The Inherent Sociological Groundings of Practical Theology
In his articles “What is Social Research?” “The Goals of Social Research,” & “The Process of Social Research: Ideas and Evidence”, Charles Ragin argues that, “Social researchers seek to identify order and regularity in the complexity of social life; they try to make sense of it”[1]. This idea opens the door for exploring that ways in which social research can be used in a theological context because theology also seeks to “make sense” of the complexities of life. If Practical Theology is, as Browning claims, a descriptive theology that uses a specific methodology that aims for a thick description of situations, then Practical Theology is, in Charles Ragin’s terms, a sort of social research.
Although I am aware of the differences between social research and theological research, the possibility of a more sophisticated form of interdisciplinary research that does justice to both sociology and theology is of great interest to me. However, I act upon this curiosity with great trepidation. The similarities and parallels of social research and theological research often lure practical theologians into distorting the differentiation between theological inquiry and interdisciplinary social scientific analysis.
I will be the first to admit that these two disciplines do not have the same aims, thus, one must be careful in borrowing from one or the other. For instance, theological analysis often focuses on shaping and transforming social practices; whereas, social research, according to Ragin, is commonly more unidirectional in that it simply aims to (1) Identify general patterns and relationships, (2) test and refine theories (3) make predictions, (3) interpret cultural or historical significant phenomena, (4) Explore diversity, (5) give voice, (6) and advance new theories.[2] For this reason, I would never want to muddy these two disciplines. However, I do see similarities and where practical theologians could benefit from being dialogue partners with social researchers.. For instance, Practical Theology is like social research in that it, according to Browning, identifies general patterns and relationships. Browning argues that Practical Theology seeks to uncover how religious communities exercise practical reason and how they make a difference in how practical reason works.[3] Within the book, he examines how practical theology begins with the practices and influences of faith. For him, practical theology leads to an understanding of the “reasons and justifications” behind the actions and traditions of faith communities.[4]
Secondly, Practical Theology is like social research in that it tests and refines traditional theological theories, gives voice, and advance new theories. For instance, Browning’s view of theology differs from the Barthian view because he understands theology as being practical. Barth understood theology to be a systematic understanding of God’s self-disclosure that is independent of human understanding and practice. Browning contends that theology is not singularly a configuration of biblical studies, church history, and systematic theology. He argues that theology is a process of understanding that goes from “present theory-laden practice to a retrieval of normative theory-laden practice to the creation of more critically held theory-laden practices.”[5] Browning’s primary argument is that Christian theology in its entirely should be seen as a fundamental practical theology that has within it four submovements: (1) Descriptive Theology, (2) Historical Theology, (3) Systematic Theology, and (4) Strategic Practical Theology. Browning’s purpose in arguing for the reorganization and reconceptualization of how we intellectually perceive theology is because “how we solve problems about the organization of theology makes a difference in how we think and act at the most concrete levels of our lives.”[6] Browning argues that theology should move from practice to theory.
Thirdly, Practical Theology is like social research in that it makes predictions. Browning suggests that his work could be viewed as a systematic statement about the nature of practical theology because he uses Christian education and congregational care to demonstrate descriptive theology, historical theology, systematic theology and strategic practical theology. His conclusion is that educators, counselors, pastors, organization consultants and theologians alike must turn to his new understanding of a fundamental practical theology in order to care, educate, worship, preach and to provide social services. Otherwise theology will become outdated.
Fourthly, Practical Theology is like social research in that it explores diversity. As I stated in the portion of my blog that sought to define Practical Theology, I see Practical Theology as a critical theological approach to understanding the religious practices, traditions, and experiences of any religion upon which the discipline is applied. Therefore, the field of Practical Theology does benefit from being attentive to the cultural and societal variables of local congregations. Mutually critical and correlational dialogue between practical theologians and social researchers helps Practical Theology to advance its efforts to do theological reflection.
