The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Practical Theology, First Edition. Edited by Bonnie J. Miller-McLemore.© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2012 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

CHAPTER 24

Action Theories

Robert Mager

A few years ago, the renowned Dutch theologian Johannes A. van der Ven diagnosed “ an under - conceptualization of ‘ practice ’ in practical theology ” ( 2004 : 331). In

another article, he stated:

To my mind a more detailed explanation of the praxis concept in terms of action theory is essential. This would require a (syncretistic) choice from action theories in at least 40 disciplines and subdisciplines, ranging from psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology, ethnology and ethology to mathematical, natural and medical sciences. In my view a philosophical approach should be preferred, albeit in conjunction with these disciplines and subdisciplines, so as to probe the question of who acts, why one acts, and what action is. ( 2002 : 28)

This opinion entails many assumptions, such as these: (1) practice is central to practical theology; (2) practice is best understood in terms of action; (3) a theological understanding of action cannot do without the essential contribution of human and social sciences. All these premises are disputed in the fi eld and many would argue that: (1) practical theology cannot restrict itself to practices but must encompass the larger fi eld of “ lived religion ” or “ religious experience ” (Failing and Heimbrock 1998 ; Gr ä b 2000 ; Heimbrock 2007 ); (2) the concept of practice can be retained so long as it is not strictly understood in terms of action but rather integrates other elements of human experience, such as perception and situation (Gr ö zinger 1995 ; Biehl 1997 ); (3) a sci-entifi c approach to human action can only distract theology from its main issues regarding action, namely God ’ s initiative and human response (Bohren 1975 ; Gr ö zinger 1995 ). In turn, these arguments rely upon their own set of assumptions, some of which will be discussed in the present chapter. One can already see how the fi eld of practical theology is still in the process of defi ning its “ disciplinary matrix ” (Firet 1987 : 260), that is, “ a clear description of the elements that form the generally accepted basis on

256 ROBERT MAGER

which this discipline is pursued ” (Heitink 1999 : 155). Within this debate, the present contribution will essentially support van der Ven ’ s call for investment in action theories for reasons that will be briefl y sketched.

Action and Modernity

Interest in action goes far beyond the fi eld of practical theology and the wider develop-ment of action theories. The German American political theorist Hannah Arendt (1958) believes that it proceeds from the dynamics of modernity itself, which empha-sizes action over contemplation and life over worldliness. These “ two inversions, ” as Arendt names them, unleashed the interconnected development of science and tech-nology and their progressive application to human life itself. Action gained attention in philosophy, economics, sociology, and psychology, in major works such as those of Talcott Parsons, Hannah Arendt, David Davidson, Alfred Sch ü tz, Pierre Bourdieu, J ü rgen Habermas, and Hans Joas. It also triggered the development of an ever expand-ing spectrum of interdisciplinary fi elds such as symbolic interactionism, psychosocial pragmatism, ethnomethodology, and psychological sociology, to the extent that the German sociologist Hans Joas notes that “ ‘ Action ’ is a key concept in philosophy and almost all the social and cultural sciences today; efforts to construct a ‘ theory of action ’ meet with special interest in all these fi elds ” ( 1996 : 1). He even insists that action is “ the basic category of the social sciences ” ( 2004 : 309). This development provides a useful indication for our refl ection: the concept of action is integrative, and seems to call for a multifaceted approach.

Action and Practical Theology

The reference to practice is deeply rooted in the Christian tradition, in the Gospels themselves (Luke 6:47 – 49; John 7:22; etc.) and further in Judaism, up to the book of Deuteronomy (4:1 – 6; 11:32; 26:16; 30:12 – 14; etc.). Its refl ection in theology is wide-spread throughout history, but a new situation was created during the twentieth century with the development of various action theories which had a considerable impact on practical theology (or pastoral theology, as it was called in many countries) in the late 1960s. We fi nd a fi rst description of practical theology as “ science of action ” ( Handlungswissenschaft ) by the German theologian Gerhard Krause in 1967 (Mette 2001 : 54). Those years were driven by the desire to integrate a scientifi c approach to practice with a theological framework in order to develop what the German theologian Norbert Mette soon called a “ theological theory of action ” ( 1978 : 9).

