Practical Theology: from Applied to Empirical Theology
Identifieur interne : 000F00 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000E99; suivant : 000F01Practical Theology: from Applied to Empirical Theology
Auteurs : J. A. Van Der Ven ; Johannes A. Van Der VenSource :
- Journal of Empirical Theology [ 0922-2936 ] ; 1988.
Url:
DOI: 10.1163/157092588X00023
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:C82BB0514C1D631CEECD2719B7A8A59757FA3C8BLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>Practical Theology: from Applied to Empirical Theology</title><author><name sortKey="Van Der Ven, J A" sort="Van Der Ven, J A" uniqKey="Van Der Ven J" first="J. A." last="Van Der Ven">J. A. Van Der Ven</name></author><author><name sortKey="Van Der Ven, Johannes A" sort="Van Der Ven, Johannes A" uniqKey="Van Der Ven J" first="Johannes A." last="Van Der Ven">Johannes A. Van Der Ven</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:C82BB0514C1D631CEECD2719B7A8A59757FA3C8B</idno><date when="1988" year="1988">1988</date><idno type="doi">10.1163/157092588X00023</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/C82BB0514C1D631CEECD2719B7A8A59757FA3C8B/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000F00</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000F00</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a">Practical Theology: from Applied to Empirical Theology</title><author><name sortKey="Van Der Ven, J A" sort="Van Der Ven, J A" uniqKey="Van Der Ven J" first="J. A." last="Van Der Ven">J. A. Van Der Ven</name></author><author><name sortKey="Van Der Ven, Johannes A" sort="Van Der Ven, Johannes A" uniqKey="Van Der Ven J" first="Johannes A." last="Van Der Ven">Johannes A. Van Der Ven</name></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Journal of Empirical Theology</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">JET</title><idno type="ISSN">0922-2936</idno><idno type="eISSN">1570-9256</idno><imprint><publisher>BRILL</publisher><pubPlace>The Netherlands</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1988">1988</date><biblScope unit="volume">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="7">7</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="27">27</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0922-2936</idno></series><idno type="istex">C82BB0514C1D631CEECD2719B7A8A59757FA3C8B</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1163/157092588X00023</idno><idno type="href">15709256_001_01_s002_text.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0922-2936</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></TEI><istex><corpusName>brill-journals</corpusName><author><json:item><name>J.A. van der Ven</name></json:item><json:item><name>Johannes A. Van Der Ven</name></json:item></author><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><qualityIndicators><score>5.512</score><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>420.96 x 672.24 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><keywordCount>0</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>0</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>8393</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>52347</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>21</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>1</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Practical Theology: from Applied to Empirical Theology</title><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>1</volume><pages><last>27</last><first>7</first></pages><issn><json:string>0922-2936</json:string></issn><issue>1</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1570-9256</json:string></eissn><title>Journal of Empirical Theology</title></host><publicationDate>1988</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1988</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1163/157092588X00023</json:string></doi><id>C82BB0514C1D631CEECD2719B7A8A59757FA3C8B</id><score>0.09885178</score><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C82BB0514C1D631CEECD2719B7A8A59757FA3C8B/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C82BB0514C1D631CEECD2719B7A8A59757FA3C8B/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C82BB0514C1D631CEECD2719B7A8A59757FA3C8B/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/C82BB0514C1D631CEECD2719B7A8A59757FA3C8B/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a">Practical Theology: from Applied to Empirical Theology</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>BRILL</publisher><pubPlace>The Netherlands</pubPlace><availability><p>© 1988 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</p></availability><date>1988</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a">Practical Theology: from Applied to Empirical Theology</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">J.A.</forename><surname>van der Ven</surname></persName></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">Johannes A.</forename><surname>Van Der Ven</surname></persName></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Journal of Empirical Theology</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">JET</title><idno type="pISSN">0922-2936</idno><idno type="eISSN">1570-9256</idno><imprint><publisher>BRILL</publisher><pubPlace>The Netherlands</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1988"></date><biblScope unit="volume">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="7">7</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="27">27</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">C82BB0514C1D631CEECD2719B7A8A59757FA3C8B</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1163/157092588X00023</idno><idno type="href">15709256_001_01_s002_text.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>1988</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="1988">Created</change><change when="1988">Published</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2016-07-29">References added</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus brill-journals not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/2.3/journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="e-issn">15709256</journal-id>
<journal-title>Journal of Empirical Theology</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title>JET</abbrev-journal-title>
<issn pub-type="ppub">0922-2936</issn>
<issn pub-type="epub">1570-9256</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>BRILL</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>The Netherlands</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1163/157092588X00023</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title>Practical Theology: from Applied to Empirical Theology</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>van der Ven</surname>
<given-names>J.A.</given-names>
</name>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Van Der Ven</surname>
<given-names>Johannes A.</given-names>
</name>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<year>1988</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>1</volume>
<issue>1</issue>
<fpage>7</fpage>
<lpage>27</lpage>
<permissions>
<copyright-statement>© 1988 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>1988</copyright-year>
<copyright-holder>Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</copyright-holder>
</permissions>
<self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="15709256_001_01_s002_text.pdf"></self-uri>
<custom-meta-wrap>
<custom-meta>
<meta-name>version</meta-name>
<meta-value>header</meta-value>
</custom-meta>
</custom-meta-wrap>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<p>7 JOHANNES A. VAN DER VEN Practical Theology: from Applied to Empirical Theology Summary In this article the history of practical theology is reconstructed from the perspective of its main problem: the relation between theory and praxis. The first part refers to the aca- demic status of practical theology, interpreted as applied theology. This interpretation fails to solve the problem, as we shall see. The second part entails a proposal towards the re- interpretation of practical theology in terms of empirical theology. After a critical reflec- tion upon the history of this term, already in use since the beginning of this century, the material and the formal object are described, including some methodological aspects of it. 1. Practical theology as applied theology The first catholic chair of practical theology was established in 1777 in Vienna in Austria, seventeen years before the first protestant one in 1794 in Tubingen in Germany. By that practical theology became inaugurated into the academic world. Since that time is was installed more and more within the theolo- gical faculties. Now, all over the world there are departments of practical theo- logy with their own education and research programs, their own lecturers, re- searchers and students, their own congresses and symposia, their own lexicons, manuals, handbooks, readers, dissertations, monographs and journals. In spite of this formal and organizational development the encyclopedian problem is left unanswered. Specifically, the relationship between practical theo- logy and the other theological disciplines, especially exegesis, church history, dogmatic and moral theology. One may argue that all these disciplines are based upon praxis, which is presumed to be accepted as the main principle of all theolo- gy. Praxis is not the monopoly of practical theology. Therefore the central prob- lem is: is practical theology more than the application of these praxis-oriented disciplines; is it more than applied theology? According to Pannenberg (1973) the relation between theory and praxis has to be interpreted as the core question of practical theology. It is the 'crux theologica practica'. In the first part of this article I would like to investigate the relation between theory and praxis from the idea of the practical character of theology in general. This idea is understood to be at the basis of the definition of practical theology as</p>
