What is Theological about Theological Reflection?

Andrew Todd
(East Anglian Ministerial Training Course)

Introduction
The question which this paper addresses arose at a meeting of those
involved in taught Masters courses in pastoral, practical and contex-
tual theology. It seems a fair question to ask of those involved in
theological education, and in enabling people to reflect theologically.
Like many others, I find myself, with colleagues, exploring new re-
flective models of practical theology. Part of the justification for
adopting such models is that they are more theologically adequate
than those that they supersede. This paper is an exploration of whether
that is the case. This will involve a critique of inherited ways of doing
theology, not least of the way that they are distorted by the ‘ideology
of rationalism’. This will lead to a consideration of alternative ways of
doing theology and the evolution of a model of reflective practice that
can be shown to be genuinely theological.

A Hermeneutic of Suspicion, or Ideology Critique

In approaching inherited patterns of doing theology I am, then, con-
cerned to look beneath the surface; to deconstruct what is presented.
I am exercising a hermeneutic of suspicion, or an ideology critique
which reveals the ‘knowledge-constitutive interests’1 that underlie
and generate views, beliefs, questions, ways of knowing, actions, etc.
Such an approach itself represents a move beyond rationalism, in that
it questions notions of objectivity, assuming that ‘objective’ conclu-
sions are prejudiced constructions. Further, it is concerned to uncover
ways in which ideologies and interests act in an oppressive way. Such

* Versions of this paper were given to the annual conference of BIAPT, on

14 July 1999, and to Network East Anglia, on 8 November 1999.
1. Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests ( ET; London: Heinemann,
1972), pp. 301-17.
36 The British Journal of Theological Education 11.1 (2000)

concerns are not unknown in the Christian theological tradition. They

are in keeping, perhaps, with the Gospel picture of Jesus in which he
is portrayed unmasking the oppressive agenda of the religious author-
ities, through parables, critical questions, debate and actions, and also
with the prophetic tradition of the Old Testament.
There is, of course, a danger here that the ideology critiqued is sim-
ply replaced by the ideology of the critic; that one dominant construc-
tion is swapped for another. An approach that mitigates this, and
therefore extends the hermeneutic of suspicion, is the ‘thick descrip-
tion’. 2 This involves the person reflecting, seeking to establish a multi-
dimensional picture of a situation—considering, locating and valuing
the diversity of possible constructions (different points of view, politi-
cal or theological standpoints, epistemologies and interpretations).
The aim is to move from a ‘thin’, or surface, description to a ‘thick’,
nuanced, complex description.3 I hope that this paper represents
something of such a thick description.

Rationalism and Transcendence

As a starting point in my critique of inherited patterns of theology, I
would like to illustrate the way our experience is constructed by ra-
tionalism, by considering something that is an important feature of
the Christian theological tradition—transcendence. Rationalism relates
uneasily to transcendence given its empiricism; yet notions of empir-
ical objectivity imply the transcendence of theory.4 This may be seen
in the concept of the self-existent laws of nature. This rationalist para-
dox appears in theology too. On the one hand, we see the tendency to
explain away the supernatural, or to treat the experience of transcen-
dence in a phenomenological way. On the other hand, we may observe
a particular concept of transcendence, derived in part from Greek
thought, in part from Descartes’ descendants, which describes God
as immutable, impassable, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. This concept
might well incorporate Anselm’s ontological argument (God is that
‘than which a greater cannot be thought’),5 albeit understanding it in
a Cartesian way.

2. Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (London: Hutchinson, 1975),

Ch. 1.
3. Michael West, Graham Noble and Andrew Todd, Living Theology (London:
Darton, Longman & Todd, 1999), pp. 37-39.
4. Habermas, Knowledge, pp. 307-308.
5. Proslogion, Ch. 2.
 Todd What is Theological about Theological Reflection? 37

The events of the twentieth century and the writings of those such
as Vanstone and Moltmann have revealed that such decontextualized
concepts of transcendence are of little use to the victims of holocaust
or of ethnic cleansing. The realization is that a full understanding of
an incarnate God involves, at the very least, knowing that God suf-
fers, and only then transcends suffering. Theologically reflective prac-
tice must, I believe, approach transcendence from a new angle. The
practical theologian’s paradox is that transcendence is contextual, lo-
cated in experience, rather than in an abstract concept of the unknowa-
bility of God. Contextual transcendence is seen, perhaps, in Elijah’s
experience as he flees from Jezebel to Mount Horeb (1 Kgs 19), or in
the juxtaposition of transfiguration and crucifixion in the Gospels. It
is precisely because transcendence is experienced in context that it
is recognized as transcendent; and the eternal God is known in an
instant of time, which is revealed as kairos—the fitting moment. This
paradox (of contextual transcendence) has been obscured by the ide-
ology of rationalism. But it fits experience well and allows for a more
wholehearted appropriation of historic texts that speak of the expe-
rience of transcendence.

A Definition of Theology
The contrast between the two understandings of transcendence might
also turn our attention to how we define theology. It implies that we
cannot stop short by defining theology as knowledge of God, because
that is open to too abstract an interpretation. Rather, in order to em-
phasize the contextual nature of knowing God, we might define theol-
ogy as to do with understanding the implications of knowing God (as
long as that includes an understanding of the implications of not
knowing God!) Further, the present dimension of theology, rooted in
our particular situation, needs to be emphasized, alongside the past
dimension (the theological tradition) and the future dimension (which
is concerned with the eschatological implications of knowing God).

Theory and Practice in Right Relationship

Implicitly, we have already been considering questions of theory and
practice, in particular the extent to which theology is either or both of
these things. We now turn to a critique of the inherited understanding
of the place of theory and practice within theology. The pattern inher-
ited from my own early theological education was without doubt an
applied theory model. In a Schleiermacher-type way, practice was
38 The British Journal of Theological Education 11.1 (2000)

derived from theory; acquiring the ‘canon’ of theological knowledge

was the primary goal, applying it in ministry a secondary aim. Pas-
toral theology (narrowly defined in relation to pastoral care) was an
‘add-on’. All this was clearly motivated by the search for ‘objective’
theory, for concepts and ideas, arising out of abstraction and univer-
salization. Feminist critics have already revealed this approach to be
both fallacious and oppressive; fallacious because so-called ‘universal’
concepts are deeply rooted in the experience of white, European or
North American, middle-class males; oppressive because such con-
structions subjugate those whose experience is other.6
My participation in the practice of ministry as parish priest and
chaplain also suggested that the applied theory model will not do.
The model resulted for me in a largely ‘technical’ approach to min-
isterial formation, which focused on particular skills of applying ‘ob-
jective’ theory (such as exegesis for preaching). These skills turned out
to be inadequate for the tasks of ministry, the diversity of which re-
quires flexibility and an ability to do theology on the hoof, rather than
simply employing the correct skill and/or applying the apposite theo-
logical concept. 7 Further, regarding practice as being derived from
theory rendered ministry, not to mention the experience of Christians
today, a secondary and unequal partner in the dialogue between the
contemporary church and the historic tradition—forever subservient
to the past.
There are, as well, a number of theological problems with an ap-
plied theory model. Given the secondary, contingent nature of prac-
tice, the model stops well short of a full incarnation of the word. In
addition, as Michael Williams points out, ‘the model is inadequate be-
cause of its tendency to allow theory or theology to become a new
law’.8 One might take this further, given that theory is often the pre-
serve of the experts, the cognoscenti, and suggest that there is a even a
Gnostic tendency at work. Theory, when associated with a privileged
elite, may be more than a new law, it may become special knowledge,
or gnosis.
Both practically and theologically I would want now, therefore, to
insist that theory is a dimension of practice, and not vice versa. This