These developments drew from different disciplinary sources and methods within the social sciences and humanities. Praxis was a key word and praxis/theory the main focal point of many infl uential schools of thought, notably Marxism and the Frankfurt School critical theory. A variety of practical theologies emerged, such as the “ pastoral praxeology ” developed in Montreal (Canada) in the early 1970s, which was inspired by the interdisciplinary tradition of praxeology (the science of human action) (Nadeau

ACTION THEORIES 257

1993 ). Mette notes the heterogeneity of the new methodological approaches but underlines their common features: an inductive manner, the use of empirical methods, an interdisciplinary orientation, and the transmission of perspectives for present and future ( 2001 : 54). Such action - centered lines of approach became mainstream and represented the core trend of practical theology until recently. For example, in his Practical Theology (originally published in Dutch in 1993), Gerben Heitink could still write: “ I try to develop a theological theory of action as the core of a practical - theological theory ” ( 1999 : 124).

As Mette (2001) recounts, opposition to this action - centered trend emerged at its inception from authors such as Rudolf Bohren (1975) who estimated that this empha-sis on human action ran counter to a theological endeavor centered on God ’ s action:

The approaches based on the science of action would narrow the view to what people do or have to do. In contrast, Bohren insisted that the church must be measured by whether and to what extent God could become practical in it. Accordingly, practical theology has to refl ect fi rst and foremost God ’ s becoming practical, God ’ s becoming beautiful, God ’ s being alive in practice. It has to be theology; and that is more necessary today than ever before. According to Bohren, this is to be equated with aesthetics, that is, the science of perception. Practical theology should teach us how to see, for it is not primarily concerned with something that has to be achieved, but with something that is already given, with “ grace, ” with charisma. (Mette 2001 : 49)

Opposition also came from authors who denounced the rationalistic assumptions of most action theories. According to them, these theories of Kantian, utilitarian, or Weberian lineage overemphasize the role of the willing subject and underestimate the other factors conditioning people ’ s behavior: unconscious dynamics, social determina-tions, bodily experience, and precedence of language. Many of these authors champi-oned an understanding of practical theology stressing perception, and thus an aesthetical approach of practice, aesthetics being defi ned as the “ art of perception ” (Gr ö zinger 1995 ; Biehl 1997 ). Such emphasis on perception was seen as better suited to the theological recognition of God ’ s initiative. In recent years, some scholars, notably the German theologian G ü nther Heimbrock (2007) , insist that an adequate account of nonactive dimensions of practice should prompt practical theology to relativize the importance of action theories and to concentrate its analyses on “ lived experience. ” Mette thus concludes:

Although all the approaches which seek to formulate practical theology as a theological aesthetics or a doctrine of perception are accentuated differently (dialectical theology forms the background for some; others are coming from a theology oriented towards the phenomenology of religion), they all agree in their critique of this discipline as a science of action. They accuse the “ action ” oriented perspective of not allowing one to grasp in an adequate way the meaning or experience which is antecedent to this fi eld ’ s realm of objects (God ’ s practical becoming, God ’ s sovereign word in contrast to human practice, the religious or the holy). This means that the new or strange which breaks into reality from this horizon cannot make itself felt. Instead, the status quo is preserved. We have, however,

258 ROBERT MAGER

to examine whether and to what extent this criticism of the conception of practical theol-ogy as a science of action is justifi ed. ( 2001 : 53)

What follows is dedicated to such an evaluation.

