|
For many years, as I hope you've begun to recognize
from the Boys book, the social sciences have proven to be very fruitful
conversation partners for religious educators. It has not been an
easy conversation, though, because in general there is a widespread
sense that theology speaks in normative terms and the social sciences
speak in descriptive terms. Part of what I hope you'll begin to
understand this week is that while each of these "discourses"
(ie. sets of languages, ways of speaking, lenses for understanding)
tend to live on one end of a spectrum that stretches between the
descriptive and the normative, they each also have ways in which
they hold the other, too.
What do I mean by "descriptive" and "normative"?
By "descriptive" I am speaking of the ways in which various
social sciences (sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc.) attempt
to provide accurate descriptions of particular phenomena. They often
do so within a framework in which there is an emphasis on scientific
methodologies -- a reliance on 'facts' and 'evidence' -- and in
which any attempt to speak in language that talks of "it should
be this way" is eschewed.
Theology, on the other hand, particularly systematic forms of theology,
is a way of speaking that is most often seen as "normative";
that is, as describing in compelling terms ultimate (or at least
as "ultimate" as any human being in our brokenness can
be) answers to central life questions. It speaks in terms of "shoulds"
and "musts," and generally uses philosophical frameworks
(as opposed to scientific) to enflesh ideas. In much theology there
is less interest in whether it is adequately descriptive than there
is in whether it speaks authoritatively.
Now -- please understand me! -- these are caricatures in some ways.
Both of these languages have elements that are descriptive, and
both have elements that push towards normativity. But often we must
dig deeply into their grammars to make their commitments visible.
I hope we succeed in doing so this week.
|