The “Clerical ?aradigm”: A Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness?

(1)

The “Clerical ?aradigm”:

A Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness?

Bonnie ر. M iller-M cE em orc

T he sem inary w here I first ta u g h t p a sto ra l eare sits aeross the street from the university w here I did m y g rad u ate w o rk in religion an d psyehology.

W h en I erossed the street from aeadem ie study to m inisterial teaehing tw o deeades ago, how ever, I entered a new w o rld . M an y o f m y stu d en ts w ere seeond-eareer ad u lts ready to m ove into m inisterial voeations. Eager to learn theology, they also w a n te d to k n o w h o w to use it.

A ro u n d the sam e tim e, m y h u sb a n d left d o eto ral study to p a sto r a sm all, w orking-elass eon g reg atio n in the su b u rb a n o u tsk irts o f the eity.

To keep a dw indling m em bership afloat in a m arginal n eig h b o rh o o d , he needed resources n either o f us h a d im agined in g rad u ate sehool. H e eventually aeq u ired the skills an d w isdom th a t helped sustain a v ib ra n t m inistry. I h a d a sim ilar experienee developing expertise in tra in in g as a p a sto ra l eounselor. O ddly, th o u g h , th e literatu re in p raetieal theology of the 1980s defined this k in d o f a tte n tio n to “ hints an d h e lp s” as a p roblem . Eor the m o st p a rt, it still does.

N egative eom m ents a b o u t the p ro b lem of “tips an d h in ts ” an d “ applied th e o lo g y ” are eo m m o n am ong those w h o teaeh in p raetieal theology in the U nited States an d beyond. Such com m ents are voiced regularly a t m eetings an d ap p e a r in o u r p u b lieatio n s. In one fell sw oop, p ractical theologians dism iss “ a p p lie a tio n ” an d “rules of th u m b ” as distasteful leftovers from the days o f the “elerieal p a ra d ig m ” w hen theological ed u eatio n focused solely o n equipping elergy. C riticism is seldom tu rn e d back on system - atic theology o r any o th er area of the curriculum . For exam ple, a recent b o o k on theological m eth o d bem oans the recent h isto ry o f “ ‘ap p lied ’ or p a sto ra l theologies, w ith the latter as the ‘hints an d h elp s’ of p a s to ra lia ” o r “m erely ap p licatio n s o f tru th fo u n d w ith in system atic theo lo g y .” ! T he story o f th e clerical p arad ig m encapsulates o u r h isto ry an d the h isto ry is seldom to ld in any o th er way.

Is th ere a subtle disdain hid d en in the analysis o f this 1980s literatu re, 1 began to w onder, for the w isdom specific to clergy an d congregational 1 Elaine G r ^ m /H e a th e r W lton/Erances Ward, Theological Reflection. Methods, Eondon

(SCM Press) 2 3 ,5

ﻢﻣ

.

T G I 10.1515/IJPT.2007..

IJPT, vol. Ι Ι , Ρ Ρ . 19-38

(2)

m inistry? I have eo n tin u ed to consider this questio n as I w o rk w ith students going into m inistry, w h y did the p h rase “clerical p a ra d ig m ” arise as a p rim ary w ay to characterize the p ro b lem o f theological education?

W hy did it gain such staying pow er? D oes it adeq u ately co m p reh en d the p roblem s faced by p ractical theology an d p a sto ra l p ractitio n ers? D oes it co n tain hid d en prejudice against practice an d d o u b ts a b o u t the church itself?

? ro c lam atio n s ab o u t the clerical p arad ig m , first suggested by system atic th eo lo g ian E d w ard Earley, established a m ajo r precedent for the ensuing discussion. It is tim e to lo o k m ore carefully a t the original source o f this term an d ask w h a t w as helpful a b o u t the p o rtra it an d w h a t dilem m as it left unresolved. Such an investigation will allow us to assess w here previous attem p ts to reinvigorate p ractical theology succeeded an d w here they w en t astray.

T he concept o f the clerical p arad ig m has so d o m in ated the discourse, I will argue, th a t it has d isto rted o u r p ercep tio n , m isdirected blam e, an d hence left o th e r p roblem s u n a tte n d e d , p articu larly the rise o f w h a t I will call the “ academ ic p a ra d ig m .” In relying heavily u p o n the c o n stru ct of clerical p arad ig m , theologians eager to revitalize p ractical theology inad- vertently den ig rated con g reg atio n al an d p a sto ra l “k n o w -h o w .” T his w as n o t th eir in ten t, b u t it w as a consequence of the increasingly careless usage of an initially useful term . A lthough I begin w ith an analysis of Earley’s p ro p o sal, I do n o t tak e issue so m uch w ith its original form ula- tio n as w ith its sub seq u en t use. N o r do I focus o n the in stitu tio n al or em pirical questio n o f w h eth er o r n o t sem inaries are teaching m inisterial skills an d practices. Instead, I am interested in the sh ared rh eto ric a b o u t the p ro b lem an d so lu tio n in theological ed u catio n th a t has subtle an d n o t so subtle consequences for in stitu tio n al life. E erceptions o f the clerical p arad ig m as the m ain p ro b lem have p e rp e tu a te d a “ fallacy of m isplaced co n creten ess,” as A lfred N o rth W h iteh ead m ight say, o r the m istaking of a helpful g eneralization for concrete reality.2

Behind m y analysis stan d tw o aim s th a t go beyond th e b o u n d aries of this essay b u t m erit brief m ention. I have a w ider interest in assessing the p ractical theological literatu re o f the 1980s in general an d a desire to explore an d reclaim the value o f p a sto ra l know -how . T he im p o rta n t efforts of the 1980s b o th advanced the discussion an d left som e serious p roblem s unresolved. O n the one h a n d , scholarship in p ractical th e o l

2 Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality. An Essay in Cosmology, New York (Harper) 1929. Whitehead defined the fallacy as “neglecting the degree of abstraction involved when an actual entity is considered merely so far as it exemplifies certain categories of thought”

(11). This is the “fallacy involved whenever thinkers forget the degree of abstraction involved in thought and draw unwarranted conclusions about concrete actuality.” See:

Herman E. Daly/]ohn B. Cobb/Clifford w . Cobb, Eor the Common Cood. Redirecting the Economy towards Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Euture, Boston (Beacon Press) 1989, 36.

(3)

The “Clerical Paradigm”: A Fallacy of ^ s p la c e d Concreteness? 21 ogy co n trib u te d to a m ajo r re o rie n ta tio n in theological ed u catio n in the U nited States. It identified religious practices as a valid subject m atter, contested con v en tio n al cu rricu lar divisions betw een th eo ry an d practice in the classical an d p ractical fields, an d em bodied a dialectical engage- m en t betw een situ atio n s, religious tra d itio n s, an d C h ristian convictions in teaching an d research. O n the o th er h an d , som e co m m en tato rs, such as D avid Kelsey an d B arbara W heeler, argue th a t the discussion o f theological ed u catio n an d p ractical theology has m ade little real difference in the actu al practices o f faith an d m inistry an d in the overall o rg an izatio n of theological study in sem inaries, divinity schools, an d g rad u ate p ro g ra m s.3 T here are m any reasons for the lim ited im p act of p ractical theology. But a key questio n has been overlooked. H o w do those w h o practice m inistry em body theological know ledge? H o w do they learn h o w to practice? As I will ultim ately conclude, the field o f p ractical theology needs to learn a lot m ore a b o u t p ractical theological kn o w -h o w : h o w to teach it, h o w to learn it, an d h o w to d em o n strate it.

T he Clerical ? a ra d ig m as th e ?ro b le m in ? ra c tic al T heology E ncouraged by p rofessional interest an d in stitu tio n al su p p o rt, several scholars c o n trib u te d significantly to the rep o sitio n in g o f p ractical theology as a respectable academ ic enterprise in the 1980s.4 T hey agreed alm ost uni- versally th a t previous eras, d atin g back to Schleierm acher in the n in eteen th century, h a d defined the field to o narrow ly. “ C lerical p a ra d ig m ” becam e the code term for this p roblem . Earley first p ro p o sed the p h rase as a w ay to characterize the tro u b lin g p re o c cu p atio n of theological ed u catio n an d p ractical theology w ith m inisterial skills of individual p a sto rs.3 H e w as n o t alone in raising this concern. O th ers before Earley, such as A lastair C am pbell, h a d already identified the p ro b le m .6 W ith this p h rase, how ever, an d a po w erfu l historical p o rtra it to m atch , Earley codified it.