In Ragin’s first major goal of social research, he argues that the process of identifying general patterns and relationships is the primary goal of social research.[7] He warns that when discovering general patterns it is important to look at many cases in order to discover their social significance. Once again, I thought about this first goal as a practical theologian. I thought about the ways in which Practical Theology could benefit from a social style of research as a way to explore the influence of social structures on theological positions. As an example of how Practical Theology could use social research as a tool, I would like to use the works of Hubert Blumer, an American sociologist whose research mainly focuses on individual and small-scale interactions and Talcott Parsons, an American sociologist who focuses on macro-level systems and processes as a basis of analysis and theorizing.
Parsons views systems as patterned and recurring set of bounded connected social interactions that develop values and norms.[8] In his outline of the social systems, Parsons provides a theory for systems and then unfolds a whole set of categories for understanding them. Both Blumer[9] and Parsons situate their understandings of the boundaries of social systems “in terms of their relations, first to each other.”[10] Parsons borrows from Durkheim’s work on the division of labor in society which functions to bind society together to produces organic solidarity. According to Durkheim if you have a high division of labor, people are forced to form relationships. Although this analysis is often considered to be leaning towards the Macro level strain of sociology, it is also this platform in which I begin to see a bit of mutuality between the theories of Parsons and Blumer. Blumer’s micro-level interactions and Parsons macro-level structures successfully articulate a common focus on relationships and interactions.
According to Parsons, “the theory of social systems belongs within the more general class of conceptual schemes seen in the frame of reference of action.”[11] Likewise, Blumer understands that what he calls symbolic interactions is a study about individuals in action instead of just a study about individuals in general. For Blumer, action is the glue that holds human societies, or what Parsons would call social systems, together.[12] He sees human interactions as defining activities that establish meanings as social products and confirm creations. Both Parsons and Blumer rely on the actions and social exchanges of humans to create society.[13]
Browning’s Descriptive form of Practical Theology makes it a point to investigate the very same actions that human societies form from a practical theological stance. Browning first aims for a thick description of a particular practice. This is identical to the methodology of Parsons and Blumer. Like Parsons and Blumer, Browning captures and discovers the context of practices by investigating, appreciating, visualizing, understanding, illuminating and even critiquing the current social, cultural and ecclesial practices of a community. This process of investigating the context of the practice is the aspect of Browning’s work that is a form of social research but could risk the chance of being what Robin Gill calls an amateurish sociological approach. Browning’s process of investigating the context of a practice is identical to the methodology of Parsons and Blumer but it lacks the same level of intent.
This comparison and contrast between Browning, Blumer, and Parson’s, is most visible when we look at how they both examine particular practices. Let us take into consideration the history of Pentecostalism as an example of how action is the glue that holds human societies together. The actions of dancing, clapping, waving of hands, shouting, screaming, speaking in tongues, falling onto the floor, and stomping together as a community is a form of symbolic interactions. These actions are the characteristics of the Pentecostal church. Furthermore, Blumer would argue that these actions are the glue that holds this particular human society together. Blumer would agree that these human interactions, i.e. Pentecostal worship rituals, are also the defining activities that establish meanings as social products and confirm creations. The world of Pentecostal enchantment creates a metaphorical mass of fortifying optimism that aids its participants in their perennially flawed realities. Participants in Pentecostal customs communally cultivate worlds of realism that aids them in coping with oppressive and depressive realities thereby forming a social system. The Pentecostal “as if” world aims to provide hope for its hopeless partakers. African Americans have been marginalized and disenfranchised for centuries. Yet, their indignation and frustration was always filtered through their faith in God. Thus, their pain-influenced theology inclined them to form an expressive worship style through which to channel their heartbrokenness. This is also what Parsons means when he says “the cultural-system focus is on ‘patterns’ of meaning.”[14]
According to Parsons, “the social-system focus is on the conditions involved in the interaction of actual human individuals who constitute concrete collectivities with determinate membership” and “the cultural-system focus is on ‘patterns’ of meaning.”[15] Notice here that Parsons differentiates between social-systems and cultural-systems with the idea that the interaction of actual human individuals and patterns of meaning should be kept analytically distinct. On the other hand, Blumer sees the interaction of actual human individuals and patterns of meaning as empirically interdependent and mutually inclusive. He argues that meanings are social products and “creations that are formed in and through the defining activities of people as they interact.”[16] In other words, meaning is apart of and arises out of the process of interaction between people. “The meaning of a thing for a person grows out of the ways in which other person acts toward the person with regard to the thing.”[17] This is an example of where Blumer and Parsons’ theories impede integration. Parsons sees social and cultural systems as analytically distinct while Blumer sees patterns of meaning as playing a part in action. My point in focusing on this detailed explanation of Blumer and Parsons’ methodologies is to show how their work can be used to enhance practical theological assessments.
