in the dialogue.Although overlap exists between public theology and what we are discussing in terms of the public dimension of practical theological facilitation, the focus is notably different. Firstly, the angle is particularly one of practical theology, in addition informed by postfoundational or post-structural accents therein (cf. Muller 2004, 2011b). Furthermore, although a public dimension is unavoidable the emphasis lies greatly with the means as informed by epistemology and methodology, and less on the end (being restricted to a certain area such as the imperative of the public domain). Rather, a specific area of interest is something that will stem from the way in which the particular individual (practical theologian and/or facilitator) is inscribed or informed. This entails that neither the facilitator nor the practical theologian as facilitator can dissociate themselves from their culture and experiences. Thus, epistemologically speaking, whilst a person in roles such as, for example, facilitation, coaching, counselling, and research, cannot be without influence, an intentional decentred role is adopted.The contexts of, and answers to, the following questions serve to illustrate something of the scope of a facilitative approach in and to, practical theology. The 'decentred-influential' facilitator (and other words that we refer to, such as the 'inscribed' facilitator), will ask questions such as the following: where is, or where should dialogue be taking place? Whose voices are, or should be heard in this dialogue? What inhibits, or what will allow this dialogue to take shape? How might this dialogue take shape (both on wider platforms and in the moment)? What is my own role in this dialogue?We have said something about the larger conceptual framework in which we place facilitation in order to create a preliminary shared understanding. It seems helpful now to elaborate on why practical theology and facilitation are thought of as meaningful interdisciplinary partners. To do so we present only some of the informing developments and influences of both. Thoughts on the development of practical theology Four part developmentDe Roest (1998:26-27) cursorily tracks the agenda of practical theology. He mentions that there was first a focus on ministry and leadership as it relates to the clerical paradigm with subdisciplines divided along the lines of the activities of the pastor. Secondly, he distinguishes a movement from the 1950s that gives prominence to the functions of the church as a whole as it finds expression in ecclesiology and church development. Then, in the third instance, came a broadening of focus in liberation theology as a form of practical theology. Herein the function of the church is directed towards serving society, in that it moves away from ecclesiocentrism. Fourthly, and lastly, a still wider net is cast that brings into focus the life of individual believers, of lay people, which directs the attention to the individual learner, hearer, emphasising a search for a meaningful life.The above-mentioned last stated focus pertaining to the individual, relates particularly to a facilitative approach in, and to practical theology, which forms the larger context of this article. Said context is, however, still in development. With that being the case it is not possible