3 David H. Kelsey/Barbara G. Wheeler, New Ground. The Foundations and Future of the The©l©gical Educati©n Debate, in: The©l©gy and the Interhuman. Essays in Honor of Edward Farley, ed. Robert R. Williams, Valley Forge, Pa. (Trinity Press International) 1

وو

18 ,5

ﻮﻣ

4 Eor an excellent bibliography, see: Theological Education 3 0/2, 1

وو

8 ,4

و

-

و

8

م

5 Edward Farley, Theology and Practice Outside the Clerical Paradigm, in: Practical Theology. The Emerging Field in Theology, Church, and World, ed. Don s. Brown- ing, San Erancisco (Harper & Row) 141 -21 ,83

و

; and Edward Farley, Theologia. The Eragmentation and Unity of Theological Education, Philadelphia (Fortress Press) 1 8 3

و

, 87. Although he continues this argument in later work, this paper focuses primarily on its initial appearance in these earlier publications. See: Edward Farley, The Eragility of Knowledge. Theological Education in the Church and the University, Philadelphia (Eortress Press) 1

و

88

م

6 Alastair

٧

Campbell, Is Practical Theology Possible? in: Scottish ]ournal of Theology 2 5 /2 , May 1227 -217 ,72

و

.

(4)

BonnÍ€ j. Miller-McLemore

T he elerieal p arad ig m soon becam e a w idely used s h o rth a n d for every- th in g th a t w as w ro n g w ith previous u n d erstan d in g s of theological educa- tio n an d p ractical theology. In the reigning m odel, the so-called classical areas o f Bible, history, an d d o ctrin e convey the th eo ry o r tru th s o f the tra d itio n , w hile the p ractical arts th en apply th em to m inistry, centered alm o st entirely on the technical functions of clergy. In the 1980s, the hope w as to get “ beyond clericalism ” in theological ed u catio n , as the title of one b o o k p u t it, an d back to c o n tex tu al, co n g reg atio n al, an d theological a p p ro a c h e s / R ightfully redefined, p ractical theology, like theological ed u catio n in general, entails m ore th a n the k n o w -h o w o f p arish m inisters an d o u g h t to involve theological engagem ent w ith c o n ^ m p o ra ry issues an d the C h ristian gospel b o th in congregations an d society at large.

Few people have sto p p ed to assess the ad equacy o f fois p o rtray al.

M o st sim ply assum e foe clerical p arad ig m sufficiently defines the predica- m ent, p a rtly because it has done such a g ood job cap tu rin g an im p o rta n t aspect o f theological ed u c a tio n ’s en tra p m e n t in scope an d m eth o d . As an in tro d u c tio n to one m ajo r edited volum e observes, foe idea is “ so w idely held th a t it is often ta k e n to be s e l f - e v i d e n t .S o m e scholars tak e issue w ith Farley, b u t foe d ebate has rarely questio n ed fois basic c a te g o ry /

F arley’s Theologia is indeed a p iv o tal an d inform ative tex t. It gives a detailed in terp re ta tio n of developm ents in theological ed u catio n from early C h ristian ity th ro u g h foe tw en tieth century an d form ulates a response. H e begins w ith w h a t he adm its is a “ten d en tio u s genetics” o f th e assum p- tions behind the cu rre n t o rg an izatio n o f theology, m aking a largely lost h isto ry available for reanalysis before offering his prescriptive response.

For those w an tin g to u n d e rsta n d p ractical th eo lo g y ’s plight an d th e gulf betw een academ y an d church, it is a g o o d place to start. Even th o u g h Earley focuses p rim arily on m ain stream F ro te sta n t theological ed u catio n , he believes th a t parallel developm ents o ccurred in R o m an C atholic an d Evangelical circles. As he notes, the “theological encyclopedic m ovem ent is as mn،fo a C atholic as a P ro te sta n t w o rk .” 10

7

Joseph

c.

Hough/Barbara

G.

Wheeler, Beyond Clericalism. The Congregation as a Focus for Theological Education, Atlanta (Scholars Press) 1 8 8

و

.

8 Barbara G. Wheeler, Introduction, in: Shifting Boundaries. Contextual Approaches to the Structure

هﺀ

Theological Education, ed. Barbara G. W heeler/Edward Earley, Louisville (Westminster John Knox) 1991, 9.

9 “Nothing published so far has challenged either Earley’s explanation of the almost universal experience of fragmentation or the terms he uses to analyze theological education’s malaise,” Kelsey/Wheeler, New Ground, 183. An exception to this claim might be found in: Joseph

c.

Hough/John B. Cobb, Christian Identity and Theological Education, Chico, Calif. (Scholars Press) 1985, 3-5. They briefly deny that confinement by the clerical paradigm is the crux of the problem and assert that the key dilemma is confusion in the church about ministerial leadership. See also other chapters in: Barbara G. W heeler/Edward Farley, eds.. Shifting Boundaries. Contextual Approaches to the Structure of Theological Education, Eouisville (Westminster John Knox Press) 1991.

10 Farley, Theologia, X .

(5)

The “Clerical Paradigm”: A Fallacy of ^ s p la c e d Concreteness? 23 Theologia basically tells th e story o f th eo lo g y ’s displacem ent as the

“ unity, subject m atter, an d end o f clergy e d u c a tio n ” an d its replacem ent by the clerical p a ra d ig m .il H ere Farley is n o t talk in g a b o u t theology as conventionally u n d e rsto o d to d a y in term s o f system atic o r constructive d o ctrin al w o rk as one o f m any areas of study. Indeed, this u n d erstan d in g is an u n fo rtu n a te fallout o f the encyclopedic m ovem ent o f eighteenth-century G erm any an d its in sta n tia tio n in ed u catio n al in stitu tio n s an d academ ic societies up th ro u g h today. Instead, he refers repeatedly th ro u g h o u t the b o o k to a tim e w hen theology w as “ one th in g ” ra th e r th a n m any, a “ single science” p ertain in g to the salvific w isdom o f G od. C ulm in atin g w ith h l e i e r m a c h e r ’s B rie f O u tlin e o f the S tu d y o f T h eo lo g y b u t co n tin u in g well into tw en tieth century cu rricu lar stru ctu res, the atte m p t to establish the validity of studying C h ristian ity w ith in the m o d ern university led to the e la b o ra tio n of a “theological encyclopedia” dividing theology into subdisciplines o f Bible, dogm atics, history, an d p ractical theology. T heology w as p o rtra y e d as a science, co m p arab le to its co m p an io n sciences o f m edicine an d law, w ith religion as its object, clerical ed u catio n as its aim , an d several specialized areas as its com ponents.

In a su m m a ^ o fo isfo e sis,F a H e y sa y o fth e study of theology, the one th in g, eventually gives w ay to the p ro b lem o f theological encyclopedia, the interrelating o f t h e m a n y th in g s.” 12 W hen the “ one th in g ” split into fo u r branches an d each b ran ch divided into m ore subspecialties, each specialty established its ow n fiefdom w ith its “ sociological a cco u trem en ts”

o f guilds, jo u rn als, m ethods, an d sch o lars.13 These areas evolved m ore o u t o f circum stance th a n th ro u g h any clear ratio n ale a b o u t th eir necessity or th eir relatio n sh ip to the w hole. O ne principle th a t did shape fois reorgani- zatio n - the d istinction betw een th eo ry an d practice - sim ply exacerb ated a grow ing division betw een p ractical theology an d all the o th er areas.