<p>8 applied theology ( 1.1. ). After this I will pay attention to the pluriform character of this praxis (1.2.) and to its historical character (1.3.). This will lead me to the conclusion that the applied theology model is inadequate (1.4.). 1.1. Praxis in theology The question concerning the practical character of theology in general is not new. For example, Thomas Aquinas devoted the fourth article of his Summa to this theme. He argued that theology has to do with both speculative and practical things, although, it is more a speculative than a practical discipline, since it has to do more with God than with human actions. It is practical by extension, i.e. by relating itself indirectly to human actions. Thomas would object to a special prac- tical branche within theology, because, as he says in the third article, all theology is one. In contrast with this, Duns Scotus argued that theology is a 'scientia practi- ca', because it refers to the ultimate aim of man's life, namely God, and the means to it (Finkenzeller 1960). This approach comes close to the idea of the prethomis- tic theology of Albertus Magnus, Bonaventura and others who emphasized the object of theology as being not 'verum ut verum', but 'verum sub ratione boni salutari': 'Deus beatificans'. For them theology was not a purely rational, but a salvational discipline. This insight belongs to the core of the old, augustinian tra- dition, in which theology has a practical, salvational, kerygmatic intention. Theo- logy is 'sapida scientia'. Ultimately, it transcends 'scientia', it is 'sapientia'. On the one hand, many catholic theologians, at least the representatives of the later (neo-)thomistic tradition, have followed the idea of Thomas. Theology is said to be dogmatic theology, and only 'by extension' moral theology and prac- tical theology (Schillebeeckx 1967). On the other hand, many protestant theolo- gians have based themselves upon the position of Duns Scotus. Luther, for instance, argued that real theology is practical theology; speculative theology belongs to the devil in hell. According to Luther the object of theology can not be found in God as such, but in the relation between man and God: 'homo peccati reus ac perditus, et Deus iustificans ac salvator hominis peccatoris' (cfr. Wall- mann 1961). For Calvin the practical character of theology has to do with human actions as the consequence of faith and the role of affections in them (Althaus 1967). This emphasis upon faith in the 'Deus salutaris' and the human activity, implied in it, has already marked protestant theology since its beginning. At least, the aim of theology has always been seen as a mixture of theoretical and practical intentions. Modern protestant theologians such as Pannenberg (1973) and Sauter (1973), agree on this point, despite their differing views concerning some other principles of theology. The first stresses God as being active in the praxis of the world religions. The second takes as his starting point God as being present within the praxis of the church (Hubner 1985). The traditional difference between catholic and protestant theologians dis- appeared during the latter half of this century. Catholic theology took leave of</p>
<p>9 (neo-)thomistic principles and transformed itself into an approach, in which sal- vation history is the central focus. This insight implies God's salvation which re- alizes itself in and through the historical actions of man. From this perspective one can interpret theology as a critical theory of religious praxis (Schillebeeckx 1974). Contemporary political theology understands itself as fundamental practi- cal theology (Metz 1977). Lastly, Latin-American liberation theology describes itself even in the three steps of praxis: seeing, judging and acting (Boff 1987). The central problem is this: if theology in general has to be interpreted as a practical science, practical theology can only be applied theology. This idea was conceived by Rautenstrauch, who introduced practical theology in the Austrian hereditary lands in 1774. Using the analogy of the medical and law studies, he set up a fifth year, devoted to the practical application of the insights, which had been collected during the four foregoing academic years (Mette 1978). Practical theology now found itself in an ambivalent academic position. What is the demarcation line drawn between applied science within the univer- sity and the application of science outside of it? Has practical theology to be placed inside or outside the university? The answer to this question depends on two aspects: first,how one perceives the factual situation of practical theology within the university, and second how one evaluates this situation. In relation to the first aspect many authors argue that practical theology is in fact the application of the insights of the main theological disciplines, i.e. exegesis, church- and theology-history, dogmatic and moral theo- logy. From this perception practical theology may be defined in terms of a combi- nation of practical skills and sensibility (Schleiermacher 1910), a collection of 'know-how'-rules (Ott 1974), and a number of pastoral methods and techniques (Sauter 1974). This leads to the second aspect. One may ask the evaluative ques- tion : should this task not better be left to pastoral service-institutions outside the university? Most authors remain silent as to the answer; some agree with this sug- gestion (cf. Nolte 1974). Other theologians regret that practical theology is no more than a collection of pastoral codes and pastoral service regulations. Graf argues for the development of practical theology into a real academic theological discipline. In the same sense Arnold (1965) expresses himself. In their footsteps the 'Handbuch der Pastoraltheologie' (1964) aims at the liberation of practical theology from the limited field of direct theological applications and at its development as a real scientific discipline (Steck 1974). The 'Handbuch' inter- prets practical theology as the theological theory of the praxis of the self-actualisa- tion of the church in the present. 1.2. Pluriform praxis . The idea that practical theology can be sufficiently defined as applied theo- logy implies a deductive approach. Such an approach may be adequate in the case of a homogeneous, well determined and easily surveyable praxis, but, in fact the contemporary religious praxis is heterogeneous, divergent, pluriform, confused and sometimes even chaotic.</p>
