Let’s start with Maureen’s theme for our time together: “Where Do We Stand, How Do We Dance? Religious Education and Theology in Relationship”
Suppose we engage our theme in a mood of playful curiosity.
“Where do we stand?” A good first question - but in order to dance, don’t we have to move from where we stand?
“We” implies “plural” - which makes dancing possible, yet one can dance alone. Indeed, in American culture, individuality is often assumed - each must do “their own thing.” Similarly, much Christian thinking insists that response to God is a highly individual matter. What does that do to “relationship”?
I am curious: How do people become a “we”? Do we, can we, assume that because there is more than one of us, that we are a “we”? What makes up a “we’? Is that an issue defined or shaped by theology and/or by education? Or might it be necessary to begin by acknowledging that theology and religious education are each necessarily already a “we’? Both theology and education exist as centuries long traditions of practices (plural) which have shaped our present consciousness. Can those traditions dance? Do they inhibit or do they enable our dancing today?
Yet, “we” individually and collectively may “stand” in quite a variety of different places, religiously, educationally, and theologically - which would imply that there is no one way to answer the question - let alone a single right answer.
In fact, where we “stand” (which assumes a static posture) might be much less important since what is envisioned here is that we might want to dance. How do we do that? What kind of dancing is possible? Is this a square dance? A fox trot? A break dance or a line dance? (Has “Dancing with the Stars” widened our awareness of the variety of dance forms available for consideration?)
Is it assumed that “theology” should make normative judgments about what kind of dancing is appropriate if the education is to be “religious”? Might John Calvin, Karl Rahner, James Cone and Kathryn Tanner recommend different dances?
I am also curious about who are to be the partners in this dance: theology and religious education. Apparently “education” is not singular, for it is modified - implying there are many kinds of education, yet we are to dance with the one that is “religious.” Or is that not also plural? (I’m even curious about what work this adjective “religious” does in this term. Are “math education” or “vocational education” not “religious”? I once had a neighbor who worked on his automobile more religiously than other neighbors worked on their religion.)
This dual term itself is problematic: If “education” is the noun, and the adjective “religious” modifies that noun, how or in what way is “education” modified by “religious”?
If theology is standing there waiting for a partner - how will theology know if the education that shows up is really “religious”? What if education wants do the Charleston and theology wants to square dance? Which raises another question: Does someone (who?) “lead” and another “follow”? If so, who?
I am curious: to what music shall we dance? Who decides that? Or do we leave that up to the musicians? (Personally, I hope we are not assuming the music will be limited to “golden oldie” hymns!)
So how are we to understand the “dance” between theology and religious education? (I will not address the matter of “practical theology” since any theology that is not practical is not theology - at least in a Christian, Jewish or Muslim context.)
I’m curious about what Wimberly might say: If narrativity is one form of dance, what kind is it - a line dance that moves from beginning to end? Or could a narrative only go in circles?
I look forward to help from you with my many questions - can you help relieve the “itch” of my curiosities?
Peace, Chuck
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Gabriel Moran's Opening Post: The Purpose and Future of REA:APPRRE
I wish to use this space to reflect on the purpose and focus of our organization. I think the assigned topic is broad enough to include this reflection. After last year’s meeting I considered circulating a letter to a few people about the health and future of the organization. I do not consider myself the best person to raise these concerns. But I have no hidden agenda; I am simply asking whether others share my concerns.
The immediate trigger was Jack Seymour’s membership report at last year’s business meeting. If the organization is not in crisis it may be approaching that point. The shrinkage in numbers is not the main point, but it is a symptom. What is most clear in the numbers is that there are few people left from REA; in the reorganization, REA did not absorb APRRE but rather the reverse. And yet the organization’s rhetoric is tied to the old REA; there seems to be a sense of obligation to continue the stated mission of the REA. The result is vagueness and confusion. People drift away because another organization (perhaps one on practical theology) has a clearer focus on their interests.
I am not criticizing the present leadership team. The organization is probably better run than REA or APRRE ever was. Nor am I proposing a committee to study goals, purposes, mission statement, etc. I just wonder if an extended conversation among all the members is needed, something that goes beyond the annual business meeting. Internet blogs may be one way to aid such a conversation although it is not a substitute for face to face conversation.