A lth o u g h Schleierm acher h a d a slightly different trip a rtite schem a in m ind, it w as he w h o p ro p o sed w h a t Farley calls the “ clerical p a ra d ig m ” as th eo lo g y ’s a im. 1 ه Schleierm acher eq u ated theology w ith law an d m edicine as p ractical sciences designed for the p ro m o tio n o f social goods. For theology fois go o d w as the c h u rc h ’s need for an educated leadership. A1- th o u g h Schleierm acher also saw the C h ristian experience o f red em p tio n by C hrist as a m aterial p u rp o se for theological ed u catio n , fois u n d erstan d in g g radually vanished over the n ex t cen tu ry an d the clerical p arad ig m “ becam e v irtually u n iv ersal” as the key form al ra tio n a le .15 F ractical theology becam e a cu lm inating cluster o f courses directed to w a rd the tasks an d functions o f o rd ain ed m inistry. In a fo o tn o te, Farley clarifies.

1 Ibid., ix.

2 Ibid., 54, emphasis supplied.

3 Ibid., 4, 105.

4 Ibid., 85, 87.

5 Ibid., 94.

(6)

Hereafter, this expression, clerical paradigm, will be used to refer to the pre- vailing (post-Schleiermacher) P rotestant w ay of understanding tbe unity of tbeologieal education.... A lthough tbis paradigm will be questioned as an adequate approach to theological education’s unity, the autb o r wishes to avoid the im pression th a t this is a questioning of eitber the validity of clergy education itself or of the validity of education for specific activities and skills.16

Is the C lerieal P aradigm the M ain C ulprit?

D id Farley sueeeed in avoiding these pitfalls observed in passing in a footnote? Even if he did, have those w h o follow ed him m ain tain ed the im p o rtan ee o f edueating elergy for “ speeifie aetivities an d skills?” In a later eh ap ter in T heologia, Earley m akes m ono-eausal statem ents a b o u t the p ro b lem o f the elerieal p a rad ig m th a t seem to betray his g ood intentions.

T he reaso n P ro te sta n t ehurehes do n o t see theology as m eaningful, he insists, “ is sim p ly the triu m p h an d n a rro w in g o f the elerieal p a ra d ig m. ” ٧ T he clerical p a rad ig m is also “responsible f o r” a tru n c a te d view o f praetiee an d even for the alien atio n o f m inistry students from “p rax is, th a t is, from issues o f p erso n al existenee an d soeial ju stice.” N o t only th a t, the elerieal p a rad ig m “ ap p ears to be one o f the historical forces a t w o rk in th e A m erican exclusion of ‘th eo lo g y ’ from the university.” ^

O ne u p sh o t o f sueh claim s is th a t the elerieal p arad ig m , an d in tim e p raetieal theology an d the ch u rch in general, begin to tak e h eat th a t rightfully belongs w ith system atie theology an d the o th er diseiplines.

The “elerieal p a ra d ig m ” becom es a seapegoat for larger p roblem s faced by system atie th eologians, espeeially th eo lo g y ’s o w n m arg in alizatio n in b o th the aeadem y an d w ider public. In aetuality, I believe, the singular foeus o n p rofessional p a sto ra l skills is m ore a sym ptom th a n a eause of th eo lo g y ’s dem ise.

W h a t has been o v erlooked in F arley’s a fte rm a th is his incisive eritique o f the w hole o f theology. H e argues th a t tw o p rem o d ern u n d erstan d in g s o f theology u n d erw en t u n fo rtu n a te tra n sfo rm a tio n in m odernity. Erom early on, theology referred to b o th the p erso n al salvific know ledge of G od an d the discipline or organized study o f such know ledge. A g reat change, w hich he frequently dubs “ cataclysm ic” because o f its “radical d e p a rtu re ” from previous p a tte rn s, cam e w ith developm ents leading up th ro u g h the E nlightenm ent to to d ay .!؟ W ith the rise of ratio n alism , his- to rical critical m eth o d , an d se p aratio n o f different theological sciences, th eo lo g y ’s fu n d am en tal focus o n “ sapiential an d p erso n al k n o w led g e”

16 [98 ,.

ﺎﺗ

؛،

ا

, original emphasis.

17 Ibid., 131, emphasis supplied.

18 Ibid., 133.

19 Ibid., 39, 62 ,

هو

.

(7)

The “Clerical Paradigm”: A Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness? 25 o f divine being an d the p ro m o tio n o f “ a C h ristian p a id eia” o r eultiva- tio n of this divine w isdom w as lost. T heology as habitus o r as an aet of p raetieal w isdom a b o u t the divine beeam e instead a “ generie term for a eluster o f diseiplines.”^ E d u eatio n w as ren d ered sim ply an “ ag g reg ate” or

“m élange o f in tro d u e tio n s” to all the divergent speeializations. T heologieal u n d erstan d in g w as displaeed as the overall p u rp o se an d dispersed “ into a m ultiplieity o f sciences. ” لا T he tw o types o f theology eon tin u e b u t n o w in deranged form . In his w o rd s,

Theology as a personal quality continues ... n o t as a salvation-disposed wisdom , but as the practical know -how necessary to ministerial w ork. Theology as discipline continues, n o t as the unitary enterprise of theological study, but as one technical and so c ia liz e d scholarly undertaking am ong others؛ in other w ords, as systematic theology.^

In sh o rt, p raetieal theology w as n o t th e only area blighted. All areas lost to u c h w ith th eir rightful theological m eaning, system atic theology included.

Earley him self loses sight o f this dim ension o f his analysis. L ater in T heo lo g ia, he simplifies his p ietu re of the p ro b lem an d deseribes it as the

“ ‘clericalizatio n ’ of th eo lo g y .” H e says, “ in the elerieal p arad ig m , theol- o g y ...is som ething for the clergy a lo n e. ” لا Yet one could easily argue, or p erh ap s sh o u ld m ore accurately argue, th a t in the academ ic paradigm theology becam e som ething for th e academ y alone. C ongregations avoid theology n o t because they see it as clerical, as he argues, b u t because they see it as in tim id atin g an d reserved for learned academ ic experts w h o have influenced clergy. T he p ro b lem is n o t just “ cle!ficalization,” in o th er w o rd s, b u t an equally tro u b lin g “ ac a d e m iza tio n ” o f theology. A t the sam e tim e, theology is excluded from the university n o t just because it is eq u ated w ith p re p a ra tio n for o rd ain ed m inistry as Earley em phasizes, b u t because of its revelatory, confessional n a tu re .24 T h a t theologia o r know ledge o f the divine gained th ro u g h revelation n o longer has stan d in g in the academ y poses a g reater p ro b lem th a n Earley a c k n o w le d g e s ^

T h eo lo g ian Van H arv ey suggests th a t system atic th eo lo g y ’s ow n peers have also squeezed it o u t (even th o u g h he him self largely agrees w ith Earley’s diagnosis th a t clerical professionalism has led to th eo lo g y ’s m ar- ginalization). Biblical an d historical studies have retain ed a p u rp o se an d

20 Ibid., 81.

21 Ibid., 14, 15, 49.

22 Ibid., 39.

23 Ibid., 130, 169.

24 Ibid., 114, 134.

25 Farley’s p©sitive argument that the©l©gy can have a ^st-c©nfessi©nal form in the university is brief. See: Ibid., 161, 198. The question of how theologia can be sustained within the secular university is revisited in: Farley, Fragility of Knowledge, 56-82.

(8)

place despite historical criticism an d the dem ise o f speculative m etaphysics.

T hey did so, how ever, by displacing system atic theology. “T he develop- m en t o f specialized O ld an d N ew T estam ent h a d the effect of tak in g aw ay tw o o f the tra d itio n a l fields o f com petence claim ed by the system atic th e o lo g ia n ,” H arvey says. “W h a t w as once the subject m atte r o f theology w as, as it w ere, su b co n tracted o u t to N ew T estam ent studies, church history, p h ilo so p h y of religion, an d e t h i c s . N o t surprisingly, system atic theologians becam e increasingly confused a b o u t th e n a tu re o f th eir ow n p a rtic u la r expertise. I see a fu rth er exam ple o f this confusion as system atic theologians a tte m p t to reclaim th e study o f C h ristian practices as central, te rrito ry already trav ersed an d studied by p ractical theologians.

O ne w ay system atic theology has tried to retain a place in the university in the last several decades is by becom ing ever m ore sophisticated.

