Communicative Theology
By Matthias Scharer
[Matthias Scharer has served as a professor of practical theology in the fields of catechetics and religious education in the University of Innsbruck. There he headed a research team working on communicative theology and the work of theme-centered interaction (TCI) developed by Ruth Cohen. He has lectured widely in Western and Eastern Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia on this process and has conducted seminars employing this method.]
Definition
Communicative Theology is primarily situated in a specific “culture of practicing theology,”1 where the Christian understanding of God, mankind, and the world is critically connected to the methods of Ruth Cohn’s theme centered interaction (TCI) and where communication is given the role of an intermediary between the two systems. Communication in TCI is thus extended to include the free and unavailable self-communication of God. “Communicative Theology consists of theology derived from living communication processes” (Scharer & Hilberath, 2003, p. 15). Thus, it goes far beyond just applying the principles of TCI according to Ruth Cohn in a theological setting.
Origin
Communicative Theology developed from work being done with TCI in various types of groups using various approaches to the practice and theory of theology. B. J. Hilberath, a systematic theologian, and M. Scharer, a practicing theologian and a teacher of TCI, were invited by K. Ludwig in the 1990s to develop theologically oriented TCI curricula at the Theological-Pastoral Institute (TPI) in Mainz. Many TCI teachers subsequently took part in these activities. These efforts to map TCI onto theological subjects were linked to earlier attempts to adapt TCI according to Ruth Cohn for the theological training and education as well as for church pastoral work and religious education.
The first proponents of what eventually (around the year 2000) came to be called “Communicative Theology”2 were well aware of the gap that exists between academic theology and the concrete needs of practicing pastors and priests as well as their congregations. They were also acquainted with the problem that church structures and church work methods are generally oriented more toward external criteria than pure academic theology.
Against this background, it became clear that “Communicative Theology” somehow had to be grounded in what was happening in both theological research and educational settings. Some theology faculties were already working with TCI methods in their seminars, so he introduction of Communicative Theology fell on fertile ground. Further impetus for the systematic implementation of TCI in theology was provided by the concept of the university course on Communicative Theology offered at the University of Innsbruck, which, beginning in 2001, provided both bachelor and masters students with 5 semesters of instruction in this subject.4 This program still exists today. An interdisciplinary and internationally oriented research circle “Communicative Theology” was established in 2003 and meets regularly at symposiums and congresses around the world. Its efforts are supported by research projects5 and publications.6
Explanations
The ideological orientations specific to TCI and Communicative Theology, respectively, do not necessarily contradict each other, in as much as God’s communication with humans is considered a concrete part of this relationship. Such an approach attributes a very humanistic touch to human communication that is based on the life and fate of a concrete human being, Jesus of Nazareth. The gift of the Holy Spirit in every human soul as the subject of a relationship with other human beings and with God is the expression of this. An example may be found in the ongoing analysis of dioceses and other church organizations by management consultants as well as the development plans put forth by the dioceses which (independently) contain a number of implications for theological work and structural and personnel decisions.
In the communication of God’s love for mankind, the spirit of Jesus provides humans with relationships and prohibits any exclusion of individuals or whole groups. This corresponds to the basic intention of TCI as well. Both approaches to communication, that of TCI and that of Communicative Theology, do not mesh well with the modern social mainstream, which generally sees communication from a more technological and efficiency-oriented vantage point. Thus, in this respect TCI and Communicative Theology share a deeply humanistic approach to life itself (→ Axioms) as well as in the way they strive to prevent violence from occurring in human relationships. From a communicative and theological point of view, this common concern for human connection through relationships may be traced back to the mystery of the Trinity of God, which puts God in a relationship to Himself and has God connecting to others by choice. A further common meeting point between theology and TCI lies in their respective conviction that → “living learning” is diametrically opposed to “dead learning.”
The life-oriented approach of TCI may certainly be employed in educational processes to look at the questions of living and dead learning as part of the basic theological inquiry into the meaning of life and the salvation of humankind. Communicative Theology differentiates between three levels present in the theological process, all of which are seen as producing theological truths and thus continually interlocking.
Communicative Theology combines the
direct level of participation,
experiential and interpretive level,
the scientific, reflective level.
True theological insights emerge only when these three levels are linked to one another, which in turn allows all humans to participate in theological processes by introducing their own specific experiences – inasmuch as they have committed to dealing with the basic existential questions involved in theology (whether explicitly or implicitly). TCI affects Communicative Theology not just in its efforts regarding theology, but also encourages finding, (re)discovering, and (re)defining its own specific places of knowledge (loci theologici) in biographical, interactional, traditional, and context-specific ways. This means adapting the four factors of the TCI model (→ Four-Factor Model) – “I,” “We,” “It,” and “Globe” – to the central theological loci, much as R. Siebenrock 7 did with the most important theological premises (cf. Hünermann, 2003, pp. 207–251; Seckler, 1988, pp. 79–104). A combination of the TCI factors with the traditional insights stemming from the loci theologici results in four dimensions decisive to the hermeneutics of Communicative Theology:
the dimension of personal life and experiences of faith,
the dimension of social experiences and church attachment,
the dimension of Biblical evidence and their living mediation as well as other religious traditions, and
the dimension of the social context and worldly wisdom.
If we combine the various dimensions and levels of Communicative Theology, we achieve a critical-conflictual dynamic that is theologically relevant. Figure 1 summarizes the patterns of thought and action inherent to Communicative Theology.8 All three levels of communicative theologizing should be considered simultaneously.
Figure 1. The patterns of thought and action inherent to Communicative Theology.
Endnotes
1 Compare here the subtitle of the American edition of the volume by Scharer and Hilberath: “Introduction to a New Theological Culture” (2008).
2 The term “Communicative Theology” goes back to an idea offered by J. Panhofer, who suggested this terminology while putting together a university curriculum for a theological faculty.
3 On the other hand, academic theology also suffers from the poor relationship it maintains to practical theological applications. The very broad collection of disciplines present in modern theology point, on the one hand, toward the high scientific standards it has reached; on the other hand, they also effectively limit the meaning and effectiveness academic theology can have in practical matters.
3 An example may be found in the ongoing analysis of dioceses and other church organizations by management consultants as well as the development plans put forth by the dioceses which (independently) contain a number of implications for theological work and structural and personnel decisions.
4 The connection between the development of a curriculum of Communicative Theology in the Faculty for Theology at the University of Tübingen occurred because of the work of B. J. Hilberath, who together with M. Scharer held an introductory week of seminars directed toward the teaching staff of this university course.
5 See, for example, the project supported by the Foundation for the Support of Scientific Research in Austria (FWF) entitled “Less Violence Due to Increased Encounters? A Critical Look at the Social Relevance of Theme-Centered Interaction According to Ruth C. Cohn (TCI) with Respect to Coping with Conflicts.” Furthermore, a number of suggestions were made to include TCI in the doctorate school of the University of Innsbruck as part of the interfaculty research projects entitled “World Order – Religion – Violence.”
6 Cf. The two series of publications “Communicative Theology,” edited by B. J. Hilberath and M. Scharer, and “Communicative Theology – Interdisciplinary/Communicative Theology – Interdisciplinary Studies,” edited by B. J. Hilberath, B. Hinze, and M. Scharer
7 R. Siebenrock is Professor for Systematic Theology in the Theology Faculty of the University of Innsbruck, Austria.
8 The small triangles within the sphere at the respective corners (or in the spaces) mark the context and show that each of the four dimensions always contains the other dimensions. All three levels of communicative theologizing should be considered simultaneously.