Searching for the missing theology in the Nordic discussion of practice

Abstract

The aim of this article is to analyse the relationship between theory and practice and the role of theology in this discussion. The data is formed from writings of prominent scholars who are active in the International Association of Practical Theology (IAPT). The relationship between theory and practice is crucial when we try to answer what role theology has when studying practices. Nordic Practical Theology has traditionally studied pastoral care, liturgy and homiletics in the majority Lutheran contexts. However, today there is a need to expand to various faith communities and a wider variety of practices. This new research has to acknowledge the changed pluralistic context and how it challenges the role of religion/religions in the Nordic societies and how it challenges theological studies as well. Emerging topics in the Nordic context are connected with the pluralistic context in changing Nordic societies, with sexuality/gender as well as with issues connected with rituals. All of these topics connect practice and theory together and require deep theological reflection in which embodiment is acknowledged. My model, Theology of Encounter, is an example of theological reflection over a central religious practice of counselling.

Introduction

In spite of the fact that discussion on religious and spiritual practices has been lively in Nordic Practical Theology, there could have been more extensive theological reflection on how practices and theology are connected. This practice discussion started with a series of conferences, the first one being organized in Aarhus in 2016. The theoretical background for these conferences has been sociological practice theories based on Pierre Bourdieu’s classic theory.¹ The invitation to the second one, the Oslo 2018 conference, remarked that “theological reflection and knowledge is not separate from actual practices, but embedded in them.”² This was an important motivator to attend the conference. During the conference, I particularly appreciated keynote lecturer Elaine Graham’s contributions on the role of theology in the study of practices.³ There were, however, some important aspects which were not covered in her presentation.

There is almost no disagreement on the aim of practical theology, which is to study practices.⁴ There is nevertheless a variety of different views on what practice is and how practice and theology are connected. There is also disagreement about how theology is defined in the field. There seem to be differences based on denominational background, country of origin, or the sub-discipline that a certain theologian represents.⁵ Most practical theologians define practical theology as being built on Christian theology, but there are also those who would like to open this up to non-Christian theologies as well.⁶

The discussion on practice is related to a larger discussion on lived religion which changed the focus from studying doctrines and institutions to the holistic study of religious and spiritual practices and everyday experiences.⁷ I will only touch on the lived religion / lived theology discussion from the practice point of view, as there is no space to go into this more deeply here. Additionally, I will limit the discussion on ethnography or other methodological issues, which are too extensive to deal with in a single article. But before we go further, I would like to offer a few personal reflections on why the discussion of the role of theology in practice is important to me and why I claim it is essential to the Nordic discussion as well.

When the discipline started, practical theology was called “applied theology” to show that it only applies what real theology studies.⁸ This definition implied that systematic theology is real theology and practical theology just helps it a bit. This was also my personal attitude towards practical theology during my master’s studies and the reason why I wrote my master’s thesis in systematic theology. After that, I learned that I did not want to continue my doctoral studies in systematic theology, which in Helsinki rejected using empirical methods and did not study practices. The second time that I started thinking about the relationship between theology and practice was when I was appointed to the chair in pastoral theology. I am the first person in Helsinki whose chair carries that name, and it needed some reflection.⁹ My principal input is that pastoral theology is rooted in theological argumentation, which makes it rather different from its sister disciplines psychology of religion and pastoral psychology, even though they all study similar practices.

The third time I had to struggle with what the relationship between theology and practice is, was when I was leading a curriculum renewal in Helsinki as the vice dean of academic affairs. Before the renewal, the three theological units in Finland made a survey on needed skills in theological education. The result was that all theologians – both those preparing for the ministry, those planning to become teachers, and to those going into the service of society – need encountering skills. As a result of this survey, encountering as a topic was added to a mandatory introductory course, and an optional B.Th. course on Theology of Encounter was unveiled. In applied ministry education, the pastoral counselling courses were recharacterized as courses that facilitate encounter.¹⁰

The aim of this article is to analyse the relationship between theory and practice and the role of theology in this discussion. The data is formed from writings of prominent scholars who are active in the International Association of Practical Theology (IAPT).¹¹ The article starts by evaluating the relationship between theory and practice. This is followed by a section in which I will introduce my own contribution to the topic, which is called Theology of Encounter. Following this, I identify emerging themes in theological practice research in the Nordic context. The article is wrapped up with a discussion entitled “Towards theologies of practice.”

