Comments on: “Practical” Theology?

By: Derek Resler

Derek Resler — Mon, 25 May 2009 16:21:00 +0000

I think that both definitions are adequate to describe the nature of practical theology. To your point Kent, my wife and I had this conversation just yesterday after hearing the sermon from our church. I tend to lean towards your point on the modern development of parsing disciplines at the expense of a holistic understanding. Kyle is spot on in his comments about what we could call “disciplinary hubris” for lack of a better term. The actual concept that each discipline exists in a vacuum without dialogue with other disciplines is empty and ultimately dangerous.

As a novice historian, there is no way that I can understand the movement of history without an understanding of how the biblical hermeneutic of the day drove the theological development which in turn drove the social, political, and economic developments of societies.

How can any of us understand our discipline without being tied into other disciplines? The practice of theology makes theology alive in our hearts, communities, and lives. Consequently, all disciplines need to be practical in nature. The development of the practical theology discipline is a much needed corrective to the modern fragmentation of the theological discipline.

Am I on target or way off here?

By: Joshua Blanchard

Joshua Blanchard — Sun, 24 May 2009 04:48:18 +0000

I prefer the first definition, simply because it’s the only one that seems to accurately employ the term ‘practical.’ It seems to me that the first definition contains an active understanding – practical theology does something, it ensures something, extends something. The other definitions seem to me to just be furthering inquiries and expanding knowledge, and so to me they are not yet practical theology. I feel that practical theology could be understood as applied theology. Without application it can’t sensibly be called practical.

By: G

Sat, 23 May 2009 15:28:25 +0000

Any good interdisciplinary models available for theology? That would integrate not just all elements of Church-centered activity, but also integrate theology into the larger, working community? And other academic disciplines?

By: Kyle Strobel

Kyle Strobel — Sat, 23 May 2009 14:10:18 +0000

Kent,

Ever since I’ve been reading Edwards I’ve had the same sense. For Edwards, there was only theology, and theology just happened to include what we now call biblical studies, hermeneutics, polemical theology, practical theology, philosophy, science, etc., with systematic theology being the engine that drove the whole endeavour.

While I don’t think this is possible today, the sheer amount of learning it would take would be impossible, I think we need to do more to share a common jargon and a common goal of interdisciplinary interaction. The fact that most biblical studies guys I now don’t think they have to worry about systematic issues, or, even worse, “Pauline” scholars who don’t think they need to worry about issues in the gospels, is incredibly disconcerting.

You know that I think seminaries, in part, are to blame for this (not to mention the modern university in general), but the more important question is what to do about it that it now exists, which is what I hear you asking.