Adecuaciones eléctricas:

The five characteristics of TAR

1. Theological all the way through

At one level, TAR is a form of theological reflection. Theological reflection has been characterised in different ways. O’Connell Killen and de Beer (1994) describe it as “the discipline of exploring individual and corporate experience in conversation with the wisdom of a religious heritage” (p.viii) which simultaneously involves a call to

- 26 -

as “simply the art of making theology connect with life and ministry so that the gospel comes alive” (p.118). For Thompson (2008) it is “a process by which explicit connections are made between belief and practice”, a conversation between contemporary life and theological tradition so that “mutually enlightening reappraisal may result” (pp.3 & 7). A method of theological reflection that is both dialogical and about “faith transforming life” is the pastoral cycle (Amaladoss, 2005, pp.178-9). It was widely used by the Catholic community and hierarchy in Latin America – for instance, the Latin American Bishops drew on it in their conferences at Medellín and Puebla. Influenced by Freire, who insisted that people should be subjects and agents of transforming “their social reality” (Luna, 2005, p.38), the first and second steps of the pastoral cycle can only be undertaken by people living the reality of the situation reflected on.

TAR is similar to other forms of theological reflection in that it follows a traditional cycle of experience, reflection, learning and action (2010, p.50). It does, however, have some distinguishing features. One is that it is “theological all the way through” (p.51), so the experience (practice), learning and action components of the cycle are no less theological than the reflection part. The authors name practices as “bearers of theology”, capable of voicing “theological conviction and insight” (p.51). From an ecclesiological perspective, the claim that ‘faith seeking understanding’ is integral to the whole TAR process in some ways provides an answer to the common divide between the Church as seen in theory and the Church as lived reality.

2. The four voices of theology

Building on the conviction that Christian communities’ lived practices are “bearers of theology”, the ARCS team devised what they term “a heuristic and hermeneutic

framework” (2010, p.53) that does not set one theological voice over the other, but instead brings them into conversation.

- 27 - Normative _Formal Espoused Operant A theology of disclosure Scripture, official Church teaching _{Theology of} theologians The theology embedded within a group’s articulation of its beliefs The theology embedded within the actual

practices of a group

Fig.1 Four voices of theology (based on Cameron et al, 2010, p.54)

As well as the theology embedded in the practice of the community (operant) and the voice of tradition (normative), two other voices are brought into the conversation: the theology arising from theologians (formal) and the theology the community/group espouses, which is often rooted in normative and formal theology. It is clear that these four voices are not hermetically sealed entities, but that there is always a conscious and unconscious ‘flow’ between them. TAR insists that all four voices need to contribute to a theological conversation, and that theology is disclosed precisely in the dynamic between the four voices. For it is “only in the conversation between voices, carefully attended to, that an authentic practical-theological insight can be disclosed” (2010, p.56).

- 28 -

3. Theology is disclosed through conversational methods

Underpinning the authors’ position is a theology of revelation where insight and truth is reached, not through agreement, but through listening to others, through disclosure: “Truth is discerned through engagement with those who are other than ‘we’ are: with the Spirit, with those Christians with whom we disagree, and with those outside the church” (Healy, 2000, cited in Watkins, 2011, p.8). Or, as Watkins suggests in the context of Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana, “what is important is not telling people things, or ‘truths’; but rather, equipping them and forming their thinking in such ways as the truth may be encountered by them” (2013a, p.3). TAR privileges an inductive epistemology where theology is revealed with others through processes of reflection and sharing, including reflection on the Christian story.

4. It is a formative transformation of practice

TAR involves a collaborative, action-orientated approach to research which is often excluded from other traditional research methods. The ARCS team claim that TAR, like all action research, has a telos that is about transformative practice; it is a pedagogical process in which language and insight have the potential to renew (2010, p.59). This renewal and learning takes place in the participants, in the reflective practitioner as a key participant and in the operant practices of the community. The participants are

transformed largely through having the space in which to articulate what they are doing, and why. It allows them to “grow in theological fluency with regard to understanding and sharing their embodied theologies” (2010, p.59).

5. It allows practice to contribute to the transformation of theology

Cameron et al (2010) assert that, in TAR, practice can contribute to the transformation of theology – a contested claim in the field of practical theology. If we see the interaction between the present (human experience) and the past (Christian tradition) as a dance (Astley, 2002, p.3), then it is clear that the dance is an uneasy one. Theologians disagree about how much weight lived experience should be given compared with traditional texts – in other words should there be a clear leader in the dance or do both partners have a say in the choreography and development of the steps? For Pattison and Lynch (1997), for example, human experience is “as profound a resource for theological learning as any written text from the historic Christian tradition”, and “can provide significant data which can be used inductively and directly to inform theological understandings” (pp.411-12).

