Practicing Theology in Youth Ministry

By Christopher Talbot

A renewed interest in theological reflection has arisen in recent decades among youth
ministry professionals and organizations. Kenda Creasy Dean and Andrew Root’s book The
Theological Turn in Youth Ministry operates as both a literal and metaphoric marker for the
recent awareness concerning the intersection between ministering to youth and theological
understanding. For example, Dean Borgman’s Foundations for Youth Ministry: Theological
Engagement with Teen Life and Culture is now in its second edition and the relatively new youth
ministry organization Rooted Ministry “exists to transform student ministry by fostering grace-
driven and cross-centered leaders through rich theological and contextual engagement.”1 Yet,
while youth ministry and theology are growing closer together in their awareness, these two
areas are not fully reconciled. As one author recently phrased, “Today’s youth ministry is in
desperate need of a theological, psychological, and ecological grounding.”2 After all, according
to at least one study, only 14% of youth pastors "strongly agree" that their youth ministry is
shaped more by theology than by youth culture—a statistic that needs to change.3

Though interest in theology is growing in youth ministry, there is some disagreement as

to how theological reflection and practice (or praxis) intersect. For many, “practical theology”
simply means taking theological reflection—whether it be systematic, historical, biblical, etc.—
and applying a theological principle(s) to their current context. Yet, as one surveys various youth
ministry texts, and broader practical theologians, many authors are arguing for a methodology
contrary to this practice. For many of these youth ministry experts, their “practical theology” was
developed, or better stated begun, in experience and/or context. As one surveys various
approaches, it becomes evident that there is some disagreement on how to define practical
theology, and subsequently, how to exercise practical theology within one’s given context.
Therefore, examining works by Richard R. Osmer, Ray Anderson, Andrew Root, Kenda Creasy
Dean, Chap Clark, and others, this paper will survey current understandings in approaching
practical theology as a unique discipline that encompasses the field of youth ministry, as well as
observe various difficulties this method can present, which could include, but are not limited to
(1) misunderstanding of human and divine action, (2) loss of an epistemic foundation, and (3) a
rejection of a priori assumptions. 

Development of Practical Theology

At first glance, one might assume that practical theology and applied theology are
synonymous terms, but this is not the case. For many, this is the main point of contention and
confusion for practical theology. Discussing Friedrich Schweitzer’s work, Leonard Kageler

1
“About Us – Rooted Ministry.” Rooted Ministry. https://www.rootedministry.com/about-us/ (retrieved August 10,
2018). Emphasis added.
2
Chap Clark, ed., Youth Ministry in the 21st Century: Five Views (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), xii.
Emphasis added.
3
Karen E. Jones, “Setting Ministry Goals: Personal and Interpersonal” in Youth Ministry that Transforms: A
comprehensive analysis of the hopes, frustrations, and effectiveness of today’s youth workers, eds., Merton
Strommen, Karen E. Jones, and Dave Rahn. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 210
argues, “He… debunks the idea that practical theology simply means applied theology.” 4
According to Michael McEntyre, before the 1960s practical theology was simply the application
of biblical studies, systematic theology, and church history.5 Since then, there has been a
significant shift in the understanding and definition of practical theology. Kenda Creasy Dean
argues, “To imply that ‘real’ theological insight comes from biblical and doctrinal reflection, not
from the practice of faith, devalues praxis as a theological enterprise (a view youth ministry has
tried desperately to overcome), and makes practical theology a venue… with no epistemological
value of its own.”6 For Dean, and for others, there is a strong and significant difference between
the discipline of practical theology and mere application of theological truth.

In this vein, Don Browning has often been credited with making the shift from pastoral,
or applied theology, to what is now known as practical theology. 7 With Browning’s influence,
and the work of others, like Ray Anderson and Richard R. Osmer, the past five decades have
witnessed a significant theological turn in practical ministry. No longer does practical theology
express an application of theological principles or doctrine. While time does not allow a full
survey, this change is largely due to practical theology being defined as its own field and
distinctive method.