Action Theories and Reason

Many action theories are undoubtedly determined by a modern paradigm that con-ceives of action as the product of willing subjects. The integration of such theories leads to notions of practice which tend to be voluntaristic, defi ned in terms of goals and means, as well as strategic in nature. Heitink thus endorses the notion of action put forward in 1982 by the German pedagogist Dieter Geulen: “ To act is to pursue a goal, to work toward an intentional and active realization of certain plans, by utilizing spe-cifi c means in a given situation ” (Heitink 1999 : 126). This is why, despite an explicit appeal to J ü rgen Habermas ’ s (1984 – 1987) theory of communicative action, Heitink remains attached to a dominantly strategic approach ( 1999 : 140, 156).

Habermas ’ s theory has exerted a profound infl uence on many practical theologians (Peukert 1984 ; Heitink 1999 ; van der Ven 2004 ). Its interdisciplinary richness and its dual nature (analytical/programmatic) seemed promising for a new discipline con-cerned with both understanding practice and reshaping it. In 1987 the Dutch theolo-gian Jacob Firet could refer to “ ‘ communicative action in the service of the gospel ’ as a generally accepted paradigm ” (Heitink 1999 : 155). This proved to be overly enthusi-astic, as many would come to criticize the rationalistic bent of that theory (Joas and Beckert 2001 ).

Theology as Theory and Art

A series of assumptions prove to be determining factors when the debate as a whole is considered. A rarely noticed postulate is the widespread identifi cation of theology with theory: in fact, most authors understanding practical theology as “ theological theory of practice ” equate “ theology ” with “ theory. ” The general problem of relating theory to practice is thus transposed in theology, the theological discourse being readily put on the theoretical side of the equation (Mette 1978 ).

In turn, “ theory ” directed toward action is understood as a twofold concept as it is both analytical (or descriptive) and normative (or prescriptive): its descriptive facet aims to understand practices while its prescriptive facet seeks to appraise and to change them. One could easily understand the powerful attraction exerted by such a concept over theology. The analytical dimension of theory engages the multifold resources of modern science, thereby allowing theology to claim a scientifi c status and to secure its own position in academia. The prescriptive dimension has an ethical twist which seems appropriate to honor theology ’ s indebtedness toward God (God ’ s gift, God ’ s plan, God ’ s law); it leads many authors to insist on the intentional and “ mediative ” characteristics of Christian action (Heitink 1999 ). But the very adoption of this theoretical framework

ACTION THEORIES 259

reveals two issues which prove to be particularly problematic: one is the bridging of the analytical and the normative dimensions; the other is an ever recurring contradiction between practical theology ’ s claim to be inductive and the prescriptive nature of any normative theory.

This equation of theology and theory seems unavoidable from the moment theology is understood as a science of action or, for that matter, as any other type of science. The prestige of science easily veils what is lost in the process, that is, what is suggested by an understanding of theology as art. Science produces theories aimed at enhancing knowledge and it leads to forms of (strategic) action seeking to transform reality. Art explores patterns of meaning and it seeks to open up new possibilities, thereby suggest-ing other types of action (expressive, dramaturgic, interactional) that are not necessar-ily predisposed toward intentional change. I propose that theology, in its full deployment, is both science and art: fi des quaerens intellectum (Anselm ’ s “ faith seeking understand-ing ” ) not only means the pursuit of scientifi c knowledge, but also engages in a relentless quest for existential meaning. Applied to practice, this means that theology should not only be concerned with what people actually do (description) and what they should do (prescription), but also with what they could do (refl ection), with vision and insight, that is, with the exploration of possible meanings and models of existence.

