The Praxis Triad
The list of terms seems endless—contextual theology, public theology, practical theology, pastoral theology—how can we make sense of it all? The three books under discussion (Models of Contextual Theology; The Bible, Justice and Public Theology; and Spirit in the Cities) clearly claimed that theology isn’t just for the Academy or for dusty libraries. It must be active in our everyday lives – made to make a difference. For this post, I’ll focus on the “praxis model” as a hermeneutical approach to theology.
Doctor Stephen Bevans writes “traditional ways of doing theology, theology might be described as a process of ‘faith seeking understanding’, the praxis model would say the theology is a process of ‘faith seeking intelligent action’.”[i] Faith, especially in modernity and certainly with the renewal of the reformation, was primarily about “right thinking,” or ortho-doxy. Into post modernity, with a looser grip on reason and a stronger grip on subjective experience, faith has come to be more about action. “Show me your faith by what you do.” Faith is more about “right actions,” or ortho-praxy. The Praxis model takes both orthodoxy and orthopraxy into account; it has a cycle of reflection upon action, and action upon biblical and theological reflection.
In the Praxis model, both the individual and the surrounding culture are relevant for the approach to hermeneutics. For me, this is its strength. However, when cultural relevance and action become the primary points, it is a weakness.
On the one hand, if theology is irrelevant—if it does not unpack on 
the streets, if it’s not about real situations, circumstances, context—then it will be void of the power to change. God’s truth systematized and shelved isn’t going to help anyone when the rubber meets the road. But when a hermeneutic pivots on a person, a circumstance, or a cultural reality it will become so fluid that we can make our theology say almost anything.
The problem is starting with the desired action as the first or primary step. The second step then becomes taking that action to the Bible or to theological reflection, which would finally lead to the third step, intelligent action or praxis. See Bevan’s illustration fig. 4 [ii]
It might look like I’m critical of the praxis model; actually, I think it’s essential. As a pastor I’m always trying to make doctrine real and accessible. Much of my teaching ministry is packaged into very practical themes, which are gauged on their potential to affect change. Praxis is a great model that seems two-thirds complete. What’s necessary is another step possibly prior to “1. Committed action.” Let’s call it Ortho-pathy or right-feeling/right-heart. Ortho-pathy is probably dissertation-worthy; for this post I’ll simply define it as a new heart, a heart that belongs to Jesus, an individual who loves God supremely.
Let’s consider an example of public theology and why I think Bevans’ presentation of the Praxis model can be strengthened. On April 20, 1999 at Columbine High School, two students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, murdered 13 students and one teacher and injured 20 additional people. After the killings, the pair took their own lives. The nation was shocked; school shootings had not yet become common place and people couldn’t get their minds around the horror. This was white, middle- class, Littleton, Colorado—violence and terror belonged elsewhere.
Everyone tried to make sense of the tragedy. Some in the media didn’t know how to process it: mental illness and depression, perhaps; but at this level of horror those explanations seemed inadequate. Some dared to use the word “evil” to identify a cause. One young reporter sought out a very well-known Christian author, speaker, and counselor who lived near Littleton. She went to his home with a news crew in tow and asked him what everyone wanted to know: how could such evil exist, how could these relatively normal boys become monsters? What can we do to make sure this never happens again?
After some reflection, the well-known Christian shared that the same kind of evil that was in Harris and Klebold was in him, and was in the reporter. Evil wasn’t simply an aberration that happens from time to time; it’s a part of who we are. And before he could explain further she stopped the interview, told the cameraman to leave, and with contempt in her voice declared that no such evil existed in her. Those boys were monsters.
It’s not enough just to be committed to action—“stop the evil,” “get rid of the guns,” “find better treatments for mental illness.” It’s important that before we commit to the action we start with hearts that are in love with Jesus, in communion with God. Then, when we look at the scope of actions, they’re in tune with what God is already doing. God is in the business of redeeming evil hearts; that wasn’t something the public wanted to hear in the aftermath of Columbine, but that was what they needed.
In his essay “Public Theology Through Popular Culture,” Dr. Garner quotes Paul Ballard who says “This particular model of contextual theology, in which Scripture and Tradition dialogue with the experience of material reality of the everyday world, is also know as the pastoral cycle”[iii] This is what Stephen Bevans calls the Praxis model and what Dr. Garner continues to describe: “This cycle continues to bring together orthodoxy and orthopraxy to generate a dialectical relation between the theological positions of faith seeking intelligent action and considered action leading to theological insight.”[iv] And while all this reflection and actions sounds great, and I’m all for change, I think we might be getting the cart before the horse if we don’t have ortho-pathy. I love the metaphor of a dialogue; I’m suggesting that we invite a third member to the Praxis conversation.
[i] Stephen B. Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, rev. ed. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002), 66-67.
[ii] Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, p. 69.
[iii] David J. Neville, ed., The Bible, Justice, and Public Theology (The Bible in the Modern World) (Sheffield England: Wipf & Stock, 2014), 184.
[iv] Ibid.,
About the Author
Dave Young
husband, dad, friend, student of culture and a pastor.8 responses to “The Praxis Triad”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dave, “Ortho-pathy,” you better get that one trade-marked, copyrighted or in some way registered because it’s brilliant! I appreciate the idea of forging a three-voice, theological conversation (trialog maybe?) where how we feel is included on-par with how we think and behave. How we feel about an issue could very well be the best place to start that conversation because it forces transparency. How I feel about you probably will shape how I think about you and ultimately how I behave toward you. That’s practical! Theologically speaking that is.
J
Jon, glad that you liked it. But honestly I’m not smart enough to have come up with ‘ortho-pathy’ I’ve heard my friend Henry and youth pastor use it. And I’m confident he heard it from someone else… I’m actually just to lazy to track down the original source.
Ha! Well either way, I just used it in a coaching conversation with a church planter a few minutes ago… Your application of the term in the context of this week’s reading and reflection was spot on!
J
Dave…Love it. Almost every week I’m amazed at how I ended up in such a smart cohort. Your othro-pathy thoughts add such a crucial element to our thinking and our actions…our heart. I too often have made decisions or taken action without one of those in the proper place.
Dave, I remember someone brought up the Wesleyan quadrilateral last semester, but I thought of it about a hundred times while reading this week, and then even just in the title of your post. Your post brought the thought of the need to be “wholistic” as we develop a “formula” for our efforts to contextualize and find relevance in the scriptures of the world and relevance in the world of the scriptures.
Philip, I was thinking about that too. How about a new title – Praxis Triad: Head, Heart and Hands
Ba Boom! 🙂
There’s a quote attributed to G.K. Chesterton that speaks to your Littleton interview:
*****************
The Times once sent out an inquiry to famous authors, asking the question, “What’s wrong with the world today?” and Chesterton responded simply,
“Dear Sir,
I am.
Yours, G.K. Chesterton.”
***************
Dave – You are striking at the core of theology’s purpose – Until we look at our hearts along with our hands and heads, we’ll be missing to boat. Even today as I met with a group of women who call themselves T.K. for Theological Kindergartners (we’ve met now for 10 years), we discussed how not only have we come to a deeper understanding of God, but we have come to acknowledge our “ickiness” which is part of the cycle of knowing God more. It is there that the transparency and the cross of Jesus intersect (again that word) to bring about the God trialogue 🙂
I’m with Nick. How did I end up in such an amazing cohort?