While the major shift in this field happened in the 1960s, there have been other moments
throughout church history that have precipitated the change.8 It was Friedrich Schleiermacher
who advocated the addition of theology into the research university. 9 He advocated that theology
should be subdivided into philosophical, historical, and practical theology. 10 Practical theology,
he argued, should be focused on church practice. His shift resulted in a move away from the
ecclesial offices, and toward the entirety of the church. Schleiermacher, “sought to free practical
theology from the basement of theological construction where it had been marginalized and to
make it an essential element of theology as a whole.” 11 Schleiermacher, who many have crowned
as the father of protestant liberalism, thought practical theology should be the pinnacle of the
theological methods. He understood theology as a positive science, much like medicine or law.
In doing so, many point to Schleiermacher as the first catalyst in a new understanding of
practical theology. Yet, though he desired to see a major shift in the understanding of practical

4
Leonard M. Kageler, “Youth Ministry Theological Foundations and Youth Ministry Praxis: Baptists and Anglicans
in Five Countries on Four Continents,” Journal of Youth Ministry 16, no. 2 (2018): 36-58.
5
Michael McEntyre, “Thinking (Practical) Theology” in Adoptive Youth Ministry: Integrating Emerging
Generations into the Family of Faith, ed., Chap Clark (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 101.
6
Kenda Creasy Dean, “We Will Find the Answers As We Go: A Response to Chap Clark’s Youth Ministry as
Practical Theology” Journal of Youth Ministry 7, no. 1 (2008): 44.
7
McEntyre, “Thinking (Practical) Theology,” 102.
8
It should be noted that the term theological practica was first used in the twelfth century, A.C. Barnard, Die
historiese ontwikkeling van die Praktiese Teologie (Pretoria: University of Pretoria, n.d.) 5 as quoted in “Youth
Ministry as a Practical Theology: Making a Case for Youth Ministry as an Academic Discipline” Malan Nel,
Journal of Youth and Theology 2, no. 1, (2003), 69.
9
Andrew Root, “Practical Theology: What Is It and How Does It Work” Journal of Youth Ministry 7, no. 2 (2009):
56.
10
Malan Nel, “Youth Ministry as a Practical Theology: Making a Case for Youth Ministry as an Academic
Discipline” Journal of Youth and Theology 2, no. 1, (2003), 70.
11
Root, “Practical Theology,” 56
theology, the development was never established. Even he defaulted to placing practical theology
as the application of philosophical and historical theology.12

Karl Barth likewise offered substantial contributions to the discussion of theory and
praxis in regards to this discipline. According to Barth, “Praxis and theory, Church and theology,
love and knowledge, simply cannot be set over against one another in this abstract way.” 13 Barth
did not seek to depict theory and praxis as against one another. He avoided any distinction
between the theoretical and the practical. 14 While one appreciates the desire to integrate theory
and praxis in a complimentary way, Barth may have caused ambiguity as to where one might
parse the two.

Further developing this line of change, Amy Jacober writes on youth ministry as a
theological context, and how the increased interest in practical theology has been attended by
three major historical-cultural shifts. In her words,

First, Christianity is no longer the normative force in society. Second, as the social
sciences continue to rise in use, new vocabularies and methods must be developed and
learned to aide interdisciplinary dialogue. Finally… a contextualization of theology has
been taking place. Youth ministry is one of these contexts.15

What is important to note concerning Jacober’s observations is the seismic shifts in the
correlation between the change in society with the revised understanding of practical theology.
With an epistemological shift in society comes an epistemological shift in theological
methodology. Put another way, Jacober is implying practical theology would not be what it is
today if it were not for the paradigmatic move in regards to Christianity and modernism. Further,
Jacober highlights a distinctive of practical theology: its interdisciplinary nature. For example, in
Johannes van der Ven’s model, one begins with empirical work of the social sciences. This gives
precedence to the interdisciplinary emphasis within modern practical theology. Only after
beginning in this discipline does one then move to the next phase of understanding this work
from a theological perspective.16 This, as will be noted later, is significant in understanding its
implications for youth ministry.