T heology is n o t just “perceived as te ch n ical,” as Farley says. It has becom e technical, an d n o t ju st because o f the clerical p arad ig m . In the last several decades, system atic theologians began to w rite for a public rem oved from C h ristian life an d m inistry. Few p arish io n ers saw such ab stru se theological activity as som ething in w hich they engaged, w h e n they w a n te d to u n d e rsta n d th eir religious lives, they tu rn e d instead to scholars b etter able to provide lively, m eaningful language: psychologists, econom ists, political scientists, an d even au th o rs o f spiritual m em oirs. T hus, in the “ academ ic p a ra d ig m ,” system atic theology faced a n o-w in situ atio n . Too pious for the academ y, it becam e to o academ ic for the church.

In o th er w o rd s, Farley actually exposes an academ ic p arad ig m as v irulent an d pro b lem atic as the clerical p arad ig m . F erhaps if he h a d so labeled system atic th eo lo g y ’s plight, p re o ccu p atio n w ith th e clerical p aradigm m ight have been tem pered an d som e of the unhelpful consequences avoided, including a p h raseology th a t bestow ed a subtle negative co n n o tatio n on “clergy” an d largely ignored the “ acad em ic” dilem m a. O ne ironic result is th a t in som e cases the p ractical areas becam e even less relevant to m inistry an d m ore rem oved from practice, lest faculty be accused of m erely p ro m o tin g clerical skills. لا T heologians in b o th system atic an d p ractical theology u n d erestim ated the intelligence involved in practice an d o v erlooked the lim itations o f m erely academ ic know ledge.

26 Van A. Harvey, On the Intellectual Marginality

هﺀ

American The©l©gy, in: Religi©n and Twentieth-Century American Intellectual Life, ed. Michael j. Lacey, New York (Cambridge University Press) 1989, 188, 190.

27 This can be illustrated by curricular conclusions like the following: “Seminaries need to resist the pressure to do a quick curricular fix to ‘prepare’ pastors to be better leaders of Christian education programming in local churches. Such a response ignores the validity of the critique of the ‘clerical paradigm.’ Rather, seminaries need to become ... commu- nities of reflective activity seeking wisdom about ‘the believer’s existence and action in the world’ (Farley).” Barbara Brown Zikmund, Theological Seminaries and Effective Christian Education, in: Rethinking Christian Education. Explorations in Theory and Practice, ed. David s. Schuller, St. Louis (Chalice Press) 1993, 121-22.

(9)

The “Clerical Paradigm”: A Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness? 27 W h a t H ap p en s to A p p lic a tio n in the A eadem ie P a r a d ig m ? F ix atio n o n th e elerieal p arad ig m as the key p ro b lem in theologieal ed u - catio n an d p ractical theology has h a d the o d d consequence o f fu rth er devaluing the already q uestionable status of congregational life, m inisterial practice, an d clergy com petence. T his is u n fo rtu n a te an d p ro b a b ly n o t the end Farley o r oth ers h a d in m ind. As Farley him self acknow ledges, Schleierm acher valued such practice. Schleierm acher saw theology, along w ith m edicine an d law, as different from the p u re con cep tu al science o f p h ilo so p h y precisely because they all em brace practices. All three

“ originate in the need to give cognitive an d th eo retical fo u n d atio n s to an indispensable practice” th a t resp o n d s to “ fu n d am en tal h u m a n n eed s,”

w h eth er spiritual, social, o r bo d ily .^

W h a t th en w as the end Farley desired, if n o t an enhan cem en t o f clerical practice? H e recom m ends the recovery of tbeologia o r an “ ed u catio n w hich centers on a paideia o f theological u n d e r s t a n d i n g . “P aideia”

im plies the holistic involvem ent o f the learner an d includes all C h ristian believers. H ow ever, the c o n tex t an d actu al exercise o f paideia go largely u n exam ined. Little is said a b o u t h o w to cultivate an d enact it. In the sequel to Tbeologia th a t extends F arley’s reflection on ed u catio n , T he Fragility o f K n o w led g e, this term receives surprisingly little a tte n tio n despite its po ten tial.

Instead, the em phasis falls heavily on the cognitive. T he general goal o f theological ed u catio n is facilitating theological “th in k in g .” T here is n o th in g w ro n g w ith em phasizing critical ra tio n a l intellect in m inistry. In- deed, a m inistry inform ed by scholarship, b o o k learning, an d reflection is highly desirable. A p ro b lem arises, how ever, as p ractical th eo lo g ian C raig D y k stra p o in ts o u t, w hen intelligence receives a n a rro w definition as pri- m arily linguistic, logical com petence. T his ignores a range o f intelligences an d qualifications related to som atic, spatial, kinesthetic, aesthetic, an d p erso n al kn o w in g , as identified by H o w a rd C a rd n e r an d o th e rs. و و

T he p ro b lem is n o t ju st a m a tte r o f a lim ited definition of intelligence, however. A larger th eo retical an d m ethodological Issue is a t stake. Ul- tim ately, few people a tte m p t to challenge or dism antle the v a lu atio n of th eo ry over practice o r the o ne-directional relatio n sh ip betw een th eo ry an d p ractice evident in Schleierm acher an d the g rad u al d ev alu atio n of

28 Farley, The©l©gia, 86, ©riginal emphasis.

29 Ibid., 181.

30 Craig Dykstra, ^c©nceiving Fractice in The©l©gical Inquiry and Educati©n, in: Virtues and Fractices in the Christian Traditi©n. Christian Ethics after MacIntyre, ed. Nancey

c.

M urphy/Brad j. Kallenberg/M ark Thiessen Nati©n, Notre Dame (University of Notre Dame Fress) 1997, 177, n. 29. This article first appeared in: Wheeler/Farley, Shifting Boundaries, 35-66. Most recently, Dykstra has talked about this intelligence in terms of

“pastoral imagination” and “pastoral excellence.”

(10)

practice th a t resulted.31 T h eo ry drives p ractice, acting is ultim ately sub- o rd in ate to th in k in g , an d critical reflection occupies a m ore im p o rta n t place th a n p ractical com petence, a conviction th a t continues to shape theological curriculum .

In descriptions of p ractical theology, in te rp re ta tio n has been key. A ction an d im p lem en tatio n are often a fterth o u g h ts, even th o u g h b o th o f these are u n d e rsto o d as im p o rta n t elem ents in the science o f herm eneutics,

? ra ctical th eo lo g ian D o n B row ning, p a m p h ra sin g R ich ard B ernstein an d H an s-G eo rg G adam er, says th a t in the p ractical w isdom necessary for m inistry, “ u n d erstan d in g , in te rp re ta tio n , a n d application are n o t distinct b u t intim ately re la te d .” 32 M a jo r spokespersons in p ractical theology such as B row ning an d Farley, how ever, have h a d im m ense interest in the first tw o: u n d erstan d in g an d in terp retatio n . T hey have h a d less to say a b o u t

“ a p p lic a tio n .”

All agree th a t p ractical theology involves m ore th a n ap p licatio n of th eo ry to practice. C oncern a b o u t ap p licatio n shapes u n d erstan d in g from the beginning. Yet they seldom ask h o w u n d erstan d in g actually inform s action. W hen Farley takes up “ a c tio n ” later in T he Fragility o fK n o w le d g e, he does so briefly an d only as one of several “ in te rp re ta tiv e ” m odes of education. H e does n o t describe its concrete actu alizatio n in faith, m inistry, an d co n g reg atio n .33 N o one really w an ts to ta lk a b o u t ap p licatio n or use o f know ledge. It is still basically left to the v arious subdisciplines of p ractical theology to figure o u t h o w know ledge will shape an d be shaped by practice. A pp licatio n is som ething th a t h ap p en s in som e ill-defined fashion there. In the end, “clerical ta s k s ” a te no m ore th a n just th at:

technical chores th a t d istract from th eo lo g y ’s m ore fu n d am en tal aim of reflection an d in terp retatio n . Since the ed u catio n al focus on such tasks has been defined as the p ro b lem , little a tte m p t is m ade to fit th em back in to the pictu re a t all.