- 29 -

They see experience as potentially leading to “the revision of theological concepts or other related practices in faith communities” (p.412). Woodward and Pattison (2000) state this more strongly when they claim that practical theologians “may be able to help alter, deepen, or even correct theological understandings” (p.8). Swinton and Mowat (2006), on the other hand, see experience as holding only “interpretative significance for theological development” (p.15). It is clear that there is real tension in practical theology about the authority of experience over tradition and how much it should or can change, influence and correct more systematic theology.

The TAR authors (2010) clearly state that they are not in a position to make concrete claims that practice can change formal and normative theology, but they do claim that there is that potential – that the TAR process can lead hidden or marginalised aspects of the Christian tradition to take centre stage and bring renewal. In 2012, they provided a concrete example, stating that using the TAR process in a number of organisations had broadened and deepened a theology of sacrament “beyond the liturgical” (Watkins and Cameron, 2012, p.89).

Theological Action Research – the method under investigation

Background to my practice

In their 2010 book, Cameron et al said they were wary of putting their thoughts on paper because the TAR method was so new and their insights were still unfolding. They invited others to contribute to TAR’s development. Other than the authors’ writings, there are only two articles on TAR – one by Shepherd (2012) and one by Graham (2013) – and a

forthcoming report (Cullen and Janowski). Graham’s article uses TAR as a starting-point for assessing the relationship between action research and practical theology, but offers no sustained critique of the methodology. In Shepherd’s article he advocates TAR’s pedagogical function (p.136), proposing its use as “a method of professional

development” for those who work in Christian mission or ministry (p.121). He states that TAR’s ability to “enquire, debate, shape and articulate ‘theology’… merits recognition and further development” (p.136). In Cullen and Janowski’s forthcoming report they will reflect on their use of TAR at a small charity, St Vincent’s Family Project. I refer to their critique of TAR in Chapter Six since, like myself, they are both practitioners and academics, and their reflections merit attention.

- 30 -

As a reflexive practitioner and researcher I have responded to Cameron et al’s invitation to contribute to TAR’s development and I will view TAR through my own practitioner’s lens. Though TAR claims “it is a kind of practical theological pedagogy, a development of reflective practices in and for the practices of faith”, (2010, p.58) the theoretical

underpinning of this claim, particularly around pedagogy, remains embryonic. I therefore see myself as adding to and deepening TAR’s evolution, in terms of both theory and practice. I state the reasons why TAR might be a powerful tool for adult education, particularly in my own professional context. Chapter Six offers a more systematic evaluation of TAR based on its performance in the Reflecting on Values project. The second part of this chapter, then, lays out the theoretical underpinnings of my pedagogical practice to explain why I felt TAR could be a transformative tool in adult theological education. Though there are “many shoulders on which I stand” (Groome, 1980, p.137), a key voice for me is that of the Brazilian educational philosopher and practitioner Paulo Freire. Before my doctorate I had not read any adult education theory. However, in 2009, when I started to read Freire, like the educator bell hooks5_{, I recognised}

in him “a mentor and a guide, someone who understood that learning could be liberatory” (1994, p.6). I felt that much of his theory of education concretely underpinned my own practice and philosophy. Though our contexts were very different – for Freire, often illiterate and impoverished communities in Brazil, for myself, educated middle-class Europeans – both our practices were nevertheless “concerned with the process of teaching and learning” (Lockhart, 1997, p.1).

Born in 1921 in Recife, Brazil, Freire’s own experience of poverty and hunger was a catalyst in his desire to educate those who lived in a state of oppression (Lockhart, 1997, p.2). He authored and co-authored more than 20 books between 1970 and 1988, and is regarded as a key voice in education and critical pedagogy.6 Over the past six years, my teaching practice has not radically changed, rather it has been affirmed by my reading. I felt no need to replicate Freire’s exact method, since he himself told his friend Donaldo Macedo that he did not want his ideas to be exported, but re-created (1998c, p.xi). My other key influences, because of the specifically Catholic context of my work, are Thomas Groome, a Catholic educator from the US, and John Sullivan and Clare Watkins, Catholic educators from the UK.

5 _{The author does not use capitals in her name.}

6 _{As Barlett points out “In Latin America approaches that draw on Freire’s pedagogy are broadly}

known as popular education, while in the United States they are more frequently described as critical pedagogy” (pp.344-5).

http://www.academia.edu/938267/Dialogue_Knowledge_and_Teacher- Student_Relations_Freirean_Pedagogy_In_Theory_and_Practice

- 31 -

In my reading of these authors and other contemporary Christian adult educators and practical theologians, I have identified five aspects of educational theory which I believe to be key to the practice of Christian theological education:

1. The telos of educational practice: education as political and transformative