Defining Practical Theology

In light of these changes, how might one define practical theology? Kenda Creasy Dean,
a prolific youth ministry practitioner, as well as professor of Youth, Church, and Culture at
Princeton Theological Seminary, defines practical theology as “theological reflection on
12
Kenda Creasy Dean, “Fessing Up: Owning Our Theological Commitments” in Starting Right: Thinking
theologically about youth ministry, eds. Kenda Creasy Dean, Chap clark, and Dave Rahn. (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2001), 56.
13
Karl Barth, Der Rømerbriefe, 1st ed., 102 as quoted in Ray S. Anderson, The Shape of Practical Theology:
Empowering Ministry with Theological Praxis (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2001),15.
14
Ray S. Anderson, The Shape of Practical Theology: Empowering Ministry with Theological Praxis (Downers
Grove: IVP Academic, 2001), 15
15
Amy E. Jacober, The Adolescent Journey: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Practical Youth Ministry (Downers
Grove: InterVarsity, 2011), 31.
16
Root, “Practical Theology,” 68.
Christian action.”17 To add, she states that practical theology is a particular kind of theological
reflection that is done in the context of ministry, and in the midst of Christian experience. It is
here that one “discovers Gods’ truth in and through the Christian life.”18 Dean’s definition is
significant. She argues for theological reflection and discovery accomplished through Christian
experience. The epistemic methodology should be noted. As another author phrased it, “what
sets practical theology apart from other theological perspectives is its emphasis on the starting
point of theological inquiry. Practical theology starts with the context, or the current practices, of
what it is we are seeking to understand.” 19 In the briefest of terms, “it is at least a praxis-theory-
praxis process of constant dialogue…,” according to Chap Clark. 20 In Clarks’ model—which
seeks to be revelation-focused—one begins with context, moves toward biblical exegesis, and
then seeks application. For these practical theologians, theology begins in experience and
context.

Brandon K. McKoy argues that “[P]ractical theology is concerned with Christian action
—namely, how we put our God talk into action and how our action changes our God talk.
Practical theology is concerned with the mundane, not with the abstract philosophical
principles… Simply put, practical theology is theological reflection within everyday life.”21 To
note, McKoy in his book is seeking to synthesize social constructionism with his practical
theology for implementation in youth ministry. The connection between modern practical
theology and social construction, one might argue, is not coincidental.

Youth ministry veteran and professor Duffy Robbins notes, “The goal of any true
theological enterprise, at least for those of us who are followers of Christ, is always to move
beyond the ‘word become concept’ to the ‘word become flesh.’” 22 Likewise, Ray Anderson, who
was a practical theologian outside the area of youth and family ministry, and well-known for
articulating methodology within his discipline, defines practical theology as, “a dynamic process
of reflective, critical inquiry into the praxis of the church in the world and God’s purposes for
humanity, carried out in the light of Christian Scripture and tradition, and in critical dialogue
with other sources of knowledge.”23 Anderson’s definition is important because it highlights the
major elements consistent through the majority of practical theology methodologies. While
Anderson certainly seeks to articulate a practical theology that is more biblical, it still relies
heavily Don Browning’s basic paradigm.24

