Ann Loades as practical theologian and Christian educator

ABSTRACT

This article attempts to frame the theology and teaching of Ann Loades within the categories of practical theology and Christian education. After outlining the author’s academic relationship with Loades, the author analyses the meaning of the phrase ‘practical theology’ and some aspects of the debate surrounding the term. He contends that Loades’s wide-ranging reflections on the practices of Christian prayer and spirituality, worship and liturgy, and ethics and belonging may be regarded as examples of such a practical theology. The author’s concept of ‘ordinary theology’ is then employed as a bridge into an exploration of Christian learning and teaching, which draws parallels between both Loades’s interpretation of a ‘learning Christ’ and her perspectival account of spiritual vision, and the views of other Christian educationalists and theologians. Although Ann Loades did not inhabit the rather specialised worlds of practical theologians or Christian educationalists, her work has much to contribute to both.

KEYWORDS:

• Ann loades
• Christian education
• Christian learning
• correlation
• ordinary theology
• practical theology
• religious education (RE)

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ Astley, ‘A Critical Analysis of the Religious Epistemology of Ian T. Ramsey’.

² See https://neice.webspace.durham.ac.uk/.

³ Astley, ‘Researching the Field of Christian Education’, 336.

⁴ See Roebben and Warren, Religious Education as Practical Theology.

⁵ ‘Empirical’ in its broadest dictionary sense is concerned with observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. The ‘empirical theology’ of Hans Van der Ven or Leslie Francis constitutes one type of practical theological investigation, which adopts the approaches and tools of the social sciences (see Francis, Robbins, and Astley, Empirical Theology, xiii–xiv; Van der Ven and Scherer-Rath, Normativity and Empirical Research, 140; and Van der Ven, Practical Theology). Much practical theology, however, while experientially and observationally reflective, does not employ social-scientific methods of hypothesis testing.

⁶ This particular post involves academic leadership for Durham University’s validation of the ‘Common Awards’ in Theology, Ministry, and Mission offered by many churches in their theological colleges and courses. Prior to his appointment, the holder of this chair had produced a book on the theology of secular universities (Higton, A Theology of Higher Education).

⁷ Pete Ward, who now chairs the Network for Ecclesiology and Ethnography (https://www.ecclesiologyandethnography.net), was formerly engaged in the practice of youth ministry.

⁸ https://www.durham.ac.uk/departments/academic/theology-religion/about-us/staff/. ‘Research staff’ currently listed include some with interests in ‘Christianity and the Armed Forces’, ‘theology and spirituality’, ‘digital death’, and ‘theological education’.

⁹ We may note the historical precedent of the seventeenth-century Puritan, Richard Baxter’s four-volume publication, A Christian Directory or a Sum of Practical Theology and Cases of Conscience, which divided Practical Theology into four areas, each of which was concerned with ‘duties’. One was designated Christian Ethics (or Private Duties) and another Christian Politics (or Duties to Our Rulers and Neighbours).

¹⁰ Etymologically, worship is the practice of ascribing (supreme) worth, often through ritual texts (‘liturgies’) and ceremonies. Liturgical theology has been defined as ‘the elucidation of the meaning of worship’ (Schmemann, Introduction, 16, cf. 190).

¹¹ In practical theology circles, Christian (and other religious) practice is sometimes referred to as praxis: that is, as reflective action or ‘value-directed and value-laden action’; although praxis is also more loosely thought of simply as the use of a theory or a belief in a practical way.

¹² Astley, Ordinary Theology, 2. We should add to this list other ‘specific practices by which we respond to God’s grace’, including forgiveness and hospitality (Bass and Dykstra, For Life Abundant, 358). Other relevant practices include spiritual disciplines and the manifest behavioural effects of spirituality (see Astley, Religious and Spiritual Experience, 10–12); the latter effects may result from our moral dispositions being ‘expressions of determinate states of our spiritual life’ (McGhee, ‘Facing Truths’, 243; see also Cottingham, The Spiritual Dimension, 3–5, 147–9). The issues involved in defining ‘Christian practices’ are well rehearsed in Dykstra and Bass, ‘A Theological Understanding’.

¹³ But note Ward, Introducing Practical Theology, 3–4.

¹⁴ I am employing here the useful distinction between (1) a ‘field’ of knowledge, in the sense of the subject area, subject-matter, data, territory, ‘facts’, or set of phenomena targeted for study; and (2) the different approaches and methodologies (‘disciplines’ or ‘forms of knowledge’) that are brought to bear on this field, each of which has its own concepts, theories, logic, skills, and testing procedures. Systematic, philosophical, biblical, moral, and doctrinal theology may be identified as the most salient theological disciplines to apply to this field, but they are often employed in concert and conversation with a variety of other disciplines, including social-scientific ones. While I agree with Swinton and Mowat that practical theology involves ‘critical, theological reflection on the practices of the Church as they interact with the practices of the world’, I would not wish to limit the application of the phrase as they do to one (even one ‘rich and diverse’) discipline (see their Practical Theology and Qualitative Research, 3, 7). The ‘reflective process’ which the church should pursue in order ‘to articulate the theological grounds of practical living’ (to quote Browning, The Moral Context, 14) frequently needs to include non-theological disciplines as well.

¹⁵ Ballard and Pritchard, Practical Theology in Action, 1.

¹⁶ This usage would follow from Friedrich Schleiermacher’s restriction of the term practical theology to the practice of church leadership, in his Brief Outline of the Study of Theology (1830). (For Schleiermacher, interestingly, practical theology was the ‘crown’ of theological study.)

¹⁷ Cf. Graham, ‘On Becoming a Practical Theologian’.

¹⁸ Pattison and Woodward, ‘An Introduction to Pastoral and Practical Theology’, 3.

