• Developing a Methodology for a Theology of Meaning

  • One of the most significant challenges facing civilization in the twenty-first century is for human beings to learn to express their deepest personal concerns—about ethics, spiritual experience, and the inevitability of human suffering—in ways that are not flagrantly irrational.

    – Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

Methodological Considerations

  • Theological methodology is the study of principles and approaches that guide how theology is done—how we seek, interpret, and articulate religious convictions and claims.

    Rather than just exploring beliefs, theological methodology asks foundational questions about sources, reasoning, and criteria: How do we know what we claim is true? What methods or disciplines help shape our doctrinal commitments?

    Just as scientific methodology structures research in the sciences, theological methodology offers frameworks for investigating questions of spirituality, doctrine, and meaning. It involves clarifying assumptions, outlining processes, and choosing sources and norms (such as scripture, tradition, and reason) for theological reflection.

    By examining methodologies, theologians identify reliable ways to connect ancient symbols and texts with contemporary contexts, contributing to a coherent and honest account of religious understanding.

    This methodological exploration aims to respond to Sam Harris’s call for theology to offer rational insights into ethics, meaning, and purpose, aligning with contemporary standards of academic rigor and intellectual integrity.

  • Most individuals have updated computer or smartphone systems, replacing outdated designs with improved features, despite the inconvenience of change. 

    Though often frustrating, these updates generally enhance long-term performance, even if not all promised benefits materialize.

    Christian theology and spirituality require overdue intellectual updates and systemic upgrades to uphold and ensure the tradition’s viability. These revisions demand time and will involve discomfort and sometimes painful shifts, including discarding outdated elements to adopt new frameworks.

    The choice is ours: upgrade and refine our understanding, or let antiquated systems falter and fail.

  • For Christianity or any religion to remain authentic and enhance human lives, it must center on truth, grounded in meaning, rather than fantastical empirical claims about Arks and Gardens justified by baseless speculation.

    The proper function of theology is not to pronounce on the mechanics of virgin births and resurrected bodies or elaborate on the process of transforming wine and bread into Jesus. 

    Rather, the purpose of theology is to elaborate the meaning of such claims. What is the significance of saying Jesus was virgin-born, resurrected from the dead, and is present in the Eucharist?

    Theology’s strength lies in addressing issues of existential import: human dignity, moral purpose, and the pursuit of goodness.

    A mature theology acknowledges its limits, cedes explanatory claims to science, and focuses on its actual task: illuminating meaning and guiding ethical life in a world science describes but cannot normatively judge.

    Sadly, as a result of this methodological confusion, much of contemporary Christian theology fosters a spirituality that amounts to magical thinking, wish fulfillment, and ego projection.

    To restore credibility, we must turn away from any ideological theology that lacks humility, makes unwarranted claims, and arrogantly demands that reality conform to its narrow views. 

    Any theology that militantly imposes itself on reality without regard for reason, science, and the truth that emerges from lived experience is false.

    What is needed is a return to a theology of meaning that humbly proposes its wisdom for the post-Christian, post-Enlightenment world to consider.

    We must reject ideological theology that lacks humility, makes unfounded assertions, and arrogantly demands that reality conform to its narrow perspective. Any theology imposing itself militantly, ignoring reason and lived experience, proves false.

    The goal is a theology of meaning, emphasizing rational exploration of purpose, value, and wisdom, engaging in constructive dialogue with diverse human knowledge, including science.

    Consequently, our theology must align with our best understanding of reality, integrating insights from science, philosophy, and human experience, while remaining open to mythopoetic understandings. 

    A theology of meaning organizes religious beliefs into frameworks that illuminate existential purpose and normative wisdom. It identifies core themes and concepts, articulating their interconnections to reveal the significance of theological claims for human life.

    Returning theology to this focus allows for a rapprochement with naturalism and Enlightenment thinking by affirming the world’s inherent meaning without competing with their domains. 

    This methodology fosters interdisciplinary dialogue, drawing on psychology, sociology, literature, science, and the arts. Such engagement enriches theological inquiry, offering fresh perspectives on questions of purpose and value.

    Above all, it focuses on the normative dimensions of reality, elaborating insights through metaphor, mythopoesis, and illative reasoning, which weave diverse experiences into a unified understanding.

    Additionally, it incorporates historical-critical analysis of texts and traditions to uncover their original meaning (if possible) and relevance to lived experience now.

    We must return to theology as a form of wisdom. Wisdom is not primarily about factual knowledge of the world. Instead, wisdom focuses on praxis, how to live a good and meaningful life. 

    In essence, theology doesn’t explain the world; it offers a way to live in it meaningfully.

Contextual Sources & Parameters

  • Christian tradition itself functions as a vital source of authority, offering the accumulated wisdom, insights, and practices of generations who have sought to live in response to the Gospel.

    Tradition is much more than simply old customs or rituals. Tradition is the living story of the Way that connects today’s Christians with the earliest followers of Jesus.

    It’s the shared wisdom, teachings, and ways of worship that have been passed down from one generation to the next.

    This Tradition includes more than just written texts; it’s lived out in community, ritual, service, and ongoing reflection on what it means to follow Jesus.

    Tradition helps to establish meaningful parameters for belief and practice, providing a framework within which Christian communities interpret scripture, navigate challenges, and discern appropriate moral responses.

    This inheritance anchors conviction, offering continuity and depth that guide present decisions.

    Yet, tradition does not confine Christians to the past or prevent them from growing and changing. Instead, it is a living inheritance that invites creative engagement and adaptation, always open to fresh inspiration and new contexts.

    By valuing tradition as a resource rather than a rigid constraint, theologians can honor the integrity of the faith while remaining responsive to the needs, questions, and realities of each generation.