<p>10 There are two main causes for this: the process of secularisation and in con- nection with this the process of church diversification. The first one refers to the fact that the 'societas christiana' has disappeared. This can be understood as the result of societal rationalisation, resp. modernisation (Weber 1978; 1980). This has a cultural and a structural dimension. The cultural dimension implies that trancendent world views and values have lost their monopoly and find them- selves in defense against more or less immanent world views and values. Accor- ding to Dux (1982) this can be understood as the process of 'desacralisation' of the objective world (nature), the social world (society) and the subjective world (man). The progression of this process depends on factors like national history, social condition of religion, church membership etc. (cf. Stoetzel 1983; Kerkhofs 1985). The structural dimension refers to the fact that the social institutions have emancipated themselves from the church so that they realise their function auto- nomously. This can be interpreted as the result of the societal process of institu- tional differentiation. This two-dimensional secularisation process has ended the firmly-moored bastion of the religious institution with its clear cut patterns. In connection with this, the process of church diversification has been men- tioned. This can be clarified by the sociological trichotomy: church, denomina- tion and sect (cfr. Weber 1980; Troeltsch 1919). One can portray the relation between these three concepts by taking them as the points of a triangle, and not simply as positions on a continuum as Simons and Winkeler (1987) do. Move- ments go from church to denomination, from church to sect, from denomination to sect and reversively, from sect to denomination (Yinger 1970). The sociological concept of church has the following characteristics: inclu- ding all the members of society; meeting their personal needs; functioning as the basis of individual and societal integration. It does so by maintaining a consistent body of dogmatic convictions and moral values and norms; claiming universali- ty ; emphasizing obligatory ritual activity; interpreting religious leadership in terms of sacred priesthood; and requiring obedience to hierarchical authority. This church does no longer exist in western society. Nevertheless, several ele- ments of it are still active, for instance: the widely accepted rites of passage at birth, marriage and death; the survival of confessional organisations, such as schools. The denomination can be characterised as the opposite of the church: not including all the members of society, but only a part of them; not fulfilling all their personal needs, but only some of them; not functioning as the basis of per- sonal and societal integration, but as a societal institution, next to other autono- mous ones. This implies: the transformation of the one, unique 'depositum fidei et morum' into a plurality of interpretations of dogmatic and moral ideas; the change of the claim of universality to tolerance and permissivity; the relativiza- tion of ritual participation and a greater emphasis on inner religious commit- ment ; the re-interpretation of religious leadership in terms of the professional pastor; and finally the replacement of autocratic religious structures by democra- tic ones (cf. Schreuder 1976).</p>
<p>11 This picture becomes even more complicated by introducing the concept of sect. It may be determined, again in contrast to the concept of church (cf. Thung 1976). Whereas the church interprets itself in terms of cultural and structural universalism, the sect restricts itself to its own circle of elected people; it main- tains high tresholds by procedures for the admission of new members by control- ling their faith and conduct; it is marked by a kind of ethical radicalism, being unable to accept the values of state and society, sometimes even rejecting them; whereas, within the church, transcendence is based upon the religious quality of the institution and its sacred priests, within the sect it is related to the religious dispositions of its members; the sect is also characterised by a minimum of bureaucracy. Because of the two processes of secularisation and church diversification, the contemporary religious praxis is not uniform, but pluriform. The interpreta- tions of God, Jesus and the Spirit are numerous; the understandings of creation, evil and liberation are many; contingency, finiteness, suffering and death are interpreted by various theodicies, thanatological and eschatological models; the insight about the ethical relevance of the gospel within the field of labour, peace, justice and nature vary with numerous profane factors, the claims on the reli- gious community are multitudinous; the variety of spiritual experiences is over- whelming. The conclusion must be obvious. There can not be a blue print of ways in which theological insights can be applied, because there is no single present reli- gious praxis. A deductive theological approach is not enough. The idea that prac- tical theology can be sufficiently defined as applied theology is inadequate. Theo- logy also needs the inductive study of the contemporary pluriform, hetero- geneous, chaotic religious field. 1.3. Historical praxis The definition of practical theology as applied theology is connected with an interpretation of praxis, which is rendered out of date by recent developments in practical theology itself. Praxis can imply three meanings, which are connected with three different phases in history. In the first phase praxis has been understood as the praxis of the pastor. This period lasted two centuries; it started in the course of the eighteenth and con- tinued up to the mid-twentieth century. Naturally, there were some exeptions, like Graf on catholic and Nitzsch and Palmer on protestant side. In 1841 Graf wrote his 'Kritische Darstellung' in which he argued for the replacement of a clerical pastoral theology by a church- oriented practical theology. In 1847 Nitzsch published his handbook, in which he understood practical theology as a general theory of the life of the church. As we said, publications like these however were exeptions. Globally, this first phase was marked by a pragmatic approach, much to the benefit of the pastors. Practical theology specified itself even along the activities of the pastor: pastoral care, catechesis, liturgy, diacony and church management.</p>
<p>12 In the second phase the term praxis has been interpreted as the self-realiza- tion of the church. Hereby the perspective has widened from the pastor to the institutional context within which he functions. The 'Handbuch der Pastoral- theologie' (1964) is a representative of it. Herein clerocentrism has disappeared, since the church is seen as the community of the faithful: both pastors and laity. Together they build the people of God, the body of Christ, the temple of the Spir- it. The demand for a fundamental theory of the church belongs to this approach (cf. Klostermann 1974). The subdisciplines of practical theology no longer adhere to the activities of the pastor but to those of the church. They are: keryg- ma, leitourgia, diakonia and koinonia, or as Hiltner (1958) and Zerfass (1974) have proposed them: organizing, communicating and shepherding (cf. Firet 1986; Visscher 1986). The third phase which had its starting point in the late sixties, is marked by a still further broadening of the meaning of the term praxis. It refers to the com- municative praxis within the relationship between church and society. The clero- centrism of the first phase and the ecclesiocentrism of the second have been left behind. The church is now understood as being a part of society and influenced by it. This influence is especially exerted by certain powerful groups, whereby authentic needs and aspirations of other groups are neglected. In this relation- ship between church and society, a dialectical tension is implied: between the empirical and the ideal church. 'Ideal' here refers to the 'true', 'messianic' 'escha- tological' church. From this perspective, practical theology directs its critical reflection to the communicative praxis within the dialectical relation between church and society in the perspective of the liberation in the kingdom of God (Greinacher 1974; 1986; Van der Ven 1985). This broader understanding of the term praxis contrasts with the assump- tion of a uniform, convergent, easy surveyable praxis, which is at the basis of the definition of practical theology as applied theology. It only corresponds to the conception of praxis in the first phase. The only task of practical theology was the education of pastors who had to be able to spiritual guidance ('Seelenleitung'), being the endeavour to influence the minds and hearts of the people (Schleier- macher 1910). The pastor was the subject of the praxis. However, the second and above all the third phase are characterised by a growing plurality of the subject: the whole people of God are the subjects of their own communicative praxis within the coordinate system of church an society within the perspective of liber- ation. This change is not (only) the result of an intrinsic development within the logic of practical theology. Extrinsic dynamics perhaps had a greater influence (cf. Habermas 1982). The widening of the praxis-concept may be seen as the reflection of the conscientization of the processes of secularisation and church diversification, as described in the foregoing paragraph (cf. Rossler 1987). 1.4. Conclusion The basic principle of the definition of practical theology as applied theology</p>