Relationship between theory and practice

The relationship between theory and practice is crucial when we try to answer what the role of theology is in studying practices. Many practical theologians have written on this relationship. In this section, I will first introduce and analyse a traditional approach which has influenced the later discussion on the relationship between theory and practice. After that, I will introduce some recent approaches to how theory and practice should or should not be connected with each other and how theology contributes to this discussion.

Don Browning, one of the fathers of the discipline, maintains that the relationship between practice and theory makes practical theology a discipline.¹² He also claims that theory and practice interpenetrate and overlap.¹³ The interconnectedness of theory and practice is also seen in Browning’s definition of theology. According to him, fundamental practical theology includes historical and systematic theology, in addition to strategic practical theology. The latter includes the traditional sub-disciplines of practical theology, and it is called strategic because Browning aimed for clear strategic proposals of what to do.¹⁴ Browning’s division between fundamental and strategic practical theology is no longer widely used, but it shows how difficult it is to reach an understanding about what practical theology is and even harder to reach an agreement on what the relationship between theory and practice is.

One of the recent contributions to the theory-practice discussion is that they shape one another. Feminist practical theologians are supporting this point of view: “Its practitioners cannot work from a detached, disengaged position, but must actively bring lived experience, contexts, and bodies into the work of practice, analysis, theory production, and transformative action.”¹⁵ This understanding of theology includes practice and theory, which are both part of a bigger action process. In this approach, the focus is not only on the relationship between practice and theory, but on how this process is shaped by the specific context. The importance of context for the discussion of practice will be analysed later on in this paper.

Some practical theologians give a similar solution to the theory-practice discussion. They define that relationships between theory and practice are complex and multiphased: “Theory and practice are bound up with one another in thickly intertwined ways. Theories arise from reflection on practice and return to practice. … it might also be said that theories can also lead to practice and back again.”¹⁶ An example of this type of argument is given from the practice of baptism, in which the doctrine of the Trinity served as an illustration during the baptismal instruction of the early Church. This ecclesial practice of baptismal teaching shaped theological theory and vice versa.¹⁷ This example shows that the theory-practice discussion is closely linked to theological reflection, and all of them are included in the same process. In this approach, theology is found in both practice and theory: “Theology is practical, but practice is also theological – practice is taken to be theologically significant.”¹⁸ This favours the view that theology is not a separate aspect either in practice or in theory, but it is included in the whole research process.

Most recently, some theologians have stressed that it is important to make a distinction between practice and theory: “most discussions of theory-practice underestimate the complexity of practical knowledge and its relationship to theory. … I argue, there is also an inevitable distinction between theory and practice that receives considerably less attention and needs more understanding and even respect.”¹⁹ In the previous quotation, practice is referred to as practical knowledge, and this concept has become quite common among those who want to stress that practice in itself contains knowledge and is not just an object of research. In another joint publication, a slightly different wording is used; this is an edited book entitled Christian Practical Wisdom, but the use of the concept is similar to the previous quotation.²⁰ The main point in the previous quotation is the distinction between theory and practice, which is further explained: “ … there is a difference between theoretical and practical knowledge that needs to be understood and institutionalized in less oppressive ways.”²¹ Theory has been prioritized over practice with the result that many practical theologians have tried to explain in what way theory and practice are similar and interconnected. According to this latest approach, is important to point to the differences without arguing which one is more important. There is a need for a more dynamic analysis of how theory functions in practice and how their complicated relationship acts in practice.²²

The approach discussed above that stresses the existence of a need for dynamic analysis on how theory functions in practice and vice versa is essential when searching for discussions of theology in practice. It is not simply a matter of using theology as a theory to interpret various practices, even though it can be this as well. In addition, theology is incorporated in the studied practices as lived theology, as feminist and neo-liberal practical theologians emphasize. This means that theology has a role both in practice and in theory which then influences the whole research process, which will be discussed further in the example of Theology of Encounter.