    In this way, tradition serves as both a foundation and a horizon—guiding but never limiting the dynamic journey of the Christian life.

  • The scriptures are a by-product and constitutive aspect of the Tradition.

    There is a sense of Tradition being a more foundational reality, in that the scriptures emerge from the communities that wrote them and the larger communal acceptance of their validity.

    Scripture serves as a narrative authority within Christian theology, offering a rich source of stories, wisdom, and lived encounters that guide faith and shape moral imagination.

    Rather than functioning as a moral or historical textbook or manual, the Bible unfolds the journey of God’s people through history, inviting readers into an ongoing story of covenant, struggle, hope, and redemption.

    Its authority lies in revealing truth through narrative, symbol, poetry, and parable, fostering discernment and inspiring transformation rather than prescribing fixed answers for every moral or factual question .

    By approaching scripture as narrative authority, Christians are called to engage deeply with the text—interpreting, wrestling, and drawing meaning that speaks to their contemporary context.

    This approach recognizes the complexities and historical situatedness of the biblical witness, respecting its theological depth without reducing it to simplistic rules or scientific records. Such a reading empowers communities to seek wisdom for faithful living, informed by the overarching themes of justice, mercy, and love that permeate the scriptural story .

    In this way, the authority of scripture invites participation and dialogue rather than passive acceptance of literal formulas, encouraging Christians to continually discern God’s call amid the unfolding drama of life.

  • Sensus fidelium, or the “sense of the faithful,” is the idea that all baptized Christians, guided by the Holy Spirit, share a collective instinct for the truth of Christian claims and practices.

    This concept recognizes that the whole Church—not just its leaders—has a role in discerning and living out Christian doctrine.

    Therefore, the sensus fidelium is viewed as a dynamic, ongoing conversation between the people of God, where the lived experiences and spiritual insights of ordinary believers contribute to shaping our understanding of what we hold as true.

    This approach encourages humility, dialogue, and openness to new awareness and insights into truth and meaning.

  • In theology, reason and experience are ultimately the final authorities because reality—what is actually lived and known—must always take precedence over theory or abstract doctrine.

    No matter how compelling a teaching or tradition may seem, it is the individual’s lived experience and capacity for reasoned reflection that determine its credibility and relevance. In this sense, the individual is primary, since each person must decide for themselves whether a claim to authority truly resonates with their own understanding of truth and the world.

    Authority is not rejected, but it is always subject to the discernment of the individual, who weighs teachings against the evidence of their own life and the broader reality they encounter.

    This approach affirms that conviction and doctrine must be tested by both reason and experience, ensuring that theology remains grounded in the real, lived journey of each believer.

    Experience and reality are fundamental forms of authority, grounding belief, discernment, and moral decision-making in what is actually encountered and lived.

    Each person is ultimately responsible for evaluating which authorities—be they scriptural, traditional, communal, or personal—are truly credible and reliable. Authority is not imposed but accepted by an individual who seeks coherence between inherited wisdom and direct experience of the world .

    Recognizing the primacy of the individual, informed by a balanced interplay of scripture, tradition, community, and personal experience, affirms the essential role of conscience and discernment in Christian life.

    This approach respects the complexity and uniqueness of each person’s journey, encouraging the thoughtful integration of various sources of insight rather than uncritical adherence to external authority.

    In doing so, spirituality becomes a living reality that is personally meaningful, responsible, and continually open to growth .

Methodological Sources of Insight

  • Narrative theory, as applied to theology, emphasizes the power of story as the primary framework for understanding religious beliefs, practices, and experiences.

    Instead of focusing solely on abstract doctrines or isolated propositions, narrative theology draws attention to the lived, unfolding story of the Christian tradition, as found in Scripture and the collective memory of religious communities.

    Christian theology, for example, is increasingly understood as participation in an ongoing “meta-story” or “theodrama”—the account of God’s dynamic relationship with humanity, traced from creation, through Israel, to Jesus, and onward into the life of the Church.​

    This approach resists reducing scripture and doctrine to a catalogue of rules or mere historical statements. Rather, it suggests that meaning arises within the narrative context: Parables, biographical arcs, and canonical histories do more than convey facts; they shape identity, inspire imagination, and invite participation in the continuing story of faith.

    For narrative theologians, theological method is inseparable from narrative itself; interpretation becomes an act of storytelling, rich in symbols and metaphors.

    Meaning is negotiated through the unfolding of shared symbols, rituals, and even conflicts, which—like chapters in a book—draw followersl into greater understanding and transformation. ​

    Critically, narrative theology does not dismiss systematic or propositional theology but reframes them. Propositions and doctrines, in this view, serve to clarify and deepen the story, but cannot replace it.

    In methodological terms, narrative invites theologians to ask: What stories are told? Whose voices are heard? How do these shape our understanding of the divine, the world, and ourselves?

    Mythopoesis & Narrative

    Mythopoesis, the art of creating myths to convey meaning, is central to understanding the theological methods of ancient Christianity and offers profound implications for modern theology. 

    Mythopoesis, derived from the Greek terms mythos (story) and poiesis (making), refers to the construction of symbolic narratives that convey profound existential truths about human life, the divine, and the cosmos. 

    Unlike scientific or historical discourse, which seeks empirical precision, mythopoesis operates in the realm of imagination and meaning, employing metaphors, allegories, and narratives to convey realities that exceed literal description. 

    For early Christians, theology was an art of meaning-making through mythopoetic forms, and a modern theological methodology must reclaim this approach.

    Mythopoesis conveys existential meaning, not scientific or historical fact. For example, most biblical stories were never meant to be historical reports in the modern sense; they were crafted to evoke awe, inspire the imagination, and orient believers toward a particular meaning. 

