The paper starts by comparing the historical (Acts 28) and suprahistorical (Revelation) endings of the New Testament, noting that the historical ending shows Paul, living in Rome, meeting and talking with his visitors. This provides a point of reference for seeing conversation as a of theological method, albeit in tension with the eschatological perspective of Revelation. The history of theology shows many works that literally take the form of conversations, from Justin Martyr onwards. As method, however, conversation must have a focus, a certain ‘about’. Referencing the author’s own work Conversations with Dostoevsky [2024], the paper extends the model of conversation to theology’s dialogue with the past, involving an attempt to hear the voices of those who speak to us from the past. The example of Dostoevsky reminds us that (according to Bakhtin) a conversation may have many voices (polyphony) and there may be no final harmony (unfinalizability). Nevertheless, this is only a true conversation if it keeps a defining thematic focus. For theology the conversational model also means that each of the theological sub-disciplines (dogmatics, biblical studies, church history, philosophical theology, etc.) needs to remain in dialogue with the others as well as with the human and natural sciences. This makes the task of theology almost infinitely open-ended, and it is only in the eschatological moment of judgment that the conversation ends.

Keywords: theology, theological dialogue, method in theology, Bible, Christianity, Anglican Church, Protestantism.

For citation: Pattison G. Conversation as theological method. Theology: Theory and Practice, 2025, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 5–11. https://doi.org/10.65324/ttp009

This article presents the results of a comprehensive analysis of 61 dissertations in theology (10 doctoral and 51 candidate) defended in Russia between 2017 and 2024. The study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative analysis. For the first time, numerical parameters of the dissertations (length, structure, publication activity) have been collected and systematized, establishing average standards for such works. Using the first dissertation by Archpriest Pavel Khondzinsky as a case study, the key methodological challenges faced by the discipline at its inception are identified. A qualitative analysis of the methodological sections reveals three stable methodological strategies in contemporary theological research: historical-scientific, philological-hermeneutical, and the strategy of theological correlation. It is concluded concludes that Russian theology has completed its institutional formation and is now in a phase of active methodological reflection. The findings are of practical value for graduate students, applicants, and scientific supervisors.

Keywords: dissertation numerical parameters, theological methodology, theological correlation, soteriological meaning, Higher Attestation Commision, academic standards.

For citation: Musin A.I. Analysis of Theology Dissertations in Contemporary Russia (2017–2024). Theology: Theory and Practice, 2025, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 12–32. https://doi.org/10.65324/ttp010

The presented article discusses various approaches to building methodological foundations when writing a theological study. First, an understanding of the academic foundation of theological research is carried out, then an emphasis is placed on the theological methodological foundation and theological foundations. Then four groups of methods (theological, philological, historical, and general scientific) recommended for use in theological research are considered, with examples of their application. Further, based on the study of the author’s abstracts on theology, as well as the author’s own research experience, recommendations are given for writing the mandatory introduction paragraph “Methodological basis and research methods”. Three variants of models of the methodological foundations of theological research (academic, theological and integrative theological) are presented, differing in the vector of orientation of thinking, which is found in the sequence of principles, approaches and methods, indicating both the nature of the work (theological, philological, historical, etc.) and the author’s self-identification with a particular field of knowledge. The following recommendations stand out: reliance on a theological methodological foundation; the implementation of the theological approach, the use of the integrative method as a general one; paying special attention to building a sequence of mentioning principles, approaches and methods. In conclusion, to help the young theologian-researcher, tables are presented in which: the content of each methodological model is described; groups of methods most often found in theological research are presented in a systematic form; verb-connectives corresponding to principles, approaches and methods are given.

Keywords: theology, theological research, methodological foundations, methodological foundation, integrative methodological model, theologian-researcher.