Theology of encounter

Encounter and encountering skills were identified as being essential to all theologians who graduate from the University of Helsinki. This was the outcome of a survey on skills necessary to acquire through theological education which was organized by all theological units in Finland.²³ As previously specified, one outcome of this survey was to organize a new course on Theology of Encounter.²⁴ In this section, I reflect on in what way this course contributes to the theological aspect in the discussion on practice. In my own sub-discipline, pastoral theology, the relationship between a counsellor and a counselee has been the focus of encounter since the therapeutic turn.²⁵ This focus on human encounters has increased the psychological aspects, but decreased the theological contribution.

Through the relational turn, the encounter between persons, and also between humans and the transcendent has become even more important in theological practice and in practical theological research.²⁶ An important part of this is the embodied knowing which is seen in the following definition of Pamela Cooper-White: “A relational theology both models and makes room for difference, for a multiplicity of ways of knowing, and a flux among sensation, hunger, emotion and rational thought. It is a theology that is not set abstractly apart from bodies, but locates itself in and between them.”²⁷ This definition of relational theology stresses that physical bodies are related to our thoughts and knowledge, and as a result, cognitive processes cannot be detached from bodily experiences. Furthermore, embodied experiences include emotions.²⁸ Embodiment is, therefore, an essential part of the Theology of Encounter.

Theology can be incorporated into Theology of Encounter in many ways, but in the Helsinki course, we have started from a very traditional subject of Christian theology, the Trinity. Students have read texts from three theologians, in each of which one or more of the Trinitarian persons is an essential source for encounter. In the following, I will introduce these models, starting with Scottish, Presbyterian theologian John Swinton and his model of a practical theology of hospitality and friendship, which is based on the first and second persons of the Trinity.²⁹ The second model is by an English, Anglican, the previously mentioned Elaine Graham, whose model is Christ-centred. The third is American, Episcopal theologian, Pamela Cooper-White, whose definition of relational theology was already introduced earlier in this section. Cooper-White bases her theology on the Holy Spirit, but additionally touches on the other persons of the Trinity.

John Swinton’s model is very holistic, and in it the encounter is mainly conducted non-verbally. Swinton has researched dementia, autism and other forms of disability which influence a person’s ability to communicate verbally. This has affected his model and the naming of it. In some writings, he speaks of a Theology of Hospitality, and in others, he focuses on disabled friends who need support and love.³⁰ According to Swinton, the aim of encounter is to return human value to those whom the community treats as outcasts. Through this loving encounter, these persons will get back their human value, and their self-esteem will grow. They are no longer seen through their disability, but treated as full members of the community.³¹ Swinton’s theology is based on an understanding that God is an accepting and loving Father who knows us, and because of that, he remembers each individual.³² This accepting Father does not set conditions or require deeds. This holistic acceptance makes Swinton’s model important for Theology of Encounter in the present world of numerous demands.

Elaine Graham’s model focuses on social responsibility. It has been influenced by her context in Northern England, which has been hit hard by unemployment, resulting in various social problems. Furthermore, Graham focuses on communal encounters and reacts critically towards individual encounters that aim selfishly at individual wellbeing. According to Graham, because an individual needs the support of her/his community and is not meant to live in isolation, the goal of pastoral encounters should always be to build community.³³ Graham shows that there has to be a link between practice and the theological reflection behind it. She further claims that God is encountered both in practice and in action, in the middle of this world. Graham justifies her theological argument with incarnation. According to Graham, Christ, who himself suffered, understands those who suffer because of poverty or gender, or are for other reasons marginalized from their communities.³⁴ Graham’s model stresses social responsibility and encounters between the counsellor and the counselee as equals.