Human and Divine Action

Another assumption at work in the debate concerns the reference to God ’ s action. Many authors are reluctant to invest in action theories because these modern theories do not consider what is deemed to be essential to theology: the recognition of God ’ s initiative. Even those who believe in the necessity of action theories acknowledge this problem:

Besides a clear theory of human action, I want to leave scope for what, from a theological perspective, may be called divine action. I am only too aware that the term “ divine action ” is both complex and controversial. Yet I think it is a necessary term, however one interprets it, because without it theology might just as well move to the faculty of social sciences. (van der Ven 2004 : 332)

The inference lies in the leveling of human action and divine action, as if these were realities of the same order (Mager 2006 ). This conviction runs deep in the Jewish and Christian traditions, nourished by the narrative nature of scriptures, which refer to human and divine actions in the same stories. This leveling may lead to the opinion that attention given to human action is taken away from God ’ s action and is thus det-rimental to theology. One then feels obligated to provide “ a description of religion and action which combines a theological and an anthropological approach – which, nota bene , does justice to both sides ” (Heimbrock 2007 : 64 – 65). This understanding of the two sides of action can be radicalized along the traditional Augustinian - Calvinist view opposing, on the one hand, human impotence and deception and, on the other hand, redemptive word and grace. In such a view, modern action theories are not only incomplete, but indeed radically defective: the atheistic background of many of their

260 ROBERT MAGER

proponents serves as confi rmation of their unsuitability for theology. On the other hand, the notion of perception seems to allow for the recognition of God ’ s precedence (Bohren 1975 ; Gr ö zinger 1995 ; Biehl 1997 ).

It seems necessary to challenge these assumptions, as it is crucial to recognize that any reference to God ’ s action pertains to the realm of confession and, as such, falls under human action.

Believing that God acts, being a religious reconstruction of one ’ s own action, is itself a human act, which in its turn can be attributed to God without thereby negating our human agency. In believing that God acts we are the agents, but in relation to God we are the receiving patients, without disowning our own actions. (van der Ven 2004 : 367)

This implies that attention given to human action is not in principle lacking in theologi-cal perspective. It also means that the theological dimension cannot be restricted to perception, expression, or any other aspect of human experience, as if grace did not have to do with action itself. It fi nally means that any theological understanding of divine action is mediated – consciously or not – by conceptions of human action. This leaves little room for an overly pessimistic view of human agency and science: however legitimate our desire to honor “ the freedom of God ’ s word ” (Gr ö zinger 1987 : 215) and the gift of faith may be, any refl ection on them is interpretive and thus mediated by human perspectives. The task that lies ahead is not so much to fi nd some kind of balance or connection between anthropology and theology, but rather to elaborate a valid theological discourse that is anthropologically sound.

Toward a Comprehensive Model of Action

These remarks point toward the main task at hand, which is to strive for a comprehen-sive and coherent model of human action. In doing so, we must renounce the fantasy of an Archimedean point, a purely objective and totally comprehensive theory. But at the same time, we can hardly dismiss the importance of becoming increasingly aware of the conditions, dimensions, and dynamics of human action. This can be done only through careful appraisal of major insights concerning human behavior.

The last decades have shown how this is normally done, with innovative schools of thought and research putting forward aspects neglected by dominant theories, thus correcting the global picture. This was accompanied by the birth of new disciplines concentrating on one aspect or the other. Globally speaking, the twentieth century has staged “ two predominant models of action, namely rational action and normatively oriented action ” (Joas 1996 : 4). The fi rst model, indebted to such important authors as Kant and Weber, stressed the freedom and responsibility of the acting subject; the second model, in the footsteps of the “ masters of suspicion ” (Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud), underlined the social and psychological factors shaping human behavior.

The main correctives applied to the conception of a sovereign and willing actor came from such domains as sociology, linguistics, psychology, phenomenology, and pragmat-ics. They were also triggered by a spectrum of new interdisciplinary fi elds of study:

ACTION THEORIES 261

symbolic interactionism, psychosocial pragmatics, ethnomethodology. Different prob-lems were recurring throughout the last decades, notably:

1 the intentionality of action : is action caused by the actor or is intention inhe-rent to action itself? (phenomenology, analytical philosophy, hermeneutics, psychology);

2 the subject of action : is action best understood as action of a subject, as interac-tion, or as a systemic element? (philosophy, symbolic interactionism, functional-ist sociology);

3 action and corporeality : how is action related to the body as a whole, that is, to the mind, to emotions, to perception, to biological processes, etc.? (cognitive psychology, phenomenology, pragmatics);

4 action and language : if language is a form of action, how does action, in return, intermingle with our linguistic condition? (linguistics, sociology, psychosocial pragmatics, hermeneutics).