    The ancients understood that truths about divinity, sacred reality, or human destiny required the symbolic language of myth, not the propositional clarity of scientific reasoning, which they did not possess anyway. 

    This method allowed early Christians to engage diverse Jewish, Greek, and Roman cultures by speaking to universal human experiences through shared symbolic frameworks.

    For example, consider the Garden of Eden described in the Book of Genesis. Were the ancient authors referencing an actual location and a real garden? If we could go back in time and have a conversation with ancient Jews, much of our manner of reasoning and resulting questions would make little sense to them. “How big was the garden?” Or “Where was the garden located?” Such questions would have made no sense to an ancient interlocutor. 

    Why? Because the garden was a symbol and/or metaphor for a state of being related to the human condition. It may also have been a reference to hunter-gatherer culture. The lack of an actual Garden of Eden wouldn’t have troubled an ancient listener. The empirical factual situations were besides the point of the myth and its meaning. 

    Modern theology must reintegrate this approach, recognizing that we, too, must do theology as an art of meaning-making. Perhaps more importantly, we should avoid interpreting ancient mythopoesis in the manner of post-Enlightenment reasoning. 

    In a post-secular age, where science dominates factual inquiry, theology’s role is not to assert empirical claims as much as to address existential questions, such as purpose, the meaning of suffering, and hope, through symbolic and narrative forms. 

    By embracing mythopoesis, theology becomes a creative, dialogical practice, offering meaning in a fragmented world, just as the ancients did through their sacred stories.

  • Critical biblical methods refer to a range of scholarly approaches used to interpret the Bible by examining its historical, literary, cultural, and theological contexts.

    These methods include textual criticism (analyzing ancient manuscripts to reconstruct the original text), source criticism (identifying underlying sources used by biblical authors), form criticism (studying the literary forms and genres of biblical passages), redaction criticism (investigating how editors shaped the final text), and socio-historical criticism (exploring the social and historical background of the text).

    Additional approaches, such as narrative analysis, rhetorical criticism, and contextual methods (including feminist, liberationist, and postcolonial readings), further enrich the interpretive process by focusing on how stories are told, the author’s intent, and the impact of the text on marginalized groups.​

    Critical biblical methods differ fundamentally from literalism, which insists on a strictly word-for-word, surface-level reading of the Bible, often treating every passage as a direct, factual statement or command.

    Literalism tends to ignore the historical, cultural, and literary context of the text, and may overlook figurative language, genre, and the evolving nature of biblical interpretation over time.

    In contrast, critical methods recognize that the Bible is a complex collection of diverse genres—poetry, parable, history, prophecy, and more—each requiring different interpretive strategies. These methods seek to uncover the original meaning of the text, as well as its ongoing relevance, by asking questions about authorship, audience, historical setting, and literary form.​

    Critical biblical interpretation also values the role of reason, evidence, and dialogue, inviting readers to engage with the text in a way that is both intellectually honest and spiritually meaningful.

    It acknowledges that understanding the Bible is not a static process but an ongoing conversation shaped by new discoveries, changing contexts, and diverse perspectives. By contrast, literalism often resists such dialogue, favoring a fixed, unchanging interpretation that may not account for the richness and complexity of the biblical witness.

  • Historical Jesus scholarship is a rigorous academic discipline focused on reconstructing the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth using historical-critical methods.

    Rather than relying solely on theological or creedal interpretations, scholars in this field apply the same tools used in other historical studies—textual criticism, source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism—to analyze the New Testament and related sources.

    The goal is to sift through the layers of tradition, theology, and later interpretation to identify what can be reasonably attributed to the historical Jesus himself.​

    A central feature of historical Jesus methodology is the use of “criteria of authenticity.”

    These include the criterion of dissimilarity (a saying or action is more likely historical if it differs from both Jewish and early Christian norms), the criterion of embarrassment (details that would have been awkward for the early church are more likely to be authentic), and the criterion of multiple attestation (if a tradition appears in several independent sources, it is more likely to be historical).

    Scholars also consider the plausibility of events within the historical and cultural context of first-century Palestine, and increasingly, they draw on social memory theory, which examines how traditions about Jesus were shaped and transmitted by early communities.​

    John Dominic Crossan, Stephen J. Patterson, and John P. Meier are three outstanding figures in this field.

    Crossan, a leading voice in the “Third Quest,” emphasizes the importance of social context and the use of cross-cultural comparisons, arguing that Jesus should be understood as a radical social prophet whose teachings challenged the status quo.

    Patterson, known for his work on the Jesus Seminar, has contributed to the development and critique of the criteria of authenticity, highlighting both their strengths and limitations.

    Meier, in his monumental series A Marginal Jew, employs a meticulous, evidence-based approach, carefully weighing each tradition against the criteria and the broader historical record to build a portrait of Jesus as a first-century Jewish teacher.​

    These scholars, among others, have helped shape a field that values careful, interdisciplinary research and open dialogue, recognizing that the quest for the historical Jesus is both a scholarly and a spiritual endeavor.

    Their work demonstrates that historical Jesus scholarship is about understanding the roots of Christian tradition in the context of history.

  • Personalism is a philosophical and theological movement that places the human person at the center of moral, social, and spiritual reflection.

    In its Christian, particularly Catholic, strands, personalism affirms the inherent dignity of every individual, emphasizing that each person is willed by God for their own sake, not merely as a means to an end.

    This perspective is deeply rooted in the Second Vatican Council’s teaching, especially in the document Gaudium et spes, which declares that “man is the only creature on earth that God willed for its own sake and he cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself”.​

    Catholic personalism refocuses theology on the dignity and uniqueness of the human person, seeing each individual as a subject of love, freedom, and relationality. It insists that persons are not to be used or reduced to objects, but must be respected and loved as ends in themselves.