Pamela Cooper-White is a psychoanalytical psychotherapist and pastoral theologian, and she builds her model from both of these disciplines. The focus of her encounter is the relationship between client and therapist during the process of a therapy. Her book is called Shared Wisdom, and it reveals how both counsellor and client think, feel and influence each other through the therapeutic encounter.³⁵ According to Cooper-White, one aim of encounter is to create a space in which the client gets rid of exploitative practices. These practices might be connected to the client her-/himself, to family, or other social or cultural elements in her/his surroundings. With “space,” Cooper-White refers to more psychological than physical space in which the encounter is possible without it strengthening the existing power relations.³⁶ Cooper-White’s theology is based on the Holy Spirit, through which the client faces the transcendent in her/his life. The Spirit also links humans and the created world together.³⁷ She also connects her theology to creation, through which people are treated equally. Additionally, creation emphasizes embodiment as a natural channel of encounters. According to Cooper-White, equality refers to gender, class, and ethnicity. Embodiment is seen in all these differences: all of us are created to be unique. This individuality is not overly stressed in her relational theology because she emphasizes that even an individual is always relational.³⁸

The above three models of encounter are all based on the Trinity, but in very diverse ways. At the same time, these models are strongly tied to everyday and religious practices through which people seek to encounter each other and the transcendent. These models aim for different results from the encounters: some promote social responsibility, others, the process element of therapeutic encounter, or the non-verbal aspects of encounter. Additionally, they emphasize the importance of acknowledging the multiple identities of all those involved in the encounter. Noteworthy in all these models is that while these theologians study practices, they also involve their own personality and personal history in the process. This is very common in practical theology, as it is, for example, in social and cultural anthropology, which also study practices. This reflective approach seems to be a shock to some more traditional theologians. Reflecting on one’s own personality and how that affects the research process is a natural part of qualitative research and makes the results more transparent. Graham asserts this: “This calls for a greater degree of transparency on the part of the researcher.”³⁹ Reflectivity has contributed to the study of encounters in which the focus is not only the observed practices and those who practice them, but also the researcher herself.

This variety of roles and aims of encounter makes Theology of Encounter a good example of studying practices while using theology as a theory in it. These three theologians, whose models I have just briefly introduced are good examples of how theology can be used to explain and reflect on practices. This shows that theory does not need to come from other disciplines, but can also emanate from within theological traditions. In this example with the Trinity, the background is mainly in systematic theology, but it could be some other theological discipline as well, depending on the studied practice. Cooper-White additionally uses the field of relational psychotherapy to explain her model. I do not see any problem with this because many times, studied practices are so complex that it is good to study them from various point of view. What is essential is not to forget the theological roots of practical theology.

The examples given here do not include reflection on lived theology because they are all theoretical models of encounters and do not report on empirical studies of encountering practices. In addition to the theory-practice discussion and the example of Theology of Encounter, the influence of changing context is crucial in order to understand what types of theologies are needed in pluralistic Nordic societies.

Emerging themes on changing contextual practices

Nordic Practical Theology has traditionally studied pastoral care, liturgy and homiletics in the majority Lutheran contexts. However, today there is a need to expand to various faith communities and a wider variety of practices. This research has to acknowledge the changed pluralistic context and how it challenges the role of religion/religions in the Nordic societies and how it challenges theological studies as well. Many practical theologians contributing to the discussion on practice represent liberation theologies, which stress the importance of context in theology.⁴⁰ In the Nordic countries, we are used to thinking that contextual theology deals only with the theologies of the Global South. This is not true; rather, the pluralistic Nordic societies also need contextual approaches to theology.⁴¹

Central European practical theologians have discussed the role of practical theology in today’s pluralistic societies. They have, however, mainly focused on methodological issues of studying practices, and not so much on how the context should be taken into consideration.⁴² Birgit Weyel from Tübingen writes: “Practical theology is thus seen as a theory of religious practice in society which attends to the relationship between constituted church and lived religion.”⁴³ In her contribution, the relationship between institutional churches and lived religion creates the central context in European pluralistic societies. This discussion about deinstitutionalization and pluralization is also a reality in the Nordic countries.

