Hello to all,
Thanks for visiting the blog! As a neophyte to this form of communication, I’m commencing my post with a certain degree of trepidation—but I look forward to your responses.
If you’ve read my essay in the latest Religious Education journal (May-June 2009), you know that I’m very interested in the relationship between religious education and practical theology. I understand the latter not as simply “applied theology” in the traditional areas of pastoral care, worship and so on, but as a mutually interpretive activity between the faith tradition and contemporary experience and culture for the sake of personal and social transformation (drawing on sources such as David Tracy). I see PT and RE as very similar and closely related, and I see my own role as both “practical theologian” and “religious educator.”
Do you agree? Why or why not?
And, why does this rather abstract issue matter for us? I think it’s one way of illuminating the significance of theological assumptions in our practices of religious education on one hand, and the ways that RE practices in turn will reshape those theological premises about the nature of God, God’s activity in the world, and our responses to it, on the other.
Here’s a story to spark our thinking about this:
A church youth group was setting up in a forest clearing for dinner and a
campfire when one of the boys discovered that he’d lost his penknife, which was
of great value to him. Other activities ceased, and the group helped him
to look for it for a long time without success. Frustration and
discouragement set in. Finally, the group’s adult leader gathered the
teens around her.
If you were the youth leader, what would you do? And how would your responses be shaped by your identity as practical theologian or religious educator? In particular, what theological and educational assumptions and practices would guide you?
Feel free to respond to any piece of this entry, or offer a new lens to focus the discussion. Happy blogging!
A quick comment, first, and then I'll return to comment on the case/story (which is wonderfully evocative!). But anyway, my first immediate comment is that I think the distinctions between "religious education" and "practical theology" seem to matter more at the academic and guild level, than in other contexts in which I work. In fact, it fascinates me how many religious educators (that is, faculty with PhD's in religious education) are the founding authors/members/etc. of various practical theology enterprises. Why does the distinction matter? And to whom? Maybe we could talk some about that?
ReplyDeleteMaureen, I also may have to return for more reflection but I wonder if one of the differences rests with the scope of each discipline. This may reflect a more North American distinction but I wonder if within this context Religious Education often embraces a larger interreligious/interfaith discourse while practical theology serves more a conversation within a given religion/faith tradition where certain core convictions are seen as normative or at least referential to the community. Now, normative does not necessarily mean oppressive or doctrinaire (closer to applied theology) but do represent an agreed upon set of primary convictions that warrant serious consideration and, in effect, establishes an implicit --- if not explicit --- boundary of agreed assumptions not often plausible in interreligious settings. I think we need to be careful being too restrictive with our understanding of theology proper (methods vary from dogmatic to experiential to critical correlation to cultural linguistic) but I do think that specific faith traditions do bring certain criteria (a web of meaning) that provides a specific framework for engagement that religious education (at least in recent years) may only gesture toward since the interreligious quality implies primarily more open boundaries depending on which religions are in the conversation. Again, this distinction might not be so great in circles where practical theology incorporates political theology, however I do think the "critical conversation" has to include a specific set of mutually agreed referential faith convictions at the least for this to be practical theology. I also think the debate between theology and religious studies proper contributes to the problem from both perspectives. A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education from an avowed Religious Studies professor (who seems steeped in the earlier history of religions tradition) may provide an illustration. http://chronicle.com/article/The-Ethics-of-Being-a/47442/ While Religious Education and Religious Studies nned not to share the same assumptions, they may be viewed by people from within faith traditions as quite similar.
ReplyDeleteMary's question seems key as well. It strike me that many RE folk still serve broadly ministerial roles where theology remains a primary category. Hence the move to practical theology may also be particular way of elevating one's status within a given theology department/school/seminary. This might not be the case across other religious traditions but it appears to be one primary consideration.
Test comment
ReplyDeleteMary and Dean,
ReplyDeleteThanks for joining the conversation. Both of you raise the important point that our institutional settings affect how we name ourselves and understand our work in relation to practical theology/religious education. Our job descriptions and our very job titles are crucial--and questions of status within a department or institution are ever-present.
That said, I see the wisdom of the REA's designation of 3 Forums for awareness and development of religious education: in faith communities, academe and public life. I suppose that the ultimate answer to the question of, "Does the title matter?" is another question: How does the title (and its attendant sources, methods, etc.) facilitate the purposes of RE in all settings?
Also, regarding my short forest story: it's adapted from real-life events, and I'll share its "ending" after receiving some responses from others. Stay tuned....!
Greetings, all. I am grateful to you, Maureen, for launching us into this adventure and to you both, Mary and Dean for your responses. I agree that this separation of religious educator and practical theologian is too often a conversation only among we academy types. That says something. Still, I am finding renewed energy where I teach as our practical theology area is exploring what it means to be practical theologians from a variety of fields. It is a rich discussion here.
ReplyDeleteI loved your story, Maureen. That the whole youth group would spend significant time searching with the young man reminds me of Paul's words in Romans that we are to live peaceably with one another -- to rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep and search with those who search etc. I would hope the leader would draw attention to what it means to be the body of Christ with and for one another. What a great moment...and perhaps in the daylight, we can search again!
To nishiokar (Rodger) and all,
ReplyDeleteThanks for bringin in the Romans and body of Christ themes in your response to the story. Part of my point in using this is to encourage our thinking about how and why such themes occur to us in practical-theological reflection, and how they function educationally. In your case, I see a movement toward how the youth leader's choices could build a greater sense of caring community and educate the young people to understand their role in such building as integrally linked with their Christian identity.
Here's another way the story could go:
"The youth leader addressed a prayer to God on behalf of the group: "Lord, I ask that you show your power to these teenagers by leading us to the penknife. I ask this not because we need a knife, but so that your greatness and love for us become visible.' Within minutes of a renewed search, the knife was found. The youth leader gave glory to God."
Here the focus, it seems to me, is much more on divine activity, and the educational-theological choice is made with this in mind.
How do others react? How might you rewrite the story in light of your own educational and/or theological assumptions?
Maureen