This article calls for closer conversation between two growing academic fields: the scholarly study of spirituality and practical theology. Practical theology investigates the contemporary situation as it relates to questions of faith, ministry, and public religious leadership. Practical theology loses its center when it neglects the critical study of spirituality. Practical theological study of spirituality can help to integrate the three dominant methods in spirituality scholarship: the anthropological, the historical-contextual, and the theological approaches. The integration of these three approaches promotes a mutually critical correlation between the Christian tradition and the contemporary situation. Reflection on the practices of ministry students and teachers further reveals the importance of practical theological study of spirituality, which should inform the practice of teaching, the conception of theological education, and the formation of ministry students.

This article examines political and liberation theologies as instances of apocalypticism, focusing in the work of Johann Baptist Metz and Jon Sobrino. The first section develops a heuristic framework for identifying and analyzing apocalyptic discourse in general, using the historical work of Bernard McGinn and the rhetorical analysis of Stephen O'Leary. The second section applies this framework to Metz and Sobrino, arguing that their theology is a legitimate, provocative, and instructive instance of apocalyptic discourse today, in part because of the way it integrates apocalyptic eschatology with Christology. In a final section, the intelligibility proper to this apocalyptic discourse is discussed by arguing a correlation with mystical theology with its discursive pair of cataphasis and apophasis. Just as this pair finds its context of meaning in the practice of contemplative prayer, apocalyptic affirmations and the reserve expressed in the eschatological proviso find their context of meaning in the practice of opting for the poor.

According to the classic Catholic doctrine of property, owners who have more than they need are obliged to share their surplus with others who have less than they need. From the patristic era to the work of John Paul II, this obligation has been understood to arise most fundamentally from the character of the objects owned: the material world is a gift from the Creator, intended to meet the needs of all humanity. Three centuries ago, John Locke argued that 99 percent of the value of modern wealth is attributable not to natural resources but to human labor and invention, implicitly restricting the classic obligations of property owners to a mere 1 percent of wealth. Catholic moral theology has yet to integrate Locke's insight about human creativity and economic productivity into an adequate doctrine of property. This article surveys the problem and provides an outline of a constructive response.

Recent attention given to the globalization of ethics, the prospects for a common morality, as well as related issues such as inculturation, pluralism, and multiculturalism all provide a challenging context for critical reflection on how theological ethics can be done in light of some of these challenges. A concrete course on “Cross-Cultural Models of Christian Ethics,” taught regularly at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, with participants from diverse theological and cultural backgrounds is presented with a view to stimulate further reflection on both the theological issues connected with doing cross-cultural ethics in the Christian theological tradition as well as aiding concrete curricular development in this area.

This article describes the reasons that a late medieval spiritual classic, The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis, was recently adopted as a textbook for a freshman course in “Christian Formation” at a mid-sized Evangelical Protestant university (Seattle Pacific University in Seattle, WA) and how it is taught there. It enumerates seven objections which contemporary American Evangelicals might raise to Thomas' spirituality, but shows how these very objections reveal a great deal about the religious and cultural ethos of those who make them. Since one of the course objectives is precisely to help students evaluate and critique their own culture and spirituality theologically, The Imitation proves to be singularly useful as a textbook. Excerpts from student writing assignments are analyzed to demonstrate the effectiveness of this way of using a classic from the Devotio Moderna with “postmodern” collegians.

Theoretical reflection on interreligious questions can be deeply enriched by the praxis of dialogue. The article describes an undergraduate course in which the students and professor engaged self-critically in such dialogue both with texts and one another in the classroom and with local representatives of three religions in a public symposium. In the latter context, students' encounter of the religious “other” was sharpened by having students, rather than the outside experts, present the papers on the course themes—a feature that also stimulated broader interest among the college community. Such a course illustrates the value and the limitations of a dialogical pedagogy in which attention is simultaneously given to learning about both other religions and the students' points of view, in their distinctness and in their interaction.

In this article, the author responds to several recent scholarly criticisms of his book The Divine Mother: A Trinitarian Theology of the Holy Spirit. In responding to these objections, he argues that, by invoking the logic and metaphysics of Charles Sanders Peirce in rethinking the foundations of trinitarian theology, he has formulated a theological construct of the trinity as community, which differs substantively from the efforts of other contemporary theologians to do the same, while at the same time avoiding inadequacies present in their constructs.

James Tunstead Burtchaell had been teaching Rosemary Haughton's 1967 book The Transformation of Man for a number of years when he published Philemon's Problem in 1973. Now, with both authors having reworked their books in the last two years, we are given an opportunity to compare and contrast the development of Burtchaell's and Haughton's thinking on how grace transforms human beings. The present essay sees an intellectual convergence between Haughton and Burtchaell; it sees much to be grateful for in both books by both authors; and it claims that Haughton's new book has developed her thinking on grace's communal character further than Burtchaell's new book has developed his thinking on the same topic.