When a practical theologian examines how practices, actions, and general patterns serve as a sort of glue that holds human societies together, it forces us to see the role of human agency beyond the ontology and Omni-predicates of the transcendent. The process of investigating the context of a particular religious practice is amateurish when the activity itself is not being viewed as a defining activity that thereby establishes meaning as social products and confirms creations. My argument is that as a practical theologian one must always examine, in Parsons terms, how cultural-systems, like the Pentecostal church, are focused is on ‘patterns’ of meaning.[18] The interaction of actual human individuals and pattern of meaning is empirically interdependent and mutually inclusive of the process of theologizing on the actual practice. Furthermore, as Blumer argues, meanings are social products and “creations that are formed in and through the defining activities of people as they interact.”[19] In other words, the theological meanings that people of faith create are apart of and arise out of the process of interaction between people. The meaning of God, praise, worship, and congregational polity grows out of “the ways in which other person acts toward the person with regard to the thing.”[20] This is an example of how Blumer and Parsons’ methodologies could further Browning’s form of Descriptive Theology and enhance practical theological assessment all together.
[1] Charles Ragin. 1994. “What is Social Research?” “The Goals of Social Research,” & “The Process of Social Research: Ideas and Evidence.” Pp. 5-76 in Constructing Social Research
[2] Charles Ragin. 1994. “What is Social Research?” “The Goals of Social Research,” & “The Process of Social Research: Ideas and Evidence.” Pp. 5-76 in Constructing Social Research.
[3] Don S. Browning, A Fundamental Practical Theology: Descriptive and Strategic Proposals. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991, p 4
[4] Browning, p 3
[5] Browning, p 6
[6] Browning, p 9
[7] Charles Ragin. 1994. “What is Social Research?” “The Goals of Social Research,” & “The Process of Social Research: Ideas and Evidence.” in Constructing Social Research Pp. 56
[8] Talcott Parsons “An Outline of the Social System” in: Parsons et al., eds., Theories of Society, 1961, vol. 1, 30-44; 70-74; 79 (“Conclusion”), (BB) Talcott Parsons “The Role of Theory in Social Research” ch. 1 pp. 65-75 of Parsons, On Institutions and Social Evolution (BB)
[9] Herbert Blumer, selections from Symbolic Interactionism: •pp. 166-177 from S. Appelrouth and L.D. Edles Sociological Theory in the Contemporary Era (BB)
•pp. 56-60 from Blumer, Symbolic Interactionism (BB)
[10] Parsons, 30
[11] Parsons, 30
[12] Blumer, 73
[13] Talcott Parsons “An Outline of the Social System” in: Parsons et al., eds., Theories of Society, 1961, vol. 1, 30-44; 70-74; 79 (“Conclusion”), (BB) Talcott Parsons “The Role of Theory in Social Research” ch. 1 pp. 65-75 of Parsons, On Institutions and Social Evolution (BB) Herbert Blumer, selections from Symbolic Interactionism: •pp. 166-177 from S. Appelrouth and L.D. Edles Sociological Theory in the Contemporary Era (BB) •pp. 56-60 from Blumer, Symbolic Interactionism (BB)
[14] Parsons, p. 34
[15] Parsons, p. 34
[16] Blumer, p. 168
[17] Blumer, p. 168
[18] Parsons, p. 34
[19] Blumer, p. 168
[20] Blumer, p. 168