Symposium on Theology
Good afternoon, colleagues, students, and friends….
I am Robert Benne, Director of the Center for Religion and Society at Roanoke College and Jordan-Trexler Chair of Religion Emeritus
Welcome to our Symposium on theology’s role in academic life. This symposium is linked to this year’s overall theme for public discussion: intellectual inquiry. It is also an occasion for honoring two new endowed chairs in the Religion and Philosophy Department in particular and celebrating the happy instance of having a total of four endowed chairs in the religion side of the department.
We want to honor the donor of two of the endowed chairs—Charles Schumann—who has established the Chair in Lutheran Theology, as well as a new chair in Christian Ethics, which is now in the process of being filled. We also have the Tise Chair in Lutheran Studies endowed by the Tise family in honor of their pastor father, and the Jordan-Trexler Professor of Relgion endowed by the Jordan and Trexler families. The Jordan-Trexler Chair was the first chair to be endowed by the college in modern times, established in the early 80s. We are grateful also to the many college leaders who helped make these endowments possible.
But we are here mainly to honor the holders of the chairs—Ned Wisnefske (the Schumann Chair in Lutheran Theology), Gerald McDermott, the Jordan-Trexler Chair in Religion, and Paul Hinlicky, the Tice Chair in Lutheran Studies. We want to give them a chance to “let their light shine” on a topic of some significance—the role of theology in academic life. I cannot take the time to do proper introductions of these three professors. Suffice it to say that Dr. Wisnefske received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago and came to RC in 1985. Dr. McDermott holds his Ph. D. from the University of Iowa and came to RC in 1989. Dr. Hinlicky earned his PH. D from Union Theological Seminary and came to us in 1999. All three are fine teachers and productive scholars.
Now to the topic, which is a subject of perennial debate among scholars of religion in colleges, universities, and professional organizations. How should religious traditions be taught in academe? Should the approach be that of “religious studies,” in which religion is “scientifically” analyzed and studied from a “detached” point of view, often through the prism of another discipline—history, psychology, sociology, etc. This approach is sometimes called the “academic study of religion” and is the dominant mode in public colleges and universities, as well as elite private schools, and in some church-related schools. This approach teaches “about” religious traditions.
The other approach could be called “theological studies.” This approach takes the theological claims of a religious tradition as truth claims, and often speaks not only “about” them but also “for” them. Sometimes this approach commends these theological claims by giving reasons for their truthfulness. Frequentlythe teacher will use the phrase “we believe” when he or she talks about the truth claims of a tradition. This approach is a “normative” as well as an “analytical” approach to the study of religion. This approach is dominant in colleges and universities strongly connected to specific religious traditions, though it might well be accompanied by the “religious studies” approach also.
Sometimes it is helpful to enlist extreme statements by proponents of one of these approaches to stimulate a discussion of the issue. Here are the opinions of one K.L. Noll, who wrote in a recent issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education. Mr. Noll believes that only religious studies advances knowledge, which is the real purpose of education. Studying and analyzing theological statements of a religious tradition—say Catholicism—advances knowledge, but actually claiming truth for the theological statements of that tradition does not. Why? Because Mr. Noll is absolutely sure that theology has no referent for its claims. He is quite sure in his positivist assumptions that there is no God for theology to speak of. Theology, then, speaks of nothing and therefore cannot advance knowledge.
“The god of the Bible is the sum total of the words in the text and has no independent existence…he is fictional,” he avers.
So, Mr. Noll argues that theologians who teach theologically should warn their students that their claims amount to nothing and therefore do not advance knowledge a whit. It is unethical to claim truth for their theological utterances.
To start off the discussion, we will pose a question or two to Dr. Hinlicky, who will respond for ten minutes. Then Dr. Wisnefske will hold forth for ten, followed by Dr. McDermott. Then we will immediately open the discussion to the floor. Following a lively discussion—to end no later than 5:45—we will have a reception in the next room, to which you are all invited.
Now: Dr. Hinlicky, what is your view of theology’s status in the academy? Does theology advance knowledge? Do you teach “about” Christian claims or do you speak “for” them? Do you warn your students that theology has no real object of its claims? Are you an ethical person?