A CONCEPT UAL FRAMEWORK FOR DA TA ANALYSIS

4:1 THE FOUR VOICES OF THEOLOGY

Cameron et al. (2010), in their publication Talking About God in Practice: Theological Action Research and Practical Theology, developed a valuable guide for researchers in the field of practical theology.

Outlining the difficulties in how contemporary Christian people integrate theology and practice, especially against a backdrop of an increasingly non-theological and secular post-modern culture that has drifted from the historical norm of the convergence of a Christian world-view and traditional societal values, the authors seek to re-engage Christian faith communities in their theological engagement with contemporary culture (Cameron et al. 2010, pp.9-13, 18). This, combined with the difficulties involved in understanding and articulating how people practise theology and the interrelationships between experience and tradition, led to a desire to develop methods to improve understanding of these complexities. However, although this endeavour itself is nothing new and has for a long time been central to theological reflection, it is precisely how this can be attempted which is illustrated more clearly by Cameron et al. (2010).

Promoting the use of Theological Action Research (TAR), a combination of practical theology and action research, has involved creating a detailed methodological framework intended for use by other research projects and which can transform practice through theological insight (Cameron et al.

2010, p.17). Part of this has involved the authors detailing an insightful theory for how ‘theological reflection’ can take place in faith communities, using ‘four voices’: normative theology, formal theology, espoused theology and operant theology.

95 FIGURE 14: THE FOUR VOICES OF THEOLOGY

NORMATIVE THEOLOGY FORMAL THEOLOGY

Scriptures, Creeds, Liturgies, Theology of Theologians Official church teaching Dialogue with other disciplines

ESPOUSED THEOLOGY OPERANT THEOLOGY

The theology embedded within a The theology embedded within the group’s articulation of its beliefs actual practices of a group

Source: Cameron et al. (2010, p.54).

In Figure 14 it can be seen that theology has a number of important facets that function in relation to one another. Cameron et al. describe these as ‘a dynamic of distinct, but interrelated and overlapping voices’ that make the complexity manageable (2010, p.53). The interrelationships can be understood in terms of hearing one voice amongst an echo from the other three (Cameron et al.

2010, p.54) and therefore the uncovering of previously hidden theological voices (Cameron et al.

2010, p.152).

4:2 THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION IN CONTEXT

Although Talking about God in Practice has been described as ‘a welcome addition to the toolkit for theological reflection’ (Wood, 2011, p.28), which ‘offers something fresh and fruitful in this emerging field of study’ (Bryan, 2012, p.2), it is still rooted in a rich tradition of theological reflection and practical theology. For instance, both the historical and contemporary terrain of how Christian practitioners have ‘reflected theologically’ about their faith has been systematically mapped by Elaine Graham, Heather Walton and Frances Ward (2005). Impressive in its scope, their Theological Reflection: Methods uses a form of ‘ideal types’ to explicate several ways in which the ‘living out’ of

96

the Christian faith has been articulated over the centuries. In this way, it is argued that personal theological reflection is not a new idea but is as old as the Christian faith itself (Graham, Walton and Ward, 2005, p.1).

In Theological Reflection Judith Thompson (2008, p.114) notes how theological practitioners need to find a model to aid in reflection that best suits their own approach to research and to further modify this in line with their specific context. Although the complete methodological framework of theological action research from Cameron et al. (2010) was not deemed suitable for my research, I immediately saw how the ‘four voices of theological reflection’ could be highly useful as an analytical template or theoretical tool to help conceptualise and understand the themes emerging from my data. As a researcher of faith communities the four voices model offered something rigorous enough to assist scholarly analysis and yet flexible enough to allow its transference to and modification in a different context. This also responds to a request from the authors to other researchers to ‘try them out and develop them further’ (Cameron et al. 2010, pp.2, 61) as they represent a complex locus for theological understanding, from which new insights are still to be gleaned (Cameron et al. 2010, pp.147, 150). It also makes research participants more inclusive, giving them a voice, rather than just treating them as a subject of analysis. In addition, it offers a framework ‘committed to the truthfulness of Christian wisdom’ whilst engaging Christian practice and experience (Bryan, 2012, p.1). For my own project it therefore has the potential to offer hope (such as maintaining Christian standards) rather than instigating fear (by being seen as a threat to Christian orthodoxy). For instance it has previously been used in the contexts of wanting to draw more authentically upon normative sources to counter secularisation (Cameron, 2012) and ‘the ability to defend Christian actions and emphasise Christian distinctiveness to others’ (Shepherd, 2012, p.137). The four voices theory therefore engages in a respectful way with faith communities.

