Cameron et al developed a model of practical theological reflection, drawing the four voices of theology into dialogue.461 In reflecting on the findings, outlined in the previous chapter, this method of theological reflection examines differences between espoused theology and operant practice in dialogue with normative and formal theology. The following section discusses and applies this model of theological reflection to the empirical findings.
6.3.1 In Conversation with the Four Voices
Cameron et al identify the four voices of theology as; normative, formal, espoused and operant. The normative voice includes official church teaching, liturgies, scripture and
460 Pattison, S. and Woodward, J., 'An Introduction to Pastoral and Practical Theology', in The Blackwell
Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology, ed. Pattison, S. and Woodward, J. (2000), 16.
creeds. The voice of formal theology engages theology by theologians. Espoused theology denotes the theology embedded within a group’s articulation of its beliefs. And finally, operant theology expresses the theology embedded in the actual practices of a group.462
The model is developed from a transformative theological stance which seeks to hold onto the normativity of Church teaching whilst being guided by ‘the conviction that the Holy Spirit is moving Christ’s people to an ever deeper understanding of faith’.463 It is this reliance on the normativity of existing teaching, alongside openness to new revelation, which opens up the theology that is before us, ‘waiting to be seen’.464
These four voices are held in tension, with the potential for each voice to influence and transform the other, whilst giving the normative some level of privilege. Cameron et al. are keen to point out that this does not give the normative a simply superior authority, instead suggesting the normative voice acts as ‘a tradition held in common’465 and so is different from the insights of the particular or the local. The contribution of the normative voice enables practitioners to discuss whether their practices should adapt to reflect more closely their espoused theology, or whether their espoused theology should be adapted and renewed in response to their operant theology.466
6.3.2 Using Four Voices Dialogue to Reflect on Ordained Vocation
In holding together this tension between voices, giving a certain authority to the normative voice, whilst enabling transformative change to all voices, this method can be seen as well suited to the practical theological task of reflecting on ordained vocation. As discussed in chapter two, the Church of England holds together normative and transformative understandings of ordained vocation. The three orders of bishop, priest and deacon are based on scriptural understandings, developed through ecclesiastical traditions, and yet open to transformative change through theological developments, and in response to sociological change. The normative voice appears to retain a level of consistency with slow adaptation
462 Cameron et al., "Talking About God in Practice," 54. 463 Cameron et al., "Talking About God in Practice," 148. 464 Cameron et al., "Talking About God in Practice," 148. 465 Cameron et al., "Talking About God in Practice," 60. 466 Cameron et al., "Talking About God in Practice," 104-5.
occurring over time. The normative voice is held in tension with espoused voices heard through the influence of Archbishops, General Synod and Ministry Council (and their earlier equivalent bodies) who articulate more readily adaptable responses to theological and sociological change. These espoused voices shape the Church’s understanding of how ordained vocation is born out in practice. Future clergy are formed by normative, operant and espoused theologies embedded in the training institutions, which develop in academic dialogue with formal theology. This dialogue is then fleshed out in practice within dioceses and parishes.
6.3.3 Complications in Using Four Voices Dialogue
Before employing four voices dialogue here, some alteration to the method must be made. Cameron et al suggest this dialogue occurs as part of Theological Action Research (TAR), undertaken by a team of ‘outsider’ researchers and ‘insider’ members of the faith organisation in question. Cameron et al favour a conversational process467 in which dialogue between voices involves live discussion between team members who each represent the different voices within the process. It is possible to argue that research involving live dialogue between multiple voices in conversation provides more credible research than a lone researcher simulating the dialogue. However, even when multiple voices are present there remains the risk that one voice will come with a particular interpretation and shape the discourse in a particular way. As such, it is not the case that a live dialogue will necessarily produce a more robust research process than a simulated dialogue.
Any practical theology must, however, be able to move between theological reflection and practice. Cameron et al’s conversational process enables this movement between reflection and practice by drawing together ‘insider’ practitioners alongside ‘outsider’ researchers. In this way it may hold precedence over formalised and individualised researcher led study, as the research process necessarily draws any reflection into possible future practice. It is possible to use this process of four voices conversation in a staged dialogue, however, for transformational change to occur, the lone researcher staging a dialogue must firstly engage and represent the voices faithfully, and then find ways to communicate findings with
individuals and church bodies in an attempt to draw those parties into a living dialogue. There are a number of ways in which I have sought to do this, which are outlined in chapter seven.
A further challenge to the implementation of four voices dialogue is the complexity of this particular research area. There are specific challenges in identifying who the voices present are, and how to adequately to represent them. This is a task which becomes more complex the broader the organisation. Cameron et al cite three examples, firstly with a parish, secondly a diocese, and finally with faith based agencies. Whilst parishes and agencies tend to hold together at a localised level, they concede that working with dioceses throw up particular challenges.
Such a positioning ecclesiologically can lead to tensions in espoused positions, as well as particular kinds of tensions between espoused and operant theologies…A question has arisen about what it means to describe the theology of the bishop to which the diocesan agency is contractually committed, as the ‘espoused’ theology of those diocesan practitioners. How ‘espoused’ is such a theology for the practitioners involved; and how much is it a normative theological reality to which they are obedient?468
Representing the voices across the Church of England, with regards to selection and training, involves a similar complexity. In this instance how ‘espoused’ is the selection criteria for selection advisors or tutors in training institutions; and how much is it a ‘normative’ theological reality to which advisors are expected to be obedient? Furthermore, how ‘espoused’ is the selection criteria for bishops who disagree with the Ministry Council’s guidance and do not take it as either ‘espoused’ or ‘normative’? There is no simple resolution to these questions within a Church which upholds episcopal leadership, diversity and conciliar governance (see 2.2). But this complexity, rather than negating the use of the four voices, further shows the necessity of dialogue, as it is in this dialogue that the Church’s theology and practice is outworked.