Authors in practical theology discussed these questions as they strove to integrate a wide variety of perspectives in their understanding of practice, thus referring to lan-guage, bodily perception, social situation, interactions, and power issues.

Practice or “ Lived Religion ”

Attention to bodily perception has been particularly important to counter overly rationalistic views of action. In recent literature, authors agree on the necessity of taking this passive element into account, but disagree when it comes to the suitable theoretical framework. Van der Ven investigates discussions in the fi eld of cognitive psychology in order to incorporate “ an analysis of the non - conscious, non - intentional and nonlinguistic side of action ” into his vision of practice as “ mindful action ” ( 2004 : 33). Others consider that the precedence of bodily perception must provoke a shift from action theory to aesthetics theory (Bohren 1975 ; Gr ö zinger 1987 ; Biehl 1997 ). Heimbrock thus estimates that research in phenomenology, pragmatics, and other fi elds has led practical theologians “ to conceive religious phenomena beyond a narrow category of action, ” in terms of “ forms of life, ” “ gestalt, ” or “ living religion ” ( 2007 : 72).

The concept of “ lived religion ” (a classical notion in the French sociology of religion) has received much attention in recent German, Dutch, and American practical theol-ogy literature (Failing and Heimbrock 1998 ; Gr ä b 2000 ; Ganzevoort 2009 ). Its adop-tion indicates either a renouncement of action - centered theories of practice or a move from practice to experience as the focus of the discipline, or both. These are major deci-sions, and debatable ones. The expansion of the scope of practical theology to the whole fi eld of religious experience as “ lived religion ” clearly indicates that the perspectives and methods of social sciences and religious studies are drawn together at a time where these fi elds are shifting from a dominant interest in institutional religion to a rediscov-ery of grassroot religious and spiritual experience (Hall 1997 ).

262 ROBERT MAGER

This is all well, but the issue, then, is to determine whether practical theology should encompass all religious and spiritual experiences or concentrate its refl ection on what people do, that is, on practices. In this debate, some authors try to retain the concept of practice by equating “ religion as practiced ” with “ lived religion ” (Hall 1997 ; Failing and Heimbrock 1998 ; Gr ä b 2000 ; Ganzevoort 2009 ). But others prefer to stick to an action - centered concept of practice, which admittedly is more congruent with the etymology and the history of the term. The latter essentially argue that analyses of bodily perception and social situation can be integrated into an action - centered theory of practice and that the action paradigm must be maintained (Mette 2001 ; van der Ven 2002 ).

“ You Are Always in Action ”

The German sociologist Hans Joas (1996) has argued forcefully in favor of a comprehen-sive model of action. He contends that this notion must be taken seriously “ as the basic category of the social sciences ” : “ The notion of ‘ action ’ as such does not fall under the Cartesian distinction [of body and mind]; it is always already an integration of ‘ physical ’ and ‘ mental ’ dimensions ” (Joas 2004 : 309). As he understands it, action “ encompasses passivity, sensitivity, receptivity and imperturbability ” ; and it requires a precise under-standing of corporeality as “ the specifi c structure of the relation between the human being as an organism and his environment ” (Joas 1996 : 168). Joas offers a complex analysis engaging phenomenological and pragmatic perspectives, which shows how the different dimensions of the human condition such as bodily perception, social situation, and intersubjectivity are not only constitutive of action but also determined by it. This counterbalances one - sided insistences on the precedence of perception:

Perception now can be interpreted as an action - related phenomenon. The world exists not simply as an external counterpart to our internal self but is structured by our capacities for and experiences of action. It exists in the form of possible actions. Our perception is directed toward the situational context of what we perceive. (Joas and Beckert 2001 : 273)

Action, then, is not simply an intentional operation that could be opposed to uninten-tional perception: “ Action . . . is the way in which human beings exist in the world . . . In my view you are always in action ” (Joas 1999 ). Action, being neither purely subjective nor entirely objectifi able, is a creative response to a personal and social situation made of tensions pre - existing the agent. It consists of “ situated creativity ” (Colapietro 2009 : 20).