In addition it offers the benefit of ‘bridge-building’: at one level this can be seen in relating theory and practice or tradition and experience (Bryan, 2012, p.1; Steen, 2010, p.108), which for my own project offers the potential for increasing understanding of where these two spheres meet with the theme of the environment. It also has the benefit of addressing real life issues with participant/researcher interaction (Cronshaw, 2014, p.167), again for my own project focusing upon a contemporary issue of great importance. The four voices theory has also been well received within theological discourse and been successfully used by academics in other denominational settings addressing various other topics, some of which includes using the four voices as an analytical template to varying degrees. Indeed, Read (2012, p.61) noted that: ‘What is envisaged here (Talking About God in Practice) is intended for use in a group setting but could perhaps be adapted for someone reflecting on a particular situation on their own’. The different types of data collected

97

during my ethnography easily relate to the four different voices, which makes the theory all the more poignant in being able to differentiate relationships between data and to articulate results.

4:3 THEORETICAL UNDERPINNING: THE LIBERAL STARTING POINT

In the last section I introduced the work of Cameron et al. (2010) Talking About God in Practice:

Theological Action Research and Practical Theology. This detailed the author’s presentation of the

‘four voices model of theological reflection’, and I justified my reasons for choosing this as a model for conceptualising and aiding in analysing my own data. In this section I will discuss how the four voices model potentially fits into the specific context of conservative evangelicalism in North Wales.

I will show the trend in how the model has been used within broader Christendom. Given the broad ecumenical make-up of the authors of Talking About God in Practice and the more liberal contexts in which it has been used to date, such as Cameron and Duce (2013), Christie (2013), Idestrom (2013), Dillen (2014), Pallant (2014) and Henwood (2015), I argue that a modification and refinement of the model is needed for the conservative evangelical context. So although starting with the work of Cameron et al. (2010) I will adapt this model of theological reflection so it can be utilised in the context of my own research. Particularly the non-hierarchical nature of the four voices and their interrelationships, as laid out by Cameron et al. (2010) is neither evidenced nor suitable in the conservative evangelical context. Read (2012, p.62) notes how the more liberal ecumenical context of the work presented in the book ‘might imply there are no fixed points in theology and therefore might not be congenial to Christians from a more conservative theological background’, although acknowledging that the four voice model keeps Scripture and tradition in view. Yet I would argue that there is the potential for very different dynamics in a modified ‘four voices’ template that can be used in a conservative evangelical context and this has the potential to offer further understanding of the theory itself or to start with the four voice theory of Cameron et al. (2010) but then to move beyond this. I am unaware of any previous use within a conservative evangelical constituency and using the four voices theory to aid the conceptualisation and analysis of my own data offers a real potential to yield more detailed insights into the theory itself. I therefore modify the ‘four voices theory’ and show how a more rigorous linear and hierarchical structure is needed in conservative evangelicalism, with normative theology at the top followed by espoused theology and then operant theology, with formal theology having a two way relationship with normative theology (Figure. 15). I will include a discussion of what each of the four voices means in terms of the data

98

collected during this ethnography and how dynamics between the four voices have the potential to operate differently in a conservative evangelical constituency.

The work of Zoe Bennet brings to the fore and grapples with tensions that exist between levels of authority placed within faith traditions on the one hand and personal experience on the other (2014) and shows that practical theology has become somewhat polarised along these lines (2013). Bennet (2013) notes the liberal-conservative tension in biblical interpretation as one between ‘uncritical ecumenical mixing that accepts everything’ on the one hand and those sticking to the ‘verbal inerrancy of the Bible’ on the other (p.2). Bennett (2013), wrestling with these polarisations, argues for a robust engagement with the Bible, but one that allows critical thinking and doubt, yet the tension is clearly articulated in that once a belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible is undermined, people positioned on the ‘rock of God’ can feel uncomfortably set adrift (Bennett, 2013, pp.11-12). Yet the alternative option for Bennet is the position of being ‘under the text’ or at least its interpreters, which she suggests can result in fear of transgression and manipulation or domination (Bennet, 2013, pp.27-28). Bennet argues for a middle path that acknowledges the importance of our own context that we bring to the Bible, to avoid polarisation between an authority given too exclusively to experience or Scripture and tradition (Bennet, 2013, pp.41-42).

