ecclesial traditions. I believe all three types of theology are necessary for a
healthy, engaged and empirically informed theology.
Academic empirical theology, in all its breadth and diversity, is not lim-
ited to or constrained by ecclesial theology and is thereby able to support,
review, revise or, in my language, “rescript” it. By and large, it is non-
confessional and has attempted to place itself in a kind of social science
type zone, which is why it looks pretty much like Religious Studies rather
than theology. What I have tried to do is to take this third type of discourse
and suggest that it should connect to and make sense of both the ordinary
and the ecclesial and remain in conversation with them. While it is not
constrained by them, it is certainly informed by them. Indeed, my critique
of academic empirical theology is that it has failed to take seriously the
tradition-specifi c contribution that ecclesial theology makes. This has led
to a prioritizing of what looks like Religious Studies discourse, whereby
theological meaning is moderated by social science or liberal theologi-
cal presuppositions, which is certainly a problem in terms of its distinctly
theological nature.
In the American context, this tradition of empirical research in theol-
ogy has some resonance, mostly in its association with the work of the
late Don Browning. Browning included qualitative research in his fun-
damental approach to practical theology in the form of congregational
case studies. 18 His approach to practical theology was developed in his
work with others in relation to the study of the family in the American
context. 19 However, despite his work and the signifi cance of it in the
American context, Evangelical appropriation of his approach, most nota-
bly by the late Ray S. Anderson, talked about praxis, but never actually
showed how it could be researched empirically. 20 He adopted aspects of
Browning’s hermeneutics, notably in the use of Gadamer and the fusion
of horizons between theory and the contemporary issues, but he never
developed the empirical trajectory suggested by Browning. Maybe this
reluctance refl ected the state of play during which Anderson was active in
the Evangelical practical theological seminary academy. It was considered
risky to move away from an applied model of theology, let alone engage in
actual empirical research. However, times have changed and, increasingly,
seminaries and universities are hiring faculty profi cient to teach empiri-
cal research methods in the context of Practical Theology. Perhaps this
is because there is increased recognition that for Doctor of Ministry stu-
dents, as well as Doctor of Philosophy students in Practical Theology,
262 M.J. CARTLEDGE