Is T here A nything C o m m endable a b o u t F ractical K now -H ow ? In the last few years, several people have begun to questio n cognitive or cerebral definitions o f p ractical th eo lo g y ’s task. T his is m o st a p p a re n t in the far-reaching discussions a b o u t “p ra c tic e .” F arley’s w o rk itself helped 31 John E. Burkhart, Schleiermacher’s Vision for Theology, in: Practical Theology. The

Emerging Eield in Theology, Church, and World, ed. Don s. Browning, San Erancisco (Harper & Row) 153 -52

و

. ,83

32 Don S. Browning, A Eundamental Practical Theology. Descriptive and Strategic Propos- als, Minneapolis (Fortress Press) 139 ,1

وو

, emphasis supplied.

33 Farley, Eragility of Knowledge, 153-55, n. 5. Even though Farley titles his most recent book “Practicing Cospel,” his primary practice is still thinking. He defines theology as “interpretative or thinking activity” rather than faith active in the world. Edward Farley, Practicing Cospel. Unconventional Thoughts on the Church’s Minsitry, Eouisville (Westminster John Knox Press) 2003, 7.

(11)

The “Clerical Paradigm”: A Fallacy of ^ s p la c e d Concreteness? 29 p ro p el oth ers to “reeoneeive p ra c tic e ,” as D y k stra titles a ^ im p o rta n t 1991 article. T his article is one o f the first attem p ts in p ractical theology to develop the concept of practice. Inform ed by a close read in g of Farley, D y k stra also criticizes theological e d u c a tio n ’s focus on individual clergy skills. It is p h ilo so p h er A lasdair M acIn ty re, how ever, w h o provides the in frastru ctu re th a t allow s D y k stra to d e p a rt from F arley’s agenda, an d precisely a ro u n d the re co n stru ctio n o f p r a c tic e d A n im poverished u n d erstan d in g o f practice is a serious p a rt of the p ro b lem in theological ed u catio n , D y k stra argues, including the failure to include p ractice in the areas o f Bible, history, system atic theology, an d ethics, an d to see th a t such disciplines are them selves a form of practice.

D y k stra likes b u t essentially redefines F arley’s heady habitus. For D y k stra, habitus refers to the “p ro fo u n d , life-orienting, identity-shaping p a rtic ip a tio n in the constitutive practices o f C h ristian life.” In a fo o tn o te, he observes th a t such w isdom requires “n o t only insight an d u n d erstan d in g b u t also the k in d o f ju dgm ent, skill, co m m itm en t, an d c h aracter th a t full p a rtic ip a tio n in practices b o th requires an d n u r t u r e s . F r a c t i c e s such as in terp retin g Scripture, w o rsh ip , prayer, confession, service, an d so fo rth shape w isdom . E d u catio n th erefo re m u st tak e place in close p ro x im ity to them . D y k stra observes in a n o th e r fo o tn o te, “ Significant connections betw een actu al engagem ents in the practices an d inquiry carried o u t in a c o n tex t form ed th ro u g h th em is vastly u d e re m p h a s iz e d by Earley.”

Earley restricts learning to “ analysis an d in te rp re ta tio n of the cognitive p ro d u cts o f p m c tic e .” ^ Eor D y k stra, h abitus m oves aw ay from techno- logical an d ab stra c t know ledge to w a rd know ledge gained in com m unity, th ro u g h history, as a result of concrete, com plex, holistic engagem ent in C h ristian faith as a w ay o f life.

Earley only p artially anticipates the en hanced v alid atio n o f practice th a t has o ccurred since D y k stra ’s article (even th o u g h the title of Earley’s recently p u blished collection, Practicing G ospel, show s its im pact). D o n B row ning, for exam ple, also d raw s o n M acIn ty re b u t p o sitio n s him beside o th er p ractical p h ilo so p h ers interested in herm eneutics an d prag- m atism . B row ning affirm s theology “ as a p ractical discipline th ro u g h an d th ro u g h ,” the “th e o ry -la d e n ” n a tu re o f all practice, an d the fluid m ovem ent from practice to th eo ry to p ractice req u ired of all go o d theology. لا Elaine G rah am titles her b o o k on p a sto ra l theology. Transform ing Practiceר ap p aren tly u n aw are o f D y k stra ’s sim ilarly titled essay. G rah am

34 Dykstra, Reconceiving Fractice. Although he identifies several influential scholars such as Robert Bellah, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Stanley Hauweras, and leffrey Stout, Dykstra says that the “most important single text” is: Alasdair

c.

MacIntyre, After Virtue. A Study in M oral Theory, Notre Dame (University of Notre Dame Fress) 1

و

81

م

35 Dykstra, Reconceiving Fractice, 176, n. 28.

36 Ibid., n. 29.

37 Browning, Fundamental Fractical Theology, ix, 6, 7.

(12)

uses M acIn ty re, ?ierre B ourdieu, an d o th er p h ilo so p h ers to redefine practice as the p ro p e r focus o f p a sto ra l theology, ? a sto ra l theology “p ro p erly conceived” is a “p erfo rm ativ e discipline” w here the focus is rig h t practice or “ au th en tic tra n sfo rm a to ry a c tio n ” ra th e r th a n rig h t b elief.^ In a recent essay, D o ro th y Bass highlights fo u r c o n trib u tio n s o f fois a tte n tio n to practice. It connects th in k in g an d doing (practice requires an d gives rise to know ledge), confirm s the social c h aracter o f th o u g h t an d action (practice requires com m unity), highlights the historical c h aracter o f social lifo (practice exists over tim e), an d atten d s to th a t w isdom w hich is yet in articu late (practice involves people of all so rts).^

All fois is well an d good. Such scholarship, how ever, still leaves un- addressed the stan d in g of practices th a t are p a rtic u la r to clergy. As one review er o f T ransform ing Practice com m ents, G rah am is sim ply follow - ing a tre n d (w hich I believe is evident in the discussion in general) th a t perceives th e focus on p a sto ra l skills as just “to o n a rro w .” T he review er s u m m a r iz e s th a t G rah am desires a “ less clerical an d m ore com m unal u n d erstan d in g o f p a sto ra l theo lo g y .”*®

I see a p ro b lem w ith the ready dism issal of clergy practice. Are such skills to o n a rro w o r has th eir value been fu n d am en tally m isunderstood?

I do n o t w a n t to re-inscribe p ractical theology as only concerned w ith m inisterial technique, b u t are there any p a rtic u la r tasks for w hich pas- to rs o u g h t to be p re p a re d an d w ith w hich theological ed u catio n o u g h t to grapple? Is th ere any k n o w -h o w th a t is n o t, as D y k stra an d oth ers so readily rep eat, “m ere k n o w -h o w ? ”*!

In a response to a colloquy in the late 1970s h o n o rin g p a sto ra l theolo- gian Sew ard H iltner, R odney H u n te r is am o n g the first to identify p a sto ra l theology as a “ form o f p ractical k n o w led g e.” H e lifts up a p ro b lem th a t rem ains unresolved despite all the a tte n tio n others have given it in the intervening years, ? a sto ra l theology stan d s in a q u a n d a ry because the

“ distinctive ch aracter o f p ractical know ledge in relatio n to o th e r kinds o f know ledge has n o t been clearly enough u n d e rs to o d .” Such “practical- ity rightly u n d e rsto o d can be as p ro fo u n d an d significant as descriptive insight into reality o r visions of the g o o d .”42

38 Elaine E. Graham, ttansform ing Practice. Past©ral Theology in an Age of Uncertainty, London (Mowbray) 1996, 7.

39 Dorothy Bass, unpublished paper, Notes for remarks to the planning committee on teaching for ministry, Vanderbilt Divinity School, 6 November 2003. See her earlier edited works for a fuller examination of these four aspects: Dorothy C. Bass, ed., Practicing Our Eaith. A Way of Life for a Searching People, San Erancisco (Jossey-Bass) 1997؛ Miroslav Volf/Dorothy

c.

Bass, eds.. Practicing Theology. Beliefs and Practices in Christian Eife, Grand Rapids (W. B. Eerdmans) 2002.

40 Robin Cill, review of: Transforming Practice. Pastoral Theology in an Age of Uncertainty, Elaine E. Graham, in: Theology 100, May-June 1997, 228.

