Practical Theology: Part I
5 Jul 2007
I am going to run a series of posts on ‘Practical Theology’. The main purpose is the outline the method and background to my PhD research, which is based upon practical theology, and in particular theological reflection. So as I try to locate my own research methods and practices, this will help sift my thoughts and maybe provide something of interest to others.
Practical theology is usually associated with ‘applied theology’, whereby once the serious work of biblical theology, systematic theology, and historical theology has been done, we ‘apply’ that to a practical context. More usually ‘practical theology’ has been about pastoral care, and christian education, and less to do with theology, as usually understood.
The separation between beliefs and practice, came over time reaching its zenith in modernity.
Whereas there was once a direct connection between what we believed (and reflection on that belief) with what was a ‘moral/ethical life’, and a life forming process, we have the almost complete separation between what we believe, and who we are and what we do.
Or at least, in practice we ‘think’ and conceive first, whilst taking action around those beliefs comes second in terms of method. It’s one of the ongoing problems of how we try to deal with church, we keep trying to think of new and better ways of doing church, focusing on ideals, that never lead to practice (I’ve blogged on this problem here).
So how did we get to here?
Elaine Graham and Heather Walton provide a historical overview over of how theology developed to where we are today (Theological Reflections: Methods, page 2).
1. Early Church: During the first two centuries of the church, theology, was primarily concerned with the care of Christians and their community, and to inspire their faith and community formation.
2. Clergy Pastoral Care: Moral theology emerges in which the focus is the care of an established Christian community under church authority. We see this in Roman Catholic theology today. This period last until the end of medieval europe.
3. Post-Enlightenment Systematization: Frederich Schleiermacher at the beginning of the 18th century, establishes ‘applied’ theology as a separate academic discipline.
4. Professionalization: The rise of the professional pastor, leads to the practical and applied theology to continued to separate from other areas.
5. Secular Theology & Therapies: Ordained ministry becomes dominated with secular therapeutical theories, and the focus of practical theology
6. Hermeneutical Questioning: There is a questioning some 25 years ago, and continuing today, of this process and the focus of practical theology as application to practice from real theology. Instead the drive to see the pastoral context of the church as one that addresses questions back to theology takes place.
In my next post on this, I’ll outline some of the possibilities of this kind of practical theology (no 6.) that is opening up.
Tagged: Practical-Theology
21 comments
Trackback
Comment by fernando
3.37 pm on 5 Jul 2007
“Or at least, in practice we ‘think’ and conceive first, whilst taking action around those beliefs comes second in terms of method.”
Isn’t this assumption, that we think then act, exactly the problem with modern theology.
By contrast, it seems to me that instead of claiming our beliefs shape our actions, we should acknowledge that our actions shape our beliefs and when those beliefs are in dissonance, we overlay and explanatory ideology.
Thus the big theological problem for the postmodern is not the gap between action and belief, but the rhetorical game of ideological overlay.
Comment by Jason
4.09 pm on 5 Jul 2007
Fernando: yes I think it is, and it’s endemic to modernity, but I do think it’s more than rhetoric, it’s what actually happens. There is a gap between belief and practice, and consumer culture, abstracts beliefs so that we are incapable of acting out, or allowing our experience to alter our beliefs.
I’ve posted before how it leads us to church where we are pragmatic and adverse the reflection, or we mistake continued reflection as authentic action. For lots of reasons, I think postmodern deconstruction underlies this process, and the move from structure to agency (See the post before this one on the lack of ‘will to action’). Cheers, Jase
Comment by fernando
12.39 am on 6 Jul 2007
Thanks for clarifying. I guess it’s a point of difference, because for me the primary move is actions shaping beliefs. Of course, at the level of beliefs there are true beliefs and imaginary beliefs and fictional beliefs. In consumer culture we constantly act out our true beliefs – the dissonance is the realisation that we cannot actualise imaginary beliefs.
But I’m not sure about not being able to allow “experience to alter our beliefs.” The evidence from marketing and advertising is that people mostly change their beliefs about products after trying them or experiencing them. Moreover, in the Christian life lasting change seems to almost always follow action, especially in terms missionary orientation.
To me this has a simple and core theological foundation – Jesus called us to first of all follow – to act. It’s not believe in me then following will make sense, it is follow me then believing will make sense.
Comment by Jason
7.25 am on 6 Jul 2007
Fernando: I do think experience shapes our beliefs, more so in a postmodern context, than in modernity. However, I am increasingly convinced that we do not live out our beliefs, that consumerism abstracts our beliefs from any concrete context, that no matter our experience and the beliefs that are formed, or the beliefs that arise from reflection, we are disconnected from concrete reality.
