we remain within the dominant Euro-American sphere theologians who have been challenged by the philosophical developments after the Enlightenment and phenomenology find a place for experience in theologizing. Bernard Lonergan, for example, has developed a method in theology in eight steps, the central moment of which is conversion. The process is analytical and oriented to change. David Tracy has followed up on this and developed a method of correlation in which the sources of the faith have to enter into dialogue with experience. For Tracy, dialogue is an essential moment of theology. Similarly Paul Tillich also exposes a method of correlation between faith and experience in doing theology. Karl Rahner’s theology does not start with social experience like that of the liberation theologians; but he also starts with personal faith experience before going on to explore the transcendental conditions of such an experience in the light of the data of faith.

7. Cf. Frans Wijsen, Peter Henriot and Rodrigo Mejìa (eds), The Pastoral Cycle Revisited. A Critical Quest for Truth and Transformation. (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2005)
8. Cf. A. Louth, Discerning the Mystery: An Essay on the Nature of Theology. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983).
9. See Bernard Lonergan, Method in Theology. (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1971), p. 125-145, particularly p. 130-131.
10. Cf. David Tracy, (1975) Blessed Rage for Order. (New York: The Seabury Press, 1975).
11. Cf. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology. Vol 1. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), pp. 23ff.

But the dominant group in Euro-America still considers its version of ‘academic’ theology as scientific, context-free and universal. It seems to consider the contextual theologies of the Third World as practical, not systematic, theologies. It holds on to the Greek cultural framework and is critical of inculturation. It is surprising, for instance, that spirituality is considered an immature discipline, that cannot be objective and scientific (as systematic theology is supposed to be), resembling more the arts than the sciences. But compare this with what Rosemary Haughton says: “Poetry is not ‘illustration’ of prose by adding imagery; it is rather the most accurate way in which some inkling of an incommunicable experience can be communicated, and theology is exactly that also.” Everything depends on whether theology has to be limited to a rational explanation of the mystery of God. Many modern theologians, not only the anti-metaphysical post-modern philosophers, would question the possibility of a rational, ‘scientific’ knowledge of the mystery, whether of the humans or of God.

The Asian Traditions
What is significant is that we have always had a similar situation in Hinduism and Buddhism. In Hinduism the way of realization led from sravavna (hearing of the scriptures) through manana (reflection) and nidhidyasana (concentration) to samadhi (realization of union). It is a spiritual way that includes a moment of reflection followed by concentration and interiorization. In Buddhism the eight-fold path – right view, intention, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness and concentration – is often summarized as right knowledge, right life and the intuitive wisdom of realization. But what is happening in the West is that theology has become a rational-conceptual ‘science’ which can be taught and learnt by people who have no faith and/or who do not live it. For these people spirituality has nothing to do with theology.

12. Cf. Karl Rahner, The Practice of Faith: A Handbook of Contemporary Spirituality. K. Lehmann and A.Raffelt (eds). (New York: Crossroad, 1984.)
13. Cf. Sandra M. Schneiders, “Theology and Spirituality: Strangers, Rivals, or Partners?”, Horizons 13 (1986) 269, 273.
14. Quoted in Regina Bechtle, “Convergences in Theology and Spirituality”, The Way 25 (1985) 313. The reference is to Rosemary Haughton, The Passionate God. (New York, 1981), p.6.

It is significant that, in the area of interreligious studies, we are moving away from comparative religion to comparative theology which takes the faith of the other seriously. Theologians who are holding on to a rational system may not be sensitive to contextual questions. This means that they are not responsive, not only to differing religious, cultural and social contexts in the world in terms of inculturation, but also to the differing spiritual needs of different peoples. They may not also be able to dialogue with other religious traditions like Hinduism and Buddhism which have other ways of doing theology. For Asian theologians, however, theology today needs to be dialogical.

Conclusion
With this historical development in the identity and relatedness of spirituality and theology in a general way we have returned to the holistic perspective of the first 12 centuries in the West, but a perspective that always continued in the Eastern Churches. But at the same time there has been internal clarification and development. Just as what used to be called philosophy in the Middle Ages has broken up into a variety of physical and social sciences, what used to be called theology has also become an inter-disciplinary project. Spirituality and theology are two poles of this ensemble indicating life and knowledge. The one needs the other. As Philip Sheldrake concludes:

Theology is an integral part of the study of spirituality because it is essential to the full interpretation of Christian spiritual experience. Yet, spirituality is also integral to theology both because it raises questions which theology must consider and also because, as Karl Rahner pointed out, the empirical realities of spirituality supply data that are necessary for theology and not available from purely doctrinal sources.

If we now compare spirituality and theology and look at their interrelationship, we have to say first that spirituality is not theology. Spirituality concerns a way of life and experience. Theology is an effort to see clearly personal and social reality in the light of faith and critically challenge it. Both spirituality and theology are called to become interdisciplinary. In the past, what was called ‘spiritual theology’ may have been a practical sub-section of theology. Today spirituality is an autonomous inter-disciplinary project in which theology also has an essential role to play. It is a role of clarification, explanation and prophetic criticism. Theology has its own autonomy as an effort to understand the faith, but also throwing light on reality and experience in the light of the faith. But its understanding is not merely rational-conceptual as with Scholastic theology, but may demand today also intuition and emotional and cultural intelligence. Without theology spirituality may be blind. Without spirituality theology may become an irrelevant, secular vision.

15. Philip Sheldrake, Op. Cit., p. 532-533. He also refers to Sandra Schneiders, “Spirituality in the Academy”, Theological Studies 50 (1989), 676–97.

Michael Amaladoss, S.J.
Institute of Dialogue with Cultures and Religions, Chennai, India.