Sandra Schneiders and Mark McIntosh articulate two of the most dominant approaches to the contemporary study of Christian spirituality in their respective pieces of writing, an article by Schneiders entitled The Study of Christian Spirituality: Contours and Dynamics of a Discipline[1], and a book chapter by Mark McIntosh entitled Spirituality and Theology: The Questions at Issue.[2]Schneiders represents what she calls the “anthropological approach,” which supposes that long-established academic disciplines such as theology and history are not equipped to deal with the subject of spirituality because spirituality, as a human experience, is inherently interdisciplinary and therefore must develop its own academic methodologies. McIntosh, on the other hand, argues for a “theological” approach to the study of spirituality. He says that the anthropological approach exacerbates a current division between Christian theology and Christian spirituality that reflects the consumerism of our age, emphasizing extraordinary experiences over the journey toward intimacy with God available to all Christians and articulated by theology.  Since theology is the expression of the believing community’s encounter with God, theology and spirituality are different aspects of the same enterprise and it is therefore problematic to speak of one without the other.

I contend that theology is where the study of Christian spirituality must start, because Christian theology provides the critical data necessary for determining whether or not a given spirituality is authentically Christian. However, the anthropological approach is also valuable in that it locates Christian spirituality within the larger field of general spirituality. For students of other faiths or of no faith, Christian spirituality can exist within no other space. Therefore, both the theological approach and the anthropological approach are valuable, but the anthropological approach needs significant modification. In order to be fully credible, the anthropological approach must find a way to more systematically incorporate into its methodology the work on spirituality done via the theological approach.

Two separate categories make up the structure of Schneiders’ anthropological approach to the study of Christian spirituality. “Constitutive disciplines” are those disciplines that, she says, must have a voice in any study within the field of Christian spirituality: scripture and the history of Christianity. “Problematic” (or “variable”) disciplines are limitless and cycle in depending on the specific subject being researched. Problematic disciplines might include psychology, sociology, literature, science, etc. (Schneiders: 3-5). At first glance, this model looks more comprehensive than McIntosh’s because it accommodates as Christian all those spiritual experiences that emerge from within Christian contexts (even if they are not obviously coherent with Christian theology).

Schneiders’ view of the role of theology in academic spirituality invites careful critique, however. Schneiders is careful to state that theology belongs in both the constitutive and problematic discipline categories, but for an article that so thoroughly and concretely outlines her vision for the study of Christian spirituality, Schneiders’ piece is extremely vague in its description of how theology should function as a constitutive discipline. She says rather simply that “some competence in theological content and method is necessary for the spirituality scholar,” as “it is scarcely conceivable that there would be a research project in Christian spirituality which would not involve theological data in some way” (Schneiders: 5). By contrast, Schneiders writes extensively about how theology should function as a problematic discipline when it happens to be relevant to the subject being researched, which raises questions about whether Schneiders really has a place for theology among the constitutive disciplines, or whether she is just paying lip service to its location there in order to pacify her critics.

Schneiders is concise in her explanation of why she places theology where she does, rightly stating that “all theology is local theology, human reflection on faith” (Schneiders: 6). In other words, theology is not “hard data” in the same way scripture and church history are (her two immovable constitutive disciplines). But if theology is constantly developing, then each research project Schneiders’ students undertake, every aspect of the spiritual journey they interpret is, contributing to theology as a living phenomenon in expanding Christian consciousness. Schneiders argues that spirituality as a discipline should seek to interpret Christian “experiences,” “without violating… historical reality” (Schneiders: 3). But if contemporary spiritual experience (new speech about God that has developed into theology [McIntosh: 6]) is not coherent with Christian experience of the past (old speech about God that has developed into theology), is that not perhaps a “violation of history”? And if later generations of theologians and spirituality scholars take Schneiders’ approach in their future research, then theology that is being formed in accordance with her method now may become irrelevant to later generations of scholars. At least, today’s theology may be taken then as seriously as she takes yesterday’s  now. In short, it is possible that little coherence will exist between theology past, present and future. Consequently, as the popular perception of Christian spirituality becomes increasingly shaped by contemporary experiences whether or not those experiences are in harmony with historic Christianity, Christianity will be in danger of losing its voice as parent of a distinct spirituality among dialoguing world spiritualities.[3] If that happens, it will be an enormous loss to the academy and to people of all religious persuasions.

A robust understanding of theology’s relationship to spirituality in accordance with McIntosh’s approach can ensure that Christianity’s spiritual voice is preserved. If theology were introduced as a permanent constitutive discipline in Schneiders’ model, its natural function would perhaps be diagnostic. “Old,” time-tested theology would critique for authenticity whatever was attempting to emerge as “new” theology. One of the most helpful aspects of McIntosh’s approach is that it puts God front and center of the discussion about the relationship between spirituality and theology, whereas the anthropological seems perhaps to trivialize God in its preoccupation with “the human search for wholeness” (McIntosh: 21). It could be argued that a spirituality concerned primarily with the “human aspiration towards ultimacy,” as McIntosh puts it (19), is not a Christian spirituality, because Christian theology says that Christianity is first concerned with God’s ultimacy. (How humans are affected and redeemed by God’s ultimacy is important, but in Christianity redemption is only possible because of Christ’s victory on the cross.) Herein lies an example of how theology and spirituality work hand in hand, how spirituality must be theologically informed and vice versa.

Schneiders’ model is needed for students of other faiths and no faith who study Christian spirituality under the view that it is only one spirituality among many that are equally legitimate, but it would add credibility to the anthropological approach if theology could be viewed as a permanent constitutive discipline in Schneiders’ model, rather than just as a problematic discipline given a nod by the constitutive category. It might even enable non-Christian students to carry forth research in ways more consistent with the heart of Christian spirituality, because theology would critique data objectively for such students in ways not intuitively accessible to them as “outsiders.” Of course, as McIntosh points out, spirituality also critiques theology, forcing the abstract onto the hard playing field of human experience with all its paradox and contradiction (McIntosh: 17). As theology authenticates spirituality, so it also works the other way round. Here again we see the inseparable nature of the two disciplines.

In his critique of the anthropological approach, McIntosh recalls a period in late medieval history when the wedge between theology and spirituality awakened fear among church leaders that the “mystical” dwelt somehow outside the realm of orthodoxy (McIntosh: 8, 23). While most mainline Protestant churches have recovered somewhat from this unfortunate circumstance, the divorce is still crippling Adventism. That “contemplative prayer,” to call up just one example, is commonly spoken of as if it were a recent import from religions of the East, demonstrates from a pastoral point of view that ignorance of the theological underpinnings of the Christian mystical tradition is simply not helpful.

McIntosh points the way forward by looking backward to the early days of Christianity, when “transforming knowledge of God” acquired through contemplation was “the very foundation of theology,” and when the study of theology was inherently mystagogical (McIntosh: 8, 10-12, 27). That relationship between spirituality and theology needs to be rediscovered and preserved in the academy today. In short, the study of Christian spirituality will be at its best when the anthropological approach set forth by Schneiders can move the data collected via McIntosh’s theological approach into its constitutive disciplines category. This will enable students of all faiths and no faith to study Christian spirituality in a way that is both credible and historically coherent.