Leveraging inter-religious dialogue into transformative action using practical theology’s reflexive frameworks (2)
(continued)
Prospective Buddhist Practical Theology Praxis
There are authors who believe that practical theology must appropriate for itself an even broader frame of reference. It should restrict itself neither to Christianity nor to the world religions, but should take as its object the desire for transcendent meaning which lives in mankind [sic].5
Of the scholarly literature on fundamental practical theology selected here for review, those by Heitink and van der Ven respectively are among the top most-frequently nominated “essential readings” of practical theology by members of the International Academy of Practical Theology and hence have very high scholarly significance.6 The selections here follow in order of increasing theoretical complexity and specificity.
Richard Osmer writes about “practical theological interpretation by the leaders of [Christian] congregations” in his text Practical Theology, detailing a 4-task method of practical theology generalized such that it “may be brought to bear on any issue worthy of consideration.”7 These tasks, “descriptive-empirical,” “interpretive,” “normative,” and “pragmatic,” respectively function for descriptive information gathering, theoretical understanding and explanation, theological and ethical normative construction (or reconstruction, as the case may be), and the establishment of strategies of action and “reflective conversation with the 'talk back' emerging when they are enacted.”8 While Osmer restricts his theological formulation of the normative task to the Christian sense of “prophetic discernment,”9 there is no obvious reason why a Buddhist normative task informed by Buddhist theology and Buddhist ethics cannot function in this task role and thereby yield a functionally Buddhist practical theology. Osmer himself cites Christian theologian Elaine Graham's deployment of this normative task through transformative praxis in feminist theology,10 thereby evidencing the pragmatism of the normative function. The prospects are therefore favorable for deploying Osmer’s practical theology praxis framework, with respective theological modifications, within a uniquely Buddhist or otherwise non-Christian-specific theological context.
Gerben Heitink’s presentation of “practical theology as a theory of action” in his text Practical Theology11 rigorously portrays the historical-interpretive development of Christian practical theology from the European Enlightenment era, through modernity, to post-modernity. He details a historical relationship of nuanced engagement of Christian practical theology with developments in philosophy, modern epistemology, the social sciences, political theory, hermeneutics, and pluralism.
Informed by the work of Schelsky, Firet, and others, Heitink’s practical theology as a theory of action is built upon the communicative theory of action of Habermas and hermeneutical theories of Paul Ricoeur respectively, with the insights of the latter informing a transformative methodology in a hermeneutical cycle of understanding, explanation, and change. A philosophical relational theory between theory and praxis is established which undergirds communicative, interpretative, and methodological capacities in the service of practical theology. This is elaborated in great detail in terms of hermeneutical, strategic, empirical perspectives, and the interchange between [Christian] religious life and its social context. Heitink furthermore considers specific domains of praxis application: a “normativedeductive current;” a “hermeneutical-mediative current;” an “empirical-analytical current;” a “political-critical current;” and a “pastoral-theological current.” These categories are not mutually exclusive, and all of these “currents,” given theologically-relevant alterations, can be pursued within Buddhism’s or any other religion’s practical theological praxis relative to particular goals.
Inter-religious Applications of Practical Theology
I propose and personally intend to deploy the concept of practical theology as a framework for collaborative community service in general and inter-and intra-religious activities in particular. This is easiest to consider in contexts of increasing complexity. I will illustrate the concept thereafter using specific examples.
Simplest practical theology context
Here one merely engages in the project or activity within the reflexive hermeneutic framework. This scenario is not unlike project management approaches for non-profit organizations. The differences, however, are that the theological perspective informs all phases of the reflexive cycle--the normative phase in particular--and that the individual phases are mutually interactive with each other.
This reflexive, simple, yet systematic process can employ the Osmer model:
Descriptive-empirical phase: once an activity or project is planned and undertaken, the process is described from observations without analysis Interpretive: in this phase, the material acquired through the descriptive phase is analyzed and interpreted Normative: in this phase, theological, ethical, and "good-practice" values inform, guide, and transform plans and designs for subsequent projects or activities12
Pragmatic: strategies of action for producing outcomes incorporating the directives from the normative stage are developed and executed.