17
Dean, “Fessing Up,” 31.
18
Ibid.
19
Michael McEntyre, “Thinking (Practical) Theology,” 97.
20
Chap Clark, “Youth Ministry as Practical Theology,’ Journal of Youth Ministry 7, no. 1 (2008): 10
21
Brandon K. McKoy, Youth Ministry from the Outside In: How Relationships and Stories Shape Identity.
(Downers Grove: IVP, 2013), 237. Emphasis added.
22
Duffy Robbins, This Way to Youth Ministry: An Introduction to the Adventure (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004),
21.
23
Anderson, The Shape of Practical Theology, 22.
24
Dean Borgman, Foundations for Youth Ministry: Theological Engagement with Teen Life and Culture. (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 72.
 Many within youth ministry (e.g. Andrew Root, Chap Clark, Dean Borgman, etc.) have
drawn largely from Richard R. Osmer’s Practical Theology.25 According to Root, Osmer has
done the most work in providing a paradigm for the major tasks accomplished by practical
ministry.26 Osmer argues that practical theology has four fundamental tasks it must accomplish.
First, the descriptive-empirical task, which consists of “gathering information that helps us
discern patterns and dynamics in particular episodes, situations, or contexts.” 27 Second, the
interpretive task draws “on theories of the arts and sciences to better understand and explain why
these patterns and dynamics are occurring.”28 Third, the normative task uses “theological
concepts to interpret particular episodes, situations, or contexts, constructing ethical norms to
guide our responses, and learning from ‘good practice.’” 29 And lastly, the pragmatic task
determines the strategies of action. 30 Osmer notes, “It is helpful to conceptualize these four tasks
with the image of a hermeneutical circle, which portrays interpretation as composed of distinct
but interrelated moments.”31 While not every practical theologian copies Osmer’s paradigm,
there are consistent themes that overlap. One may readily ask why the normative task is only one
among four?

While definitions of this theological enterprise can be as abundant as there are

theologians within the discipline, there are common elements no matter the theologian’s faith
tradition. What seems to have happened, as one examines these definitions, is a loss of a
concrete, objective starting point to begin theological reflection.32 In case one might think this is
simply a matter of semantics, Andrew Root notes that “the common identity of those in youth
ministry… is not application, but in the fact that we are theologians of action/practice.” 33 As
those in youth ministry (and ministry broadly) have sought to understand and articulate practical
theology, many have failed at placing primacy on God’s revelation in Scripture. An element of
this difficulty comes from the natural discussion, relation, and discernment of theory and praxis.
According to Anderson, if either theory or practice takes precedence over the other, the result
will either be a lack of theological substance, or pragmatic results void of prophetic revelation. 34
Yet, one is forced to place one in priority over the other.

The distinction in nomenclature within practical theology is also integral to a proper

understanding. Consistently, practical theologians will use praxis over practice. The difference is
significant. “Praxis” alludes to “a pattern of activity in which action and ongoing reflection
interpenetrate.”35 This is a type of action that allows understanding and reflection in the current

25
See Richard R. Osmer, Practical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008)
26
Root, “Practical Theology,” 66.
27
Richard R. Osmer. Practical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008) Kindle Locations 93-
96. Kindle Edition.
28
Osmer. Practical Theology, 93-96.
29
Ibid.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid., 182-183.
32
What is interesting to note is that the shift in understanding practical theology, and the professionalization of
youth ministry in America, happen virtually at the same time.
33
Root, “Practical Theology,” 71.
34
Anderson, The Shape of Practical Theology, 14.
35
Dean, “Fessing Up,” 32.
moment. Conversely, “practice” simply alludes to actions we commit, or better stated “shared
patterns of interaction in a community…” 36 Therefore, while theory generally leads to practice
(an application model), within practical theology, theory arises within praxis, and leads to further
praxis.37

Many practical theologians within youth ministry are quick to note that Scripture is to
have the final word, though one might ask why it should not have the first word as well. 38 Instead
of beginning and folding back in on God’s truth as found in the Bible, experience, pragmatism,
and existentialism seem to have intertwined themselves in order give “practical theology” a new
foundation. Dean notes, “Practical theology differs from other forms of theological reflection in
that it focuses on knowing God through concrete situations.” 39 The questions arise as to what
makes a situation concrete, and how—epistemologically—are we to understand God’s revelation
in that moment?