For citation: Sedankina T.E. Reflection on methodological foundations in theological research. Theology: Theory and Practice, 2025, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 33–48. https://doi.org/10.65324/ttp011

The purpose of the article is to identify the key theological methods of the most significant representatives of Orthodox historical theology (Archpriest Georges Florovsky, Protopresbyter John Meyendorff, Archpriest John Behr), formulated theoretically or applied in practice in connection with the actualization of the patristic heritage. The author proposes to trace the development of historical theology as a method of Orthodox theology, showing the transformation of work with the patristic heritage from synthesis to symphony, based on which he attempts to give meaningful definitions of the theological methods of selected thinkers: the method of synthesis and christian hellenism in Archpriest Georges Florovsky, the method of historicism and byzantinism in Protopresbyter John Meyendorff and the method of symphony and biblicism in Archpriest John Behr. The author attempts to trace the dependence of the transformation of the theological method on the problem proposed by every theologian, in connection with which he comes to the conclusion that the three thinkers developed and further developed the basic ideas of neo-patristic synthesis in application to the modern era. While maintaining a single line of neo-patristics, the author also points out the numerous differences between the three theologians, which allowed each version of one program to be characterized separately. The identified features of theological methodology, as the author believes, explain the features of their theological style, and also shed light on the modern reception of their ideas. An attempt is also made to provide new interpretations and understandings of the program in application to theological methodology in modern Russia. The author considers the ideas for working with fathers proposed by Father George, developed by Father John and completed by Father John to be relevant, although not without problems.

Keywords: neo-patristic synthesis, patristic symphony, Georges Florovsky, John Meyendorff, John Behr, patristics, sobornost, catholicity, historicism, hellenism, theological method, historical theology, biblicism, byzantinism.

For citation: Kravchuk S.V. Transformation of the Theological Method in 20th–21st Centuries: Archpriest Georges Florovsky, Protopresbyter John Meyendorff, and Archpriest John Behr. Theology: Theory and Practice, 2025, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 49–66. https://doi.org/10.65324/ttp012

The article examines Martin Luther’s understanding of theological method. The author proceeds from the possibility of dividing the theological method in a broad and narrow sense. In a broad sense, it implies paying research attention to the intentional predisposition of the actor performing the theological act. In a narrow sense, it is a set of specific rational practices and instrumental procedures. The author’s research attention is aimed at understanding the method in a broad sense in Luther. The available sources allow us to identify the most important religious precondition, which further determine the theological method and the way it functions in Luther. The most important should include: a) understanding theology not as a human word about God, but as the Word with which God addresses man; b) the need to recognize God as a unique Subject of theology, and the impossibility of considering Him only as an object of theological discourse; c) understanding theology not as a theology of substances, but a theology of relations, the relationship between a righteous God and a sinful man; d) affirmation of Jesus Christ as the only criterion of theology and the Cross as the event in which God reveals himself to the highest degree; e) from the human perspective, faith, understood as the presence of the Holy Spirit, is the only possible position for someone who aspires to engage in theological research. A consequence of this approach is Luther’s conception of a hierarchy of criteria used in theological work: a) Revelation in Jesus Christ; b) Church dogmas; c) the judgments of academic theologians. The activity of academic theology is, first and foremost, critical, as it protects against the emergence of a possible conflict between Revelation in Christ and the ecclesiastical practical life of the believing community.

Keywords: Luther, God’s Word, Jusus Christ, theological method, theology of Cross, relational theology, philosophy, faith, promise.

For citation: Pimenov S.S. Luther’s Theological Method. Theology: Theory and Practice, 2025, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 67–81. https://doi.org/10.65324/ttp013