    This approach shapes Christian ethics, social teaching, and spirituality, encouraging a vision of society where every person’s rights, needs, and potential are honored. Personalism also highlights the relational nature of the human person—our identity and fulfillment are found not in isolation, but in authentic relationships with others and with God.​

    In Catholic thought, personalism is closely tied to the concept of the imago Dei—the belief that humans are created in the image and likeness of God. This means that every person bears a unique reflection of divine dignity and is called to a life of love, self-giving, and communion.

    Personalism thus becomes a foundation for affirming human rights, promoting social justice, and resisting ideologies that dehumanize or instrumentalize individuals.​

    By centering theology on the person, Christian personalism offers a powerful antidote to both collectivism and radical individualism. It affirms that true human flourishing comes from recognizing the sacred worth of each person and building communities that foster mutual respect, love, and solidarity.

  • Modern Christian and Catholic social thought is a rich tradition that flows directly from the core teachings of the Gospels and the affirmation of human dignity.

    At its heart, Catholic social teaching insists that every person is created in the image and likeness of God, possessing an inherent and inviolable dignity that must be respected in all aspects of life.

    This principle is not just a philosophical abstraction; it is the foundation for a vision of society that values justice, solidarity, and the common good. The Church’s social doctrine calls for structures and policies that protect the vulnerable, promote the well-being of families, and ensure that all people—regardless of background or status—have the opportunity to flourish.​

    Catholic social thought is deeply rooted in the life and teachings of Jesus, who consistently reached out to the marginalized, defended the poor, and called for compassion and justice. The Gospels inspire the Church to advocate for workers' rights, to care for creation, and to build communities where every person is recognized and valued. Principles such as solidarity, subsidiarity, and the option for the poor are not merely Christian concerns; they speak to the universal call to love one’s neighbor and to work for a world where justice and peace prevail.​

    This tradition is not limited to Catholics. Its emphasis on human dignity, justice, and the common good resonates with Christians of all denominations and with people of goodwill everywhere. Catholic social teaching invites all Christians to reflect on how their faith calls them to act in the world, to challenge injustice, and to build communities that reflect the love and compassion of Christ. By centering on the dignity of every person and the transformative power of the Gospel, modern Catholic social thought offers a vision that is both deeply Catholic and profoundly ecumenical—a call to action that transcends denominational boundaries and speaks to the heart of Christian discipleship.

  • The modern Christian progressive moment reimagines faith for the complexities of contemporary life, emphasizing a methodology rooted in questioning, inclusivity, history, and reason.

    At its core, progressive Christianity is not defined by a single denomination or creed, but by a shared commitment to re-examining tradition, embracing contemporary forms of learning and understanding, and centering on the ethical teachings of Jesus—especially love, justice, and compassion.

    This movement draws from a range of theological streams and is characterized by a willingness to adapt traditional, inherited doctrines to new cultural realities.​

    A deep engagement with scripture marks Progressive Christianity’s methodology, but not as a literal or inflexible rulebook. Instead, it treats the Bible as a living text, open to interpretation and contextualization.

    Reason, experience, and dialogue are valued alongside tradition, allowing for a more nuanced and evolving understanding of faith. This approach encourages believers to ask difficult questions, to listen to marginalized voices, and to seek truth in both ancient wisdom and modern experience.​

    Underlying principles include a strong emphasis on social justice, care for the poor and oppressed, environmental stewardship, and the affirmation of human dignity for all, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, or background.

    Progressive Christians often advocate for systemic change. They believe that the Gospel calls for bold, proactive engagement with issues like poverty, inequality, and climate change, and that the Church’s mission is to be a force for healing and reconciliation in society.

    By prioritizing love, justice, and inclusivity, the modern Christian progressive moment offers a vision of Christian spirituality that is both deeply rooted in the Gospel and responsive to the needs of our time.

  • The Celtic Christian tradition is a distinctive stream of Christianity that emerged in the British Isles—especially Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and parts of England—from the 3rd to the 12th centuries. Unlike the centralized, hierarchical model of Roman Christianity, Celtic Christianity developed organically within tribal and clan-based societies, emphasizing local monastic communities, a deep connection to the land, and a mystical, earth-honoring spirituality. Its roots lie in the blending of ancient Celtic customs with the teachings of the Gospel, resulting in a faith that was both indigenous and deeply Christ-centered.​

    Methodologically, Celtic Christianity is marked by its emphasis on community, nature, and the sacredness of everyday life.

    Monasteries, rather than cathedrals or bishoprics, were the heart of the tradition, serving as centers of learning, prayer, and evangelization. These communities were often founded by local saints—sometimes members of the local nobility—who established spiritual kinship networks that stretched across the land.

    The Celtic approach to theology and practice was less concerned with rigid dogma and more focused on lived experience, storytelling, and the integration of faith into daily rhythms.​

    A key methodological underpinning of Celtic Christianity is its embrace of the sacred in the ordinary. The tradition sees God’s presence in nature, in community, and in the cycles of life, rather than confining the divine to formal liturgy or institutional structures. This is reflected in its rich use of poetry, art, and symbolism—which express spiritual truths through beauty and creativity.

    Celtic spirituality also values silence, contemplation, and the practice of hospitality, seeing these as pathways to encounter the divine.​

    Another distinctive feature is its openness to the wisdom of other traditions and its emphasis on inclusivity. Celtic Christianity often incorporated elements of pre-Christian Celtic belief, reinterpreting them through a Christian lens. This syncretism allowed for a more flexible and adaptive spirituality, one that could speak to the needs and experiences of diverse communities.​

    In summary, the Celtic Christian tradition is characterized by its organic, community-centered, and nature-affirming approach to faith. Its methodology prioritizes lived experience, creativity, and the integration of the sacred into everyday life, offering a vision of Christianity that is both deeply rooted in the past and profoundly relevant to contemporary spiritual seekers.

