Chuck Melchert's Opening Post: Playfully Engaging the Theme

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