Chapter 4 The Scope of Practical Theology Practices, Addressees, and Relation to Theology and the Social Sciences 1 Introduction In the overviews in Chapters 2 and 3, one theme remained unaddressed: what about the practices that academic practical theology studied? Where, to put it briefly, did valorisation occur? In this chapter, we therefore investigate the scope of practical theology from a historical point of view. What are the prac- tices that practical theology deals with or to which it is relevant? Who are the people that practical theology addresses? What about the relationship between practical theology and other disciplines, such as systematic theology and the social sciences? With this chapter, it is not my intention to write ‘the history’ of practical theology, since too many voices would be missing. Instead, I focus on the scope of the discipline and in the first paragraphs I also focus primarily on the European and, where appropriate, the American context of practical theology. Our investigation in this chapter is fivefold. First, I explore the scope of practical theology from the nineteenth century to the 1960s. There are a number of surprising gems to be found in the work of some European nineteenth century practical theologians, which help us to articulate a pre- liminary rationale for collaborative practical theology. Here we already find practical theologians who are aware of the benefits of collaboration. Second, as far as the addressees are concerned, the 1960s constitute a watershed. Be- fore the 1960s, apart from diaconal science which addressed diaconal practi- tioners, and religious education which addressed teachers, practical theology primarily addressed ecclesial practitioners. After the 1960s, ministers, but also ‘the church’ and social and political institutions were addressed. Increasingly it was felt that there was a need for the critical analysis of contemporary so- cietal developments. The domain of practices broadened significantly. There were several ‘turns’ too: one may speak of a ‘societal turn’, an ‘epistemological turn’, a ‘turn to practices’ and an ‘empirical turn’. As the field developed, sev- eral practical theological branches matured into sub-disciplines with accom- panying learned societies and conferences, and in each of these, the relation- ship with the social sciences became important. Third, I assess the state of the field today, again focusing on the examined practices. We find practical theologians who are conducting research on lived religion, practices in which © HenkdeRoest,2020 | DOI:10.1163/9789004413238_006 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 license. Henk de Roest - 9789004413238 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:24:47AM via free access TheScopeofPracticalTheology 91 people refer to what is sacred to them or cultural practices in which people use God-talk, but we also find practical theologians who are restricting the scope to Christian practices as they are related to practices of the world. In all of these practices, most practical theologians unveil a theological dimen- sion. In fact, today some practical theologians even speak of a ‘theological turn’, although one may also find critics of this turn. Fourth, I make three observations regarding the interplay of the ‘practices of the church’ and the ‘practices of the world’. Fifth, following up on the concepts of Christian prac- tices and practices of faith, I analyze the relationship between practical theo- logy and theology, the new interest of systematic theology in empirical re- search and finally, the relationship between practical theology and the social sciences. 2 Practical Theology from the 1800s to the 1960s: Church-Oriented Practical Theology In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, practical theologians mostly focused on describing, analysing, evaluating and providing strategies for prac- tices related to the ministry. The purpose of knowledge transfer in teaching, training and research was to enable the minister to become a pastor bonus – a good shepherd, a good preacher and a good teacher. Illustrative of this are the great handbooks1 written by leading scholars to enable students and prac- titioners to acquire the competences for performing both traditional and new practices. These handbooks are concerned about preventing routinisation. For example, in 1878, Van Oosterzee believes it is a temptation for a minister “to act mechanically,” as a result of the routine nature of some sacred practices.2 Throughout the book, the topic of routinisation turns out to be an import- ant one. Writing a sermon is an artistic rather than an artisanal work: “As a work of art the sermon is not to be mechanically put together, but must form an organic whole, by which theme and scheme are fitly indicated for the be- nefit of the hearers.”3 With regard to the work of catechising Van Oosterzee writes, “Even a good method loses all its value the moment it is mechanically applied.”4 In pastoral care routines can be fatal: “What needs to be avoided 1 Walter Birnbaum, Theologische Wandlungen von Schleiermacher bis Karl Barth. Eine enzyk- lopädische Studie zur Praktischen Theologie (Tübingen: Katzmann Verlag, 1963): 108. 