6. See, e.g., The Mud Flower Collective, God’s Fierce Whimsy (New York: Pil-
grim’s Press, 1985).
7. Cf. Donald A. Schön, Educating the Reflective Practitioner (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1987), Ch. 1.
8. ‘The Dichotomy between Faith and Action: Towards a Model for “Doing
Theology” ’, in Paul Ballard (ed.), The Foundations of Pastoral Studies and Practical
Theology (University College, Cardiff, 1986), pp. 39-52 (44).
 Todd What is Theological about Theological Reflection? 39

recognizes the plurality of experience. It pays attention to the need for

theory to arise out of reflection on practice, to be responsive and con-
textual. Theologically, this new relationship between practice and
theory is analogous to the relationship in the Gospels between the law
and the orthopraxy of loving God and one’s neighbour. Here Law is
clearly secondary to orthopraxy, on which ‘hang all the law and the
prophets’ (Mt. 22.40). Further, seeing practice as primary is in accord
with the New Testament vision of a Christian community centred not
on law but on grace, which brings the members of the body into right
relationship with each other and with God. In short, this proposal is
in keeping with a theology of knowing God in practice, rather than in
abstract.

A Right Definition of Practice

A further redefinition is implied by what has just been said. Reference
was made to the ‘technical’ approach to ministerial formation, which
was the outworking of the applied theory model of theology. A fur-
ther dimension of this approach (beyond its functionalism) is that it is
hierarchical, because it is seen as ‘professional’ training (as it has been
from the time of Schleiermacher onwards). With Edward Farley, I
think it a mistake for theologians, especially those involved in clergy
training, to focus solely on the professional practice of the ordained,
to be limited by the ‘clerical paradigm’.9 Such an approach reinforces
a pattern that is centred on a clerical elite who constitute ‘the Min-
istry’ and who possess the special knowledge or theory known as ‘the-
ology’. Theologically, this is out of keeping with the New Testament
stress on the body of Christ, on ministry belonging to the whole body.
Rather, the practice that theologians ought to be concerned with is
that of the whole church—the world-oriented life, witness, work and
worship of the Christian community, where that practice is recog-
nized as arising within a community open to encounter with God,
committed to the kingdom of God, which has a responsibility to
empower God’s people and live an ethic of justice.

The Hermeneutics of Theologically Reflective Practice

The reconstruction of theology in the light of the identification of the
ideology of rationalism and the understanding that theory is a dimen-

9. Edward Farley, Theologia: The Fragmentation and Unity of Theological Edu-

cation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983).
40 The British Journal of Theological Education 11.1 (2000)

sion of practice does not stop there. It needs to be extended to include

the hermeneutical dialogue between reflective practice and the Chris-
tian theological tradition. The reason for this is that another effect of
the ideology of rationalism is the subjugation of reflective practice
within the reading of historic texts. The positivistic search for the mean-
ing behind the text obscures the true nature of the texts, which are not
doctrinal compendiums but reflections on experience (particularly of
encountering God) and on the practice of Israel or the church in the
light of that experience. Rationalist interpretation tends, therefore, to
subordinate orthopraxy to orthodoxy, rather than seeing them as
mutually interrelated with orthodoxy arising from orthopraxy.
A theologically reflective approach to dialogue with the Christian
tradition must move therefore from being driven by the history of
ideas, to being concerned with the history of practice and reading
texts accordingly. This is an essential aspect of a ‘thick description’ of
the texts that make up the tradition. Further, this move provides a
necessary corrective to a situation in which theory constructed in rela-
tion to abstract universal ideas, and without reference to practice
(ancient or modern), is regarded as normative for practice. The recog-
nition that theory is a dimension of practice must extend beyond our
reflection on present situations, to reflection on past situations and
our readings of texts.
In turn, this necessitates a revised hermeneutical approach in which
past and present practices are brought into dialogue. Influenced by
Gadamer,10 one might envisage the hermeneutical process as dialogue
between two horizons (the historical and that of the present), leading,
potentially, to the fusion of horizons. The dialogue is a critical one in
which the text is questioned by the reader in the light of practice as
well as vice versa. This creates the possibility of prejudices being
transformed and a new practical horizon emerging.
Further, with Gadamer, we can recognize the relationship between
the two horizons as a function of the ‘effective history’ of the texts that
make up the tradition. As I read, my dialogue with the text is shaped
by the influence of the text on the community in which I am situated
and with whose members I share the activity of reading. To recognize
this is to acknowledge the nature of the claim which the tradition
makes on me and on the community, which has to do with the part
the text plays in the life and practice of the community rather than
its ‘objective’ meaning. It is also to argue that the tradition does not

10. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method ( ET; London: Sheed & Ward, 2nd
edn, 1979).
 Todd What is Theological about Theological Reflection? 41

determine meaning and interpretation. It is further to conclude that

within theological reflection the Christian tradition cannot be read
apart from a sense of the relationship between text, community and
practice.