Such a model helps to incorporate the insights of the past decades regarding action. I suggest that these developments evolve around two main concerns: the relation to the world through corporeality, and the relation to others through language (see Figure 24.1 ). These axes help discern four basic acts (doing, suffering, thinking, and speaking) and two important distinctions (theory/practice and subject/context). All the terms involved are interrelated in such a way that any pair constitutes a specifi c action problem open to consideration (theory vs. practice; thinking vs. suffering; subject vs. practice; speaking vs. doing; and so on).

ACTION THEORIES 263

Joas considers that “ work about an adequate conceptualization and understanding of what human action is . . . constitutes one of the crucial axes of interdisciplinary work in the social sciences ” ( 2004 : 309). Some practical theologians deem it equally important for the theological endeavor, as they are aware that theological references and discourse are never free of theoretical assumptions regarding action: “ Without fundamental refl ection on the concept of praxis on the basis of a chosen action theory, practical theology will remain bogged down in either exhortatory or practico - practical allusions ” (van der Ven 2002 : 28). We may then endorse Mette ’ s call for “ the concep-tual development of a practical theological theory of action which explicitly includes the aesthetic dimension and takes into consideration the question of method as well as the themes that must be treated in an interdisciplinary fashion ” ( 2001 : 61). This sup-poses a patient exploration of specifi c action theories in a variety of fi elds, with the preoccupation of questioning these theories with a theological frame of mind.

Acknowledgment

The author wishes to thank Ms Staecy Lee McKenzie for the linguistic revision of this article.

References

Arendt , H. ( 1958 ). The Human Condition . Chicago : University of Chicago Press . Biehl , P. ( 1997 ). “ Wahrnehmung und ä sthetische Erfahrung ” [Perception and Aesthetical

Experience] . In A. Grozinger and J. Loti , eds., Gelebte Religion . Rheinbach : Merzbach , pp. 380 – 411 .

Fig. 24.1 A model of action

(Self)

(Humanity) (World)SufferingDoing

Theory

Context

Subject

Practice

Thinking

Speaking

(Others)

Relation to the world(corporeality: issue

of reality)

Relation to others(language: issue of

meaning)

264 ROBERT MAGER

Bohren , R. ( 1975 ). Dass Gott sch ö n werde: Praktische Theologie als theologische Ä sthetik [That God Becomes Beautiful: Practical Theology as Theological Aesthetics] . Munich : Kaiser .

Colapietro , V. ( 2009 ). “ A Revised Portrait of Human Agency: A Critical Engagement with Hans Joas ’ s Creative Appropriation of the Pragmatic Approach . ” European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 1 : 1 – 24 . At http://lnx.journalofpragmatism.eu/wp - content/uploads/2009/11/01 - colapietro.pdf (accessed May 9, 2010).

Failing , W. , and Heimbrock , H. - G. ( 1998 ). Gelebte Religion wahrnehmen [Perceiving Lived Religion] . Stuttgart : Kohlhammer .

Firet , J. ( 1987 ). Spreken als een leerling [Speaking as a Learner] . Kampen : Kok . Ganzevoort , R. R. ( 2009 ). “ Forks in the Road when Tracing the Sacred: Practical Theology as

Hermeneutics of Lived Religion. ” At www.ruardganzevoort.nl/pdf/2009_Presidential.pdf (accessed May 9, 2010).

