I’ve been thinking about doing doctoral work in practical theology, which has led my wife to ask a rather practical question: what the hell does that mean? In a James Fowler tribute volume, the editors point out four tasks of practical theology (in no particular order):
- The descriptive-empirical task: What is going on? Here practical theologians use the tools (usually) of the social sciences–sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc–to look at something that’s actually going on in the real world–say, how faith communities deal with dometic abuse, or how people watch a movie at the theater in the mall. (I’m more interested in using the tools of cultural theory/studies and liberation pedagogy than the more tradtional approaches.)
- The interpretive task: Why is this going on? Here is the search for models of explanation. What explanatory framework can we imagine which interprets the data? Since the observer effects the observed just by the act of observing it (especially when the object of study is the human), the line between the interpretive and the descriptive is thin.
- The normative task: What forms ought faith-based practice take in this particular social context? Here practical theology mines the depths of its faith tradition for resources that bring something to bear on the situation. Or, it shows how the situation at hand judges the faith tradition. (See here.)
- The pragmatic task: How might this this area of practice be (re)shaped to embody the normative commitments of a religious tradition? Here the practical theologian devises “rules of art” for guiding how the religious practicioner should actually go about dealing with this situation.
The four tasks together comprise what practical theology does. Where systematic and philosophical theology is interested in working out abstract and precise god-talk, practical theology is interested in what god-talk (and religious practice in general) can contribute to life. Systematic theology is more catechism and philosophy while practical theology is more pastoral counseling and hymn writing. The two aren’t mutually exclusive and need to check each other.
Thinking caps: On.
Chutney (My Irony) asks: What is practical theology? Heather Janules (The Chrysalis) asks: What is worship? And Stentor Danielson (Debitage) asks: Do secular arguments against gay marriage make any sense?…
Thank-you chutney for a lay-language succinct explanation of “practical” theology. I like the fact that you want a connection between what Christians (?) do and what they are taught. Most theologians, even the ones I like, and go to for “technical” factoids, have never been taught how to teach effectively. They have been taught only how to lecture. Effective teaching means that after the new info is presented, the teacher “assesses” the student to test for understanding AND application. No pastors I know of assess their congregations beyond the attendance, workerbee for the church, and giving aspects. Pastors are content to deliver years of esoteric theory with no concern about whether it made any impact upon parishners lives. Those who are trained in the systematic model have not the ability to 1) see its impotence, 2) react to the ever-widening gulf between themselves and their pew dwellers, 3) grasp that the inadequacy starts with themselves.
Theology is defined as the study of God, and here in Western culture, that study is restricted to the channel of His Word. While systematics will defend their techniques as unchallengeable, they will not address the fact that these techniques are the reason we have 150 – 1000+ denominations. Jesus prayed that we might be “one.” Therefore, every new denomination, no matter how theologically important and right it is, is another blow to that basic prayer of unit.
The Sanhedrin were the theologians of their time. The had mastery over the word, and, were the very definition of “original Hebrew” :D. Yet, they did not recognize “the Word” in front of them. When you really find out why – and this is at the apriori level – you have a model for why modern systematics fail to recognize “the word” as well.
It is interesting that Jesus, with his “miracle act” could have set up a building and had people come to Him and get lectured every Sabbath. He could have set up a secluded seminary and said only those who come to my place will know God. Instead, He went to where people lived life and used these encounters to demonstrat that great theology is not esoteric, but in fact, INSEPARABLE from how people live. He forced His disciples into out of the box, UN-comfort zones so that they would not be able to hide behind seminary talk, but would actually have to reveal what their heart/thinking processes were. In this way, he “assessed” His progress with them. His goal was not for them to be forever dependent on Him, but to bring them to EQUIVALENCY, and send them off to disciple a new group. How many pastors have a true goal of equivalence, rather than perpetual “come listen to me.”
Chrysalis asks about worship. Worship is the missing element of standard theology. Standard theology trains one to bring the brain to the word encounter. That means the interpretation is man centered, it is from my culture, info, predispositions, hang-ups. And so, we have the endless divisions of, not just denominations, but of “theology” itself. This is why Isaac Asimov, a high IQ scientist, an ATHEIST, has no compunction about producing his own translation of the Bible!!! Why not, since the only requirement from his analysis of the situation, is 1)Hebrew translation skill, and 2) a 200 IQ to interpret it so that it “makes sense.”
Worship, however, is GOD centered, it focuses on HIM. When we encounter the word with worship, we are actively yielded to allowing HIM to speak its meaning – and to change our a prioris. Frankly, while all pastors/ theologians can define worship, they rarely practice it. They know ritual, rote, creed confessions. They do not know worship, which brings a “response” from God.
Note, that Jesus taught His disciples, not only to know the static word, but to know the “real time” word – the will of the Father in this moment for this situation. The will of the Father could not be automatically discerned from the static word, but when it was REVEALED it would never conflict with the static word. Never. This is why worship must get a response as a confirmation that it is the correct “offering.”
Debitage askes about secular arguments against gay marriage. The whole “what to do about homosexuality” is revealing the weaknesses of non-worship theology models. The answer is not found in the intellect, it is found in the spirit. This goes back to our a prioris, a level of self knowledge that we rarely examine. The purpose of the worship encounter in spirit and in truth is to address the a prioris – our basic operating system assumptions which can not be materially “proven.” It is these that will deternine what our answer will be – and WHY. It is not in the exclusive domain of the theologian to answer this issue. Equal access to the Father was purchased at the cross, and sealed by the Spirit planted within. The proverbial illiterate custodian, or the repented prostitute, can know the truth that evades the mulit-Ph.Ded theologian. Such is the case in Luke 7: 36 – 50.
Correct worship that brings a response from God will eliminate the endless fissures of mind and bodies.
Oh my, that was a load, yes?
john r
Excellent thoughts. You should start a blog!