One particularly impressive section of The Nature and Mission of Theology is the chapter on “The Spiritual Basis and Ecclesial Identity of Theology.”  There he notes that theology presupposes faith, that faith presupposes conversion, and that conversion means losing my self-sufficient “I” to be incorporated into the mystical body of Christ.

Clearly, in this chapter he uses the word “faith” to mean what scholastics would call “formed faith”, a faith inseparable from hope and love.  But this seems to me the right way to use the word:  “faith” without any qualifications means formed faith both in the Fathers and in the New Testament, and we fall into strange errors when we suppose that “faith” without qualifiers is unformed faith.  For example, the discussion of justification by faith takes on a whole new light if we mean to discuss justification by faith-hope-love.

Perhaps none of my readers (or, I should say, neither of my readers) has fallen into the habit of thinking of faith simply speaking as faith all by itself.  I’ve fallen into that at times, and I’m trying to reform.