<p>13 may be found in the one way relationship between theory and praxis. Praxis is the application-field of theory. This implies a deductive approach. It can be repre- sented by a line which goes downwards from above: theory - praxis. This princi- ple does not consider the pluriform character of praxis, which asks for a comple- mentary inductive approach. This presupposes a mutual interacting between theory and praxis. It implies the replacement of the line by a cycle; theory - praxis - theory; or still better by an ongoing spiral from bottom to top. 2. Practical Theology as Empirical Theology Because of the plausibility of this cycle or spiral model the study of present praxis itself is necessary. The two traditional approaches within theology, the lite- rary-historical and the systematic one are not satisfactory, since they do not syste- matically and methodically touch upon present praxis in its structures and pro- cesses with their multifarious dimensions, aspects and elements. What is needed is empirical-theological research of the variety of this praxis. In this kind of research the procedures of conceptualization and operationalization and of data collection and data analysis are used, by which one is able to get an insight into the factors, which determine the praxis under investigation. This need for an empirical theology is not new. It has a tradition which goes back into the first decennia of the nineteenth century, when Schleiermacher wrote about church statistics in his 'Kurze Darstellung', as I shall explain. In the middle of that century his pupil Nitzsch also argued for the subsumption of this branch of science under the heading of practical theology. Subsequently Drews and Niebergall in the beginning of this century, saw knowledge of the actual situa- tion of christianity as a task for practical theology, which they call 'religiose Volks- kunde' (cf. Spiegel 1974). The term 'empirical theology' itself stems from the early Chicago school. Macintosh, a graduate of Chicago, wrote in 1919 his book, entitled 'Theology as an empirical science', in which he studied the religious experience of the individual. During the twenties, again from a theological point of view, the founding fathers of empirical theology at Chicago, Mathews and Case, used empirical-analytical methods to explain religious praxis in their social aspects. As we shall see, their approach became a topic for severe theological dis- pute. During the thirties Boisen, the creator of the clinical pastoral movement, argues for the development of clinical theology in the sense of empirical theology, as Macintosh had done before. During the same period an article of Gruehn about empirical theology was published (Stollberg 1969). A further important contribution to empirical theology was made by a book of Hollweg 'Theologie und Empirie' ( 1971 ), in which the theological developments in the United States of America and in Germany are connected. The work of Spiegel (cf. 1974) can be seen as the systematic endeavour to develop practical theology in the sense of empirical theology by using empirical methodology for theological aims. Now- aday, several departments of practical theology all over the world do their</p>
<p>14 research in this line of development. In this short history two different concepts may be found. The first one refers to empirical theology in the wider sense. It includes the so called two phase model. In the first phase the theologian summarizes the results of socio-scientific research, in the second they are interpreted and evaluated from a certain theologi- cal point of view. The 'Handbuch der Pastoraltheologie' ( 1964) contributed to the development of this conception. Also Hollweg (1971) argued for this approach, while explaining his ideas on the scientific foundations of empirical theology In his development, however, of the so called inter-personal theology, actually he realized the second concept of empirical theology, the more strict approach. Theologians themselves use (in cooperation with social scientists) empirical methodology for their theological research, aiming at answers to theological ques- tions. In the same way as exegetes use literary methods, and church- en theology- historians use historical methods, practical theologians implement empirical methods. The criterium is employing methods in correspondence with the object and the question under investigation. Because the object of practical theology is not biblical or historical, but present religious praxis, empirical methods and techniques are at stake. From this perspective practical theology is empirical theology in the strict sense of the word (cf. Van der Ven 1984; 1987a, b). In the second part of this article I will restrict myself to the second concept of empirical theology. I will discuss its material object (2.1.) and its formal object (2.2.) I will continue with a description of some methodological principles (2.3.). After that I will formulate a conclusion (2.4.). 2.1. Material object As I have said, Mathews and Case, who are the representatives of the first period of empirical theology at Chicago, argued for an empirical-analytical approach, which had its origin in the pragmatism and the empiricism of Dewey and James. Next to this, two other approaches were identified as empirical theo- logy at Chicago (Meland 1969): the paradigm of process philosophy under the influence of Whitehead and Hartshorne, and the existential-phenomenological approach, which had its origin in Sartre, Heidegger, Merleau Ponty and others (cf. Marty 1968). From the perspective of contemporary empirical methodology, first and foremost the first approach needs to be taken into account, whereas some ele- ments of the second and the third may be subjected to operational and analytical techniques. The empirical-analytical approach at Chicago has concerned itself with the description and analysis of religious behaviour as preaching, praying, liturgical services, congregation meetings, homiletic writings etc. Its aim was to advance personal and religious development in the religious community within the context of society. Apart from all the questions, implied in the functionalistic and pragmatic perspective of the early Chicago school, this empirical-analytical approach has been a fundamental subject of theological debate. The principal point here, was</p>
<p>15 in which sense empirical theology can be understood as `theo'-logy The critique of Tillich, in the introduction of his Systematic Theology, can be seen as an impressive sign of this discussion. His judgement is hard: 'Some of the empirical theologians tried to apply the method of scientific experience to theology, but they never succeeded and could not succeed for two reasons' (p. 44). The first rea- son is that the object of theology (i.e. God) is of a different order than that of scientific observation. The second refers to the impossibility of testing verifiable assertions about God. So, there are two insurmountable difficulties: observing and testing. They lead Tillich to his fundamental insight: God can not be en- countered at a distance, which is the implication of observing and testing, but only through participation. In reaction to this refusal of Tillich, we may formulate the following crucial question: is God the object of theology? Or is it the religious relation of man to God, i.e. religious praxis? Following in the footsteps of Pannenberg (1973), one may distinguish between religious praxis as the direct object of theology and God as the indirect object. Only through the study of religious praxis, theology has access to God. From the viewpoint of language analysis, Dalferth (1981) has argued that the revelation of God Himself in His creation or salvation can not be studied directly. Only the reception, the response and the reaction of man con- cerning this divine manifestation can be object of theological research. The recep- tion expresses itself in working through the religious experience which one has undergone. The response is the part played by man in the interaction between God and man; it realizes itself especially in prayer and liturgy. Finally, the reac- tion is the way in which man addresses himself directly to other people and tells them about the experience with God, especially by doing so through kerygma, confession and service ('diakonia'). Naturally, this triad of reception, response and reaction has to be interpreted both in its individual and communal forms. Theology can be defined as the research of this many-sided religious praxis (cf. Cl. Boff 1983). With this, the two objections of Tillich are overcome. Theology in general does not have God as its direct object, but religious praxis; this religious praxis can be observed and tested. Thus far we have defined the material object of empirical theology in terms of religious praxis. It equals that of theology in general. One may ask the question whether this definition can be refined in the perspective of empirical theology. In the second part of his 'Kurze Darstellung', Schleiermacher wrote ten paragraphs about church statistics, under the heading 'historical knowledge con- cerning the actual situation of christianity'. Although subsuming these church statistics under historical theology, he wrote in a personal letter to Twesten that it could also belong to practical theology, in the same way as for instance his pupil Nitzsch placed it under practical theology (Wintzer 1969). The aim of these church statistics transcended that which is nowadays known as church sociogra- phy. According to Schleiermacher, it concerns the research into the inner and the outer conditions of the church. We may call it: the inner and outer conditions of</p>