I’ve found this explanation of consumerism helpful: consumerism is not a set of religious beliefs/ideologies but rather “it is primarily a way of relating to beliefs – a set of habits of interpretation and use – that renders the ‘content’ of beliefs and value less important†(V Miller).
It’s the commodification Marx talked about that allows the abstraction of elements from their traditions, weakens the traditions ability to impact concrete practice in daily life. The meaning is taken our of everything, there is no ideological opposition.
Also Foucault’s discourse on ‘surface of discourse’ and the fissure between signifier and meaning, would mean that we cannot assume that what our statements do is consistent with what they say.
There has been a shift “from a world in which beliefs held believers to one in which believers hold beliefs” (V Miller again)
Comment by Phil Harrold
8.15 pm on 5 Jul 2007
The historic trajectory is really interesting.
Maybe a little more could be said about practical theology in the early church– hopefully I’m not jumping ahead of Jason here, because I know he has lots more to come.
I borrow from D. H. Williams (Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism) and Paul Griffiths (Religious Reading). I think the early church–at least before Constantine–practiced theology by internalizing what was still, for most, oral versions of the apostolic heritage– conveyed through preaching, catechesis, rules of faith.
Textuality, close reading of written texts, was NOT at the center of this passed-on ‘traditio’. Written texts were scarce and most people were illiterate. Because writing or reading were not largely centered on the ’storage medium’ of the page, the teachings of the apostles, which gradually came together in the NT canon, had to be memorized–portions at least.
If you will, the human brain-heart-body constituted the storage medium for the vast majority of Christians. This meant that spiritual disciplines were more about internalizing the spoken word, with transformational consequences for both head and heart– lectio divina. The practices were repetitive and embodied: one spoke the sacred words audibly, realizing a continuity between the lips and heart, working from the outward toward the inner, but outward again too–especially in catechetical settings. Cognitive, sensory, and physical aspects of being worked in perfect synchrony.
So, beliefs and practices were interdependent aspects of “religious reading” in the context of apostolic traditio. It would have been difficult to force-feed ideas into this sacred mill… assimilation of the teaching would require the intricate structures, interactions-intimacies, trusting relationships, etc. of the practicing community.
I think practical theology as Jason is beginning to describe/define it was born in the catechetical process– here is where our most formative spiritual disciplines/practices emerged. But it was WAY more than a head trip, wasn’t it? Lot’s of Jewish holism lingered, I think, plus the charism of sage-like teachers.
I’m very interested in how this wisdom (another great word for practical theology, I think) might be retrieved today, if at all–and in concrete ways. I’m thankful that Jason is dedicated to this project and sharing it with others. He has already framed the subject in a very helpful way. Lead on!
Comment by Jason
7.29 am on 6 Jul 2007
Phil: as church historian, your comments are soo helpful, and this comment would make a great post in it’s own right. Thank you.
It is amazing how the tradio, in terms of content and process went together and were embodied, until the separation from people and concrete context, by the use of print/writing.
Does that mean we need a more oral catechism, today?
Comment by Phil
1.31 pm on 6 Jul 2007
Good question– wish I knew more about contemporary cultural anthropology. Memorization is, in general, in decline–we know that much. Who needs to memorize when we have so much digital storage medium at our finger tips? But in the “good old days” (-; memorization was standard to just about every type of learning. Aside from Griffiths, I’ve not come across any careful study for what this means today– especially for a faith tradition that engages sacred texts NOT just for information, but for FORMATION. I would think that memorization is still essential there. Does anyone know of any contemporary Christian community that practices memorization as a life-long spiritual discipline? Of course the repetitive rhythms of monasticism come to mind– but this is more about lectio divina than memorization per se.
I think internalization is both a means and an end in practical theology– that’s why I interjected the topic of memorization into the conversation. Jason likes us to think concretely about such things…
Comment by Jason
9.17 am on 8 Jul 2007
Phil: no I don’t know of anyone doing that. My wife grew up in the Brethren, and was forced to memorise bible verses, which at one time she saw as heavy handed and controlling, but today means she know so much of the bible and is so grateful for that process.
How do we return to an oral tradition for catechism, in the face of technological abstraction?
Comment by Jason
9.21 am on 8 Jul 2007
…one place memorisation is coming up in conversation is the book by the magician Derran Brown, who tells how he used to be a christian (sad story of how his church treated him), but in his book he explores his memorisation techniques. I’ve bumped into several people who are trying out memorisation skills for learning as a result of reading his book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tricks-Mind-Derren-Brown/dp/1905026269/)
Comment by Stephen
5.58 am on 6 Jul 2007
Jason, you might want to check out Simon Holt’s blog – practical theologian in Melbourne. Some good stuff on there.
http://simoncareyholt.typepad.com/weblog/2007/06/practicing_theo.html
Comment by Jason
7.26 am on 6 Jul 2007
Stephen: thank you for the link.