The Place of Narrative

A further aspect of the move from rationalist to practical hermeneu-
tics lies in the recognition of the importance of narrative. In terms of
present situations the use of stories as ways of making meaning offers
an important alternative to conceptual modes of reflection. The real-
ization that within contemporary culture we habitually enter narra-
tive worlds in search of meaning (through the media of television and
film, for example) reinforces this point. If reflection offers the possibil-
ity of considering a situation from a distance, viewing it as a virtual
image in a mirror, then there are different ways of establishing the
necessary distance and focusing the image. A conceptual mode of
reflection creates the possibility of a critical distance, and a rational
image. Narrative, however, offers not only a rational, critical perspec-
tive but also affective distanced images. It creates a virtual arena in
which concepts, emotions, desires and intuition may all be explored
via responses to plot, characterization, narration and discourse.
This realization combines with another: that the narrative mode of
reflection is not only a contemporary phenomenon; it has a long his-
tory within the Christian theological tradition, although it has some-
times been obscured or marginalized by the rationality of modernity.
This was clearly demonstrated by Hans Frei in relation to both Old
and New Testament worlds.11 A sense of narrative needs, therefore, to
pervade the hermeneutical dialogue, so that practical meaning can be
found in the sharing of stories rooted in practice.

Conditions for Theologically Reflective Practice

We are now in a position to summarize a number of conditions that
we have identified for theologically reflective practice. In order that it
may escape from the confines of rationalism, theologically reflective
practice needs to be rooted in a hermeneutic of suspicion (extended
by the creation of ‘thick descriptions’). This provides both a critique of
inherited patterns of doing theology and alternatives to them. Thus I

11. Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1974).
42 The British Journal of Theological Education 11.1 (2000)

argued that we should understand transcendence not in abstract but

in a contextual way. This translated into seeing theology as to do with
the implications of knowing God, and into a stress on the present
dimension of theology. We engaged in a critique of the applied theory
model of doing theology, noting its false claim to universality, its
inadequacy in practice, and a number of theological drawbacks. In
contrast I proposed that we regard theory as a dimension of practice,
one potentially useful way of understanding the orthopraxy of the
Christian community. This led in turn to a consideration of our defini-
tion of practice, and a move away from a functionalist professional
definition to one that encompassed the practice of the whole Christian
community.
We considered implications for the hermeneutical dialogue be-
tween present practice and the Christian theological tradition, argu-
ing that positivist readings should give way to readings sensitive to
the way in which texts might reflect the practice of the community in
the past. And we looked to move beyond purely conceptual modes of
reflection by reinstating narrative as a key way of making meaning
within theologically reflective practice and the hermeneutical dia-
logue.

The Dimensions of Theologically Reflective Practice

This enables us, then, to map out the dimensions of theologically re-
flective practice. I would suggest that there are three key movements
involved in reflecting on practice.12 One movement is engaging with
context, which involves locating ourselves within both our human
and wider environment, exploring our relationship to our socio-cul-
tural and cosmic settings. This movement involves us identifying and
understanding the agendas, beliefs and assumptions that we espouse
and that are held by others, in relation to personal and community
narratives. This leads in turn to a second movement, which is reflec-
tion on ways in which we perceive our situation, consideration of the
ways in which we see and know. This might involve, for example, a
recognition that we see life in a new way as a result of engaging with
our context; or, that new knowledge enables us to engage with our
context afresh. A third movement is reflective action, action that is
consciously and/or habitually in keeping with our understanding
and our sense of our personal and communal identity. It is crucial, it