Toward a Methodology of a Theology of Meaning


  • Because we see and understand the world through postmodern eyes, we often misunderstand, misinterpret, and struggle to rationalize many ancient theological claims.

    The scriptures and much of the Christian theology are rooted in ancient forms of thinking and reasoning. 

    The ancients relied on mythopoetic, allegorical, and metaphorical reasoning in ways we do not today. Our scriptures and early Church writings reflect this ancient worldview.

    The ancients knew nothing about science, biology, or psychology. They did not approach history in the same way we do today. 

    If we hope to make sense of theological claims, then we must recognize this disconnect. We must understand that today’s intellectual mindset often can’t get beyond initial category errors and our insistence on engaging theology and religious texts on our current intellectual terms. 

    For example, the contemporary mindset is primed to read the scriptures literally and interpret the ancient texts as making scientific or historical claims. 

    The postmodern, postsecular, naturalistic, factual-based mindset colors not just the reasoning of non-religious individuals but also Christians, including Christian theologians, pastors, scholars, and teachers. 

    We have to approach theology and sacred writings with new intellectual lenses — ones that were crafted using ancient techniques. 

  • A theology of meaning asks how Christian faith can speak truthfully and fruitfully in a world shaped by modern science, pluralism, and deep symbolic hunger.

    Methodologically, it must attend to the structures of human meaning-making, and their resulting interpretations, holding metaphysics and hermeneutics together rather than pitting them against each other.

    Starting from Experience

    A theology of meaning begins with disciplined attention to lived experience: personal, communal, and historical. It asks what people actually suffer, hope for, fear, and love, and how they narrate these realities. Experience is not an infallible source, but a necessary site where revelation is received and interpreted. Theology listens phenomenologically—describing how reality appears to consciousness—before prescribing doctrines or norms.

    Hermeneutical Consciousness

    Because all access to reality is mediated by language, symbol, and tradition, a theology of meaning must be explicitly hermeneutical. It recognizes:

    • All theological claims are interpretations, not naked givens.

    • Scripture and tradition are living texts that require historical, literary, and sociocultural exegesis.

    • Meaning emerges dialogically, as texts, communities, and contexts interact.

    This methodology acknowledges that believers inhabit “horizons” shaped by culture and history, and that theology involves the fusion, critique, and expansion of those horizons.

    Symbol, Myth, and Narrative

    A theology of meaning takes symbol, myth, and narrative as primary. Rather than reducing doctrine to abstract propositions, it treats biblical stories, liturgical practices, and communal memories as privileged carriers of meaning. Methodologically, this involves:

    • Attending to the multi-layered resonance of symbols (cross, Spirit, bread, body).

    • Reading myths and miracle stories as poetic construals of reality, not failed science.

    • Exploring how narratives shape identity, ethics, and imagination.

    Meaning is found not only in what a text “says,” but in what it invites, performs, and makes possible in the lives of hearers.

    Interdisciplinary Engagement

    A theology of meaning deliberately engages philosophy, psychology, literary theory, and the social sciences. These disciplines illuminate how humans construct and inhabit meaning, how power and trauma distort it, and how language both reveals and conceals reality. Theologians use these tools critically, neither uncritically baptizing them nor defensively rejecting them, but testing how they clarify or obscure Christian claims.

    Praxis and Discernment

    Meaning is finally verified in practice. A theology of meaning treats discipleship, communal life, and ethical action as methodological criteria. If a doctrine sustains compassion, justice, reconciliation, and courage, it is more likely to be truth-bearing; if it reliably produces fear, domination, or despair, its “meaning” is theologically suspect. Spiritual practices—prayer, contemplation, solidarity with the suffering—become laboratories where meaning is discerned, refined, or rejected.

    Normative Orientation

    A theology of meaning must remain ethically accountable and normatively guided. Human interpretations must be held as provisional and continually tested against the demands of love, justice, and truthfulness.

    This orientation must guard meaning against hardening into ideology and keep theology humble, dialogical, and reformable. Methodology itself must bear witness to the fact that God’s reality calls human beings to a more profound compassion, integrity, and solidarity within the fragile, evolving structures of meaning they inhabit.

    Preference for Meaning Over Factual Analysis

    Theology should privilege meaning over mere factual analysis. Its primary task is to draw out existential wisdom, moral insight, and significance for human purpose from scripture, tradition, and experience. While historical inquiry and factual mechanics have their place, they are subordinate to discerning how these narratives orient lives toward love, justice, and hope.

    When theology fixates on proving events or defending literal accuracy, it risks missing the deeper question: what kind of life and community does this story call forth? A theology of meaning, therefore, treats facts as servants of purpose, not as its ultimate horizon.

  • The aim here is to sketch a basic theological method and to demonstrate its use by applying it to several core doctrinal claims, thereby modeling how theological reasoning might responsibly proceed in the contemporary world. The following approach is proposed as a concise, practicable framework.

    1. First, the theological claim, assertion, or narrative must be situated within its cultural, literary, and historical context. This involves asking what questions were being addressed, what symbolic universe was assumed, and how the claim functioned within the community that first articulated it.

    2. Second, the claim should be subjected to analysis in light of contemporary forms of reasoning and ordinary human experience. This includes drawing on current philosophical, scientific, and psychological insights, while also testing the claim against what is recognizably credible, intelligible, and morally responsible in everyday life.