2 Van Oosterzee, Practical Theology, 33. 3 Van Oosterzee, Practical Theology, 291. 4 Van Oosterzee, Practical Theology, 504. Henk de Roest - 9789004413238 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:24:47AM via free access 92 Chapter 4 is the mechanical way of household visitation, in connection with which the same questions are everywhere mechanically put, and the answers are some- times hardly noticed; the hurried style, wherein no opportunity is given to the members for making known their doubts and difficulties.”5 Van Oosterzee dis- tinguishes pastoral theology from practical theology. In his view, pastoral theo- logy is a sort of “instruction in the wisdom and prudence of the preacher” that could easily “degenerate into frivolous casuistry.” In contrast, practical theo- logy not only offers lessons from practical wisdom but also provides “know- ledge aiming at the self-edification of the church,” and “a science of and for action.”6 Reflecting on practical theology in the nineteenth and twentieth century, until the 1960s, Edward Farley has pejoratively labelled the dominant ap- proach a “clerical paradigm” and has criticised practical theology for being overly centred on the skills that ministers needed in order to run congrega- tions effectively.7 Farley’s critique of the first, extended phase of practical theo- logy echoes earlier evaluations,8 but is it justified? Viewed from the perspect- ive of valorisation, this stage was beneficial for the target audience, enabling students and pastors to acquire the necessary know-why and know-how, and included the emergence and maturation of several sub-disciplines. As Bon- nie Miller-McLemore states, there is nothing wrong with an academic focus on know-how.9 Reflecting on two hundred years of practical theology at Prin- ceton Theological Seminary, Richard Osmer and Gordon Mikoski write that of- fering guidance for future pastors was always its aim, although over the years 5 Van Oosterzee, Practical Theology, 522–523. 6 Van Oosterzee, Practical Theology, 3. Remarkably, the motto of his handbook is a quotation from Gregory of Nazianzus: praxis epibasis theorias (“action leads to theory,” “action is a stepping stone for theory”). 7 Edward Farley, Theologia: The Fragmentation and Unity of Theological Education (Phil- adelphia: Fortress Press, 1983); Edward Farley, “Theology and Practice Outside the Clerical Paradigm,” in Practical Theology: The Emerging Field in Theology, Church, and World, ed. Don S. Browning (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983): 141. See also Elaine Graham, Transforming Practice: Pastoral Theology in an Age of Uncertainty (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002): 58. For a critical assessment of the pejorative use of the term ‘clerical paradigm’, see Bonnie J. Miller-McLemore, “The ‘Clerical Paradigm’: A Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness,” International Journal of Practical Theology 11, no. 3 (2007): 19–38. Miller-McLemore criticises advocates of an ‘academic paradigm’ for their dismissal of clergy practice. 8 In his inaugural speech of 1964, Frans Haarsma, predecessor of Chris Hermans as the chair for practical theology at Radboud University Nijmegen, was critical about the restriction of practical theology to pastoral training and technology (“how to”). See Christiaan Hermans, “From Practical Theology to Practice-oriented Theology: The Study of Lived Spirituality and Lived Religion in Late Modernity,” International Journal of Practical Theology 18, no. 1 (2014): 121. 9 Miller-McLemore, “The ‘Clerical Paradigm’,” 20, 21, 30. Henk de Roest - 9789004413238 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:24:47AM via free access TheScopeofPracticalTheology 93 they see the development of a greater consciousness of the need to analyse the context of the congregation, combined with a deep commitment to revelation and theological reflection. They write about “vigorous engagement with con- texts and the complexities of human experience.”10 Context is present in the backgrounds and diverse ministry settings of students. They state that future plurality in practical theology is driven by the diverse contexts of practical theologians and the issues to which they give attention, but being relevant for the ministry is clearly not something that practical theology should be ashamed of. In fact, as Birgit Weyel