Difficulties in Practical Theology

Don Browning, who wrote a seminal text for the field of practical theology 40, sought to
develop a methodology that integrated “theory and practice in an ongoing process of action and
reflection.”41 Browning, who has been called the father or architect of practical theology,
affected his discipline in profound ways.42 He argued for a five-level theological reflection. What
is of particular importance is his focus on the social sciences. These levels include: “the Visional
(cultural anthropology), Obligational (social anthropology), Tendency-needed (psychology),
Environmental-Social (ecology/sociology), and Rule-Role.43 While this text has been a formative
text for many in this discipline, several are quick to note concerns with Browning’s model,
which in turn can be said about much of practical theology’s formulation. Some have argued that
Browning tended to “subsume practical theology under ethics,”44 or that he had an “overly
anthropological bias in his approach,”45 and did “not anchor his method sufficiently in
Scripture.”46 It would seem that a method that begins and ends in personal experience and/or
context will always have an overemphasis on anthropology.

Outside of an overemphasis on the social sciences, others have noted inherent difficulties
and/or weaknesses to the current understanding of practical theology. Andrew Root notes the
inherent difficulties within the discipline. He writes,

36
Ibid.
37
Michael McEntyre, “Talking (Practical) Theology,” 103.
38
Clark, “Youth Ministry as Practical Theology,” 17
39
Dean, “Fessing Up,” 36.
40
See Don S. Browning, A Fundamental Practical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991)
41
Anderson, The Shape of Practical Theology, 26.
42
Borgman, Foundations for Youth Ministry, 71.
43
Ibid.
44
Anderson, The Shape of Practical Theology, 29
45
Ibid. 29
46
Ibid.
 If practical theology, and youth ministry following it, is concerned with the theological
activity of local communities of action, then youth ministry imbedded within practical
theology is fundamentally about the articulation and association of two distinct forms of
action (praxis): God’s and humanity… It is problematic because divine and human
actions are distinct and different—or, at the very least, we must admit that divine action
is hidden from the human knower. But it’s also generative, because although these forms
of action (praxis) are distinct, they nevertheless do relate.47

Root seeks to ease (though, not resolve) this tension by offering four different practical
theological-philosophical perspectives. In offering various perspectives, Root also proposes
current youth ministry professionals as exemplars. These include Kenda Creasy Dean for the
neo-Aristotelian perspective, David White for the critical theory perspective, Chap Clark in the
pragmatist perspective, and himself (Andrew Root) from a Kierkegaardian existentialist
perspective.48 Root is aware of the inherent epistemological difficulty within the discipline. This
difficulty seems to stem, again, from the ambiguous starting point for theological reflection.
Further, as one evaluates these perspectives, there are disagreements as to how one “knows
God.” With beginning in experience/context, instead of an objective, transcendent reality, one
would be hard-pressed to discern the distinction between human and divine action. This
distinction would not only be difficult from the start, but also through the entirety of the process.

A particularly concerning discussion has arisen between practical theology and social
constructionism. Brandon K. McKoy has sought to integrate—rather naturally—the areas of
practical theology and social constructionism. According to McKoy, the main idea concerning
social constructionism “is that we create our world through our relationships and through the
language we use and the stories we share.” 49 Again, McKoy notes, “Social constructionism
became a tool that grounded my practical theology within the context of relationships.” 50 This
junction again stresses the difficulty articulating an appropriate practical theology. If one
develops their own reality with a societal grouping, what keeps the social construction from
taking the primary place, and therefore project those social constructs back upon God and His
truth. For McKoy, practical theology and social constructionism are natural partners. So much
so, he believes this combination will lead to the necessary paradigm shift.

In working through these methodological questions, Chap Clark recently sought to

reconcile some of these tensions he was observing within the discipline. He aimed to provide a
practical theology paradigm that was faithful to the Scriptures, as well as one’s own context and
history, and one that offers a committed course of action. 51 In his own words, “Practical theology
begins with who and where we are, is faithful to the Scriptures, and the history of God’s people,
and provides a discernable and pragmatic course of faithful action.” 52 Though Clark is seeking to

47
Andrew Root with Blair D. Dertrand, “Postscript: Reflecting on Method, Youth Ministry as Practical Theology”
in The Theological Turn in Youth Ministry, Andrew Root & Kenda Creasy Dean (Downers Grove: InterVarsity,
2011), 219.
48
Root with Dertrand, “Postscript,” 221.
49
McKoy, Youth Ministry from the Outside In, 28.
50
Ibid.
51
Clark, “Youth Ministry as Practical Theology,” 13.
52
Ibid., 13.
articulate a paradigm that is conscious and honoring of the Scripture’s authority, he still begins
with the person and the context. Do not the Scriptures tell us exactly who we are, and to an
extent, where we are?