<p>16 religious praxis. In Schleiermacher's view the inner conditions relate to content ('Gehalt') and form. The content has to do with the relation between the official doctrine and the religious consciousness of the people. The form concerns the church administration and the relation between clergy and laity. Content and form interact with each other. The outer conditions refer to the relations with the other religious institutions, social institutions and the state. Whereas the inner and outer conditions of the church. resp. religious praxis, have been well described by Schleiermacher, the term religious praxis itself has to be transformed from a more or less holistic concept into a more precise one. This can be done in terms of action theory (cf. Lenk e.a. 1980), which determines the contemporary development of the paradigm and logic of practical theology all over the world (Klostermann/Zerfass 1974; Daiber 1977; Mette 1978; 1979; 1986; Van der Ven 1985; Firet 1987; Viau 1987). This means, that religious praxis can be understood in terms of religious action. Here, three kinds of aspects may be men- tioned. First, the term religious praxis, resp. religious action, entails those aspects, which are implied in human actions of individuals and groups of individuals in general. The most important ones are: perceptual, cognitive, affective, attitudi- nal, motivational and bodily behavioural aspects (cf. Heckhausen 1980; Frijda 1986; Bandura 1986). From this perspective, empirical theology studies religious perceptions, cognitions, affections, attitudes, motivations and behaviour of indi- viduals and groups of individuals, for instance within existential crisis situations, social conflicts, cultural ruptures, life style discord, ritual disharmony, and the ways of coping with them by forms of diacony, 'marturia' etc. Second, the term religious praxis, resp. religious action, can be interpreted from the perspective of the interaction between individuals and groups of indivi- duals, which refers especially to the communicative character of human actions in general. Three aspects are to be distinguished: the constative, regulative and expressive aspects of communicative actions. The criterium of the first is truth, that of the second legitimacy, that of the third authenticity. This three-sided com- munication can be the object of meta-communication, in which the communica- tion itself becomes the object of speech and reflection (Habermas 1982). From this perspective, empirical theology can understand religious praxis as religious communication. It implies three aspects: religious assertions, moral judgements, and intersubjective expressions. Religious praxis can also have the character of religious meta-communication. It refers to the possibilities and limits of religious communication, both individual and communal (cf. Kappenberg 1981; H6hn 1985; Etter 1987). Finally, one can distinguish between human action and the advance of human action. This advance may be technical, hermeneutical and transformatio- nal (cf. Nijk 1984). In the same way religious praxis can be distinguished from its advance. Pastoral action can be interpreted in terms of such an advance, referring to the outer and inner conditions of religious praxis and its aspects, which have already been described. Some authors stress specifically its communicative char-</p>
<p>17 acter (Van der Ven 1985; Firet 1987). The conclusion may be obvious. The material object of empirical theology can be described in terms of the outer and inner conditions of religious praxis and its aspects, as indicated earlier. This is the material object in the broad sense. The narrower one refers to pastoral action as the advance of these outer and inner con- ditions of religious praxis and its aspects. The most narrow one concerns pastoral action as the advance of religious communication. 2.2. Formal object The question may arise whether there is a difference between empirical theo- logy understood in this sense and sociology and psychology of religion. This question is important, although not without difficulties. One may distinguish three answers. First, some representatives of empirical theology define their discipline as social-scientific in nature. For instance, Herms (1978) stresses this interpreta- tion. According to him, empirical theology can not be reduced to any other (!) social-scientific discipline, because its formal perspective is irreducable. Herms interprets the formal perspective of sociology and psychology in terms of the human construction of meaning, and that of empirical theology in terms of man's absolute dependence on transcendence. From the first perspective, man creates meaning; from the second, he receives meaning. One may ask: is this term 'abso- lute dependence on transcendence' anything else but a construction, resp. a con- struction relating to receiving meaning (cf. Berger 1984)? In other words: is Herms' demarcation-line between empirical theology and psychology and socio- logy of religion sharp enough? Second, some colleagues conceive their discipline to be based upon the inter- disciplinary cooperation of theology with the social sciences. Therefore accor- ding to them, practical theology, resp. empirical theology, belongs to both of them (cf. Nipkow 1971). Some objections however have been made against this approach. They especially refer to the criteria by which practical-theological assertions are to be judged: are they social-scientific and/or theological in nature, and what is their relation (cf. Hemel 1986)? A solution may be found in the prem- ise that the interdisciplinary model has to be build on the basis of a fundamental option in the area of philosophical anthropology, which binds both disciplines together. Mette and Steinkamp (1983) mention the following examples of such an option: the human subject, liberation and justice. Nipkow (1975) took this line in his study of religious education, by opting for liberation and community. Van der Ven (1982) followed in his footsteps and developed an introduction to catechetics, based upon the option for emancipation and liberation. In a certain sense, this approach may develop from an interdisciplinary to a meta- or transdisciplinary perspective. Here the ideal future is seen as the discovery of a coherence between disciplines within a total system of science without fixed frontiers. But, whether this utopian view is attainable, is doubtful (cf. Haarsma 1980). The question of the formal object remains unanswered.</p>
<p>18 Third, most colleagues argue that practical theology, resp. empirical theo- logy is a theological discipline. Nevertheless, they ascribe an interdisciplinary approach to it, not between theology and the social sciences, but from theology to the social sciences. Theology is said to be unblocked and open-minded, so that it is able to receive and intergrate the respective empirical methods. In my opin- ion, we have to replace the term interdisciplinarity in this case by intradisciplina- rity (Van der Ven 1984; 1987; Midali 1985). Generally, this term refers to the use of the methodology of some disciplines in other ones (Ruegg 1975). In the context of this article, it applies to the inner-theological extension of theological methodo- logy by using the tools of the empirical sciences, directly aiming at answering theological questions. It is legitimated by a long theological tradition, in which scientific procedures have always been introduced from other sciences, whenever necessary. Although this intradisciplinarity stresses the theological character of empiri- cal theology, we still have to elaborate explicitely on its formal object. For this I will take as my starting-point the discussion about the so called empirical-critical and the critical-empirical approach. The need for empirical-critical theology has been stressed by several authors, for instance Hermann/Lautner (1965), Holweg ( 1971 ), Mildenberger (1972), Ammer c. s. (1974), Herms (1978) and in some sense Bastian (1974) and also Dahm (1972). What they have in common, is their convic- tion that practical theology has to be cultivated by the implementation of empiri- cal methods and means. On the analogy of the historical-critical approach within the biblical sciences, they stress the relevance of finding, collecting and analyzing objective data, which may place the official teaching of the church and systematic theology in their relative perspective. Empirical-critical theology implies, in the same way as historical-critical exegesis, a church- and theology-critique. In reac- tion to this approach the representatives of critical-empirical theology, like Lam- mermann (1981), stress the fact that church and theology are conditioned by the social institutional establishment. They argue that the critique of the empirical- critical method does not go far enough. It does not take into account the influence of the power of the social 'status quo' upon church and theology and vice versa, thereby neglecting the way in which the authentic message of the gospel is dis- torted by those powers. Therefore the structure of modern societies and its relation to church and theology has to be studied and investigated by critical-empirical theology. Its task is not only to describe and analyse this relation, but to indicate the way in which church and theology are able to liberate themselves from social bondage and contribute by that to the liberation of society itself. This insight has led autors as for instance Otto and Greinacher to specific formulatios of the for- mal object. According to Greinacher (1974) practical theology equals the critical theory of church praxis in society, and according to Otto (1986) it equals the criti- cal theory of religious praxis in society. Following on from this discussion I would like te develop the idea of the for- mal object of empirical theology: it consists of the dialectical relation between what religious praxis is and what it should be. Not only religious praxis as it fac-</p>