From this point, the cycle begins anew, and therefore the process is more of a spiral than a circle, over time. That is, since time is always moving forward, our reflections are actualized as normative influences on our future activities. It is precisely the "going-around-in-circles" dynamic that we are attempting avoid and replace with this pregnant, transformative approach. Implementation of this framework can serve to train partners in collaborative activities to deliberately consider their activities from within the practical theology process framework.
Moderate empirical practical theology context
In this context, the interpretive framework of the simple context is preserved but extended to include semi-formal empirical work. Questions are formulated and data collected via questionnaires or online surveys such as Survey Monkey®. Data can be compared over time, from pre-project reference, mid-project, and post-project to assess performance and outcomes. Additionally, diverse population groups can be compared according to age, ethnicity, location, etc. The questions of such surveys are designed within and informed by the practical theology hermeneutic reflexive process described above.
For example, perhaps some members of a spiritual community want their congregation to engage in more action to address income inequality locally, nationally, and globally. They could use a survey to ask members if they feel strongly about the ethical outcomes of income inequality, if they would like to see their congregation engage the issue more, and if they would like to participate in a leadership group on the issue. The survey would then be reviewed under two separate hermeneutic phase processes: first to merely describe the survey responses, and secondly to interpret them with respect to their initial vision of enhanced community engagement. From that point, the members would plan their next step as the normative stage, for example, creating a group exploring scriptural resources addressing income inequality and sharing these results with the congregation. Finally, this plan would be implemented, and then the cycle would move to a descriptive phase again. That is, the cycle would begin anew to describe the process of creating this group, interpreting that process, refining and/or expanding it, and then implementing those refinements. Thereby each phase of the process is systematically brought under the scope of reflection, and no stage is overlooked. It is this last feature that has much potential to help inter-religious collaboration and coalition-building, because it is often imagined, rather than intended, sleights, that hurt feelings and obstruct collaborative relationships. By systematically deploying a safety-net of awareness for these and other problems into the fabric of the collaborative process, such problems can be addressed directly. Furthermore, by separating the descriptive and interpretive phases, errors in either description or interpretation of events and issues by parties will not be confounded.
Formal empirical practical theology context
Here, while continuing within the simple interpretive framework mentioned above, project planners and collaborators draw on expertise from academic faculty in psychology and/or others trained in statistical empirical research for guidance and supervision with research design, operationalization, and analytical processes. While in most practical theological contexts, experimental controls cannot typically yield differentially conclusive results, exploratory work can lead to more refined interpretive processes. For example, given data from adequately sized populations and carefully designed research, regression analysis can be used to indicate the nature of any causal relationships among various factors relevant to a project.
Examples
Here, I identify two distinct types of problems to approach with the practical theology process, both within contexts of pragmatic inter-religious collaboration. In the first type, the practical theology process framework is used to inform and transform collaborative projects. For example, leaders and members of congregations from multiple faith traditions can work together on areas of common interest, be they items of spiritual formation, such as a program for increasing the practice of patience among populations, or social issues, like reducing public profanity culture, or working on critical problems such as economic injustice and sustainable environmental practices at household, community, and/or regional levels. (Numerous personal and social issues can be conceived; those mentioned above are mere samples.)Like any project, parties would meet and devise vision, mission, strategies, etc. as their planning process, and from the beginning of action, the practical theology reflexive framework would be executed according to the desired and suitable context as described above.
In the second type of problem to approach with the practical theology framework, the collaborative aspect itself would be under examination. This can be conducted passively or explicitly. In the first case, collaborative parties from different faith traditions working jointly on a project would have to describe, interpret, guide, and act on information related to the interrelational components of their joint activities. Ideally this descriptive net would be honest enough to include both strengths and weaknesses or failures in communication and/or cooperation, misunderstandings, etc. In this case, the practical theology framework also serves as a safety net dedicated to managing these components perhaps more often considered to be incidental to project management.