Chaplaincy research is one instance in which context has been taken seriously. One reason for this is that healthcare is situated in the public sphere, where it is impossible not to consider religious plurality. This is not, however, the situation in all of the Nordic countries, which is seen in a recently published special issue of a Norwegian journal of practical theology, Tidsskrift for Praktisk Teologi.⁴⁴ Anne Hege Grung, who is also contributing to this special issue of Studia Theologica, has written an important article with a colleague of hers on the pluralistic chaplaincy situation in Norway. In this article, they give the example of a master’s degree programme that contributes to building chaplaincy competence for students who do not belong to the Church of Norway.⁴⁵ Similar programmes exist, for example, in the Netherlands and there is interesting theological reflection on these practices.⁴⁶ These examples of pluralistic practices in healthcare show that there is a need to study religious and spiritual practices of various religions and worldviews.

Research on gender and sexuality naturally deals with issues connected with context. An example of these studies is my research on same-sex couples and their experiences with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Finland (ELCF) during a prayer ritual organized to celebrate their partnership.⁴⁷ The results of the study reveal that, in a changing Finnish society, attitudes towards same-sex couples are generally very positive, but the interviewed couples still had mainly experiences of disapproval from the ELCF. A somewhat similar study was conducted in Sweden in which the religious opposition towards same-sex marriages was evaluated.⁴⁸ These examples show that religious practices many times follow the changing context with some delay.

A third example of a field that takes context seriously is research on rituals. One example is my own study of home-based end-of-life care in Finland that was conducted by interviewing patients, their family caregivers and bereaved family caregivers. One of the research focuses was rituals, including rituals of farewell at the moment of death, continuing with funeral rituals, and ending up with rituals of memory. After analysing the experiences of all these rituals, I found that the present-day Finnish context is an explanatory factor in all of these. Additionally, I found that, in spite of more secular everyday rituals, Finnish people also see the importance of traditional Lutheran rituals at the time of death and dying. Similar findings on the importance of Lutheran rituals were found in Norwegian practical theological studies on disaster rituals.⁴⁹

Practice research in the Nordic countries is not done in a vacuum. The pluralistic Nordic societies still have a strong Lutheran heritage, but the influence of Lutheranism is diminishing rapidly. There is a need to adapt to the rapidly pluralizing context in order to grasp the lived reality of Nordic people.

Conclusion: toward theologies of practice

The aim of this article was to study the relationship between practice and theology. The recent Nordic focus has been on practice and how to study practices, but the role of theology has been unclear in this discussion. In this article, I have shown that theology or theologies can provide a rich contribution to the study of practices. This can be done by combining traditional theological approaches and contextual theological reflections on it. This is a good combination that allows us to study practices in today’s Nordic context.

The discussion about the relationship between theory and practice has recently been lively in practical theology. This has mainly focused on how they are related and/or in what ways they are distinct. However, this discussion mainly lacks analyses on how theology relates to all this. There are some exceptions, for example, Joyce Ann Mercer’s model, in which theology is included both in theory and in practice. This holistic approach incorporates theology into all practical theological research on practice. The discussion about lived theology has added a new dimension to this discussion, in which the practices also contain grass root theologies.

Emerging topics in the Nordic context are connected with the pluralistic context in changing Nordic societies, with sexuality/gender as well as with issues connected with rituals. All of these topics connect practice and theory together and require deep theological reflection in which embodiment is acknowledged. Theology of Encounter is an example of theological reflection over the central religious practice of counselling. I have shown in this article how encounters are interpreted theologically, while acknowledging the changing context as well.

Elaine Graham used a concept of theology of practice in her main book on transforming practice already in 1996. Her contribution is still valid today, but needs to be seen in multiple ways in order to attend to the research needs of pluralistic Nordic societies. “Theologies of Practice” might possibly be the title for the 2022 Practice conference in Helsinki, whose planning committee I have promised to chair.

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

1 Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory.

2 Nordic Network for Theology and Practice, Exploring Practices.

3 Graham, Transforming Practice, 112–41.

4 Tom Beaudoin questions the centrality of practice in practical theology. See Beaudoin, Why Does Practice, 10.

5 The various backgrounds of practical theologians have been recognized in the recent writings of the discipline, especially from the American context. See, for example, Andrews, “African American;” Goto, “Asian American;” Root, “Evangelical;” and Wolfteich, “Hermeneutics in Roman Catholic.”

