Method in Theology

by Bernard J.F. Lonergan

Method in Theology stands, with Insight, as Bernard Lonergan's most important work. It is Lonergan's answer to those who would argue that in this time of cultural change and dissolution the believer is afloat on a sea of multiplying theologies, without rudder or compass. Lonergan was resolute in his refusal to be defeatist on this point. While agreeing that theology must continually change to mediate between religion and culture, he worked out an integral method to guide and control this ongoing process. This is a reprint of the 1973 edition. A new annotated edition of Method in Theology will be published eventually as a part of the Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan. Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984), a professor of theology, taught at Regis College, Harvard University, and Boston College. An established author known for his Insight and Method in Theology , Lonergan received numerous honorary doctorates, was a Companion of the Order of Canada in 1971 and was named as an original members of the International Theological Commission by Pope Paul VI.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Religion

405 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 1972

About the author

Fr. Bernard Joseph Frances Lonergan, SJ, CC (Ph.D., Theology, Gregorian University (Rome), 1939; B.A., University of London, 1930), was an ordained Roman Catholic priest of the Jesuit order. As an economist and philosopher-theologian in the Thomist tradition, he taught at Loyola College (Montreal) (now Concordia University), Regis College (now federated within the University of Toronto), the Pontifical Gregorian University, Harvard University, and Boston College. He was named by Pope Paul VI one of the original members of the International Theological Commission.

He is the author of Insight: A Study of Human Understanding (1957) and Method in Theology (1972), which established what he called the Generalized Empirical Method (GEM). The University of Toronto Press is in process of publishing his work in a projected 25-volume collection edited by staff at the Lonergan Research Institute at Regis College.

"Lonergan is considered by many intellectuals to be the finest philosophic thinker of the 20th century."
—TIME Magazine

Reviews

[Rheathebookwormdreamergirl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Actual rating 4.5 🌟

So, I had to read this for a class this semester, and I was dreading it, but as I started reading it, I realized just how important it is for me to read it! I am thrilled that I had to read this.

[Laura Fabrycky · Rating 5 out of 5]

Too hard to say how this book has shaped my thinking as of yet. Enough to say that I'm indebted to Lonergan. Grateful for this immensely human mind and life, and his labors published here.

[Joey Le · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book really helped me to figure out what kind of methodology I took in order to write my PhD dissertation. I kind of bumbled along, following breadcrumbs, and constructing an argument that made sense to me. I didn’t realize until after I read Lonergan‘s book that I was actually practicing dialectic, foundations, doctrines, and systematics. So, I am grateful for this genius work! It helps us all to figure out what we’re doing, and to work with each other to contribute to the knowledge of God.

[Johnny · Rating 2 out of 5]

Remember the years when philosophers would rave over “symbolic logic,” that genre which attempted to distill questions of meaning into mathematical algorithms, so precise that one’s arguments would not be misconstrued? There are still “symbolic logic” courses and still some advocates of such in university philosophy departments, but it is no longer the rage. In reading Bernard Lonergan’s Method in Theology, one gets the sense that Lonergan would have been somewhat comfortable with the idea of mathematical precision. Oh, to be sure, his epistemology wouldn’t admit that manipulating symbols on their own is sufficient to accomplish either the work of theology or philosophy, but he has a penchant for creating lists, numbered lists in order to define his terms and processes as thoroughly as a mathematical equation. The only trouble is that by the time one has read a dozen lists in the same chapter, it is difficult to discern the weight of importance within the subjects discussed.

For example, he begins with the assertion that method requires “operations.” By “operations,” he essentially means what I mean when I tell budding game designers to build a “verb list” of what the player is to do before starting to design a game. Lonergan starts his description of operations with a 19 verb list: seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting, inquiring, imagining, understanding, conceiving, formulating, reflecting, marshalling and weighing the evidence, judging, deliberating, evaluating, deciding, speaking, and writing (p. 6). Then, he breaks the operations down into four characteristics: 1) all of these verbs are transitive, 2) all verbs require a subject to operate on an object; (p. 7) 3) these verbs lead to “introspection” in the sense of objectifying said object; and 4) different levels of intentionality and consciousness must be distinguished when these verbs are used (p. 8). But that’s not all! He breaks down that fourth consideration into four more parts: a) the empirical level of sensory experience and collection, b) the intellectual level of inquiry, hypothesizing, and understanding, c) the rational level in which the empirical and intellectual are weighed in a logical sequence, and d) the responsible level at which the individual decides and carries out decisions based on previous deliberation (p. 9).

In the same way, Lonergan delineates five acts of meaning: 1) potential refers to the original sensing and initial understanding of data/experience; 2) formal signifies that conceptual work of clarifying the initial understanding; 3) judging describes the evaluation of that understanding; 4) active meaning suggests that one has come to a conclusion decisive enough to provoke action; and 5) instrumental acts of meaning occur when one expresses one’s conclusions in action (walking the talk so to speak) (pp. 74-75).