While Clark’s model does not necessarily achieve its intended goal, his attempt should be
commended. In a 2008 edition of the Journal of Youth Ministry David F. White, Kenda Creasy
Dean, and Gary A. Parrett offered responses to Clark’s model. Dean, consistent with her
definition and methodology of practical theology, propagates a phrase attributed to Augustine as
a maxim of her model: solvitur ambulando, or “it is solved by walking.”53 She argues that taking
Scriptural principles to apply to the lives of teenagers “would make youth ministry as practical
theology a one-way street.”54 To note, Dean does not share similar view of Scripture with Clark.
She states that Clark’s “high view of Scripture sometimes borders on biblicisim, supplanting the
living Person of Christ with the written Bible, and overlooks the power of communities that
influence the way we read sacred texts.” 55 Practitioners like Dean have lost confidence there is a
“biblical perspective” that exists, and that an exegetical method could be successful in bringing
about biblical principles to apply to the lives of teenagers.56

Dean goes so far as to say that Clark borders on an “‘applied’ vision of practical
theology.”57 Though Clark comes closer than most within the areas of youth ministry and
practical theology, one could strongly argue that he rejects an “applied” paradigm for practical
theology. For example, in seeking to reconcile some of the difficulties within his own
understanding Clark argues,

When faithfully and communally applied, this process will empower and enable youth
ministry practitioners to lead a believing community to shift from reliance on a priori
assumptions and convictions that hinder the work of the Spirit toward the kind of
reflective responses that produce a deepening commitment to biblically-driven and
theologically-directed action.58

It would seem that a priori convictions are necessary for a commitment to biblical-theological
action in any given context. One must begin with some presupposition. Certainly, one does not
want to be guilty of some form of modernistic rationalism, yet a complete rejection of a priori
convictions seems to jettison any attempt at an objective epistemic foundation.

From a slightly different perspective, Dean Borgman writes that practical theology
(rightly understood), “remembers our starting point, that apart from abiding in Christ and without
the mind of Christ we are at a loss in figuring out the lives of young people and their culture.” 59
Further, Borgman states, “The goal of practical theology is transformation: individual and

53
Dean, “We Will Find the Answers As We Go,” 39.
54
Ibid., 43.
55
Ibid., 43.
56
Ibid., 44.
57
Ibid.
58
Clark, “Youth Ministry as Practical Theology,” 21.
59
Borgman, Foundations for Youth Ministry, 68.
corporate…”60 One may add that this would never include a transformation, or alteration of who
God is. In founding one’s understanding upon God’s divine metanarrative found in the
Scriptures, one can have certainty and a reasonable level of objectivity when developing an
applied theology.61 Theology always speaks of something—or better yet, someone—that is
ultimate. When theologizing, why not begin with revelation from God, rather than experiences
and contexts that can be subjective and temporal?

Contrary to the articulation of some in youth ministry, Richard Dunn argues that one
must begin with theological foundations (beliefs) and then, and only then, move to life practices
and ministry applications.62 This is where many disagree. Again, according to Andrew Root,
some argue for theological reflection “which tends to conflate human and divine action… There
has been a kind of Pragmatist school… a social critical school… a practice oriented
perspective… and a revelation centric perspective.” 63 There is not a clear divide, when working
from experience, between human action and God’s action.

