to elaborate sufficiently on all the arguments employed in this article that rely to different extents on said context. See in this regard Pienaar (2012), 'Overture to practical theological facilitation' that starts to explore what a facilitative approach in, and to, practical theology could entail.Of the four part development that De Roest (1998) touches on, the view that we emphasise (one that is important to practical theological facilitation) is that of a shift to the individual, the person; but then also the person of the practical theologian (as opposed to what makes the discipline of practical theology coherent and also as opposed to merely a shift toward lay people, believers and so forth, as indicative of the shift to the individual). Herein the life of the practical theologian becomes an artwork in the ecotone (cf. section on 'Storied Practical Theology').Yet this is not where we end. It is not about setting the individual (lay person, or specifically the practical theologian) as the agenda or the object of study, but rather what happens in the space between one individual and another or the collective.Toward practice and interpretationThe notions of practice and interpretation resonate strongly with facilitation. One of the practices of facilitation has to do with how people make decisions in various practice oriented contexts.The idea of practice has a particular history in practical theology that is also relevant to facilitation. Emanating from the development of the agenda of practical theology, De Roest (1998:19) sees a gradual agreement amongst practical theologians to localise their point of departure in practice. A description that is therefore still useful is that of practical theology as a Handlungswissenschaft, meaning a science of action. Hereby normative prescription or theological description pave the way to a social-scientific description (De Roest 1998:20). De Roest is right to assert that this shift was gradual from the 1960s onwards (De Roest 1998:20), perhaps so since one has to remember that calling oneself a practical theologian was at one stage to invite scepticism and humiliation amongst the academic community and to an extent also one's theological colleagues (Browning 1991:3).The growing awareness of this new kind of broadly defined agenda, of practice or action, was helped along to a great extent by the resurgence in the practical philosophies (Browning 1991:3). Browning was a pivotal contributor to the movement from pastoral theology - that fits roughly De Roest's second movement with the advent of the 20th century - to practical theology (Anderson 2001:25). Yet the distinction between practical theology, as opposed to theoretical theology was made already by Philip Marheineke (1780-1846) after which practical theology received its independent status (Anderson 2001:24). In that time the theory-praxis relation was the central focus although innovation was confined to the local congregation (Anderson 2001:25 - in accordance with De Roest's proposal (1998).It is evident that Browning relied on what happened in practical philosophy at the time around the 1970s (cf. Browning 1983), to resituate the conceptualisation of the discipline to that of practical theology. Tracy (1994:134) also references the widespread recovery of practical philosophies, linking them to new