From Gen. J.C. Christian, Patriot: “We finally found Saddam. Sure, it took an invasion, nine months of military operations, thousands of lives, and 130,000 troops to do it, but we finally captured him. It’s a great day for America. I’d cry if I wasn’t so manly.
“Now, it’s time for the next step. We need to invade ourselves. Only then, will we nab the anthrax terrorist.”
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.
The Washington Post’s Everett Ehrlich on what Howard Dean’s campaign might mean:
For all Dean’s talk about wanting to represent the truly “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,” the paradox is that he is essentially a third-party candidate using modern technology to achieve a takeover of the Democratic Party. Other candidates — John Kerry, John Edwards, Wesley Clark — are competing to take control of the party’s fundraising, organizational and media operations. But Dean is not interested in taking control of those depreciating assets. He is creating his own party, his own lists, his own money, his own organization. What he wants are the Democratic brand name and legacy, the party’s last remaining assets of value, as part of his marketing strategy. Perhaps that’s why former vice president Al Gore’s endorsement of Dean last week felt so strange — less like the traditional benediction of a fellow member of the party “club” than a senior executive welcoming the successful leveraged buyout specialist. And if Dean can do it this time around, so can others in future campaigns.
Pop novelist Michael Crichton on environmentalism-as-religion:
If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
And we can add more. Vegetarianism and veganism as religious diets equivalent to keeping kosher. Attending political protests as revivalism. Pamphleteering as evangelism (the similarity of PIRG workers to Mormon missionaries is uncanny). And, among the “truly faithful,” vicious infighting as petty local church politics. It seems environmentalism-as-religion is just the latest outgrowth of an earlier religious movement–Romanticism.
Click to continue reading “Preaching to the converted”
(As the nonprofit I work for has been formulating its strategic plan, I’ve been reflecting on what role communications should play a part. Here I make the case that “the Center’s” communication strategy be auxiliary to our now-forming strategic plan.)
I’m reminded of the work of philosopher-theologian Henry Nelson Wieman, who describes six types of communication. His descriptions might be useful in helping us discern what we mean when we say that we wish to focus more on the Center’s communication.
- Deceptive communications. Obviously we don’t want any part of this.
- Manipulative communication. Here the goal is propaganda or indoctrination.
- Reiterative communication. Re-communication. You’ve seen this before.
- Confused communication. The intent or purpose, and thus the content, is not clear.
- Other-centered communication. Putting on a pleasing front in order to get by. A socially necessary but imperfect form of communication.
- Creative communication. This kind of communication creates, in particular, an appreciative understanding of its participants in one another. Creative communication is (trans)formative. The end of a process of creative communication cannot be accurately predicted from the outset, since it transforms its participants. Creative communication increases individual capacity for goodness through the risks of interpersonal vulnerability.
Click to continue reading “A practical theology of communication”