One of the central concerns among practical theologians is the loss of distinctiveness in
their own theological method if it is nothing but theological application. Within this praxis-
theory-praxis model, practical theologians can argue that their theological reflection is just as
unique as those in systematic, historical or biblical theology. If practical theologians are simply
taking the truth found in the rest of the theological encyclopedia (biblical studies, systematics,
historical theology) and applying it, they are no longer distinct, but simply the application of
other methods. Yet, this concession may be necessary. James Fowler notes,

[P]ractical theology is not self-sufficient as a discipline. Though it has and must exercise
direct access to the sources of faith and theology in Scripture and tradition, it does not do
so in isolation. Practical theology is a part of a larger theological enterprise that includes
the specialties of exegetical, historical, systematic and fundamental theological inquiry
and construction.64

The question remains as to the sufficiency of this discipline.

Implications for Youth Ministry

After observing the inherent difficulties, the implications for youth ministry are myriad.
First, for many, youth ministry education is located as a sub-discipline of practical theology.
Therefore, if practical theology is not viable as a unique and sufficient discipline, one might ask
how this affects the understanding and practice of youth ministry, as well as the training of youth

60
Ibid., 69.
61
Ibid., 70.
62
Richard R. Dunn, “A Theological Framework for Doing Youth Ministry” in Reaching a Generation for Christ: A
Comprehensive Guide to Youth Ministry, eds., Richard R. Dunn and Mark H. Senter III, (Chicago: Moody, 1997),
50-51.
63
Root, “Practical Theology,” 65.
64
James Folwer, “Practical Theology and Theological Education: Some Models and Qustions,” Theology Today 42
(1985): 49 as quoted in Ray S. Anderson, The Shape of Practical Theology: Empowering Ministry with Theological
Praxis (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2001), 32.
ministers within the academy.65 For those concerned, the issue is whether or not youth ministry is
a theological discipline, or instead a skilled trade to serve the local church. 66 While time and
scholarship will tell, it seems as though youth ministry can still remain a theological dialectic,
without necessarily having to marry itself to the entirety of current practical theology.

Second, while one may be aware of the concerns inherent in practical theology, this
should not cause the youth pastor, or the youth ministry educator, to jettison practical thinking as
it comes to theology and theological reflection. To borrow from Leroy Forlines’ thinking, no part
of the human person is left untouched when we communicate, receive, and practice the gospel
message in today’s culture.67 As the youth ministry educator or youth pastor seeks to understand
the implications of this method, it should not cause one to reject any theological application.
Instead, one should be more aware of the need to apply and reflect on theological truth for our
current time.

Third, inherent within practical theology methodology is an emphasis, and dependence,

on interdisciplinary dialogue. Clark notes, “Whatever the source of these data sets, anything that
speaks into the human condition such that believers can receive a deeper and more thorough
understanding of the context in which the Gospel is to be lived out is an important part of a
practical theology method.”68 The concern, then, as one may look at various curriculums within
Christian colleges and seminaries that teach youth ministry, is an over-emphasis on secular
disciplines, against or subjugating the authority of Scripture. That is not to say developmental
psychology, human biology, sociology, etc., is not helpful in better understanding youth
ministry. Yet, as one surveys the educational landscape in youth ministry, other disciplines are
easily given primacy over theological and exegetical practices. This shift, certainly, is due to this
current understanding of practical theology.

Lastly, and most significantly, is the presumed loss of an epistemic foundation for
practicing youth ministry. When participating in practical theology for youth ministry, one must
understand the methods and philosophies at play. If indeed there is no transcendent, objective
starting point for theological reflection within practical theology, the youth pastor and the youth
ministry educator must find alternatives in doing theology. Further, one should continue to be
aware as to how the praxis-theory-praxis models may be affecting current youth ministry
understanding, most importantly in the local church.