Gabriel Moran
The immediate trigger was Jack Seymour’s membership report at last year’s business meeting. If the organization is not in crisis it may be approaching that point. The shrinkage in numbers is not the main point, but it is a symptom. What is most clear in the numbers is that there are few people left from REA; in the reorganization, REA did not absorb APRRE but rather the reverse. And yet the organization’s rhetoric is tied to the old REA; there seems to be a sense of obligation to continue the stated mission of the REA. The result is vagueness and confusion. People drift away because another organization (perhaps one on practical theology) has a clearer focus on their interests.
I am not criticizing the present leadership team. The organization is probably better run than REA or APRRE ever was. Nor am I proposing a committee to study goals, purposes, mission statement, etc. I just wonder if an extended conversation among all the members is needed, something that goes beyond the annual business meeting. Internet blogs may be one way to aid such a conversation although it is not a substitute for face to face conversation.
Gabriel Moran
Friday, September 11, 2009
Anne Wimberly Joins the Blog: Narrative as Method in RE and as Practical Theological Endeavor
My opening question is: By what methodological means may religious education bring clarity to teaching and learning that takes age/stage, cultural and religious pluralism into account?
As an invitation to our thoughts on the question, I want to begin with a particular story.During a cross-denominational pan-African youth group's guided story-sharing and discussion on meanings of hope in the throes of their lives as teens, one teen who had been sitting quietly with head bowed and arms folded, raised her head and spoke out: "Let me tell you what I think! Maybe there isn't such a thing as hope. My situation at home never changes for the better. I can't do anything about it. And, I don't see God changing it either! Sure, you can say that the Bible gives us some answers. I heard the scripture about God's plans for our good and not for harm; and I heard what was said about it. (Ref. Jeremiah 29:11). But, change for good? I don't see it! Has God left me out?" These words of one teen re-opened an entirely new collaborative interchange with like and different stories from the one shared by the youth. It led to the group's deep theological reflection on and answers to the dilemma of God's activity in the realities of life raised in the question, "Has God left me out?"
Whether with participants and leaders in the youth theology program I lead, or in seminary classroom, church school class, or in lay or pastors' study groups across denominations, I have noted that a narrative method to religious education becomes a significant means of entering into what I call a IDEA pedagogy of engagement or deep faith Inquiry,Discovery, futher Exploration, and Application. It becomes a way of framing religious education as a pratical theological endeavor in which tough questions and answers to life and faith are probed. The work of Groome (1980, 1999), Gilmour (1997), Shaw (1999), and my own work (1994, 2005), for example, place narrative at the center of the practical theological task of religious education. Of course, Mary Elizabeth Moore (Teaching From the Heart, 1991, 1998) is correct in her statement that "Teaching narratively is more than a set of techniques that can be thrown into an eclectic bag of tricks. Narrative is a significant mode of human communication, a bearer and critic of culture, and a potentially profound and far-reaching educational method." (132-133)
I would also suggest that narrative helps us bring into focus "theology-in-action" where persons are in their social location and across the plural circumstances of persons' lives.But, is it also possible for narrative methodologies to to invite responses to additional questions: What kinds of narrative methods are needed for what we might consider helpful theological reflection? To what ends or for what outcomes do we see as important for narrative as practical theological method in religious education? Indeed, we might well consider the question: How important is the use of narrative in religious education as a practical theological endeavor?
Anne Streaty Wimberly
As an invitation to our thoughts on the question, I want to begin with a particular story.During a cross-denominational pan-African youth group's guided story-sharing and discussion on meanings of hope in the throes of their lives as teens, one teen who had been sitting quietly with head bowed and arms folded, raised her head and spoke out: "Let me tell you what I think! Maybe there isn't such a thing as hope. My situation at home never changes for the better. I can't do anything about it. And, I don't see God changing it either! Sure, you can say that the Bible gives us some answers. I heard the scripture about God's plans for our good and not for harm; and I heard what was said about it. (Ref. Jeremiah 29:11). But, change for good? I don't see it! Has God left me out?" These words of one teen re-opened an entirely new collaborative interchange with like and different stories from the one shared by the youth. It led to the group's deep theological reflection on and answers to the dilemma of God's activity in the realities of life raised in the question, "Has God left me out?"