In similar fashion, he offers three critical questions in epistemology: 1) What am I doing when I’m knowing? 2) Why is doing that knowing? And 3) What do I know when I do it? (p. 83) Three pages later, he offers three steps in language development: 1) discovery of indicative signification, 2) generalization, and 3) communication through intersubjective, indicative, mimetic and analogic expression (pp. 86-87). He lists seven common areas of world religions on p. 109, eight functional specialties for theology on pp. 127-133, four factors which exacerbate the hermeneutical problem on p. 154, four aspects of understanding the text on p. 155, three steps in writing history on p. 184, three stages of evidence on p. 186, four parts of the historian’s task on p. 198, four distinct realms of mental acts on p. 257, nine different differentiations of types of “operating” in general theology (pp. 286-7), three ways in which the “dynamic” state of grace is manifested (p. 289), ten differentiations of consciousness from immediacy to interiority (pp. 303-305), three causes of pluralism (p. 326), five rules for communicating doctrine in a pluralistic culture (p. 330), and finally comes back to an earlier eight stages in his methodology (the functional specialties for theology from pp. 127-133): research, interpretation, history, dialectic, foundations, doctrines, systematic, and communications (p. 355).

One of the very positive observations (for me) in this book is Lonergan’s insistence that undifferentiated consciousness (ie. our encounter with the Holy, the Transcendent, the Love of God) is transcultural but “…to preach the gospel to all men calls for at least as many preachers as there are differing places and times, and it requires each of them to get to know the people to whom he or she is sent, their ways of thought, their manners, their style of speech.” (p. 276, reiterated in different form on p. 328) Lonergan thus seems to echo Paul’s Roman letter in suggesting that there is a natural theology (discovered in human insight of the transcendent) but it is necessary for it to evolve into specific theology in order to meet the specific needs of individual humans and cultures. This would partially explain the reason for so much pluralism even within Christianity and takes seriously the idea of human learning/understanding.

Another insight that particularly inspired me was Lonergan’s illustration of theology in action as being like a giant pair of scissors with the upper blade being the categories of understanding and the lower blade being the data of existence. Between the two blades (just as in the sciences, the upper blade is mathematical method and the bottom blade is data), the work is done (p. 293). This insight reminds us that we (theologians) cannot merely rest on the theoretical, but must take the risk of dealing with the data which is physical, as well.

Additionally instructive was Lonergan’s observation that theological work has to be both “…distinct from and dependent on the normativeness attributed to divine revelation, inspired scripture, or church doctrine.” (p. 299) You can be I had to re-read that line several times, but I like it. Theological work has to be distinct from these three authorities because it has to align itself with the milieu in which the work is being done and because it has to interpret for its own age (and the theologian’s individual life) and not just regurgitate the wording of the past. At the same time, theological work cannot afford to lose the essential truth of the three authorities, so the distinctive ideas have to be constantly weighed against the traditional authorities. It is indeed a balancing act, but quite worthwhile (in my opinion). He underscores this argument with the suggestion that we understand the need of this distinctive (yet dependent) approach in the work of the missionary, but we need to see that our own culture is constantly changing, as well. Therefore, our approaches need to change, too (p. 301).

One of my favorite quotations was in his discussion of “doctrine.” Lonergan wrote, “Again, doctrines are not just doctrines. They are constitutive both of the individual Christian and of the Christian community. They can strengthen or burden the individual’s allegiance. They can unite or disrupt. They can confer authority and power. …It is not in some vacuum of pure spirit but under concrete historical conditions and circumstances that developments occur, and a knowledge of such conditions and circumstances is not irrelevant in the evaluational history that decides on the legitimacy of developments.” (pp. 319-320)

But, as Lonergan warns in his introduction, this book is more about doing theology than actually working through any particularly new insights in theology. I did learn about methodology and resonate a lot with Lonergan on how to approach theology and why we need to approach theology with fresh eyes, but I was hoping for more specific examples than this volume happened to yield.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

A unique book. Very demanding (as the author acknowledges, p. 7, understanding and assimilating the book’s thesis “requires an exceptional amount of exertion and activity on the part of the reader”), but at the same time enormously illuminating. The author does not help the reader a lot with this; his style, though careful and accurate, is sometimes opaque: he will list the same four stages of consciousness at different points using different words – which is great in a sense, because it’s not the words but the realities that count; yet on a first reading, this can lead to missing something of the shape of what the author is trying to communicate. And he often fails to point out when a paragraph is leading his main argument forward or when, as often happens, it is somewhat parenthetical to his purpose.

In spite of this, the clarity, profundity, and balance of Lonergan’s cognitional theory are enormously valuable, and his application of this to the practice of theology is original and insightful: the book fully merits five stars. Not only does it give an illuminating view of what theologians are actually doing, or trying to do, but it also provides some irreplaceable handholds for making one’s way through the labyrinths of contemporary philosophy, as well as some excellent practice in clear thinking that rubs off on one’s thought in general.

