520 - The Theory of Christian Education Practice

The Theory of Christian Education Practice
By Randolph Crump Miller
Birmingham, Religious Education Press, 1980. 295 pp. $10.95.

This is a collection of sixteen essays written from 1940 to 1980. The essays, according to the author, were rewritten, put into inclusive language, and connected by new introductory paragraphs in order to become parts of a single theme (pp. 3f.).

The parts-or topics-include process theology, biblical authority, ethics, the role of theology in Christian education, worship, anxiety, and a concluding chapter concerning the future of education in the church.

Two themes are offered. The first is the familiar idea that theory should guide practice and practice should inform and reform theory. This theme is widely accepted as a proper way to deal with a "practical" or "life-situation" area such as education in the church. But the book is almost entirely theoretical or idealistic, dealing with the way things ought to be according to Miller. Even the essay on "Empirical Method in Theology" (pp. 63-74) deals with how experience is to be factored into the theological system; and he uses the abstractions of Paul Tillich, Henry Nelson Wieman, William James, John MacMurray, and Schubert Ogden for support. The second part of this theme-practice should inform theory-is simply absent.

This absence is not restricted to Miller's work. Most of us in the practice of ministry field use the deductive process. We define from biblical or theological presuppositions what we think is true and then

521 - The Theory of Christian Education Practice

attempt to apply these ideas to life in the church. Few of us actually relate practice to theory, and seldom do we have anyone show us how practice actually changes theory. When we say practice should correct theory, then, what do we mean? How can personal life situations, deeply entrenched social class values, technical capacity to alter human life, or knowledge of the physical world be related to our theory or theology?

What we need today is a theory and practice intimately related to all of modern life conditions. I suppose the reason we do not have many good theories is that professors in the practice of ministry field tend to take on the coloration and mental habits of professors who deal with ideas rather than of those who engage in the practice of ministry among people struggling with problems.

Although Miller does not define practice, he thinks of it as the way we deal with human beings and the reasons why we do what we do. Although practice includes methods, the two are not identical. After all, methods are somewhat independent of theory. People of all types of theological persuasion use the lecture or discussion method, and practically everyone uses audio-visuals in an effort to communicate ideas.

Beyond this, there is a practical area in which church educational work does not seem to be correlated with the theological outlook. For example, much of what Miller says in his chapter on worship could be said by almost any Christian except, perhaps, a rigid fundamentalist. The chapter on the use of the Bible presents the generally accepted problems and opportunities of biblical instruction found in mainline denominations, following traditional theistic Christian theology.

This leaves us with Miller's second theme-process theology, as such. Here readers have to decide if this theology suits their tastes. Miller devotes three chapters to a general description of this outlook. He has accepted it because he thinks it explains human life better than other theologies. But as a theology it has its strengths and weaknesses. Its strengths seem to be its ability to accept a modern, scientific view of the world and also to affirm much of Christian tradition. A theologian such as Daniel Day Williams in his book, The Spirit and Forms of Love (1968), could make process theology (in the words of John Bennett) seem "almost evangelical." But there are problems also. Process theology is an idealistic system with an abstract definition of God. Some theologians who have examined its epistemology believe that it does not even represent an accurate interpretation of science. (Harold Nebelsick takes this view in his new book, Theology and Science in Mutual Modification.) But Miller's commitment rests with process theology as the best correlation between theory and practice. And of course discussion of process theology is itself still in process.

C. Ellis Nelson
San Francisco Theological Seminary
San Anselmo, California