L. M. Heyns and H. J. C. Pieterse divide the development of Practical Theology from the mid-20th century onwards into four approaches. A pragmatic approach ignores theory and addresses how to practice ministry well. A pastoral theological approach trains pastors for Christian ministry. It is a theology of ecclesiastical ministry. A hermeneutical theological approach is normative and bases practice on biblical hermeneutics and historical criticism. An empirical or operational, scientific approach rejects the normative, deductive approach to practical theology. Rather, practice addresses real life situations and should contribute (backwards) to theory. Therefore, practical theology is empirical study.
One can easily see that the pragmatic and empirical/operational approaches to practical theology largely oppose theology. One simply cannot find such a perspective in Scripture, where theology fundamentally determines practice. The pastoral theological and hermeneutical theological approaches are, as the names suggest, theological. The former emphasises practice and, I would clarify, is related to good practice within a particular tradition and context. The latter’s concern for Biblical interpretation means it is concerned to discover authoritative norms.
Evangelicals may appreciate the concerns of the pastoral theological and the hermeneutical theological approaches to practical theology. However, I would suggest that these approaches ought to raise questions for us about the integrity of practical theology per se. Why not reincorporate the concerns and practices of practical theology back into more foundational theology—Biblical, historical, dogmatic, moral theology? Separating ‘practical’ from theological is unhelpful for both, but—as the so-called hermeneutical theological approach insists—practical theology without strong foundations turns into sociological studies. (Leadership studies is a good example, deriving its tenets primarily from business studies and then decorating it with some theological or Biblical prooftexts as ornaments.) Practical theolological theses often centre around some survey that records the opinions of contemporary and contextual responders. Such a study, as we learn from the empirical/operational approach to pragmatic theology, is intentionally devoid of ‘theory’—theology, Church history, Biblical studies, ethics. One wonders when the word ‘theology’ will be dropped from ‘practical theology’ in the hands of these advocates. (Heyns and Pieterse point out that, while this approach is international, many pioneers were associated with the University of South Africa.)
My point is not that practical questions should be eliminated in theology but that they should be elevated, but this should be done by returning them to their rightful place in classical theology. Nobody should be granted a degree in practical theology any more than one should be granted a degree in a particular area of study in practical theology, like leadership studies. The New Testament authors themselves demonstrate a proper grounding of practical issues in both Biblical interpretation (the Old Testament) and Christian theology (particularly the Gospel of Jesus Christ). Much the same could be said for the Church Fathers, whose knowledge of the Scriptures was often profound. What particularly concerns me is theological education in Africa so focussed on the context or the practice that ministers do not have a grasp of theology or Biblical interpretation at all. The same problem arises when the African context becomes a revered authority or honoured elder to the point that the connection to orthodoxy is undermined. On the other side of academia, handing out doctoral degrees for practical theology—an easier field of study, to be sure—when the continent needs Biblical scholars, theologians, Church historians, and ethicists is not going to help the Church. People interested in Practical Theology in Africa tend to be enamored more by ‘African realities’—and therefore develop ‘Public Theology’ to address these—than Biblical truth or Ecclesiastical realities in their theological pursuits. The simple and necessary solution is to get rid of Practical Theology as an independent field of theological studies.
English (US) · 