<p>19 tually is, not only religious praxis as it should be realised, but the dialectical rela- tion between them: that is the core of the formal object. This formulation is based upon a long tradition, as can be clarified from the works of Palmer on protestant and Graf and Arnold on catholic side. Dahm (1972), mentioned earlier, also underlines the relevance of the tension between reality and reform, although he formulates it only in terms of the empirical-critical approach. Zerfass (1974) also stresses the importance of the interaction beteen what is ('Istbefund') and what should be ('Sollbestand'). For some authors, including Muller and Schr6er, the leading category here is the metaphor of the kingdom of God, which refers to the dialectical relation between the ongoing realization and at the same time the desirable future of religious praxis (cf. Otto 1986). The methodologial consequences of this dialectical relation may be explai- ned by an example. In figure 1, the vertical side of the matrix refers to what reli- gious praxis is and what it should be on the basis of its objectives; the horizontal side concerns the results of theoretical and empirical research. Cell `A' relates to theoretically presumed religious praxis, as for instance 'the faithful participate in the peace movement because of the proclamation of peace by Jesus', and cell 'B' to normative objectives of religious praxis, as for instance 'the faithful should par- ticipate'. Cell 'C' refers to empirical religious praxis, as for example: 'only a small part of active church members participate in the peace movement', and cell 'D' to empirical objectives, as for example: 'only a small part feel that they should participate' . Figure 1: Dialectical relation between what religious praxis is and what it should be theoretical research empirical research what religious A C praxis is presumed praxis empirical praxis what religious B D praxis should be normative objectives empirical objectives The empirical-theological consequences of the dialectical relation between what religious praxis is and what it should be, involves connecting the four sym- bols '', 'B', 'C' and 'D' with each other. The nature of this connecting activity varies with the symbols. To give some examples: (1) connecting `A' and 'C' means empirically corroborating or correcting theoretical research; (2) connecting 'B' and 'D' implies interpretative reflection upon the relation between normative and empirical objectives, i.e. obligations and values; (3) connecting 'B' with 'C' and 'D' leads to developing critical taxations concerning the measure of the possi- ble achievement of normative objectives, i.e. obligations and values, under certain empirical conditions. Thus, the dialectical relation implies at least: (1) verifying, resp. falsifying, (2) teleological, resp. deontological reflection, (3) pro- babilistic reasoning.</p>
<p>20 2.3. Some methodological principles With the formal object, understood as the dialectical relation between the factual and the desirable religious praxis, the question can be asked, which empirical research disign(s) and which empirical method(s) fit into this dialecti- cal relation? I will shortly comment on two kinds of designs, the survey and the experimental design, and on two kinds of methods, the quantitative and the qualitative method. Which design or which method one chooses, depends on the starting-point of one's empirical-theological research, its aim and its context. A. Designs Some theological authors do not seem to prefer the survey and the experi- mental design. At least, they argue that the most adequate design is the so called action research (cf. Schroer 1974; Ldmmermann 1981; Viau 1987). Let me clarify this issue with the help of the model of Gideonse (1968/9) and apply it to empirical-theological research. Figure 2 entails three elements: praxis - development - empirical research. The element praxis refers to the factual reli- gious praxis in - let us say - a parish and its active church members and pastors. The element development relates to the strive of these people for optimalization of this factual situation. It leads to making proposals, starting strategic and tactic planning, and implementing new programs. Line (1) refers to the way from the factual to the desirable religious praxis. The element empirical research concerns the systematic and methodological investigation into the conditions, aims, instruments, means and effects of the factual religious praxis and its optimaliza- tion. Maybe researchers are called in by the practitioners, after they tried to enact their new ideas and plans and failed in doing so, to which line (2) refers, or they called directly, from the factual situation itself, before they even tried to improve it, as line (3) shows. Finally, line (4) and (5) relate to the feedback of results from empirical research to religious praxis, resp. development. Figure 2: Relations between praxis, development and research Some theological authors who argue for action research, stress the relevance of the element development in this figure, because it mediates between factual</p>
<p>21 and desirable religious praxis. They see this development as the common work of practitioners and researchers. It is a place in between both parties. In their view it is the area of shared responsibility. The model in figure 2 however is based on two insights. The first: that co- operation is necessary. In this respect the theological advocates of action research are right. The second insight however is: this cooperation does not have to be build on shared, but separate responsibilities. Therefore, the model entails three discriminate roles: practitioners, researchers and developers. The three parties have their own function, their own task. The researcher can not be responsible for all the manifest and latent processes in the concrete situation of religious praxis, since they belong to the area of the practitioner. Practical theology is not praxis, but theory of praxis. In the same sense, it is not the practitioner, but the researcher who has the work of theory formation, operationalization, empirical testing and critical evaluation. The role of the developer is to elaborate practical instruments and action programs in order to establish practical conditions for innovation and transformation. The developer does not belong to the direct parti- cipants of the religious here-and-now-situation, nor to the scientific community. His place is the pastoral service institutions, which stand between parish and uni- versity. These institutions have the knowledge, skills and competence, necessary for the overall management and guidance of practical innovation and transforma- tion activities in complex concrete situations. From this perspective, the confu- sion between practitioner and researcher, as well as between developer and resear- cher, leads to the interpretation of practical theology as applied theology, as I have described in the first part of this article, which is fatal for each of the three par- ties. Nevertheless, I stress that the aim of action research is relevant to empirical theology, but I want to elaborate on it in different terms. In order to avoid the con- fusion between praxis, development and research, action research has to be inter- preted in terms of either survey or experimental research. Both of them are possi- ble. It depends on the questions, which form the starting-point of one's research. These questions are twofold: questions concerning 'knowing that' and those con- cerning 'knowing how'. Although these two questions can not be sharply di- vided, one may say that in general the question concerning 'knowing that' belongs to the survey design, whereas the question concerning 'knowing how' belongs to the experimental design. The survey design relates to the factual situa- tion, the experimental design to the ways of intervention in this situation. Evidently, combinations of the two are possible and desirable (cf. Hendriks 1978). An example of the 'knowing that'-question is: which theodicy models are present within the religious consciousness of people, when they are confronted with suffering. Table 1 gives some illustrative data. Factor analysis shows that</p>
