Introduction

The practice of “Practical Theology” leverages the tools of the social sciences as, outlined by Max Weber, to understand and reflect upon revelation and mediation within Theology in human activity. However there already exists a clear philosophical contrast between the Verteshen of Weber (Swedberg and Agevall, 2016, Pg 356-359) and Emotivism as defined by MacIntyre. (2007, Pg 6-20).

Alasdair MacIntyre offers emotivism largely as a diagnosis of modern moral discourse, while John Swinton and Harriet Mowat (in Practical Theology and Qualitative Research) articulate a method for faithful, transformative practice. Read together, they illuminate both the strengths and vulnerabilities of contemporary practical-theological work (Swinton and Mowatt, 2016, pg 260-266).

Practical Theology and Verstehen (via Swinton & Mowat)

Swinton and Mowat’s account of Practical Theology as action research sits very naturally within the tradition of Verstehen associated with Max Weber.

They emphasise that:

• Human experience is interpretative, complex, and meaning-laden
• Research involves uncovering “worlds of meaning” embedded in practice
• Methods like ethnography, interviews, and reflexivity enable us to grasp how people understand their own actions

This is classic Verstehen: an attempt to interpret the subjective meanings that shape social action.

However, Swinton and Mowat go beyond Weber in two decisive ways:

1. From interpretation to transformation
Where Weber’s Verstehen is primarily explanatory, Swinton and Mowat insist that understanding must lead to changed, more faithful practice. Their cyclical model (practice → reflection → revised practice) embeds interpretation within action research.

2. A theological telos
Unlike Weber’s descriptive sociology, their approach is oriented toward faithfulness to God and participation in divine mission. This introduces:

• A normative framework (faithfulness, not just meaning)
• A commitment to mediation between theology and lived practice

So, their work can be seen as:

Verstehen + theological normativity + transformative action

Practical Theology and Emotivism (via MacIntyre)

MacIntyre’s account of emotivism provides a critical lens through which to assess Swinton and Mowat’s project.

For MacIntyre, emotivism claims that:

• Moral judgments are expressions of preference or feeling
• They are neither true nor false
• Moral debate becomes interminable, because no rational resolution is possible

Swinton and Mowat implicitly resist this position, but they also operate in the cultural context MacIntyre describes.

Points of resonance

They share with MacIntyre an awareness that:

• The world is not reducible to simplistic scientific rationality
• Human experience includes emotion, perception, and depth
• Surface-level accounts of practice often mask deeper realities

In this sense, they acknowledge the complexity and non-neutrality of human meaning, something emotivism also (in its own way) highlights.

Points of tension and critique

However, Swinton and Mowat clearly reject emotivism’s reductionism:

1. Against “mere expression”
MacIntyre argues that modern moral language often functions as emotivism. Swinton and Mowat assume instead that practices can be:

• Misinterpreted
• Critically evaluated
• Reformed toward greater faithfulness

This presupposes that meaning is not just subjective expression, but something that can be truer or less true.

2. Retaining truth (though chastened)
While they avoid naive claims (“we don’t find truth, truth finds us”), they still affirm:

• A genuine search for truth and faithfulness
• The role of revelation alongside empirical inquiry

This stands directly against emotivism’s denial of truth-value in moral claims.

3. Transformation beyond persuasion
For MacIntyre, emotivist discourse often becomes a matter of influencing attitudes.
For Swinton and Mowat, action research aims at:

• Faithful participation in God’s mission
• Transformation grounded in theological discernment, not preference

Action Research as the Key Intersection

Action research is where the relationship becomes most illuminating.

• Like Weber’s Verstehen, it begins with interpreting lived experience
• Unlike emotivism, it assumes that such interpretation can lead to meaningful, justified change
• Unlike purely social-scientific models, Swinton and Mowat embed it in a theological telos

Their distinctive contribution is to reframe action research as:

• Not just problem-solving, but faithfulness-seeking
• Not just understanding practice, but challenging and reshaping it
• Not just participatory, but theologically mediated

Overall Synthesis

Read together:

• MacIntyre exposes the danger that moral and social discourse collapses into expressions of preference (emotivism).
• Swinton and Mowat offer a model of inquiry that resists this collapse by grounding interpretation in theological truth and transformative practice.
• Weber’s Verstehen provides the methodological bridge: a way of taking meaning seriously without reducing it to mere feeling.

The result is a productive tension:

Practical Theology as articulated by Swinton and Mowat can be understood as a theologically directed form of Verstehen, consciously or not responding to the kind of cultural condition that MacIntyre diagnoses—seeking to recover meaningful, truth-oriented, and transformative practice in a context where moral discourse is always at risk of sliding into emotivism.

Bibliography

MacIntyre, A. (2007) After Virtue. 3rd edn. University of Notre Dame Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/856189 (Accessed: 5 May 2026).

Swedberg, R. and Agevall, O. (2016) The Max Weber Dictionary. 2nd edn. Stanford Social Sciences. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/745418 (Accessed: 5 May 2026).

Swinton, J. and Mowatt, H. (2016) Practical Theology and Qualitative Research. 2nd edn. London: SCM Press.