MM

eading his articles and books, one hardly gets the feeling that Thomas developed a
However,
academic theological methodology. Some remarks and insights can be found throughout
systematic,
body of his writings, but he did not bring them together in a well-developed study on methodology.
the
does not mean that he would play down the importance of a sound theological methodology. On
This
contrary, his reflections on current issues in society, churches and the ecumenical movement,
the
Bible studies, meditations and sermons, all witness a deep awareness that theology implies a
his
volume of studies on Thomas shows that his theology can rightly be called a theology of dialogue.
This
would like to add a dimension to the dialogical nature of his thinking which has often not been
I
His thinking has also a ‘journey’ dimension, or as we would call it today in the ecumenical
highlighted.
his thinking can be seen as a personal pilgrimage of justice and peace. In his unpublished
movement,
‘Faith Seeking Understanding and Responsibility’, he tried to write, probably challenged by
manuscript
of his friends, an autobiography. At that time his attempt was not really a success as he more or
some
had brought together significant passages of his most important articles and annotated these
less
with some notes with reference to the context in which they were written. It was never
passages
as a book as it would probably not have appealed to a wider audience. However, this
published
manuscript is of great importance for those who want to study the development of his
unpublished
title of this unpublished manuscript is very meaningful to understand Thomas’ personal faith
The
and engagement in and understanding of socio-cultural, economic, and political affairs. He
journey
it ‘Faith Seeking Understanding and Responsibility’. These four words precisely mark the key
called
in his thinking: his personal faith and spirituality, the need to analyse and understand, and
elements
urgency to take up responsibility. The word “seeking” forms a crucial marker for his methodology in
the
together faith, understanding and responsibility. For him it was a journey in which answers
bringing
solutions were not given once and for all. Comparing his early articles and meditations and his
and
books helps us to see that he has gone through a development in his thinking which is on the one
later
a continuous response to current issues and on the other hand a growth in theological
hand
of them leading to Christian responsibility.
understanding
methodological approach is still very relevant. I hope that re-reading his articles and books will
This
us in our own faith search for understanding and responsibility. M.M. was a person who
help
seeking out people with pastoral care and encouragement. But he was also a person
accompanied
liked critical dialogue challenging easy and comfortable assumptions. I hope that this volume will
who
approach to the questions and concerns of his days would mean
today. SAHTRI’s choice to focus on
Thomas’ contribution to reflections on theological methodologies is therefore very timely and relevant.
continuous interaction between sociology of religion and theology of society, as he formulated
in his
book Man and the Universe of Faiths.
thinking.
help the readers to engage with him in
a heuristic conversation.
Rev. Dr Hielke Wol