41 Dykstra, Reconceiving Practice, 180.

42 Rodney j. Hunter, The Euture of Pastoral Theology, in: Pastoral Psychology 2 9 /1 , Eall 1980, 65, 69.

(13)

The “Clerical Paradigm”: A Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness? 31 H u n te r attem p ts a brief b u t helpful phen o m en o lo g y o f w h a t this kin d o f know ledge aetually looks like. “W hereas deseriptive know ledge tells a b o u t w h a t is,” he observes, “ an d n o rm ativ e know ledge tells w h a t o u g h t to be, p raetieal know ledge gives in fo rm atio n a b o u t h o w to do th in g s.”

This know ledge is n o t just a b o u t skill b u t it “m u st be gained p rag m atieally ” th ro u g h rep eated exereise of skill an d testing of rules o f th u m b .43 A lth o u g h it involves m ore th a n m em orizing a set o f sim ple sequential in stru etio n s, it does require initial step-by-step “trial an d e rro r” aetivity by the learner an d “ show an d te ll” betw een v irtu o so an d am ateur.

T h ro u g h sueh p a sto ra l appren tieesh ip , one aequires a k in d o f “w isdom of ex p erien ee.” H ere H u n te r is n o t talk in g a b o u t “ exp erien ee” eonvention- ally u n d e rsto o d as p erso n al g ro w th in self-aw areness b u t as a “ form of know ledge th a t has aeerued an d m a tu re d th ro u g h a h isto ry o f p raetieal, co n tin g en t events. ’ ب

O f final significance, H u n te r notes th a t there is the distinetive p ara- doxieal ehallenge an d even im possibility of learning a p raetieal know ledge th a t sees its source an d goal as “relig io u s.” Religious know ledge entails w isdom a b o u t living at the very b o u n d aries o f h u m a n existence (e.g., sin, d eath , an d m eaningless) an d a b o u t living in the graee th a t tran seen d s these lim its (e.g., red em p tio n , salvation, an d liberation). T his raises an extrem ely difficult questio n a b o u t w h eth er o r to w h a t ex ten t one can really teach an d learn such p ractical theological know ledge.

This exegesis of p ractical theology, p ractical know ledge, an d practice suggests th a t learning p ractical theology has as m uch affinity w ith learning an a rt o r sp o rt as learning law o r m edicine. As liturgical scholar Jo h n W itvliet argues, a rt an d m usic offer intriguing alternative w ays to th in k a b o u t the C h ristian life as an “ ongoing, com m u n al im p ro v isato ry p e rfo rm a n c e. ” ٧ M o st n o tab ly for m y purp o ses here, he observes th a t

“m usic an d a rt ed u catio n give m ore sustained, h a b itu a l a tte n tio n to the basic ‘skills’ th a n does theological e d u c a tio n .” H e continues, “ in p ian o an d violin, you never g ra d u ate from playing scales. T hese exercises are fu n d am en tal in shaping an d m ain tain in g m uscle m em ory.” w h a t then, he asks, “ are the scales w e need to practice in theological e d u c a tio n ? ”^

This is an excellent q u estio n an d is precisely the qu estio n th a t has been dism issed in the concern a b o u t the clerical p arad ig m , w h a t are the scales needed for faithful practice o f m inistry? H o w do p ractical theologians u n d e rsta n d an d teach scales as an integral p a rt o f the larger enterprise o f theological education?

43 Ibid., 65.

44 Ibid., 67.

45 J©hn Witvliet, Music/Practical The©l©gy Comparison, unpublished manuscript. Seminar on Practical Theology and Christian Ministry, 8-9 October 2004, 1.

46 Ibid., 16.

(14)

W itvliet begins to answ er H u n te r’s eoneern a b o u t h o w to learn som e- th in g th a t bo rd ers on the tran seen d en t o r the u n a ttain ab le. M usie, like theology, “ uses eonerete cu ltu ral artifaets b u t also deals w ith the ineffable.”

Simply beeause m usie seeks to express the inexpressible does n o t m ean, how ever, th a t aequiring the ability to m ake m usie is som ething m ythical, esoteric, or ex trao rd in ary . Indeed, learning m usic is a form o f ed u eatio n w o rth “ dem y th o lo g izin g .” It is h o n ed by “ o rd in ary aetivities sueh as praetiee, experieneing g ood exam ples, an d ta k in g sm all steps to w a rd the k in d o f expression w e long to offer.”47 M usie is an em bodied a rt th a t one learns a t least initially th ro u g h rep eated practice o f p a rtie u la r gestures an d body m ovem ents, including h o w to stan d , w here to p o sitio n o n e ’s h an d s, m o u th , arm s, an d so fo rth .48

}ust as teehnique an d m usieianship in a tt ed u eatio n are in terd ep en d en t

“rig h t from th e s ta r t,” so also are skills an d theologia in terd ep en d en t from the beginning in theological education. D oing seales is an inher- ent faeet o f the im aginative synthesis o f the a tt itself. D raw in g on V. A.

H o w a rd , W itvliet em phasizes th a t one m u st live in the ten sio n betw een d rudgery o r “ m eans w ith o u t d re a m s” an d fantasy o r “ dream s w ith o u t m e a n s.” Indeed, th e best m en to r em braces “ scales” a n d “ artistry ,” “ h a rd w o rk a n d soaring v isio n .”4و O ne m u st rehearse concrete skills w ith o u t losing desire for an d p u rsu it o f the occasional en actm en t o f a surprising, satisfying aesthetic event.

M y youngest son has been try in g to learn guitar. For good an d th en for ill, he hears his oldest b ro th e r playing fluently an d he quits practicing. H e seems to assum e th a t g u itar playing entails in sta n t g ood m usic an d th a t consequently he is, as he concludes, “no good a t it.” H e displays an all to o h u m a n desire: he w an ts to skip the tedious intervening steps - ch o rd rep etitio n , ch o rd p rogression, finger stren g th en in g exercises, m issed notes, p o o r p erfo rm an ce - an d just play guitar. T he discussion in theology seems stuck rig h t here also. Scholars an d students w a n t to skip over practice, scales, an d skills, an d just play theologia in the ch u rch an d society.

47 Ibid., 7.

48 Dorothy Bass, Response to Witvliet, unpublished manuscript. Seminar on Practical Theology and Christian Ministry, 8-9 October 2004.

49 Witvliet, Music, 7-8؛ Dorothy Bass, Notes on the Meeting, unpublished manuscript.

Seminar on Practical Theology and Christian Ministry, 8-9 October 2004, 3. Witvliet quotes V. A. Howard: “All that I describe here stands in marked contrast to two ex- tremes: drudgery, on the one hand, or means without dreams؛ and lantasy, on the other, or dreams without means. My overall purpose is to show how means and dreams get connected.” V. A. Howard, Teaming by All Means. Tessons ؛rom the Arts, New York (Peter Tang Publishing) 1992, xiv. Witvliet also quotes Bennett Reimer: "... technique now, musicianship later [is a misconception that] has plagued performance teaching in music education throughout its history. [This] accounts for much of the convergent, m le-lem m in^nd-following, technique-dominated, rote nature of the enterprise ... The solution is to recognize and cultivate their interdependence right from the start.” Bennett Reimer, A Philosophy of Music Education. Advancing the Vision, upper Saddle River, N.]. (Prentice Hall) 1989, 130.

(15)

The “Clerical Paradigm”: A Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness? 33 W h a t a b o u t L earning Theo lo g ia, Skills an d All?

This analysis leads to a final p ro b lem in the literatu re on theologieal e d u - eatio n an d p raetieal theology in the 1980s: N o one atten d s to the soeial realities o f sem inaries an d divinity sehools. T he th eologians w ritin g this literatu re w ere m ostly talk in g am ong them selves an d n o t a b o u t theological ed u catio n as a social enterprise. T he literatu re does n o t study, as W heeler an d Kelsey observe, concrete practices of schools them selves. و و

F arley’s an d Kelsey’s com m ents o n cu rricu lar change an d its lim ited place in th eir books on theological ed u catio n are illustrative. Farley reiter- ates th a t his b o o k is “n o t a cu rricu lu m p ro p o s a l.” It offers “n o b lu ep rin t o f theological study, no detailed p lan for cu rricu lar re fo rm ” an d brackets such in stitu tio n al an d pedagogical dim ensions.51 In alm o st identical fashion, Kelsey insists th a t To U nderstand G o d T ruly “ is n o t a pedagogical p ro p o sal. It does n o t im ply any p a rtic u la r re c o m m e n d a tio n s...a n d carries n o necessary pedagogical co nsequences. ” لا B oth restrict th eir w o rk to generic th eo retical fram ew orks.