Some pearls: the four steps in human knowing, which all involve a kind of self-transcendence (experience, spontaneous understanding, rational judgment, evaluation); the concept of differentiations of consciousness (common-sense, theory, specific specializations, interiority, transcendence); the centrality of conversion and its connection to authenticity; the roles of dialectic and of conversion as a foundation in theological discernment (and intellectual discernment generally). I wish he had written more fully and with more examples about this last one. And there is the balance or poise of Lonergan’s critical realism, which avoids the traps of naive realisms and empiricisms on the one hand and of idealism in its different forms on the other.

[Summer Bohannon · Rating 5 out of 5]

An extended fight with the flu interrupted by reading of this for a few months, but I am glad I returned to finish! Although much of this will require me years of reflection and study to understand fully, I could still jump into passages after days of fevered cognitive malaise and encounter profound reflections. Lonergan presents a timely consideration of the relationship between human subjectivity and transcendent objectivity. Additionally, his explanation of the differentiated versus the undifferentiated consciousness encourages and challenges me as an educator. Method in Theology extends far beyond just theology with its methodological insights. All of Christian academic reflection could benefit from Lonergan's work here.

[Jonathan Widell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bernard Lonergan was a major figure in the development of the Thomas More Institute in Montreal and what would later become Concordia University in Montreal, with both of which institutions I am associated. Reading one of his two major works was a gesture of so-called cultural goodwill on my part. Nobody would accuse Lonergan of being unpredictable. He distinguishes eight "functional specialties" at the end of part 1: research, interpretation, history, dialectic, foundations (conversion), doctrines, systematics, and communication. They are like eight wings in his basic grand theory. And sure enough, Lonergan dedicates one chapter to each functional specialty in part 2. Nobody would accuse him of not practicing what he preaches, either. His approach is an embodiment of the method he is talking about. However, as he explains, there is also a personal component to his method. As he paraphrases John Henry Newman: To attempt to ensure objectivity apart from self-transcendence only generates illusions. And as Jacques Lacan never tired of repeating: style is the man. It is here that I have some objections. Lonergan's endless taxonomies are tiresome. Once he has distinguished x number of different categories, he goes on to distinguish y number of subcategories. Where do they come from? He does not say (most of the time) but it is hardly a surprise that the book exudes more or less openly articulated sympathy with Aristotle and the scholastics, notably Aquinas, to the point of being apologetic of them. It is hard not to find this approach pedantic. That impression is only deepened by such a relatively minor point as his idiosyncratic grammatical structures, especially the hybridized "there is" and the passive voice: "There has been outlined the structure of a dialectic, and now there must be asked whether it satisfies the definition of method." Where does he get that from? There may be surmised that he is emulating J.H.Newman while making his prose as inelegant as Newman's was elegant. On the other hand, once the reader has surmounted these obstacles, the taxonomic approach shows its strength. Thanks to his methodology, Lonergan keeps pushing his argument to areas where few have gone before. Not only is he discovering known unknowns but he also takes a look at the unknown knowns. Especially in what he says about history, he hits the nail on the head by articulating what pretty much everyone knows but never thought of spelling out. The skeletal structure also allows for improvisation when one fleshes it out. As Lonergan quotes some authority, history is understood in the process of changing it. The final note is, unexpectedly, that of elegance which one derives from perceiving a solidly structured argument. Bottomline: I will definitely go on to read Lonergan's previous work, Insight.

[Marc · Rating 4 out of 5]

A meaningful, detailed, albeit dry account of trying to establish a method in Christian theology to ensure that all believers and all theologians remain faithful to the truth to which they come as we grow in knowledge and experience. Certainly, a must-read for Catholics who want to be attentive to the precepts of contemporary intellectual pursuits while maintaining a robust faith that consistently calls one beyond oneself. Although Lonergan's efforts are sometimes dated by use of modernity's favorite concepts - transcendental method for one -- the reality is we all start from somewhere and there is no such thing as presuppositionless method (what he poetically calls the "Principle of the Empty Head"). In our case in the industrialized world, "Be attentive, be intelligent, be rational, be responsible" still have great resonance. Perhaps his division of theology into the eight functional specialties is a bit too schematic, but the realization that different areas require different emphases in application of these four "transcultural" principles is a pearl of great price. As with many theological authors that are philosophically bent, Lonergan tends to repeat himself too much and often spends far too much time on too many fine points. But for those who can endure the resulting dry reading, it is well worth it. It has been and likely can continue to be quite useful in an ecumenical context as well.

[Jim Sullivan]

Perhaps one of the most profound and useful illustrations of how we come to know anything. This is a significant contribution to philosophy, theology and cognition. The concept of the General Empirical Method and Functional Specialties offers fertile opportunity for ground-breaking work in each of these fields and certainly beyond!

[Blair Hodges · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tons of food for thought in terms of theology versus religious studies in terms of the methodology (the approach and questions) employed by the respective disciplines. But he goes beyond that to offer an interesting account of human thought, learning, and development.

[Gregory]

This is a tough one. Slowly becoming more and more rewarding

[Andrea · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is better every time I read it.

[Irene · Rating 3 out of 5]

Did not fully understand it

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good theologian to know. I need to re-read this someday...

[Justin · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for methodology, especially for theologians.