Five misunderstandings about practical theology

Borrowing a format used by the sociologist Bent Flyybjerg in an essay on case studies, this article examines five common misunderstandings in the history and development of the research in practical theology: (1) practical theology is a marginalized discipline with a serious identity crisis; (2) the problem with practical theology and theological education is the clerical paradigm; (3) practical theology and pastoral theology are interchangeable terms; (4) it is impossible to define practical theology or, inversely, it can be defined in a simple way (e.g., study of the relationship between beliefs and practices); and (5) practical theology is, in great part, if not entirely, descriptive, empirical, interpretative and it is not normative, theological and, in some cases (I would dare say) Christian. I describe each misunderstanding, offer corrections and conclude that three decades of progress in the area and complementary offshoots in other areas of academia reaffirm ancient intuitions in practical theology about the need for alternative forms of theological knowledge and additional work in the discipline.