In the preface to Theo lo g ia, Farley adm its he u n d erw en t a “ serious change o f m in d ” a b o u t this. H e m ean t to focus on cu rricu lu m (even if still n o t o n pedagogy), b u t his initial in ten t to consider a “ new theological encyclopedia” o r a new course o f study eventually gave w ay to a focus on th eo lo g y ’s centrality.55 Such cu rricu lar an d pedagogical efforts are needed, an d his recovery o f theological e d u c a tio n ’s p ro p e r aim will su p p o rt them , b u t he keeps his focus on the “ c o n c e p tu a l” p ro b lem o f ideas an d attitu d es despite his recognition o f the need for m ore “th o ro u g h g o in g re fo rm. ” لا

T h ro u g h o u t T heo lo g ia, Farley notes several tim es th e especially signifi- can t influence o f g ra d u ate p ro g ram s. T hey “m ay be the fo u rfo ld p a tte rn ’s real hom e an d its stro n g est im frtu tio n a liz a tio n .”^ T hey em body an d p e rp etu ate th e divisions betw een fields in the m o st acute sense th ro u g h each new g en eratio n of scholars. Yet m inim al suggestion is m ade a b o u t h o w a rev italizatio n o f theologia m ight im p act th em an d th eir ed ucation.

T here is need for cu rricu lar reo rg an izatio n in b o th sem inary an d gradu- ate ed u catio n th a t gives g reater a tte n tio n to p ractice an d its pedagogical engagem ent b u t n o guidelines on w h a t fois m ight lo o k like. لا

50 Kelsey/Wheeler, New Ground, 1 3

و

2-

و

. 51 Farley, Theologia, 12, 13.

52 David H. Kelsey, To Understand God Truly. W hat’s Theological about a Theological School, Louisville (Westminster John Knox Fress) 1111 ,1

وو

.

53 Farley, Theologia, X . In his later work, Farley picks up the concern about the structure of curriculum but still protests that he is not trying to suggest an “ideal curriculum” or specific proposals. Farley Fragility of Knowledge, xi, 103.

54 Farley, Theologia, 6.

55 Ibid., 199, 112.

56 Farley, Theology and Fractice, 38. Recent activity in doctoral programs, such as the new program in Theology and Practice at Vanderbilt University, are beginning to address this.

(16)

I teach at the in stitu tio n w here Farley c o n trib u te d significantly to cu rricu lar revisions th a t p ro p o sed the “m inister as th e o lo g ia n ” as a key m o tif guiding the fo rm a tio n o f m inistry students. T he degree includes a senior p ro ject th a t involves, p o ten tially a t least, serious in teg ratio n of course w o rk an d m inisterial experience a ro u n d a p ro b lem in th e practice o f m inistry, w h e th e r faculty are able to m odel such com plex integrative w o rk them selves o r guide students to w a rd it is a n o th e r question. Too often, “m inister as th e o lo g ia n ” has m ean t “m inister as sc h o la r” ra th e r th a n “m inister as p ra c titio n e r.”

N o t until Farley retired did he realize h o w his teaching h a d often m issed the m ark . H e shaped g enerations o f students in po w erfu l w ays, b u t he “ m issed a ra th e r p lain pedagogical tr u th ,” he adm its. R a th e r th a n focusing on his “ stu d e n ts’ eventual u se ” o f system atic theology in concrete struggles over questions o f faith, he ta u g h t it as an academ ic field largely isolated from situ atio n s of relevance, a pedagogy destined to be “ shed like a heavy co at in h o t w e a th e r” u p o n g ra d u atio n . “T he tru th is th a t m o st o f m y students will n o t im itate, rep eat, or even be very interested in the co n ten ts an d issues” o f his ow n scholarly specialty as they pursue m in istry .^ D espite a “ lifetim e o f teaching theo lo g y ,” he “never a sk e d ” w h eth er “theology can be ta u g h t,” a qu estio n few p ractical theologians can avoid in th eir te a c h in g .^

W h a t th en does it tak e to shape the theologically w ise p asto r? Feople in p ractical theological areas co n fro n t fois qu estio n long before retire- m ent, w h en they first cross foe classroom th resh o ld in the role o f pro - fessor. T he p u rsu it o f fois questio n an d the q u estio n o f h o w to teach a practice unites those w h o teach in p ractical theological areas, w h eth er p a sto ra l care, hom iletics, leadership, ed u catio n , spirituality, social action, o r m issio n. و و T his pedagogical difference also som etim es presum es an d generates a m ore fu n d am en tal epistem ológica؛ difference over w h eth er one th in k s o n e ’s w ay in to acting o r acts o n e ’s w ay into th inking. The 1980s literatu re often im plicitly assum es th a t one th in k s o n e ’s w ay into acting, ft ؛eaves foe questio n o f h o w actio n tran sfo rm s th in k in g largely unex p lo red , ft did, how ever, p la n t the seed for a m o d eratin g p o sitio n in w hich th eo ry an d practice “ dialectically” influence an d tra n sfo rm each o th er th a t paved the w ay for m ore innovative pedagogical practices in 57 Edward Earley, E©ur Pedag©gical Mistakes. A Mea Culpa, in: Teaching The©l©gy and

Religi©n 8 /4, 2005, 200-203. This article reflects Earley’s gr©wing awareness of the entrapments of the “academic paradigm,” even though he does not use this term or recognize the need for more extensive critique of the intellectualist tradition of theological interpretation.

58 Edward Farley, Can Preaching Be Taught? In: Theology Today 62/2, July 2005, 171- 180.

59 I take up this subject matter more extensively in another essay. Practical Theology and Pedagogy. Reappraising Theological Know-How, in: For Life Abundant. Practical Theol- ogy and the Education and Formation of Ministers, ed. Craig Dykstra/Dorothy

c.

Bass, Crand Rapids (Eerdmans), forthcoming 2008.

(17)

The “Clerical Paradigm”: A Fallacy of ^ s p la c e d Concreteness? 35 p ractical theological ped ag o g y .^ In h o w they teach (for exam ple, in as- signm ents or class sessions organized a ro u n d enactm ent, practice, an d play o f various kinds), m any p ractical th eologians to d a y seem to presum e, often w ith o u t articu latin g it, th a t practice engenders th in k in g as m uch as th in k in g enriches practice.

Even w ith such able dialectics, how ever, a genuine v alid atio n of practice still eludes us. U ntil recently, scholars of religion as a w hole overlooked the m aterial c h aracter o f religion, privileging w o rd an d idea over practice an d the m aterial w o rld . L earning centers a ro u n d books an d libraries an d n o t a ro u n d “n o n -w ritte n ex p ressio n s,” as religion scholar Colleen M cD annell argues in her research on “m aterial C h ristian ity .” We have associated m aterial, u n w ritte n expression an d practice w ith the m u n d an e, the bodily, the u n so p h isticated , an d the p ro fan e, an d th erefo re have dis- m issed th e m .61

R eclaim ing K n o w -H o w

In Theologia an d w o rk th a t built on it, Earley an d others do a service for the theological academ y. T hey call a tte n tio n to the red u ctio n o f theological ed u catio n to the train in g o f clergy. T hey q u estio n its in stitu tio n al c o m p a r ^ e n ^ i z a t i o n . T hey reclaim theology as a responsibility o f the entire cu rricu lu m an d the church. Subjugation by the clerical p arad ig m is n o t, how ever, the p ro b lem th a t w e once th o u g h t.