Not least among these implications for youth ministry is the effect practical theology has
in the thinking of teens themselves. Fernando Arzola Jr. rightly states, “Teens are theologians.
They reflect on the things of life and wonder where God is, what God thinks, what their response
should be. While this reflection may or may not be filtered through a biblical paradigm or
65
Regarding this concern, Gary A. Parrett noted, if this is “another in an unending string of attempts by those who
teach in areas of ministry to justify their existence in the academy, then it is a futile chasing after the wind.” Gary A.
Parrett, “Toward What End? A Response to Chap Clark’s Youth Ministry as Practical Theology Journal of Youth
Ministry 7, no. 1 (2008): 59.
66
Clark, “Youth Ministry as Practical Theology,” 10.
67
See, Christopher Talbot, “Communicating the Gospel: The Church’s Mission and Ministry in The Promise of
Arminian Theology: Essays in Honor of F. Leroy Forlines, ed. Matthew Steven Bracey & W. Jackson Watts,
(Nashville: Randall Houses, 2016).
68
Clark, “Youth Ministry as Practical Theology,” 17.
through a formal theological process, they are, nonetheless, engaging with questions of ultimate
meaning.”69 One might add to Arzola’s comments that it is precisely because some students do
not use a biblical paradigm or formal theological process when asking the inescapable questions
of life that those “practical theologians” around them understand the benefits and risks associated
with modern practical theology. There is certainly a trickle-down effect at play with academic
youth ministry, and youth ministry within the local church.

Speaking to youth pastors, Andrew Zirschky writes, “Anytime you open the Bible and
read the scriptures, anytime you talk about God or your Christian faith, you do theology. It may
not be intentional, but it’s inescapable: You are chief theologian and biblical interpreter for the
young people who gather around you. It’s a high and holy calling.” 70 As a practical theologian,
the youth pastor is opening “a dialogue to consider the intersection of the theological in everyday
life.”71 Youth pastors must take this charge seriously, and with caution rightly divide the word of
truth (2 Tim. 2:15).

Conclusion

Not all youth ministry practitioners and professors have bought-in wholesale to the
practical theology methods listed above. Gary Parrett, in his response to Chap Clark’s practical
ministry paradigm rightly notes, “The best concepts and terms we can offer to future leaders of
what we call ‘youth ministry’ are those that are easily located in Scripture and church history.” 72
While one may take issue with the catechesis-based approach Parrett articulates in response, he
stands as a significant alternative to contemporary models. Parrett is an example of one that
occupies a place within the academy, yet does not feel the need subscribe to this new
understanding.

It is important to note the distinction that practical theologians are making in their
methodology. What once was generally the application of other methodologies has now become
its own method—distinct in its process of theologizing. One hopes that we can conceptualize an
understanding of practical theology that implements the truths and tenets of historical,
theological understanding, while simultaneously honoring practical theology as its own field. As
has been noted, this task will not be easy. Yet, as Borgman writes, “Practical theology brings
general theology (doxological, biblical, historical, and systematic) into the real world. It works
within paradoxes—between heavenly and worldly, between the ideal and the actual…” 73 One
will notice that the best practical theologians care deeply for their context, and care deeply—and
work carefully—with the Scriptures to join the two.

69
Fernando Arzola, Jr. Toward a Prophetic Youth Ministry: Theory and Praxis in Urban Context (Downers Grove:
IVP Academic, 2008), 101.
70
Andrew Zirschky, “Get Trained” in Letters to a Youth Worker, Mark DeVries, ed. (Brentwood: CYMT Press,
2012), 65.
71
Jacober, The Adolescent Journey, 26.
72
Gary A. Parrett, “Toward What End? A Response to Chap Clark’s Youth Ministry as Practical Theology Journal
of Youth Ministry 7, no. 1 (2008): 63.
73
Borgman, Foundations for Youth Ministry, 68.
 Are we willing to say, alongside Martin Luther that “true theology is practical”?
Certainly, the truth of God is intended to be lived out. It is sharper than any two-edged sword and
judges our thoughts and our attitudes (Heb. 4:12). Whether or not the current understanding of
practical theology will endure, and/or be reformed is still unsure. If there is a significant need
and ability for reform, it will take the best of our understanding and wisdom, and only time will
tell if this is possible.