12. West, Noble and Todd, Living Theology, Ch. 10.

 Todd What is Theological about Theological Reflection? 43

seems to me, that action is not separated from reflection, but is re-
garded as being itself reflective (like the other two movements); that
we do not simply reflect on action, but also in action. This is a key to
moving from a functionalist, technological model of ministerial prac-
tice, to a model of practice into which theory is integrated.13
Each of these dimensions is concerned with the implications of
knowing God, focusing, for example, on the Trinity as a matrix for
relationships; how human knowing is related to God’s knowledge of
creation, what action extends the Kingdom of God. And, whether in
relation to engaging with one’s context, or to reviewing perceptions,
or to carrying through reflective action, one of the keys to reflective
practice of this kind is the surfacing of theological questions, for ex-
ample, where in a situation is God encountered? What signs of the
kingdom of God are to be discerned? Does an action empower, liber-
ate and increase justice?
At the same time, theologically reflective practice needs also to be
correlational.14 In engaging with context, in reflecting on perception
and epistemology and in action, correlation needs to be established
between theologically reflective practice and insights from other disci-
plines, not to mention from other types of reflective practice. These
might include the social sciences, education, psychology, etc. Theolog-
ical questions and correlation, both relating to all three movements,
together provide the necessary ‘thick description’. This will often be
focused in the telling and retelling of stories (as well as through other
media).

The Performance of Reflective Practice

Unlike a classic concerto, the three reflective movements (engaging
with context, reflecting on ways of seeing and knowing, and reflective
action) may be played in any order, or indeed simultaneously, and are
often woven together in a complex and improvisatory counterpoint.
Like a piece of music, however, a performance is only fully realized
when the movements are played and heard (performed) in commu-
nity. Such performance has a history; it takes place in dialogue with
those who have performed such reflective practice in the past, who
have previously woven the movements together in community. But
again, like music, and particularly like the more improvisatory tradi-

13. Cf. Schön, Educating, Chs. 2 and 3.

14. See David Tracy in Don S. Browning (ed.), Practical Theology: The Emerging
Field in Theology, Church and World (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983), pp. 61-82.
44 The British Journal of Theological Education 11.1 (2000)

tions such as jazz, what lies at the heart of the dialogue between past
and present reflective practice is not so much the score (the written
guidelines) as the tradition of performance, with its continuities and
discontinuities.
The above represents a model of theological reflection akin to that
developed by Michael West, Graham Noble and me, which is to be
found in diagrammatic form in our recently published, introductory
book: Living Theology:15

THE PRESENT SITUATION THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION

Engaging with Context Engaging with Context

Dialogue

Story Story

Action Seeing/Knowing Action Seeing/Knowing

Encounter

The model represents, perhaps, a development from a pastoral cycle

type approach. Unlike the pastoral cycle (e.g. experience ➙ explo-
ration ➙ reflection ➙ response),16 one is not constrained to start at a
particular point in the cycle, nor to proceed in a particular direction,
nor even to work through the elements of the cycle in order. The
difficult-to-define term ‘experience’ is omitted, in favour of an
exploration of the different dimensions of the relationship between
the reflector and her situation. The nature of the dialogue with the
Christian theological tradition is revealed, the aim being a dialogue
rooted in historic and present reflective practice. And reflection (the
use of distanced images in order to see a situation afresh) is not con-
fined to a particular section or aspect of the process. Rather it per-
vades the model. Finally, the diagram acknowledges that in such

15. Taken from Living Theology by Michael West, Graham Noble and Andrew
Todd, published and copyright 1999 by Darton, Longman & Todd Limited, and
used by permission of the publishers. P. 99.
16. Laurie Green, Let’s Do Theology: A Pastoral Cycle Resource Book (London:
Mowbrays, 1990).
 Todd What is Theological about Theological Reflection? 45

reflection there is an openness to encounter with God, the need to

grapple with the implications of knowing God. I suggest that the
model represents an approach to reflective practice that is genuinely
theological.