¹⁹ Kelsey, To Understand God Truly, 123. Very different accounts have been given of the ways in which the reflections of the practical theologian may guide Christian action and, indeed, inform Christian being. See, for example, Ballard, ‘Practical Theology as an Academic Discipline’; Heitink, Practical Theology, chs 8, 9, and 11; Osmer, Practical Theology; and Van der Ven, Practical Theology.

²⁰ Browning, A Fundamental Practical Theology, 7; cf. Osmer, A Teachable Spirit, 148.

²¹ Astley, Ordinary Theology, 3.

²² Tracy, ‘The Foundations of Practical Theology’; see also Tracy, Blessed Rage for Order, chs 3 and 4 and his The Analogical Imagination, 255, cf. 101, 167, 452.

²³ According to David Brown, this was not only the area of expertise of Ann’s first full-time appointment but also a continuing concern throughout her academic work (see Watson and Burns, Exchanges of Grace, 272–3).

²⁴ Cf. Astley, Christian Doctrine, ch. 1.

²⁵ Loades, Serendipity, 56.

²⁶ Astley, Ordinary Theology, 1, cf. 52–8, 86–8, 94, 144; ‘Analysis, Investigation and Application of Ordinary Theology’, 1.

²⁷ She rightly acknowledged that ‘worship is the root of theology’ (‘On Music’s Grace’, 25).

²⁸ Loades, Grace and Glory, 102–4, 115; cf. also her ‘Theological Reflection’; ‘Sacramentality and Christian Spirituality’, 262–4; ‘On Music’s Grace’; ‘Anglican Spirituality’; and ‘A Priestly Role for Music’.

²⁹ Using this word once more in a non-disparaging sense, to refer to what is ‘normal’ and of the ‘usual’ kind: see Astley, Ordinary Theology, 47–9.

³⁰ Loades, Grace and Glory, 29, 112.

³¹ Loades, Grace and Glory, chs 16, 18. (‘We don’t expect to see grace and glory on one another’s faces … and I don’t see why we shouldn’t’ (83).). Cf. her Grace is Not Faceless.

³² Loades, Grace and Glory, 95–6. Cf. Astley, Christ of the Everyday, ch. 2.

³³ For example, Moltmann-Wendel, I Am My Body. See Loades, ‘Sacramentality and Christian Spirituality’, 261.

³⁴ Grey, ‘Sapiential Yearnings’, 82. Cf. Soskice, ‘Love and Attention’, 66; Loades, ‘Sacramentality and Christian Spirituality’, 259–60.

³⁵ Loades, Feminist Theology, 1, 167–8; ‘Finding New Sense in the “Sacramental”’, 169. Cf. Astley, Ordinary Theology, 126–9. Although she never drew my attention to the parallels with her own work, Ann always supported my claims for the significance of people’s ordinary theology and the importance of its study in the academy.

³⁶ Astley, Philosophy of Christian Religious Education, ch. 1; ‘Researching the Field of Christian Education’, 327–34; see also my ‘Forms of Faith and Forms of Communication’. In the debate over the nature of religious education (‘RE’) in schools in Britain, my definition would often be described as ‘confessional’ (meaning here religiously formative rather than specifically denominational): cf. Astley and Francis, Critical Perspectives, sections 1–4.

³⁷ Although he has recently expressed a preference for the term ‘integration’ rather than ‘correlation’ (Groome, Will There Be Faith? 283, 300, cf. 152, 282).

³⁸ Groome, Christian Religious Education, ch. 9.

³⁹ Groome, Christian Religious Education, 207–8, 217–23; Sharing Faith, 146–8. In Sharing Faith, Groome applies the same movements to different styles of Christian ministry (331–4), as well as to elements within preaching (374–8), social action (400–3), and pastoral counselling (417–23).

⁴⁰ Astley, ‘Ordinary Theology and the Learning Conversation’, 46. By comparison with academic theology, ordinary theology is essentially ‘lay’ – in the sense of not ‘expert’ or ‘professionally qualified’ (Ordinary Theology, 64).

⁴¹ Astley, ‘Ordinary Theology and the Learning Conversation’, 47; cf. Astley, Christian Doctrine, 7–13.

⁴² Loades, Grace and Glory, 23–4.

⁴³ Astley, Christ of the Everyday, 8–13. See also Astley, ‘Forming Disciples’; Alexander, ‘The Gospel and Acts’, 8; and Hayes, ‘Early Church Discipleship’, 23–5.

⁴⁴ Astley, Philosophy of Christian Religious Education, 12–13 and ch. 3.

⁴⁵ Although she strenuously rejected the ‘morbid over-identification with Christ as suffering victim’ that marks out certain unhealthy spiritual viewpoints (Loades, Searching for Lost Coins, 41, 43).

⁴⁶ As in Chater, Jesus Christ, Learning Teacher, xix-xx, ch. 2 and passim; cf. Hull, What Prevents, 204–9.

⁴⁷ Cf. Astley, Religious and Spiritual Experience, ch. 5.

⁴⁸ Astley, Christ of the Everyday, 5, 11, 16–18; ‘Forming Disciples’, 12–15. Cf. Perkins, Jesus as Teacher, 60; Melchert, Wise Teaching:, 243.

⁴⁹ McIntosh, Divine Teaching, 18.

⁵⁰ Loades, Evelyn Underhill, 27–8.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jeff Astley

Jeff Astley is an honorary professor in Durham University’s Department of Theology and Religion, UK. He was supervised by Ann Loades for his doctorate in philosophy of religion and later taught with her at Durham University for several years while he was Director of the North of England Institute for Christian Education (NEICE). He has authored or edited over forty books on Christian education, ordinary theology, religious faith, and Christian doctrine.