<p>22 two theodicy models are actively present within three research populations in the Netherlands in 1987: the retaliation model and the compassion model. It also shows the negative evaluation of the retaliation model, and next to that the posi- tive acceptance of the compassion model, which depends on church membership and the more or less official position of the respondents within the church (Van der Ven 1988). The non-church members among the pupils disagree with the compassion model (3.85), the church-members among them do not refuse it; they are somewhere in between: they are ambivalent (2.67). The pastoral volun- teers accept the compassion model ( 1.85), whereas the pastors show a still higher agreement ( 1. 71 ) . Why is this kind of survey research relevant to the practitioner and the developer? Because it gives them information about the population they have to take care of, and because it may give indications about whether of not some goals of innovation and change can be achieved. For example, table 1 shows: without church-bound religious education a change into the direction of the compassion model is impossible. Examples of the 'knowing-how' question may be found in catechetical curri- culum evaluation research (Van der Ven 1987). Here the crucial problem is the sequence in the content of such a curriculum. For instance, has catechesis more cognitive results if it is build on the conceptual prerequisite character of the con- tent to be learned? Figure 3 gives an illustration of the results of two quasi-experi- mental research projects, based on the non-equivalent control group design (cf. Cook/Campbell 1979). These projects refer to catechetical curricula concerning mourning and faith (Vossen 1985) and prayer (Siemerink 1987) with two adult populations (resp. N = 186, N = 136). These curricula are developed from the so called structure of the discipline approach (cfr. Wheeler 1970; Gagn6 1977). The results of the pretest of the experimental and the control group of curriculum 1 (mourning and faith) show 24%, resp. 28% good answers, whereas those of curri- culum 2 (prayer) show 30%, resp. 34% good answers. The results of the posttest of curriculum 1 imply 52%, resp. 29% good answers, whereas those of curricu-</p>
<p>23 lum 2 entail 50%, resp. 34% good answers. The percentage of progression of cur- riculum 1 is: (52-24) - (29-28) = 27%; that of curriculum 2 is: (50-30) - (34-34) = 20%. Figure 3: Comparison of cognitive learning results between experimental and controll groups (in %) Obviously, this kind of research is directly relevant to practitioners and developers. Because of the effectiveness of a catechetical curriculum, based on the structure of the discipline approach, practitioners and developers have a model to follow in the discussion concerning the (false) dilemma as to whether the experiences of the pupils or the conceptual structure of christian faith and theology have to serve as the basis for a catechetical curriculum. B. Methods Within the field of empirical theology, it is not only the question of the designs, but also that of the methods that has to be clearly formulated. Some theological authors consider the so called qualitative methods to be the only appropriate ones within empirical theology. Their argument is based on the prin- ciple that the respondents and test-subjects should be treated as human subjects. The qualitative character of these methods may imply four aspects: the collection of data from the participative perspective of the research population itself (and</p>
<p>24 not of the researcher); the coding of the data from this perspective; the applica- tion of inductive analysis methods in order to understand the message of the raw material from within; the use of an open design. From this point of view many theological authors direct themselves to human dialogue, open interview, obser- vational participation and inductive methods as those of Glaser and Strauss (1967). They are right. But the exclusive character with which some theological authors some-times defend their choice is questionable. As well as the qualitative methods the quantitative methods have proved their usefulness. Surveys, cogni- tive tests, affective scales, quantitative content analysis, external observation: all of them may be useful. It depends on why and what one needs to know. It makes no sense to draw a dogmatic demarcation line within empirical theology between what should be allowed and what not, resp. between qualitative and quantitative methods. Fortunately, Ldmmermann (1981) who rightly regards the respondent as a human subject, not only prefers biographical interviews and qualitative con- tent analysis, but also the use of attitude scales as for instance the semantic diffe- rential technique of Osgood. The differences between qualitative and quantita- tive methods perhaps only refer to details, because both of them are build on common principles (Swanborn 1984). This means, the two methods can be placed on a continuum with a gliding scale from qualitative to quantitative. The two methods can be interpreted as complementary, in so far as qualitative methods may be used in order to start quantitative research in the beginning, and to deepen and refine the results of this research when it is completed. 2.4. Conclusion At the end of the first part of this article the spiral model was introduced: theory - praxis - theory. From the second part we are now able to specify this model in the following way: theory - empirical research of praxis - theory, and so we escape from a twosided danger. The first involves the dominance of the first component of 'theory', resulting in, as we have said, a one-way relationship of the applied science model. The second danger involves the dominance of the compo- nent of 'empirical research of praxis', which, according to Macquarrie (1966), has been the fundamental objection against some forms of empirical theology in the past. To put it in traditional theological terms: the results of empirical research of present religious praxis may not overshadow the relevance of other 'loci theologi- ci' like the bible, the great christian councils, the theological tradition etc. The spiral model prevents this domination. In this model, theory and empirical research of praxis are never at the same level; their relation is always dialectical. This dialectical relation implies the richness of the empirical-theological approach. It has its basis in the fullness of the two compounding elements: 'empirical' and 'theology'. The combination of these two elements makes it a fascinating way of 'doing theology today'.</p>
<p>25 LITERATURE Althaus P. (1967) Die Prinzipien der deutschen reformierten Dogmatik im Zeitalter der aristote- lische Scholastik. Darmstadt. Ammer H. e.a. (1974/1978). Handbuch der Praktischen Theologie I-III. Berlin. Arnold F.X. (1965). Pastoraltheologische Durchblicke. Freiburg. Bandura A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs. Bastian H.-D. (1974). Praktische Theologie und Theorie. Theologia practica 9, 85-96. Berger W (1984). Logis en mythos. Baarn. Boff Cl. (1983). Theologie und Praxis. München. Boff L. (1985). Kirche, Charisma und Macht. Düsseldorf. Boff L. (1987). Und die Kirche ist Volk geworden. Düsseldorf. CookTh.D., Campbell D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation. Boston. Dahlfert I.U. (1981). Religiöse Reden von Gott. München. Dahm K.-W. (1972). Beruf: Pfarrer. München. Daiber K.-F. (1977) Grundriss der Praktischen Theologie als Handlungswissenschaft. Mün- chen. Dux G. (1982). Die Logik der Weltbilden. Frankfurt. Etter U.W. (1987). Sinnvolle Verständigung I-II. Bern. Finkenzeller J. (1961). Offenbarung und Theologie nach der Lehre des Johannes Duns Skotus. Münster. Firet J. (1986). Dynamics in pastoring. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Firet J. (1987). Spreken als een leerling. Kampen. Frijda N. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge. Gagné R. (1977). The conditions of learning. New York. Gideonse H.D. (1968/9). An output-oriented model of research and development and its relationship to educational improvement. Journal of exp. education, 157-163. Glaser B.G., Strauss A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago. Greinacher N. (1974). Das Theorie-Praxis-Problem in der Praktischen Theologie. In: Praktische Theologie heute(pp. 103-118). München. Greinacher N. (1986). Der Schrei nach Gerechtigkeit. München. Haarsma F. (1980). Theoretical problems in practical theology. In: The dutch-american ecu- menical conference of practical/pastoral theology. Elspeet, The Netherlands. Habermas J. (1982). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns I-II. Frankfurt. Handbuch der Pastoraltheologie I-V (1964), Rahner K. e.a. (eds.), Freiburg. Heckhausen H. (1980). Motivation und Handeln. Berlin. Hemel U. (1986). Religionspädagogik im Kontext von Theologie und Kirche. Düsseldorf. Hendriks J. e.a. (1978-1986). Kleine groepen in de gemeente I-IV. Amsterdam. Herms E. (1978). Theologie, eine Erfahrungswissenschaft. München. Hermann W., Lautner G. (1965). Theologiestudium. München. Hiltner S. (1958). Preface to pastoral theology. New York. Höhn H.-J. (1985). Kirche und Kommunikatives Handeln. Frankfurt. Hollweg A. (1971). Theologie und Empirie. Stuttgart. Hübner E. (1985). Theologie und Empirie der Kirche. Neukirchen. Kappenberg B. (1981). Kommunikationstheorie und Kirche. Frankfurt. Kerkhofs J. (1985). Enkele Europese orientatiepunten voor Nederlandse Katholieken. In: Stouthard Ph., Tillo G. van (ed.), Katholiek Nederland na 1945. Baarn. Klostermann F. (1974). Gemeinde, Kirche der Zukunft I-II. Freiburg.</p>
