I was reading an article by Christina Zaker entitled “Parable as a Lens for Theological Reflection.” It is a good article and notes that despite the importance many people place on Theological Reflection, many people (especially students in the context of the article) often are disappointed in the process. She suggests the use of parables in a reflective group setting. This is, of course, not a unique idea— others have talked of such things, including myself (“Theological Reflection through Storying in the Orality and Clinical Pastoral Training Movements“) The key point is that personal stories are amazing opportunities for theological reflection, and the group process, if done well, can lead to very beneficial growth.
Of course, Group Theological Reflection (GTR) should also be balanced with Individual Theological Reflection (ITR). Both are skills. Zaker speaks of moving towards such reflection becoming intuitive. It doesn’t become intuitive, however, if it is not in some way taught.
Some churches talk about “indoctrination.” This involves learning the doctrines of the church. Perhaps more generously it could be said that it teaches the doctrines of the Bible as filtered through the faith tradition of a specific church. Ultimately, the most successfully “indoctrinated” is one whose beliefs are completely conformed to the program used to indoctrinate. That may sound a bit cultic, but the perfect outcome of indoctrination is uniformity.
To me, the ideal church is not one of uniformity, but diversity with unity. That suggests a solid understanding of doctrine, but with a healthy range of doctrinal beliefs. This suggests in addition to (or in some way in place of) indoctrination, the church should train members in being competent in developing theologically.
===Repeating the church’s catechism is certainly not being healthfully theological.
===Neither is “I heard this guy on Youtube who said…”
The process is not necessarily easy. A friend of mine who heads a major Clinical Pastoral Education certification program says that when trainees get to the theological reflection in pastoral case studies, the tendency of many, many of them is “This reminds me of the 23rd Psalm” or perhaps the Good Samaritan. Verse dropping is not theological reflection.
The question I have is actually, “Is there a good term for this process of learning to theologize.” Do we need to create a term for this process? Is “INTHEOLOGIZATION” a good description of this process?
There are lots of different methods that could be used in the process (my wife and I talk of a few in Dynamics in Pastoral Care). However, I do agree that stories are important. Obviously, linking our stories to our “faith tradition” is part of the process, and this means we need to be doctrinally informed. Otherwise, it is just a process of pooling opinions. Based on this, INDOCTRINATION and INTHEOLOGIZATION do go hand in hand.
What I am less certain about is whether they should best be done concurrently or not. I think the two choices are concurrent or indoctrination occurring first. I think generally that indoctrination should precede intheologization. However, if the process of indoctrination ossifies the thinking of the learner, it can stifle theological growth. I think, however, good doctrine should apply the framework in which theological understanding can grow from.
Missions and chaplaincy very much need good theology. Missions has often been too focused on marketing and theory at one end, or too much on preaching points and bumper sticker rallying points on the other. A good, non-ossified, theology is needed for good missions. As such good “intheologization” should be formally established and promoted in any missions training program.
