Critical or Appreciative Approach to Practical Theology

Reading two very helpful books on practical theology brought to the fore a conversation that needs further exploration. Is practical theology "critical theological reflection on the practices of the church..." as John Swinton and Harriet Mowat of Aberdeen University define it in their fine book, Practical Theology and Qualitative Research (London: SCM Press, 2006), or is it better understood as an appreciative interpretation of the faith tradition and the "signs of the times" taking into account different and often competing interpretations, as Terry Veling of Australian Catholic University of Brisbane suggests in Practical Theology: On Earth as it Is In Heaven (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2005).

Most practical theologians draw from the well of earlier proponents of the discipline who used the word "critical" with great emphasis (Don Browning's "mutual critical correlation" for example). Where did Browning and others find this emphasis? If it is a carry-over from the old, enlightenment academic culture of competition and criticism, it needs to be reframed for the post-modern mindset.

I'm drawn to the term "appreciative" from its use by my old process theology teacher Henry Nelson Wieman, who characterized a major part of his creative process as "appreciative understanding" by which persons in relationship take each others' unique perspectives into themselves, from which new perspectives and enhanced community and ability to take mutual action ensue. It is also used in an organizational assessment and change methodology drawn from corporate consultants and used extensively in church circles, "Appreciative Inquiry." In AI, the strengths and assets of an organization are identified through listening to the stories. Instead of looking for problems, new energy can be released by finding the true goodness and deep positive identity of a group or church.

In practical theology, we move to find a deeper and more complex understanding of situations, not by criticism, but by recognition of differences and competing claims of theology and social sciences and sifting through them to find new interpretations that are positive and true and hopeful.

In my writing of the Doctor of Ministry research methods I urge clarity of thinking instead of critical thinking. The emphasis is that clarity only comes with a deep and complex understanding of situations in the context of faith tradition and other human knowledge.