<p>26 Klostermann F., Zerfass R. (ed.) (1974). Praktische Theologie heute. München. Lämmermann G. (1981). Praktische Theologie als kritische oder als empirisch-funktionale Handlungstheorie? München. Lenk H. (ed.) (1980). Handlungstheorien interdisziplinar I-IV. München. Macquarrie J. (1966). Principles of christian theology. New York. Martin J.A. (1972). The future of empirical theology. Religious Studies 8, 71-76. Marty M.E. (1968). Amerikanische protestantische Theologie der Gegenwart. In: Theolo- gie im Umbruch. (pp. 13-31). München. Meland B.E. (ed.) (1969). The future of empirical theology. Chicago. Mette N. (1978). Theorie der Praxis. Düsseldorf. Mette N. (1979). Praktische Theologie als Handlungswissenschaft. Diakonia 10, 190-203. Mette N. (1986), Konsolidierungen und Neuentwicklungen, Gesammtdarstellungen und Grundlegungen der evangelische Praktischen Theologie. Verkundigung und For- schung 31, 2, 2-13. Mette N., Steinkamp H. (1983). Sozialwissenschaften und praktischeTheologie. Düsseldorf. Metz J.B. (1977). Glaube in Geschichte und Gesellschaft. Mainz. Midali M. (1985). Teologia pastorale o pratica. Rome. Mildenberger F. (1972). Theorie der Theologie. Stuttgart. Nipkow K.E. (1971). Schule und Religionsunterricht im Wandel. Düsseldorf. Nipkow K.E. (1975). Grundfragen der Religionspädagogik I. Gütersloh. Nijk A. (1984). Handelen en verbeteren. Meppel. Nolte J. (1974). Orthodoxie - Orthopraxie. In: Praktische Theologie heute, (pp. 682-691). München. Ott H. (1974). Techne und episteme, Funktionen praktischer Theologie. Theologia Prac- tica 9, 33-35. Otto G. (1986). Grundlegung der praktischen Theologie. München. Pannenberg W (1973) Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie. Frankfurt. Peukert H (1976). Wissenschaftstheorie, Handlungstheorie, fundamentale Theologie. Frank- furt. Peukert H. (1984). Was ist eine praktische Wissenschaft? In: Fuchs O. (ed.) Theologie und Handeln, (pp. 102-128), (pp. 64-79). Düsseldorf. Rössler D. (1986). Grundriss der praktische Theologie. Berlin. Ruegg W. (1975). Der interdiziplinäre Charakter der Soziologie. Internationales Jahrbuch fur interdiziplinäre Forschung, II, München. Sauter (1973). Wissenschaftstheoretische Kritik der Theologie. München. Sauter G. (1974). Beobachtungen und Vorschläge zum gegenseitigen Verständniss von praktischer und systematischer Theologie. Theologia Practica 9, 19-26. Schillebeeckx E. (1967). Revelation and theology. London. Schillebeeckx E. (1974). The Understanding of Faith. London. Schleiermacher F. (1910). Kurze Darstellung des theologischen Studiums. Heinrich Scholz (ed.), Leipzig. Schreuder O. (1967). Gestaltwandel der Kirche. Olten. Schroer H. (1974). Forschungsmethoden in der Praktische Theologie. In: Praktische Theo- logie heute.(pp. 206-224). München. Siemerink J. (1987). Het gebed in de religieuze vorming. Kampen. Simons E., Winkeler L. (1987). Het verraad der clercken. Baarn. Spiegel Y. (1974). Praktische Theologie als empirische Theologie. In: Praktische Theologie heute. (pp. 178-194). München.</p>
<p>27 Steck W. (1974). Friedrich Schleiermacher und Anton Graf, eine ökumenische Konstella- tion Praktischer Theologie? In: Praktische Theologie heute, (pp. 27-41). München. Stoetzel J. (1983). Les valeurs du temps présent: une enquète européenne. Paris. Stollberg D. (1969). Therapeutische Seelsorge. München. Swanborn P.G. (1984). Kwalitatief versus kwantitatief onderzoek. In: Jaarverslag SVO. Den Haag. Thung M. (1976). The precarious organisation. The Hague. Tillich P. (1966). Systematic theology I. Chicago. Troeltsch E. (1919). Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen. Tübingen. Ven J.A. van der (1982) Kritische godsdiensdidactiek. Kampen. Ven J.A. van der (1984). Unterwegs zu einer empirischen Theologie. In: Fuchs O. (ed.) Theologie und Handeln, (pp. 102-128) Düsseldorf. Ven J.A. van der (1985). Wat is pastoraaltheologie? Een analyse van het werk van Frans Haarsma. In: Ven J.A. van der (ed.), Toekomst voor de kerk? Studies voor Frans Haars- ma. Kampen. Ven J.A. van der (ed.) (1985). Pastoraal tussen ideaal en werkelijkheid. Kampen. Ven J.A. van der e.a. (1987). Was ist der Effekt religionspädagogischer Arbei? Katecheti- sche Blätter 112, 1, 42-39. Ven J.A. van der (1987). Empirische theologie: een repliek. Tijdschrift voor Theologie 27, 3, 292-296. Ven J.A. van der (1987). Erfahrung und Empirie in der Theologie? Religionspädagogische Beiträge 19, 132-151. Ven J.A. van der (1988). Auf dem Weg zu einer empirische Theodizee. Religionspädagogi- sche Beiträge 21, 139-156; id., Toward an empirical theodicy. Archivio di Filosofia 1988, 56. Viau M. (1987). Introduction aux études pastorales. Montreal. Visscher A. (1986) Christian kerygma and community. In: Chanon R., Viau M. (ed.). Etu- des pastorales, (pp. 47-66). Montréal. Vossen H. (1985). Vrijwilligerseducatie en pastoraat aan rouwenden. Kampen. Wallmann J. (1961). Der Theologiebegriff bei Johannes Gerhard und GeorgCalixt. Tübingen. Weber M. (1968). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Tübingen. Weber M. (1980). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Tübingen. Wintzer F. (1969). C.I. Nitzschs Konzeption der praktischen Theologie in ihren geschicht- lichen Zusammenhängen. Ev. Theol. 29, 93ff. Yinger J.M. (1970). The scientific study of religion. New York. Zerfass R. (1974). Praktische Theologie als Handlungswissenschaft. In: Praktische Theolo- gie heute, (pp. 164-177). München. Address: J.A. van der Ven Theological Institute Department of Pastoral Theology Heyendaalseweg 121A 6526 AJ Nijmegen The Netherlands</p>
</body></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo><title>Practical Theology: from Applied to Empirical Theology</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA"><title>Practical Theology: from Applied to Empirical Theology</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">J.A.</namePart><namePart type="family">van der Ven</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Johannes A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Van Der Ven</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>BRILL</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">The Netherlands</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1988</dateIssued><dateCreated encoding="w3cdtf">1988</dateCreated><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1988</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Empirical Theology</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>JET</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0922-2936</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1570-9256</identifier><part><date>1988</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>1</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>7</start><end>27</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">C82BB0514C1D631CEECD2719B7A8A59757FA3C8B</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1163/157092588X00023</identifier><identifier type="href">15709256_001_01_s002_text.pdf</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 1988 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>BRILL Journals</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Ticri/CIDE/explor/EpistemeV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000F00 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000F00 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Ticri/CIDE
|area= EpistemeV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:C82BB0514C1D631CEECD2719B7A8A59757FA3C8B
|texte= Practical Theology: from Applied to Empirical Theology
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |