Theophilus publishes thoughtful explanations of theology, biblical interpretation, philosophy, Christian history, ethics, faith and culture, religious ideas, and church practice. Our aim is to help readers understand where ideas come from, how significant interpretations differ, and why those distinctions matter.
Accuracy and useful coverage
We seek to answer a clear question with relevant evidence and enough context for readers to assess the answer. Factual claims should be accurate, specific, and proportionate to the available evidence. We avoid presenting a disputed interpretation as though it were the only possible reading.
Before developing a topic, we review relevant existing coverage so that new work addresses a distinct question or adds useful depth. Readers can explore the publication’s scope through the Theophilus blog or read more about its purpose on the About Us page.
Research and sources
Source selection depends on the subject. Biblical interpretation begins with the relevant biblical texts. Historical and doctrinal articles may draw on historical theological works, credible academic theology and philosophy, church-history scholarship, and major reference works. Contemporary cultural questions require current sources when facts, policies, officeholders, programs, prices, or other changing details materially affect the discussion.
We prefer sources that directly support the claim being made. Articles should identify important sources and provide enough attribution for readers to distinguish a text’s statement from our explanation of it. Major interpretations should be represented accurately, including the textual, philosophical, or historical reasons offered in their support.
Evidence, illustration, and opinion
Research-based explanation, generated illustration, and documented firsthand evidence are different forms of material and should not be blurred together. An invented example may clarify an argument, but it is not evidence that an event occurred. Firsthand observations or tests are described only when documentation for them has been supplied and only within the limits of that documentation.
Interpretive judgments and opinions should be recognizable as such. Strong conclusions still require reasons. When evidence permits more than one serious reading, we explain the disagreement rather than manufacturing certainty.
Corrections and reader questions
Material errors should be corrected when identified. This includes errors that change a central claim, misstate a source, omit decisive context, or materially misrepresent a person, event, text, or position. Minor wording changes may also be made to improve clarity.
To report a possible error, suggest a source, or ask an editorial question, use the contact page or email contact@theophilus.org. Please include the page title, the passage in question, and any supporting information that may help us assess the issue.