    3. Third, with respect to historical assertions or descriptions of events, it must be acknowledged that we are epistemically distant. We were not present, and therefore possess no direct, authoritative means of verifying what “really happened.” What can be responsibly undertaken is the assessment of plausibility and the interpretive wrestling with the meaning carried by these narratives, rather than a quest for absolute historical certainty.

    4. Fourth, since ancient authors were not attempting to practice science, critical history, or modern psychology, theological interpretation must prioritize discerning the significance of their claims rather than policing their factual precision. This requires moving beyond strictly literal construals. Such an approach does not necessarily deny historical referents; rather, it adopts a principled agnosticism regarding the mechanics of events in order to foreground their existential and moral import.

    On this account, theology is best understood as a meaning-seeking enterprise. The central task of theological reflection is to grasp the existential and normative significance of any given claim or assertion, at least provisionally bracketing historical, scientific, and metaphysical questions so that the primary focus remains on what kind of life, community, and hope the claim is intended to evoke.

  • Luke and Matthew’s Gospels assert that Jesus was conceived without a biological father, with Mary remaining a virgin, a claim later affirmed by Councils and theological writings.

    Science and human experience confirm that parthenogenesis does not occur in humans, leaving us to consider interpretive options.

    One possibility is to view the gospel writers and early thinkers as naive, primitive individuals believing in virgin births.

    Alternatively, they might have known that virgins do not conceive, yet posited a miracle in Mary’s case.

    A third approach reads these accounts as mythopoetic writings, employing symbolic language to convey deeper, nonbiological meaning, resonating with a theology of participation and meaning.

    Determining the correct reading requires several considerations.

    First, we cannot immediately discern the gospel writers’ true intentions, nor were we present to question Mary.

    Second, given science’s evidence against virgin conception, the first two of the above options seem improbable.

    Third, the Gospels’ sophisticated style—deliberate word choice, description, and claims—suggests intelligent authors, not uneducated simpletons retelling eyewitness accounts.

    What if the theological claim of Mary’s virginity transcends concerns about her hymen or biological reproduction? Perhaps early Christians intended a subtler, contextual message.

    Upon closer examination, the motif of a virgin birth was not novel to the gospel writers. Augustus was lauded with divine titles, such as “son of god,” “virgin-born”, and his deified adoptive father, Julius Caesar, enhanced his image as a divinely appointed ruler, legitimizing his authority through a cult of personality.

    In contrast, the Gospels’ virgin birth narrative casts Jesus as the true “son of God,” rooted in divine, not earthly, power—born in a manger, not a palace.

    The gospel’s claim challenged the imperial cult, asserting that actual authority lies in Jesus’ humility, not emperors or armies.

    To ancient listeners, the assertion of a virgin birth was a statement implying honor and prestige; the shock lay in attributing it to Jesus, subverting imperial claims.

    This metaphorical interpretation of the virgin birth and the symbolic details of Jesus’ nativity highlights several key themes: 

    Subversion of Imperial Power: The virgin birth narrative subverts the Roman imperial ideology by presenting Jesus as the true "son of God," challenging the divine claims of the emperor.

    Birth in Bethlehem: Bethlehem, a small, insignificant town, stands in stark contrast to the grandeur of Rome, the center of imperial power. Jesus' birth in this humble setting challenges the notion that power and authority are solely concentrated in the hands of the powerful and elite. It suggests that God's power is manifested in unexpected places and among the marginalized.

    The Shepherds: The shepherds, considered low-status members of society, are the first to receive the news of Jesus' birth. This signifies that the Good News is not limited to the privileged or the powerful, but is accessible to all, regardless of social standing. It also shows who is prioritized in the Kingdom - the lowly. 

    Flight to Egypt: The flight to Egypt, while a narrative of persecution, also echoes the story of Moses, who was saved from death as an infant and later led his people to freedom. This suggests that Jesus, like Moses, will liberate his people from oppression.

    Emphasis on Humility: While Augustus embodied worldly power and domination, Jesus' birth in humble circumstances emphasizes the inverted values of the Kingdom of God.

    Hope for the Oppressed: For those living under Roman oppression, the virgin birth narrative offered a message of hope and liberation, proclaiming that true power resides not in the hands of the oppressors but in God's hands, who identifies with the marginalized and oppressed.

    By weaving together these symbolic elements, the nativity narratives offer a profound critique of Roman imperial ideology and present an alternative vision of power and authority, where the last shall be first, and the humble shall be exalted. 

    This subversive message continues to challenge and inspire us today, reminding us that true power resides not in worldly domination but in the transformative power of love.

  • The exorcism of Legion recounted in Mark 5:1-20, Luke 8:26-39, and Matthew 8:28-34 is a narrative laden with symbolism that extends beyond the literal claims of expelling demons. 

    Through this account, we can discern a powerful critique of Roman imperial power, a demonstration of Jesus' authority over evil, and a profound message of liberation and healing for those marginalized and oppressed.

    Gerasenes/Gadarenes: The location of the exorcism, the region of the Gerasenes or Gadarenes, is significant. This area was largely Gentile, reflecting the encroachment of Roman culture and influence into Jewish territory. The presence of a demon-possessed man in this region symbolizes the oppressive and destructive nature of Roman imperial power.  

    Legion: The name "Legion," which signifies a vast Roman military unit, directly links the demonic force oppressing the young man to the Roman army. This association implies that the demonic oppression experienced by the man is analogous to the oppression inflicted by the Roman Empire on the Jewish people and other subjugated populations.  

    Pigs: The demons' request to enter the pigs and their subsequent drowning in the sea carry multiple layers of symbolism. Pigs were considered unclean animals in Jewish tradition, and their association with the demons further reinforces the notion of impurity and defilement connected to Roman influence. The drowning of the pigs can be interpreted as a symbolic overthrow of Roman power and a rejection of its values.  