Comment by D.G. Hollums
4.47 pm on 6 Jul 2007
Quote from you:
“Or at least, in practice we ‘think’ and conceive first, whilst taking action around those beliefs comes second in terms of method. It’s one of the ongoing problems of how we try to deal with church, we keep trying to think of new and better ways of doing church, focusing on ideals, that never lead to practice”
This leads me down the path of “Disciple”. Did Christ have to change the minds of others to et them to become a disciple? If the term disciple means, “Pupil, or “apprentice”, then doesn’t that mean that if we are a disciple of Christ that we are “learn living”(just made that one up) with him? Christ did not try to change someone’s mind by just giving them OT scripture, he gave them OT scripture and then acted upon it! He made it a living practice of learn for those who called themselves disciple!
Comment by Jason
5.16 pm on 6 Jul 2007
DG he did indeed mate.
Comment by D.G. Hollums
1.04 pm on 8 Jul 2007
I tell ya, memorization of Bible Verses almost took me away from the church when I was younger @ church camps. They would reward those that could memorize them and shun those of us (including me) that could not memorize them. And they thought that were doing it for God. But then I went to seminary and my professor of preaching (Dr. Elsworth Kalas) expect all sermons to be memorized, so that you could preach the text to the people instead of to the pulpit, heh. And it was then that I started to learn to remember story. Now memorizing a verse and memorizing story in my mind is completely different, but I agree that if we can get the children of God (adults included in that phrase) to remember story, then we will have much more effective Disciples (apprentices) for Christ and the Kingdom. Then when they invite others to be disciples (life learners) it is not the exact text they they push into the ears of normal people it is the story that they live into and invite others to do the same.
What if it was part of the baptism process to have the expectation of each one to share their favorite Bible story and how that story is tied into the story of Christ?
Comment by Jason
3.21 pm on 9 Jul 2007
DG: there are much better ways of memorising, such as visualisation, and not testing kids, but letting them enjoy the process that might help. Thanks for your example, and the benefits you get from that process.
Comment by D.G. Hollums
7.19 pm on 9 Jul 2007
Totally agree! Thanks man! BTW: I sent you an invite to Pownce. It is a web 2.0 app that is from the makers of Digg.com… not sure if you have it yet.
Comment by Phil
1.48 pm on 8 Jul 2007
On memorization, I would have to say that I know from experience that worshipping in a liturgical context accomplishes a lot of the internalization that we associate with memorization. The problem is that there is a right way to incorporate repetitive practices into a faith community and a WRONG way! There are many legitimate complaints out there from people who never experienced life-changing transformation in either their bible-verse memorization experiences of childhood, nor their participation in liturgical worship. Yet I marvel at how many come to a deeper appreciation of repetitive practices later in life.
I think memorization and repetition must be done in a context similar to that of an athletic training program. An athlete appreciates the benefits of “reps” because she always has her sights set on the long-term benefits and goals. Too often we are immersed in repetitive practices without our eyes on the prize. We need a bifocal spiritual imagination.
That would require the sort of teaching/instruction/mentoring that is constantly informed by the missio Dei, with an imagination illuminated by the whole story of God–Creatio-Fall-Redemption-New Creation– not just the bits and pieces we prefer. But also a training regimen that focuses on the uniqueness of the individual and those areas of life that need the slow and steady reformational practice of the disciplines. That’s theology and practice all woven together there.
The great monastic traditions have something to teach us, I think.
Comment by Jason
3.23 pm on 9 Jul 2007
Phil: thanks for that, very helpful. I think maybe we to engage learning that uses a plethora of preferred learning styles, as creatively as possible, to aid catechism. That however takes huge resources, which many churches can’t do. How do we deepen agency in a consumer culture, without charging for the resources to do so?
Jase
Comment by Paul
12.21 pm on 10 Jul 2007
What do you think Jason about a narrative which looks at theology being developed in experience/mission/concrete which is then consolidated and theorised and for the cycle to then repeat when the theory no longer seems to hold with the concrete reality? I am thinking that for instance a lot of Paul’s theology is missionally inspired by concrete issues but was then for instance consolidated/inspired into doctrine?
Comment by Jason
10.33 am on 12 Jul 2007
There is a methodology called the ‘pastoral cycle’ that does this, and one of the ways it explores the circle is with ‘narrative’…see http://eapi.admu.edu.ph/eapr003/amaladoss.htm
jase
Comment by Paul
7.46 am on 13 Jul 2007
thank you :)
Comments are now closed.