Scribd
Upload
62 views4 pages

Theological Research Method-I (Thursday 2:00-5:00 PM)

This critique paper discusses the need for dialogue between theology and culture. It argues that dialogue is necessary for theology itself and for people's faith. While cultural communication faces objections, dialogue cannot remain just an idea and processes are needed to make it possible. Dialogue requires internal and external exchange as well as listening instead of just talking. With sincerity and commitment, dialogue can overcome distortions and build authentic connections between theology and culture.

Uploaded by

api-3751424
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
62 views4 pages

Theological Research Method-I (Thursday 2:00-5:00 PM)

This critique paper discusses the need for dialogue between theology and culture. It argues that dialogue is necessary for theology itself and for people's faith. While cultural communication faces objections, dialogue cannot remain just an idea and processes are needed to make it possible. Dialogue requires internal and external exchange as well as listening instead of just talking. With sincerity and commitment, dialogue can overcome distortions and build authentic connections between theology and culture.

Uploaded by

api-3751424
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Junrey S.

Pagal Date: June 28, 2007 (Thursday)


1st year Theo Fr. Daniel Franklin Pilario, CM

Theological Research Method-I


(Thursday 2:00-5:00 pm)
This critique paper is suggesting on reinforcement for conversation of theological
methods that is grounded by our value of culture. This is an attempt to edify the view of “cultural
communication, as suggested by the writer- Fr. Daniel Franklin Pilario, CM, on THE CRAFT OF
CONTEXTUAL THEOLOGY. My main contention here in this matter points on the establishing
theological community which actively articulated in dialogue with culture. I would therefore
profoundly explore the idea of the writer in this context through his proposition and assertion:

“Yet in my view, conversation and dialogue, even if concrete


practical demands them difficult, are necessary for the sake of
theology itself and for the sake of the people whose faith theology is
supposed to articulate”. (P.37 of the Article)

The contention of the said assertion is clearly a prelude of the dire need for dialogue- in
the theology of faith and culture itself. However, it still remains an abstract idea in so far as the
“Thou” does not disclose himself to conversation. My position therefore here is to underscore
the processes on which cultural communication in theology can be made possible in the midst of
diverse objections. This can be drawn up by understanding in a deeper sense the spirit of
dialogical culture- where interaction and communication are practiced. Off course, we have not
to forget that this is simply a means of realizing a contextual-cultural theology especially among
the grassroots level. This has to be brought to its completion, i.e. situated on our values and
culture.

1
Self-Commitment in Dialogue: A core for Authentic
Theologizing

It is quite true that cultural communication entails objections and hardly realizable. (p38-
39 of the article) However, it does not mean that such an attempt can remain utopian vision. In
our culture of dialogue, we can draw up a variety of interpretations which can be useful for our
theologizing in quest of Truth. Variety of ideas is the expression of our richness and abundance
of concepts which are not negative in itself.1 It is true therefore that Unity in Diversity. But this
has to be carefully deal with. The natural tendency occurs when the dialogue becomes a
monologue. For this, dialogue requires indispensable processes such as: internal and external
dialogue.2 The said process is in great help in enhancing our communicable culture, i.e. beyond
the values and norms of self-isolation. Christians need to dialogue with their own culture in
order to discover the seeds of the divine message and in this discovery; they bear fruit in their
culture.3 It is in this process that culture and theological methods may be reinforced. This can be
impossible stand point in so far as culture view as an abstract reality. (page 38 of the article). It
is but necessary to note that dialogue as an articulation is meant not a matter of talking, but of
listening.4 Listening therefore is understood as reciprocal activity. It is in listening that our
dialogue enriched and nourished.
Precautions are given in such a way that conversation among diverse culture in methods
of theology ma be arisen. One of the pitfalls and dangers in dialogue may be resulted to
arrogance, naiveté and false irenicism.5 However, the possible distortion of dialogue can be
avoided if one has sincerity and commitment in conversing.6

2
CONCLUSION
The call for “culture of dialogue” is not of new proposition- in the realm of doing
theology. Committing to the promotion of dialogue is one of the hallmarks of the late pope John
Paul II. The Vatican II indeed is mandating every local church to have a dialogue especially in
the matter and context of diverse culture.7 The Federation of Asian Bishops Conference (FABC)
is likewise recommending the need to evolve into integral process of genuine dialogue.8
In addition, the belief of the philosopher- Gabriel Marcel’s intersubjectivity assumes our sense
of connectedness and collectiveness. This has also been profoundly asserted on Emmanuel
Levinas’ responsibility from-to- the other. In such a way, our theological crafting based on our
culture is indeed required an indispensable relationship and participation of persons as Karol
Wojtyla viewed. As a result, its angles and dimensions of connectedness are anchored upon the
authentic dialogue from within.
The dynamic nature of our sense of connectedness depends upon on our personal
response. This would attest on our authentic participation in the process of the exchange of gifts
and blessings we received from God. What counts most therefore is on how Christian
authenticity actively involve in the process- in living our sense of identity. To live is to
evangelize.9 Self-commitment in dialogue is truly a core for authentic

theologizing.

3
1
Walter Kasper. Theology and Church. Claretian Publication: (Quezon City)., p. 44
2
Andrew Reception. East Asian Pastoral Review: Vol. 42, 2005, p. 79.
3
Ibid., p.80
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid., 82
6
Ibid.
7
James H. Kroeger. Becoming Local Church. Claretian Publication: Quezon City. 2003. p. 101
8
Ibid., 92
9
Ibid., 81

You might also like