    Fear and Rejection: The Gerasenes' reaction to the exorcism, asking Jesus to leave their region, reveals their fear of his power and their complicity in the oppressive systems that benefit them. This highlights the challenge Jesus poses to those who benefit from the status quo, even if it means perpetuating injustice and oppression.  

    The exorcism of Legion offers a nuanced commentary on the nature of power, authority, and the Kingdom of God. It challenges us to question the oppressive systems that perpetuate injustice and to embrace the values of compassion, healing, and liberation. 

  • The Gospel accounts of Jesus' trial before Pilate present a dramatic and pivotal scene, but historical and logistical questions arise regarding their accuracy. 

    One significant challenge is eyewitness testimony.  The Gospels depict a relatively large crowd, but it's unclear who these individuals were. 

    Roman trials, particularly those involving potential sedition, were typically not public spectacles. Access would likely have been restricted, and it's improbable that a large group of Jesus' followers would have been permitted to observe, even at a distance. 

    While some supporters might have lingered at a distance, their ability to accurately recount the proceedings is doubtful. 

    Additionally, the Gospels suggest that Roman soldiers were present, but their perspective would likely be limited, and their understanding of the nuances of Jewish accusations questionable.   

    Another issue is the improbability of Pilate personally interviewing Jesus. Roman governors had numerous responsibilities and staff to assist them. It's unlikely that Pilate, preoccupied with matters of state and maintaining order in a volatile province, would have personally engaged with the case of a relatively obscure subversive religious figure. Lower-ranking officials typically handled such cases. 

    The Gospels' portrayal of Pilate engaging in theological debates with Jesus seems particularly improbable. Furthermore, the image of Pilate as a reluctant judge, pressured by a hostile crowd, contradicts known historical accounts of his behavior. 

    Pilate was not known for leniency towards Jewish dissidents, and the idea of his seeking widespread approval runs counter to his established character.   

    While the trial before Pilate serves a crucial theological purpose in the Gospels, the discrepancies and improbabilities raise questions about its historical accuracy. 

    The Gospel writers, decades after the event, wrote a spiritualized narrative to emphasize Jesus' innocence and portray his death as a sacrifice orchestrated by both Jewish authorities and Roman power. 

    However, these embellishments do not necessarily negate the Gospels' core message. The focus on Jesus' suffering and unjust condemnation remains central to Christian convictions, regardless of the precise details of the trial.

    Why was Jesus arrested? Why was he executed?

    While the Gospels emphasize theological interpretations of these events, a more historically plausible scenario centers on Jesus' disruptive actions in the Temple. 

    His overturning of tables and denunciation of the Temple practices would have been seen as a direct challenge to the religious authorities and a potential incitement to unrest, especially during the volatile Passover season. 

    This act, rather than any purported claims to kingship, would have been sufficient grounds for his arrest by the Temple guards, who were responsible for maintaining order within the sacred precincts. 

    The swiftness of his subsequent trial and execution suggests that the authorities viewed him as a threat to public order, requiring immediate and decisive action to prevent a larger disturbance.

    The trial itself would have been brief, likely proceeding before lower-ranking Roman authorities. 

    The charges brought against Jesus would have focused on his disruption of the Temple and the potential for it to incite a riot, rather than any claims to messianic status. 

    Jesus was not executed because of the intricacies of Jewish religious disputes. He was likely executed for perceived sedition and disruption, someone deemed a threat to public order.

    Additionally, crucifixion was a manner of execution used for subversives, rioters, and rebels. If Jesus had been arrested for theological claims, he would have never been crucified. 

    The Gospels' account of a respectful burial arranged by Joseph of Arimathea is also highly improbable. 

    Roman authorities typically denied burial to those executed for crimes against the state as a final act of humiliation and deterrence. The bodies were often left exposed to scavengers or disposed of in mass graves. This practice underscored Rome's power and served as a stark warning against challenging its authority. 

    The idea of a prominent member of the Sanhedrin requesting and receiving the body of someone executed as a potential revolutionary strains credulity. 

    It is far more likely that Jesus' body was disposed of unceremoniously, further emphasizing the brutal reality of Roman justice and the precariousness of his movement.

  • Christianity doesn’t end with Jesus’ death.

    The resurrection accounts in the gospels differ in several details, though they all share the core message of Jesus' resurrection. 

    One key difference lies in who discovers the empty tomb. In Mark's Gospel, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome find the tomb empty, while Matthew adds "the other Mary" to the group. Luke's account mentions Joanna and other women along with Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James. 

    John's Gospel, however, focuses solely on Mary Magdalene as the first witness to the resurrection. These variations may reflect different traditions or sources used by the Gospel writers.   

    Another point of divergence is the number and identity of the heavenly messengers at the tomb. Mark describes "a young man dressed in white," while Matthew mentions "an angel of the Lord." Luke's Gospel features two men in dazzling clothes, and John's account portrays two angels in white. 

    The Gospel accounts also differ in the timing and location of Jesus' appearances after the resurrection. Matthew portrays Jesus meeting the women on their way back from the tomb, while John describes Mary Magdalene encountering Jesus in the garden near the tomb. Luke's Gospel recounts Jesus appearing to two disciples on the road to Emmaus and later to the eleven disciples in Jerusalem. 

    The discrepancies in the number and descriptions of these figures could be due to different interpretations of the events or varying emphasis on specific details.  

    Mark's initial versions of his Gospel, the earliest of the canonical Gospels, notably lack a detailed account of the resurrection itself. The narrative abruptly ends with the women fleeing the empty tomb in fear and silence, having been told by a young man in white that Jesus has been raised. 