This article examines the liturgical theology of Archpriest Alexander Schmemann within the context of the 20th-century Russian theological tradition. Russian theologians, already in the 19th and especially in the 20th centuries, were attempting to answer the question, “What is true theology?” They noted the displacement of theology from all spheres of public and private life. In their view, the preceding tradition proved powerless to resist these processes. It was declared contaminated by Western influences and had strayed from the “original” Orthodox path. However, in the process of “returning” to the “original” method of theology, Russian theologians turned to Western concepts of the humanities and the ideas of Russian religious philosophy. These concepts and ideas had already proven effective in polemics against positivism. Russian theologians saw them as suitable for a new methodological shift in theology. Central to them was the idea of ​​experiential knowledge as a union with the knowable. This knowledge differs from objective knowledge. By the time of Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, the notion of a theology based on religious experience had become common to many of his colleagues. Church tradition is defined in two ways. On the one hand, church tradition is something expressed in words, images, and church rituals. On the other hand, church tradition is the transmission of the very life of the Church, the continuity of communion with God. In this context, liturgical theology proves essential to showing the way to this communion with God. Liturgical tradition, recorded in rites and texts, proves to be a “scheme” by which one can attain liturgical tradition as a dwelling already now with God in the Kingdom of God. It is precisely this experience of the Church, according to Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, that constitutes the foundation for authentic theology. The author of the article draws attention to the fact that Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann’s theological method is closely connected to the personal religious experience of his youth. Drawing on this experience, Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann makes a distinctive contribution to the methodological research of 20th-century Russian theologians.

Keywords: Alexander Schmemann, Russian theology, religious experience, theology based on experience, method in theology.

For citation: Abrosimov A.A. Liturgical Theology of Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann within the Сontext of Methodological Search in Russian Theology of the 20th Century. Theology: Theory and Practice, 2025, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 82–106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.65324/ttp014

This article attempts to examine the question of rational perception, attitude, and cognition of dogma, resulting in human theological activity. The article draws on the issues of the revival of dogmatic interest at the beginning of the 20th century. The trend of the so-called “revitalization” of dogmatics raises such fundamental themes as understanding the nature of dogma in connection with the historical process of dogmatic formulation, understanding the essence of Divine revelation, and, most importantly, the issue of the independence of dogmatic thinking. To what extent can reason perceive dogma, recognize its inner truth and logic, can reason engage with this “logic” and continue it, can it approach dogma with demands of philosophical thinking? The examined fragments of dogmatic thinking by some representatives of 20th-century theology demonstrate that the solution to these methodological problems moved in two directions. The first methodological vector, presented primarily in the works of priest Pavel Florensky and archpriest Sergius Bulgakov proposes following the path of so-called positive theology, or the rationalization of dogma, where dogmatic truth is immanentized for human thought, which in turn incorporates dogma into the construction of a coherent theory, introducing philosophical issues and new concepts (e.g., Sophia as a living, divine organism). Another methodological vector, discovered in the works of V. N. Lossky and Archpriest Georges Florovsky, draws on the patristic logic of dogmatic thought, striving to grasp its course and recognize its truth as accurately as possible. Here, the characteristic features are: an apophatic and spiritualized theological language, a delineation of the boundaries of knowledge of God, and a caution in mixing philosophical issues with theology.

Keywords: dogma, sophiology, dogmatic methodology, philosophical dogmatics, theology.

For citation: Kasyarum N.V. Dogma and Reason: An Introduction to the Problematic. Theology: Theory and Practice, 2025, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 107–122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.65324/ttp015

This paper discusses the history and methodological principles of constructive theology. The first part provides a historical overview of the development of constructive theology, while the second demonstrates the main methodological principles of this theological strategy and comprehension of them from an Orthodox perspective. The first part includes a description of the precursors of mature constructive theology. It also analyzes the key methodological approaches of its most prominent representatives, such as G. Kaufman, E. Farley, D. Tracy, S. McFague, and K. Keller. The second part describes the methodological principles of the constructive approach. These principles include the self-reflexive nature of theological thinking, interdisciplinarity, contextuality, and the acceptance of methodological pluralism. Constructive theology asserts that theological knowledge is a product of the creative work of the imagination, always contingent, and dependent on a specific context. Thus, constructive theology abandons attempts to find the core of the Christian kerygma. This raises certain questions for Orthodox theology. Therefore, in the second part of the article, the author attempts to propose a way to engage with the methodological approach of constructive theology from an Orthodox perspective. This is done through an appeal to terms such as recursivity and contingency, borrowed from the philosophical work of Yu Hui.

Keywords: constructive theology, Kaufman, McFague, Keller, methodology, contingency.

For citation: Sorokoletov N.V. History and Methodological Principles of Constructive Theology. Theology: Theory and Practice, 2025, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 123–135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.65324/ttp016