Bennet (2014, pp.53-54), in articulating differences and tensions between religious tradition and personal experience, and more specifically whether the starting point or ‘anchor’ of theological reflection lies in divine revelation or human experience, talks about a far broader issue that I would suggest brings to the fore the differences that exist in employing the four voices model of Cameron et al. (2010) in a liberal or conservative evangelical context. Bennett (2014, p.54) sees this debate as not necessarily about whether to listen to people (liberal) or God (conservative), but about where to find God: through our human experience or divine revelation. I believe the four voices model of Cameron et al. (2010) would suggest both, yet in a conservative evangelical context this is problematic as accepted Christian orthodoxy is that God reveals himself to man through the Bible (Horden, 1968, pp.57-59). The question of where priority lies in generating theological knowledge, and the tensions that can exist between these when engaging in theological reflection, I believe points to the axis of liberal and conservative theological enquiry.⁴² The former, whilst using and drawing upon Scripture, often engages in open criticism or even rejection of this, especially when

42 For a detailed study of the liberal/evangelical divide, see Packer (1958) who gives a whole chapter to liberalism (pp.146-169) and another to evangelicalism (pp.24-40) and the differences between the two approaches to biblical study resonate as a theme throughout the book.

99

self-reflection and personal experience are not in harmony with Scripture. Here personal experience (operant theology) is seen as an additional source of theology which is also deemed to have a latent power (Cartledge, 2013; Dillen, 2014; Henwood, 2015).

4:4 THE FOUR VOICES OF THEOLOGY: PREVIOUS USES IN ACADEMIA

The four voices theory has been seen as an important innovation developed through research into tangible expressions of Christian life (Wood, 2011, p.27), including Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism and the Salvation Army (Roach, 2011, p.125). It has therefore been designed with clear ecumenical undercurrents and a liberal starting point, yet this also points to the wide range of contexts in which the theory has relevance (Wood, 2011, p.27). Cameron et al. suggest (in the liberal context in which the theory has been developed) that normative and formal theologies may act critically in relation to the espoused and operant axis, yet theological practices help form and inform both formal and normative theologies. In this sense practices embody theologies that add to the complexity of manoeuvring between theological voices as both sides, normative/formal and operant/espoused, can influence and change the other (Cameron et al. 2010, p.56). This then involves individuals or groups renewing an operant level of theology in light of conversation with the other voices.

Cameron et al. suggest that changes brought about through practise, i.e. operant theology leading to meaningful change of normative church tradition is a challenging possibility as operant theology offers new insights (2010, p.59). It is as yet little understood how exactly such processes may operate within a conservative evangelical group, which I believe would show marked resistance.

Furthermore, I would argue that putting forth the view that operant theology can change normative theology has led to the four voices theory being used more liberally than Cameron et al. (2010) perhaps envisaged as it gives licence for an empowered operant voice which people can use to challenge biblical teaching.

A literature search has revealed that over forty other studies have now cited the work of Cameron et al. (2010) although many are only in relation to a brief reference rather than a detailed use of the theory. Bryant (2015, p.43) puts forward the view that the four voices do not necessarily have a hierarchy, in her article researching the relationship between her position as a non-faith scholar of religion researching hospital chaplaincy. Brower-Latz (2014, p.9), focusing upon Holiness Church engagement with social issues in an inner-city context, describes the four voices and how in interaction they can help the church increase self-understanding, and that in the author’s own church context (Church of the Nazarene) particularly operant theology needs to be critically

100

examined. Leach (2015, p.29) in her article about the training of Methodist church leaders, focuses upon the relationship between biblical wisdom and human reason which articulates one of the relational tensions of the four voices, between normative and formal theology. Idestrom (2014, p.88) in defining the aims of Theological Action Research (TAR) in relation to problem-solving and how this might relate to his own reflections on a church conference in Sweden, shows how TAR aims are more egalitarian in that the superior researcher voice is rejected and the participants’ voice of practice is taken seriously. Jordan (2012, p.67) in his article about the role of interim ministers in the Church of England, puts forward the view that operant theology can contain the two elements of an ordinary or uninstructed theology and an implicit theology, or that formed by church culture, habit, language or practice.

Studies that have used TAR and the ‘Four Voices of Theological Reflection’ in more explicit detail are few. Even those that do use the work of Cameron et al. (2010) in more detail, differ widely in the dynamics of how they do this. The work of Shepherd (2012) could be described as a full TAR project, looking at professional development within Christian ministry in the context of youth work in London. Pallant (2014) used the ‘four voices model’ as an aid to theological reflection in answering the question: ‘What is The Salvation Army’s theology as we serve a suffering humanity?’ Whereas Schumacher (2013) combines the ‘four voices’ of Cameron et al. (2010) with the ‘critical faithfulness model’ of Swinton and Mowat (2006) for the purpose of data analysis in a qualitative project focused upon church engagement with creative arts in Scotland. This shows how ‘the four voices’ do not have to be used in the context of an explicit action research project, but also have value in being used as an analytical template which aids the conceptualisation of data. Even more strongly located in this domain is the work of Dillen (2014), who uses the four voices theory to reflect upon data and gain understanding whilst looking at the Catholic church, family life and marriage. In looking at previous studies that in some way use the four voices theory of Cameron et al. (2010), the strongest theme is that of ‘liberation’ or a renewed interest and voice given to operant theology.

Zoe Bennett’s (2014) work bears testimony to a tension between operant and normative theology through her personal experience of feeling a dissonance between tradition and experience in relation to attitudes toward the ordination of women in the C of E. Here personal experience as a woman in the church, combined with an interest in feminist thought, led to a personal wish to see equality of roles within the church for men and women, a ‘creative dialect’, or in other words practice, leading to change in normative theology and traditional positions (2014, p.56). In such a scenario Bennet believes we must listen to both the ‘text of the Bible’ and the ‘text of life’ (Bennet, 2013, pp.20-25). However, on the issue of men and women’s roles in ministry, my research revealed

101

how this would be resisted in a conservative evangelical context (CH2:SERM18). In addition, this view is more commonly expressed in formal theology, such as Recovering Biblical Manhood &

Womanhood (Piper and Grudem, 1991). More broadly in the field of practical theology, Cartledge (2013) drawing upon an analysis of formal theology in the field of theological practice, has shown how there has been a moving away from normative theology, resulting in a gulf between the two which results in formal theology often having a distinct character (p.278) apart from normative theology, rather than representing it. Cartledge claims liberal theologians working in the realm of practical theology use Scripture only in marginal ways and draw upon an ever widening array of non-theological sources (Cartledge, 2013, p.280) or more precisely work under ‘the spell of social science’ (p.281). Perhaps what Cartledge is pointing to is how practical theologians of the academy can be more rooted in non-theological disciplines where human reason flourishes, rather than biblical theology or a desire to implement biblical teachings (Linnemann, 1990, pp.107-111), resulting in their spiritual state being more closely linked to the former. Therefore, Cartledge claims that despite much practical theology being sophisticated and insightful, it is not biblical (p.280). This stands in stark contrast to a more conservative evangelical position, of ‘trusting in God’s Word and not relying on our own understanding’ (CH2:SERM9), that ‘the Word of God stands forever’

(CH4:SERM1) and as the title of Noel Weeks’ (1998) book suggests, a belief in ‘The Sufficiency of Scripture’.

Likewise, the highly interactive and less hierarchical nature of the ‘four voices of theology’ in a liberal context can be seen in several studies that have explicitly used the four voices theory. This liberal context is best exemplified by the perceived non-hierarchical nature of the four voices (Idestrom 2013, p.88; Bryant 2015, p.43; Duce 2013, pp.88-90) and even further in how the ‘operant voice’ can become the powerful leading voice, resulting in a ‘bottom up’ rather than ‘top down’

approach (Schumacher, 2013, p.19). For example, Pallant’s (2014) work on Salvation Army social work programmes found that operant theology has moved so far from historic official denominational teaching that it is no longer being led by normative theology which is even seen as anachronistic (pp.2-3,7) and that what the church practises is helping people without any traditional normative drives such as evangelism. This operant led practise is even seen as having lost touch, not

approach (Schumacher, 2013, p.19). For example, Pallant’s (2014) work on Salvation Army social work programmes found that operant theology has moved so far from historic official denominational teaching that it is no longer being led by normative theology which is even seen as anachronistic (pp.2-3,7) and that what the church practises is helping people without any traditional normative drives such as evangelism. This operant led practise is even seen as having lost touch, not