    This abrupt ending has sparked considerable scholarly debate. Some suggest the original ending was lost, while others argue that Mark intentionally concluded his Gospel this way, emphasizing the shock and awe of the resurrection event and leaving the reader to grapple with its implications. 

    The absence of a resurrection appearance by Jesus in Mark underscores the mystery and transformative power of the event. It also highlights the women's subsequent commitment to spread the news, even though they were initially too afraid to do so.

    The disparate details, as well as the timing of the Gospel accounts, indicate that they were unlikely to be based on eyewitness testimony.

    Mark’s Gospel was written between 65 CE and 75 CE. Mark is therefore writing about an event that took place at least 30 years earlier. Most witnesses would have already died. Second-hand accounts are notoriously inaccurate. Yes, the accounts might be, in some manner, based on events retold. But the more realistic interpretation is that the accounts are theological statements rather than historical retellings.

    While the Gospels narrate a physical resurrection, the biological impossibility of such an event necessitates exploring alternative interpretations of this phenomenon. Three-day-old dead bodies do not spontaneously return to life. 

    Therefore, the resurrection narratives, taken literally, present an insurmountable challenge to historical and scientific understanding. 

    However, this does not necessarily invalidate the significance of the claims of resurrection. Still, the stories may be intended to convey symbolic meanings beyond the literal event.

    The resurrection may represent the triumph of love over despair, the enduring power of Jesus' teachings, or the birth of a new community centered on his message. Above all, the claims centered on the continuation of Jesus' influence and felt presence beyond his earthly life. 

    This emphasis on the ongoing experience of Jesus also suggests that the resurrection stories may be rooted in the dreams and visions of his followers, which were common occurrences in the ancient world.

    Moreover, the accounts suggest that the first communities continued to experience a sense of Jesus' presence in their gatherings and spiritual practices.

    Above all, the Eucharist became a central locus for experiencing Jesus' presence. These ritualistic meals served as a tangible connection to Jesus, reinforcing his spiritual presence within the community.   

    Perhaps the most compelling evidence of the continued experience of Jesus lies in the profound love and unity that characterized these groups.

    The crucifixion of Jesus, from a Roman perspective, was a definitive victory. It was the empire's way of silencing a perceived threat, a public execution designed to deter dissent and reinforce Roman authority. 

    However, the early Christian communities interpreted Jesus' death and subsequent resurrection in a radically different light. The resurrection became a powerful declaration that Rome had not, in fact, won. 

    The claim of resurrection was a defiant assertion that the values Jesus embodied – love, compassion, forgiveness, and justice – could not be extinguished by imperial power.  

    The resurrection claims, therefore, weren't primarily about Jesus physically returning to life. The narratives focus on surreal experiences and the struggle of his followers to recognize him in various circumstances. 

    Much of the language of resurrection centered on the claim that God had raised Jesus from the dead. The claims certainly included a sense of tangible realities, but, perhaps more importantly, they implied divine vindication. 

    To claim and participate in the resurrection was to say that Rome could kill us, but they could not ultimately win. To participate in the resurrection was to join the community that was his living body still present in the world. 

    For the early Christians, the resurrection signified that the truth and beauty of Jesus' teachings transcended his physical death. It validated his life and ministry, confirming that his message resonated with a power that even death could not conquer.  

    The resurrection was a mythic statement demonstrating that even in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds, goodness and love would ultimately prevail. 

    It was a powerful affirmation that the values Jesus championed were not merely idealistic platitudes but rather fundamental principles that held true regardless of earthly circumstances.   

  • A theology of meaning, at its core, is epistemologically humble, allowing human knowledge and experience to inform its reasoning and understanding of the Christian message. 

    It seeks to find evidence, whether historical, experiential, or philosophical, to support its claims, remaining open to the possibility that new information might challenge or refine its conclusions. Above all, it seeks to understand the meanings behind the claims beyond their literal details. 

    In contrast, ideological theology begins with a predetermined set of beliefs and then seeks to impose that framework on reality. It filters evidence through the lens of its ideology, often dismissing or reinterpreting anything that contradicts its preconceived notions. 

    While a theology of meaning seeks a dialogue between theology and reason, ideological theology operates from a position of certainty, prioritizing adherence to its doctrine over genuine engagement with the complexities of the world. One seeks understanding through inquiry; the other seeks confirmation through imposition.

    In ideological theology, the focus on a literal interpretation of scripture and related Christian claims, often divorced from historical or contextual analysis, creates a rigid framework through which all information is filtered. 

    This framework becomes the unchallengeable starting point, shaping not only theological understanding but also political and social views.

    A theology of meaning offers an alternative to the corrosive and narrowing effects of ideological stances.

    Some critics of a theology of meaning argue that its emphasis on evidence, reason, and existential concerns dilutes Christian doctrine, rendering it a less robust and ultimately unorthodox version of the tradition. 

    They fear that by subjecting theological claims to scrutiny, a theology of meaning undermines the mystery and sacredness of Christian beliefs. 

    However, this objection mischaracterizes the nature and intent of such a theology. A theology of meaning is not about skepticism or a rejection of core Christian tenets. 

    Instead, it is deeply rooted in a commitment to realism, reason, and intellectual humility. It recognizes that theology and reason are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary paths to understanding truth. 

    Far from watering down Christianity, a theology of meaning seeks to enrich and deepen our understanding of it. By asking "why" we believe what we believe and by examining the evidence that supports our claims, we can move beyond mere assent to a more profound and intellectually honest engagement with Christian doctrine. 

    A theology of meaning is not about discarding tradition or embracing novelty; rather, it is about finding a balance between the two. Instead, it is about wrestling with the sense of those traditions, seeking to understand the "why" behind the "what" of Christian belief. It aims to clarify the meaning of Christian claims and assertions rather than simply accepting them at face value.