A Confessional Practical Theology

John Swinton and Harriet Mowat have recently published a book on qualitative research methods that is grounded in a confessional approach. The aim of their practical theology is to create congregations committed to the faithful performance of the gospel. While they make significant use of socio-analytic methods in their work, they give primacy to theology. They claim that theology is constructed by God and therefore cannot be fundamentally challenged by humanly constructed knowledge. This is not to say that they have a completely naïve approach to theology. While they argue that there is one single unified gospel story, they see Christianity as the interpretation of that story in various cultures and contexts. Christianity itself is a historical/theological construct. They also operate from a hermeneutic of suspicion, acknowledging the sinfulness of humanity as contributing to the misuse of power in interpretation and the lack of self-reflection within communities that prevents us from seeing our own constructs.
What I appreciate about their method is their attempt to include God as a primary actor in the life of the congregation. God’s revelation is a primary discourse shaping the beliefs of the people. The Holy Spirit is central in the practices of the church. The congregation is called not to respond to human standards, but to faithfully perform the gospel. While it may be impossible to understand God’s revelation outside of human construction, it seems crucial to look for the ways that God might challenge the dominant oppressive discourses in our society and empower individuals to resist. My own commitments to feminism and liberation grow out of my understanding of the gospel. This allows me to understand each of these discourses as grounded in a deeper commitment to all humanity reflecting the image of God.
There is a danger in such methodology. When arguing for a foundational gospel truth, there is often the danger of silencing those discourses and experiences that seem to challenge such a truth. There can be an idealization of the church and a refusal to significantly address issues of suffering. This has certainly not been the case in Swinton’s work. His book Raging with Compassion seeks to address the problem of evil in the world. Rather than asking why evil exists or the relationship of evil to a good and benevolent God, Swinton asks how we can create congregations that are able to sustain faith in the face of evil. He does so not by denying evil exists but by seeking to increase the congregation’s capacity to bear suffering. This involves being able to sit in silence as well as embracing lament.
Swinton avoids one of the central issues often present in confessional practical theology, the suppression of challenging or painful voices and the voices of those on the margins. Yet, it does not seem that such an emphasis is grounded in his own methodology. What has caused him to focus on suffering and evil in his work? Much of his research has focused on those with mental and physical disabilities, seeking to create methodologies that honor them as human beings in the research process. Yet, it is unclear what drives this commitment. His methodology by focusing on a generalized idea of the gospel does not demand such an emphasis.
In addition, while focusing on those on the margins in the midst of suffering, I am unsure that I believe his response is sufficient. The main focus of Swinton’s book on evil is increasing a congregation’s capacity to bear pain. The emphasis is on sustaining faith. Rituals and worship become central in this approach. There is nothing, though, to call the congregation to change the structures that are contributing to evil in the first place. Both seem necessary to truly provide pastoral care. While Rebecca Chopp focuses on creating emancipatory structures, she often loses the faith aspect of the congregation. In my own practical theology, I hope to attempt to hold these two aspects together, focusing both on faith and action.
A final note on my own approach to practical theology. While my goal is to retain commitments to all three approaches, I recognize that my context will determine which approach I give priority too. In the midst of feminist and liberation circles, I often emphasize the confessional aspects of my faith seeking a way to acknowledge the role of a dynamic living God in the midst of theology and congregational practices. Within my own denomination, I tend to emphasize the feminist and liberation aspects. There is a danger in our denomination in using the confessional approach to avoid the socio-analytic work necessary to creating practices that are truly faithful to the gospel. In addition, I must present my feminist and liberation commitments in confessional language in order to be heard. I am making choices between discourses, drawing on what is liberating, making compromises, and choosing between pain and pleasure. I will need to constantly analyze power dynamics and my own choices in attempting to balance these approaches.