Gr ä b , W. ( 2000 ). Lebensgeschichten – Lebensentw ü rfe – Sinndeutungen: Eine Praktische Theologie gelebter Religion [Life Stories, Life Designs, Meanings: A Practical Theology of Lived Religion] . G ü tersloh : Kaiser .

Gr ö zinger , A. ( 1987 ). Praktische Theologie und Ä sthetik [Practical Theology and Aesthetics] . M ü nich : Kaiser .

Gr ö zinger , A. ( 1995 ). Praktische Theologie als Kunst der Wahrnehmung [Practical Theology as the Art of Perception] . G ü tersloh : Kaiser/G ü tersloher Verlagshaus .

Habermas , J. ( 1984 – 1987 ). The Theory of Communicative Action [1981], trans. T. McCarthy. Boston : Beacon Press .

Hall , D. D. , ed. ( 1997 ). Lived Religion in America: Toward a History of Practice . Princeton : Princeton University Press .

Heimbrock , H. - G. ( 2007 ). “ From Action to Lived Experience . ” In H. Streib , ed., Religion Inside and Outside Traditional Institutions . Leiden : Brill , pp. 55 – 77 .

Heitink , G. ( 1999 ). Practical Theology: History, Theory, Action Domains: Manual for Practical Theology [1993], trans. R. Bruinsma. Grand Rapids, MI : Eerdmans .

Joas , H. ( 1996 ). The Creativity of Action [1992], trans. J. Gaines and P. Keast. Chicago : University of Chicago Press .

Joas , H. ( 1999 ). “ Action Is the Way in which Human Beings Exist in the World ” [interview by Claus Otto Scharmer, Freie Universit ä t Berlin, Sept. 21, 1999]. Dialog on Leadership . www.dialogonleadership.org/interviews/Joas - 1999.shtml (accessed May 8, 2010).

Joas , H. ( 2004 ). “ The Changing Role of the Social Sciences: An Action - Theoretical Perspective . ” International Sociology 19 : 301 – 313 .

Joas , H. , and Beckert , J. ( 2001 ). “ Action Theory . ” In J. H. Turner , ed., Handbook of Sociological Theory . New York : Kluwer Academic/Plenum , pp. 269 – 285 .

Mager , R. ( 2006 ). “ Un enchantement de l ’ histoire? ” [An Enchanted History?] In R. Mager , ed., Dieu agit - il dans l ’ histoire? Explorations th é ologiques . Montreal : Fides , pp. 47 – 74 .

Mette , N. ( 1978 ). Theorie der Praxis [Theory of Praxis] . D ü sseldorf : Patmos . Mette , N. ( 2001 ). “ Practical Theology: Theory of Aesthetics or Theory of Action? ” In P. H. Ballard

and P. Couture , eds., Creativity, Imagination and Criticism . The Expressive Dimension of Practical Theology . Cardiff : Cardiff Academic Press , pp. 49 – 63 .

Nadeau , J. - G. ( 1993 ). “ La prax é ologie pastorale: faire th é ologie selon un paradigme prax é ologique ” [Pastoral Praxeology: Theology Following a Praxeological Paradigm] . Th é ologiques 1 : 79 – 100 .

Peukert , H. ( 1984 ). Science, Action, and Fundamental Theology [1976], trans. J. Bohman. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press .

ACTION THEORIES 265

van der Ven , J. A. ( 2002 ). “ An Empirical or a Normative Approach to Practical - Theological Research? A False Dilemma . ” Journal of Empirical Theology 15 : 5 – 33 .

van der Ven , J. A. ( 2004 ). “ Towards a Comparative Empirical Theology of Mindful Action . ” In C. A. M. Hermans and M. E. Moore , eds., Hermeneutics and Empirical Research in Practical Theology: The Contribution of Empirical Theology by Johannes A . van der Ven . Leiden : Brill , pp. 331 – 388 .