Representatives of European theological faculties and church theological institutes have warned against universities dropping the teaching of theology in favour of religious studies that are seen as a more general approach.
“Theology has a major role to play within the university by countering stereotypes, demonstrating ways of dealing with religious conflict, and working out its own unique specificity in dialogue with other disciplines,” said Orthodox Metropolitan Emmanuel of France, the president of the Conference of European Churches.
He was speaking in the Austrian city of Graz at a meeting of theological faculties in Europe.
I find this fascinating – that [b]finally[/b] [i]in 2010[/i] they are having this discussion, when the shift has been occurring for at least four decades already in the Academy.
From a vast literature on the subject, these two encapsulate the issue best IMHO: Robert Osborn, “From Theology to Religion†in [i]Modern Theology[/i] 8/1 (1992), pp.75-88, and David Ford, Ben Quash & Janet Martin Soskice, eds, [i]Fields of Faith: Theology and Religious Studies for the Twenty-first Century[/i] (Cambridge, 2005).
The problem thereafter is in the proverbial detail, especially echoed in the last quote from Cardinal Karl Lehmann. For the trouble with most approaches to our so-called “pluralistic world†is the methodological bias of “pluralismâ€, which some try to pass off as ‘neutral’ – [i]which it ain’t![/i] Gavin D’Costa et al have clearly nailed this one [see [i]Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions[/i] (Orbis, 1990)], although it is still doing the rounds and forms the premise of many a contemporary argument. (The current PB of TEC, whom I have heard on the subject, is a classic example.)
So all in all, of course church folk will prefer “to send candidates for ordination to church theological institutes rather than to university theology facultiesâ€. If we are aware of the real issues, it’s a no-brainer! Unless of course, the real agenda is to promote a pseudo pluralism of “any path to ‘god’ is OK” …
Thank you Art for the listing of resources on this subject. I remember professors in seminary speaking about this very issue back in the 1990’s. Under the guise of pluralism – as a social/religious phenomena – universities eventually began passing on the religion of Pluralism forming academic departments that no longer believed in theology – just the sociological effects of it.
I am very happy to see the Europeans reassessing this issue.
Just last week, I was listening to a tape of R. C. Sproul, where he mentions a Christian University supplanting its Theology dept. with a Religious Studies dept.
He made the observation that Theology is thinking about God, while Religious studies has as its subject humanities thoughts about God. One order removed from treating things of God as true.
The faculty at that institution seemed to him oblivious to the change, what it meant, or the reasons behind it.
An appropriate concern for theological faculties who should be teaching and preparing students for one tradition (in this case, Christianity).
That being said, I have taught Religious Studies on the undergrad level for over 20 years, and I have appreciated the use of the Religious Studies method.
The Religious Studies Method has given me the opportunity to teach the Christian tradition along with other religious traditions (I have taught them all!). I cannot count the number of times students have come to me and said, “Now I finally understand Christianity and I may give it a try.” Many of my undergrads know somethings (not everything) about certain religions that are trendy (such as Native American traditions and Buddhism), but until a class with valid exposition of the Christian tradition is taken, they know little about it. Of course, the question here is, “Are they getting a valid understanding of Christianity?”
I also might add that theological colleges/seminaries could enhance their teaching content and preparation of students by allowing them to look at other religions using the Religious Studies method with the following caveats:
First, learn the objective factual things about other faiths. I always tell my students–“Is your description of another religious tradition acceptable to a follower of that faith?”
Second, allow the question of ultimate truth to be part of the discussions. In less than adequate examples of Religious Studies in action, profs shy away from the question of ultimate truth. They should deal with this head on.
Third, allow for personal reactions to other religions as part of the class framework. I tell my students, “Once you know the facts about a tradition as best you can, then there is a place to react pro and con.”
Often, theological students have a very weak understanding of other faiths and this needs to be addressed as they reach out to non-Christians.
Yes relprof; you make some good and necessary, complementary points to my own. The major part of my own initial undergrad material in “Religious Studies†(as well as “Theologyâ€) was more ‘historical’ and ‘phenomenological’, so I know well where you are coming from.
However, even “historical knowledge†is never quite as innocent as some would like; and the so-called “phenomena†of “religion†are likewise placed within some predetermined ‘field of enquiry’. There can be no other way …
So, while I too endorse the sentiments you express – especially that contemporary pastors/ordinands, et al, should have more than a passing acquaintance with “other religious traditionsâ€; and that there are even some apologetic possibilities if all is handled with care – the matter of “ultimate truth†is not quite as easy and straight forward as you may be implying/as some would ‘read’ your words. For at root are questions of epistemology which too are rooted mostly within specific cultural settings and traditions, elements of which are often incommensurate. (E.g. what might pass as an adequate warrant or demonstration of the ‘truth’?) As you would well know, the Occident and the Orient are simply poles apart. And what passes as “New Age†is mostly a horrid melange of ‘pick-&-choose’ breakfast cereal!
But I guess after 20+ years you know all this … Yet peeling back the layers of onion skins of our own assumptions/presuppositions produces lots of tears indeed! So our savviness needs to be far more than even Ricoeur’s “second naïveté†I personally reckon! Enjoy …!