In the second case, activities designed especially for inter-religious relationship building and literacy would themselves be the focus of the collaborative project. For example, a series of workshops and short-retreats can be devised in any community with the specific mission of developing community inter-religious networks and relationships for collaborative network building. Activities could be devised to engender inter-religious literacy with respect to: various theologies; political, cultural, and geographical histories; ethics; and common problem sharing regarding both internal and wider social contexts. By taking time to develop relationships of literacy across various different religious domains, even when we prefer our own ways of doing things to that of our religiously "other" brother and sister, this preference will not interfere in our working together toward common goals (i.e., reducing suffering and its myriad causes), but rather will have a more mundane status akin to different dietary preferences. Our common work can proceed unhindered by our differences, and yield more efficient and effective results. Again, the reflexive practical theology framework would inform and transform such activities by enabling participants to refine the processes by using the suitable context of empirical tools and methods.
Conclusion
We know that intellectual power and analytical knowledge alone are insufficient to our contemporary problems. For example, there are many perspective solutions offered by nonpartisan experts advising on environmental and economic issues. Nonetheless, their prescriptions are often not leveraged adequately to yield transformative action resulting in positive conditions for local communities, the nation, and humankind. Their voices do not sufficiently reach into the social space inhabited by various power brokers with influence.
Our communities are full of numerous religious congregations and spiritual communities, yet these potent resources are underutilized for social problem-solving in fragmented form. Conversely, collaborative pragmatism in the form of long-term coalitions among all sectors of society represented by such spiritual communities can work endlessly generation by generation on various problems and therefore can serve as an agency for regular, transformative change. In order for such a resource to bear significant fruit, it must first coordinate itself into a vibrant network and gain mastery in collaborative action.
In order for interfaith collaborations to become and remain effective, an interpretive framework must be in place to inform and transform the collaborative process. Practical theology is suited to this task while also being able to accommodate the diverse theological factors present in any inter-religious context. Furthermore, practical theology can be used empirically for formal project assessment, leading to greater accountability to congregations, organizations, and donors. In our era of diminishing public services, investment in religion is negligible compared to medicine or engineering, where material outcomes and potential commercial benefits are self-evident. At the same time, more numbers of our most vulnerable populations turn to our religious communities for assistance and support. Without a sound accountability process in place, how can willing institutional and private donors have confidence to support the faith traditions’ social welfare activities?
The practical theology reflexive framework is therefore a broad-spectrum mechanism for process reflection and normative pragmatism that can enable spiritual traditions to move from the level of inter-religious dialogue to collaborative network building and action coalitions and thereby harness and leverage joint resources for social problem-solving and positive transformation.
* * *
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the support of the Memnosyne Foundation, the Journal of Interreligious Dialogue, and Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University for supporting this research.
Bhikshuni Lozang Trinlae, B.Sc., Ed.M., is presently a doctoral student in practical theology at Claremont Lincoln University, where she is conducting research in formal vajrayana meditation practice. She was ordained a novice Buddhist nun in Mysore in 1991; took full-ordination Bhikshuni precepts in 1998 in Bodhgaya, India; and is also a priest in the Buddhist vajrayana tradition (Drukpa Kagyu and Gelug lineages primarily). A summa-cum-laude graduate in physics, she earned her master's degree in education from Harvard University, where she also studied Tibetan language in the Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies. She taught science and English in India and in Tibet while undertaking contemplative training in vajrayana Buddhism. After teaching Buddhism in Taiwan in the mid-1990's, she founded Mahaprajapati Hermitage in Sagarmartha Mt. Everest National Park in Nepal, where she completed ten years of cloistered, intensive, vajrayana retreat, including two great approaching retreats. Bhikshuni Lozang is also a trained chaplain and certified instructor in relationship education.
Works Cited
Bhikkhu, Thanissaro. “The Four Noble Truths: A Study Guide.” Access to Insight, 2012. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/truths.html.
Bhikkhu, Thanissaro (translator). “Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas.” Access to Insight, 2012. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html.
Bhikkhu, Thanissaro, and Chogyam Trungpa. “Four Noble Truths Quotes.” Wikipedia, n.d.
Cabezon, Jose Ignacio. “Buddhist Studies as a Discipline and the Role of Theory.” The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 18, no. 2 (1995): 231–268.
Dilthey, Wilhelm. “Gesammelte Schriften.” In Gesammelte Schriften, VII.225. Stuttgart, 1926.