Whether with participants and leaders in the youth theology program I lead, or in seminary classroom, church school class, or in lay or pastors' study groups across denominations, I have noted that a narrative method to religious education becomes a significant means of entering into what I call a IDEA pedagogy of engagement or deep faith Inquiry,Discovery, futher Exploration, and Application. It becomes a way of framing religious education as a pratical theological endeavor in which tough questions and answers to life and faith are probed. The work of Groome (1980, 1999), Gilmour (1997), Shaw (1999), and my own work (1994, 2005), for example, place narrative at the center of the practical theological task of religious education. Of course, Mary Elizabeth Moore (Teaching From the Heart, 1991, 1998) is correct in her statement that "Teaching narratively is more than a set of techniques that can be thrown into an eclectic bag of tricks. Narrative is a significant mode of human communication, a bearer and critic of culture, and a potentially profound and far-reaching educational method." (132-133)
I would also suggest that narrative helps us bring into focus "theology-in-action" where persons are in their social location and across the plural circumstances of persons' lives.But, is it also possible for narrative methodologies to to invite responses to additional questions: What kinds of narrative methods are needed for what we might consider helpful theological reflection? To what ends or for what outcomes do we see as important for narrative as practical theological method in religious education? Indeed, we might well consider the question: How important is the use of narrative in religious education as a practical theological endeavor?
Anne Streaty Wimberly
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Beauty of Simplicity--or Not?
Dear Colleagues and Friends,
In a postmodern and pluralistic world, are religious educators—and practical theologians—working toward greater simplicity or complexity in our students’ thinking? I’ve been wondering about this since reading John Swinton and Harriet Mowat’s Practical Theology and Qualitative Research (SCM Press, 2006). In it they state that doing practical theology requires “complexifying” life situations so as to illuminate them more deeply (13-16)—raising critical and interpretive questions that open up new avenues of faith, thought and action.. They go even further and cite Poling and Mudge to the effect that such reflection is “unnatural” (from Formation and Reflection: The Promise of Practical Theology [Fortress, 1987], no page given). It tends to occur at times of crisis, or when some intentional process—perhaps an educational process?—is initiated.
What do you think?
· Is this “practice” of complexification in practical theology also characteristic of religious education? Is it appropriate for our goals? Aren’t we instead supposed to be fostering some level of clarity through education, rather than potentially rendering it more confusing?
· Is such complexification “unnatural”? If so, is it desirable?
· What theological assumptions underlie such attempts at complexification, especially assumptions about God, God’s activity in the world, and our response to such activity?
In a postmodern and pluralistic world, are religious educators—and practical theologians—working toward greater simplicity or complexity in our students’ thinking? I’ve been wondering about this since reading John Swinton and Harriet Mowat’s Practical Theology and Qualitative Research (SCM Press, 2006). In it they state that doing practical theology requires “complexifying” life situations so as to illuminate them more deeply (13-16)—raising critical and interpretive questions that open up new avenues of faith, thought and action.. They go even further and cite Poling and Mudge to the effect that such reflection is “unnatural” (from Formation and Reflection: The Promise of Practical Theology [Fortress, 1987], no page given). It tends to occur at times of crisis, or when some intentional process—perhaps an educational process?—is initiated.
What do you think?
· Is this “practice” of complexification in practical theology also characteristic of religious education? Is it appropriate for our goals? Aren’t we instead supposed to be fostering some level of clarity through education, rather than potentially rendering it more confusing?
· Is such complexification “unnatural”? If so, is it desirable?
· What theological assumptions underlie such attempts at complexification, especially assumptions about God, God’s activity in the world, and our response to such activity?
Friday, July 31, 2009
Practical Theology or Religious Education—Does It Matter?
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:
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!
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!
Monday, June 29, 2009
Join Our Discussion Starting in August!
Beginning in August, we will feature posts by Maureen O'Brien, Program Chair, and the three senior scholars who will lead us in our opening plenary on Nov. 22: Charles F. Melchert, Gabriel Moran, and Anne Streaty Wimberly. Each of us will post entries to help prime the pump for our annual meeting in Dallas. We hope that you will check the blog regularly and join in the conversation.
Sincerely,
Maureen O'Brien
Sincerely,
Maureen O'Brien
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)