M y arg u m en t is n o t so m uch w ith Earley him self as w ith the co n tin u ed an d u n q u estio n ed use o f clerical p arad ig m as code language for w h a t is w ro n g w ith theological ed u catio n an d p ractical theology. M an y people latched on to the critique of clericalism b u t m issed the im p o rta n t depiction o f system atic th eo lo g y ’s dem ise. H a d Earley nam ed the red u ctio n o f theology to the ratio n a l, orderly study o f d octrine the “ academ ic p a ra d ig m ” or the “cognitive c a p tiv ity ” o f theology p erh ap s som e of the p ro b lem m ight have been alleviated. Instead, the clerical p a rad ig m an d its m essage - th a t theological ed u catio n is n o t a b o u t teaching p a sto ra l skills - becam e o u r n arrativ e. D espite go o d in ten tio n s, the m o n o lith ic concern a b o u t the clerical o rie n ta tio n has ten d ed to cast a negative sh ad o w over practice, particu larly clergy p ractice, an d has hid d en intricate interconnections betw een w isdom an d know -how , i n ^ p r e t a t i o n an d p erform ance.

R ecognizing this leads to new q u estio n s.62 w h a t is theological know - how ? W h a t form s does it tak e for clergy? H o w do different areas o f study 60 For example: David Tracy, Blessed Rage for Order. The New Fluralism in Theology,

New York (Seabury Fress) 1243 ,75

و

.

61 Colleen McDannell, Material Christianity. Religion and Fopular Culture in America, New Haven (Yale University Fress) 114 ,5

وو

.

62 1 thank James Nieman for his helpful response to my essay in fall 2005 and, in particular, his articulation of the general and specific moves of my analysis of the clerical paradigm

(18)

c o n trib u te to its enhancem ent? H o w does one teach k n ow -how ? T here are also relatio n al questions, w h a t is the relatio n sh ip betw een “ scales” an d

“ a rtis try ” in m inistry? w h a t is th e con n ectio n betw een k n o w -h o w an d o th er kinds o f know ledge, betw een know ledge an d actio n , an d betw een p ractical k n o w in g an d the k in d of k n o w in g necessary for k n o w in g God?

We need to learn m ore a b o u t h o w people em body know ledge an d effect change. T h a t is, w e need to k n o w m ore a b o u t the connections betw een know ledge, practice, action, ap p licatio n , an d tran sfo rm a tio n . I have suggested som e initial answ ers to these questions, b u t we need to k n o w m uch m ore a b o u t p ractical theological know -how . We need to explore the shape an d practice o f a pedagogy o f k n o w -h o w n o t only w ith in sem inary p ro g ram s, b u t also in d o cto ral in stitu tio n s th a t shape teachers o f m inistry students, as well as in congregations from w hich m any o f us com e an d go.

In b arley ’s rep eated lam ent th a t theology is no longer “ one th in g ,”

one c a n n o t help b u t h ear a k in d of nostalgia for a bygone era. T here is som ething alm o st m ythic a b o u t fois “historical a rch aeo lo g y ” of “ a tim e w hen ‘th eo lo g y ’ w as a single th in g ,” a tim e o f “classical o rth o d o x y ” w hen

“ a d eposit of divinely revealed tru th s carried in an cient tex ts w as th e one g ro u n d o f the one thing, theology. ” و M an y o th e r scholars have also assum ed a largely negative view o f specialization. S m p ly p u t, specialization equals frag m en tatio n . It is inherently selfish, insular, an d n a rro w .64

Instead o f fois curse on specialization an d the nostalgia for theology as “ one th in g ,” w h a t is needed is a clearer definition o f the diverse kinds o f theological engagem ent an d th eir con n ectio n , as som e scholars have already attem p ted . R o m an C atholic th eo lo g ian R o b ert Schreiter, for exam ple, argues th a t “w h a t has co u n ted for theology since the th irte e n th century in W estern C h ristian ity ,” a “ university m o d e l” th a t em phasizes

“clarity, precision, an d relatio n to o th er bodies o f k n o w led g e,” is no longer the w hole o f the discipline, if it ever w a s.65 O th er w ays o f doing theology deserve recognition, especially those th a t begin w ith the local co n tex t itself. Schreiter identifies three kinds of local theology (e.g., tran sía- tio n , a d a p ta tio n , an d contextual) an d fo u r different form s o f theological expression (e.g., theology as sacred tex t, w isdom , sure know ledge, an d praxis). In related fashion, system atic th eo lo g ian K ath ry n T anner distin- guishes betw een academ ic an d everyday theologies. T he form er is n o t

and the proposals and questions it raises. 1 also thank other members of the Seminar on Practical Theology and Christian Ministry, sponsored by the Tilly Endowment, Inc., for their general comments and help in response to reading an earlier draft.

63 Farley, Theologia, 142.

64 Eor example, Kelsey/Wheeler, New Ground, 186. They remark, “the subspecialties further splinter the already fragmented fourfold arrangement of studies.”

65 Robert j. Schreiter, Constructing Tocal Theologies, Maryknoll, N.Y. (Orbis Books) 1985, 4.

(19)

The “Clerical Paradigm”: A Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness? 37 m ore th eo retieal an d m ore a b stra e t th a n the latter, as w e usually assum e.

Instead, aeadem ie theology is itself a “m aterial soeial praetiee am o n g oth- e rs” w ith different ap p ro aeh es an d aim s th a t inelude a g reater interest in eritieal questions an d o rd erin g o f religious praetiee. R ath er th a n a “purely intellectual activity,” it belongs on a “c o n tin u u m w ith theological aetivity elsew here as som ething th a t arises in an ‘o rg an ie’ w ay o u t o f C h ristian p ra c tic e .” 66 T hose w h o engage in everyday theology do n o t need the k in d of system atieally eonsistent eo n stru etio n of beliefs th a t aeadem ie theologians desire. A m ore system atie theologieal inquiry is only called for w hen th eir faith praetiees b reak d o w n an d generate p ro b le m s.^ In o th er w o rd s, b o th T anner an d Schreiter illustrate alternative eoneep tu alizatio n s o f theology as “ m a n y ” ra th e r th a n “ one th in g .” T hey u nderseore the different w ays o f doing theology d em an d ed by different eontexts.

W h en I first sta rte d teaching p a sto ra l care, I som etim es dealt w ith the challenge o f teaching k n o w -h o w by talk in g w ith stu d en ts a b o u t the origin o f the gap betw een w h a t they study in sem inary an d th eir m inistry.

I fo u n d historical insights helpful. T hey allow ed m e to u n d e rsta n d an d describe the challenge as a long-standing p ro b lem th a t has been aro u n d a t least since Schleierm acher, the rise o f E nlightenm ent ratio n alism , an d the g ro w th o f the m o d ern university an d the theological encyclopedia. I n o w realize th a t this p o st-d ates the tu rn in g p o in t. T he m edieval p erio d w as equally in stru m en tal, as h isto ria n R an d y M a d d o x d em o n strates, in establishing theology as a th eo retical o r speculative university science an d p ractical theology as just a “ sim plified v e rsio n ” o f academ ic theology for the less educated. T he social biases o f theology w ere just as definitive th en as they are today. T he “ d ebate divided roughly along the lines o f those w h o w ere in the n o w in d ep en d en t u niversities,” M a d d o x says, “versus those in schools w ith co n tin u in g m o n astery tie s.” 68 U niversities covered theology proper, m onasteries focused on p ractical theology, an d n either m ade its w ay to the co m m o n folk.

This sounds incredibly, even com fortingly, fam iliar. T he co m fo rt of history, how ever, sh o u ld n o t d am p en o u r h ope for a new day beyond intellectual elitism , prejudice, an d nostalgia, a day w hen w e are e n trap p ed by n eith er the clerical n o r the academ ic p arad ig m , an d no longer view th in k in g a b o u t faith critically an d e m b o d yin g it richly a n d effectively as m u tu ally exclusive enterprises of know ledge an d w isdom .

66 Kathryn Tanner, Theories of Culture. A New Agenda for Theology, Minneapolis (Fortress Fress) 177 ,71 ,7

وو

.

67 Kathryn Tanner, Theological Reflection and Christian Fractices, in: Fracticing Theology.

Beliefs and Fractices in Christian Life, ed. Miroslav Volf/Dorothy

c.

Bass, Crand Rapids (W. B. Eerdmans) 7007, 228.

68 Randy L. M addox, The Recovery of Theology as a Fractical Discipline, in: Theological Studies 51, 1656 ,653

وو

. ,0