Dreyer, Jaco S. “Establishing Truth from Participation and Distanciation in Empirical Practical
Theology.” In Empirical Theology in Texts and Tables, edited by Leslie Francis, Mandy
Robbins, and Jeff Astley, 3–25. BRILL, 2009.
Dreyfus, Georges B. J. Recognizing Reality: Dharmakīrti’s Philosophy and Its Tibetan
Interpretations (Google eBook). SUNY Press, 1997.
http://books.google.com/books?id=0YU37h9TplwC&pgis=1.
Duff, Tony. The Bodyless Dakini Dharma: The Dakini Hearing Lineage of the Kagyus. Kathmandu: Padma Karpo Translation Committee, 2010. http://www.tibet.dk/pktc.
Dunne, John D. Foundations of Dharmakirti’s Philosophy. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2004.
Francis, Leslie, Mandy Robbins, and Jeff Astley. Empirical Theology in Texts and Tables: Qualitative, Quantitative and Comparative Perspectives. BRILL, 2009. http://books.google.com/books?id=MlGcmhZFJ_IC&pgis=1.
Franco, Eli. “Dharmakirti’s Reductionism in Religion and Logic.” In Le Parole e i Marmi: Studi in Onore Di Raniero Gnoli Nel Suo 70 Compleanno, 285–308. Istituto Italiano per L’Africa e L'Oriente, 2001.
Gadamer, Hans Georg, Joel Weinsheimer, and Donald G. Marshall. Truth And Method. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004. http://books.google.com/books?id=ScG5YqYcsEcC&pgis=1.
Goldstein, Jeffrey. “Emergence as a Construct: History and Issues.” Emergence 1, no. 1 (March 1999): 49–72. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327000em0101_4.
Griffiths, Paul J. “Buddhist Hybrid English: Some Notes on Philology and Hermeneutics for Buddhologists.” The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 4, no. 2 (1981): 17–32.
Gyatso, Tenzin, Dalai Lama XIV. The Union of Bliss and Emptiness. Ithica: Snow Lion Publications, 1988.
Krasser, Helmut. “Are Buddhist Pramanavadins non-Buddhistic? Dignaga and Dharmakirti on the Impact of Logic and Epistemology on Emancipation” (2004).
Lopez, Donald S. “Introduction.” In Buddhist Hermeneutics, edited by Donald S. Lopez Jr. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1988.
Schilderman, Hans. “Truth and Method in Empirical Theology.” In Empirical Theology in Texts and Tables, edited by Leslie Francis, Mandy Robbins, and Jeff Astley, 27–40. Leiden: BRILL, 2009.
Smith, Jonathan Z. Relating Religion: Essays in the Study of Religion. Vol. 2004. University of Chicago Press, 2004. http://books.google.com/books?id=nC9w22i-bnoC&pgis=1.
Thurman, Robert a. F. “Buddhist Hermeneutics.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion XLVI, no. 1 (1978): 19–39. http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/jaarel/XLVI.1.19.
Trinlae, Bhikshuni Lozang. “Dharmakirti Thought Historical Cast of Characters.” unpublished notes, 2012.
Trungpa, Chögyam, and Judith L Lief. The Truth of Suffering and the Path of Liberation. Boston: Shambhala: Distributed in the United States by Random House, 2009.
Vasubandhu, and Louis de la Vallée (translator) Poussin. Abhidharma Kosha Bhashyam in 4 Vols. Edited by translated into English by Leo Pruden. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press,
n.d.
van der Ven, Johannes A. “Regression and Path Analysis.” In Practical Theology, An Empirical Approach, 151. Kampen: Kok Publishing House, 1993.
———. “Relationships Between Variables (graphic).” In Practical Theology, An Empirical Approach, 133. Kampen, 1993.
———. “Religious Identity in Comparative Research.” In Empirical Theology in Texts and Tables, edited by Leslie Francis, Mandy Robbins, and Jeff Astley, 41–71. Leiden: BRILL, 2009.
Padma dKar po. “Rgyud Bzhi’i 'Grel Pa Gzhan La Phan Gter.” 1:333–484. darjeeling: kargyud sungrab nyamso khang, 1973. http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O01CT0023|O01CT0023d1e90$W10736.