6 Beaudoin, “Why Does Practice Matter,” 12–3, 17–8.

7 European practical theologians have contributed to the discussion on lived religion. See, for example, Ganzevoort and Roeland, “Lived Religion;” Ganzevoort, “Forks in the Road;” Hermans, “From Practical Theology;” and Weyel, “Practical Theology.”

8 Hiltner, Pastoral Counselling.

9 Some of this reflection I presented in my inaugural lecture, which later on was revised and published in the Finnish journal of theology, Teologinen Aikakauskirja. See more closely Vähäkangas, “Pastoraaliteologia.”

10 Vähäkangas et al., “Katsaus kohtaamisen teologiaan.”

11 IAPT is a global, scholarly organization whose focus is on theology. Many of those writers whose texts form the data of this article are previous presidents of the IAPT or they have had other active roles in the organization.

12 Browning, Fundamental Practical Theology, 1–12.

13 Browning, “Toward a Fundamental,” 55.

14 Browning, Fundamental Practical Theology, 7–9.

15 Mercer, “Feminist and Womanist,” 111.

16 Mikoski, “Neo-Protestant,” 179.

17 Mikoski, “Neo-Protestant,” 179–80.

18 Graham, “On becoming,” 4; Graham refers to Beaudoin, “Why Does Practice Matter,” 9.

19 Miller-McLemore, “The Theory-Practice Distinction,” 2.

20 Bass et al., Christian Practical Wisdom.

21 Miller-McLemore, “The Theory-Practice Distinction,” 2.

22 Miller-McLemore, “The Theory-Practice Distinction,” 7.

23 Burchert et al., Tulevaisuuden Teologi.

24 Vähäkangas et al., “Katsaus kohtaamisen teologiaan.”

25 Peltomäki, “Therapeutic Turn.”

26 Cooper-White, Shared Wisdom; Lartey, Pastoral Theology, 63–6; McClure, Moving Beyond; and Vähäkangas and Saarelainen, “Relationality as the Basis of Hope.”

27 Cooper-White, Shared Wisdom, 184.

28 Miller-McLemore, “Embodied Knowing.”

29 Swinton, Resurrecting the Person, 9.

30 Swinton, Resurrecting the Person; Swinton, “Reflections on Autistic Love;” and Swinton, Becoming Friends of Time.

31 Swinton, Resurrecting the Person, 207.

32 Swinton, “Reflections on Autistic Love.”

33 Graham, Transforming Practice, 38–55.

34 Graham, Words Made Flesh, 79–89.

35 Cooper-White, Shared Wisdom; Cooper-White, Many Voices, 17.

36 Cooper-White, Many Voices, 82.

37 Cooper-White, Many Voices, 17, 90–4; Cooper-White, Shared Wisdom, 94.

38 Cooper-White, Many Voices, 215–6.

39 Graham, “On Becoming a Practical Theologian,” 5.

40 Graham, “Pastoral Theology” and Lartey, Pastoral Theology.

41 Vähäkangas, Context, Plurality, and Truth.

42 Weyel, “Practical Theology;” Hermans, “From Practical Theology;” Ganzevoort and Roeland, “Lived Religion.”

43 Weyel, “Practical Theology,” 150.

44 The Finnish, strongly Lutheran situation was described and analysed in Saarelainen, Peltomäki and Vähäkangas, “Healthcare Chaplaincy in Finland,” and the Swedish, slightly more pluralistic situation, in Rydiger and DeMarinis, “Institutional Spiritual Care.”

45 Grung and Bråten, “Chaplaincy and religious plurality.”

46 Ganzevoort et al., “Teaching Spiritual Care” and Liefbroer, Ganzevoort and Olsman, “Addressing the Spiritual.”

47 Vähäkangas, “Conformity and Resistance.”

48 Berg, “Rings.”

49 Danbolt and Stiffos-Hanssen, “Public Disaster.”