Resources

This article originated as a lecture at the celebration of 150 years of the Department of Theology and Religious Studies in King's College of the University of London. Professor Ford argues that our good practice as teachers has outstripped any available paradigm of the field, so it is necessary to reconceive it. He proposes four dimensions that unite theological and religious studies: how to study the phenomena of religions; how to establish norms and responsibilities; how to cope with radical, self-involving particularity; and how to involve the divine in academic studies.

This paper discusses a problem which is largely, though not exclusively, peculiar to the older universities in Great Britain where, in recent years, many long-established departments of Christian theology have expanded their area of responsibility to include religious studies. However, the author believes that what he has to say is not without relevance to universities and colleges outside of Great Britain which have inherited and continue to maintain a confessional bias in teaching theology and religion.

Two theologians teaching religion at the same college engage in a dialogue about differences in their understandings of teaching religion in order to explore serious pedagogical and theological issues. Their reflections on their teaching touch on issues of learning goals, institutional identity, student freedom, faculty self-revelation, and the liberal arts that most teachers of religion face. Along the way, they explore the relation of pedagogy to theological topics like grace and ecclesiology. We invite readers to join the conversation begun in this article by engaging Webb, Placher, and one another through the public discussion list we've created for this article on the Wabash Center Discussion Forum at http://ntweb.wabash.edu/wcdiscus/.

At the same time that teachers in theology and religion have been encouraged to consider how their personal identities affect their teaching, there has also been increased interest in active learning strategies. This essay argues that these two initiatives may be in conflict if the communal commitments of the instructor do not mirror the democratic commitments inherent to most active learning pedagogies. As a teacher of theology and ethics who is ultimately not committed to democracy but to the Kingdom of God, I have sought to develop learning strategies which avoid student passivity while focusing on the church as a foretaste to God's Kingdom. My consideration of this dilemma has drawn me to the educational philosophies of both John Dewey and Stanley Hauerwas, and in response to them I outline an active learning strategy which envisions the Christian church as a living tradition with students as dialogue partners and contributors to it.

Recently scholars of religion have disputed whether theology properly belongs to the study of religion in institutions of higher education (McCutcheon 1997a, 1997b; Cady 1998; Brown and Cady forthcoming). At the same time, religious authorities have increasingly censored the work of theologians in seminaries and church-related schools; witness the loyalty oaths required of scholars in religious studies programs at some Protestant denominationally related colleges and the Catholic Church's recent stand expressed by Ex Cordae Ecclessiae. Both scholars who would exclude theology as a field from the study of religion and ecclesiastical authorities who would censor it fail to acknowledge the emergence of academic theology as a field that does not depend on institutional religious affiliation or personal confession of faith, a field that by its nature does depend for its continued existence on academic freedom. This article suggests a working definition of academic theology and then poses three questions: What might studying different kinds of theology academically teach us about religion? How, properly speaking, is theology as performed in a non-sectarian environment now a nomad wandering within the formal study of religion? What are the implications of this shift in status for how academic theologians teach? The article is a revision of the inaugural address, by the same title, given for the Margaret W. Harmon professorship in Christian Theology and Culture at Macalester College, Saint Paul, Minnesota, November 18, 1999.

A contemporary liberal education in the humanities and social sciences should introduce students to the serious exploration of various kinds of worlds that human beings articulate and within which they live. Teachers in Buddhist studies can make a significant contribution by offering courses that focus attention on distinctively Buddhist worlds that are directly relevant to postmodern interests and concerns. These courses should also be designed to empower students with the kind of interpretive skills that are needed in a postmodern environment to generate viable modes of sympathetic understanding, convincing forms of critical analysis, and the capacity to formulate and defend responsible personal and social judgments. This article is a revised version of the keynote lecture given at a McGill University conference on "Teaching Buddhism: The State of the Art," October 8–10, 1999.

This paper describes and analyzes an "Integrating Seminar" capstone course for undergraduate religious studies majors, which has the following goals for student learning: (1) to reflect on the cumulative achievement of their studies of religion; (2) to take stock of their learning in liberal studies coursework; and (3) to explore the connections between these specialized and general learning experiences. Readings provided by the instructor and the students and discussions around them lead toward a final paper on this question: "In the context of becoming an educated person, what is religion, how do you know, and why do you care?" The paper concludes with some reflections on ways to better prepare students for this kind of integrated thinking through advising and ongoing colloquia.

This is a case study based upon my experience of teaching an introduction to rabbinic thought to a group of Orthodox Jewish students. The study of one particular midrashic pericope allowed for major tensions between academic and religious approaches to the text to surface. The tension revolved around the apparent contradiction between the rabbinic mythical perception of creation as proceeding from primary negative matter and later philosophical belief in creatio ex nihilo. This contradiction touches upon issues of authority and of interpretation. The article explores various strategies dealing with issues of authority in general and of the meaning of the individual text in particular. Following a presentation of these strategies I offer my reflections upon my role as a teacher in this context. Dialogue emerges as an important element in the teaching process, creating a common ground between teachers and students and making them partners in a common quest for the truth of the text. Traditional dialogical modes of Jewish learning serve as the basis for the introduction of the academic agenda. This agenda is introduced as an extension of classical religious concerns rather than as an alternative to them.

The most common paradigm of contemporary Protestant theological education for ministerial formation is that of schooling, seen in the institution of the theological seminary/college. This article notes the limitations of the schooling paradigm for educational intervention in the range of domains inherent in effective ministerial formation; recognizes that teaching and learning take different but still legitimate shape when used to describe educational processes in this context; and argues for an integrated, formational, and missional community paradigm modeled especially on the relationship of Jesus with his disciples as being both more consistent with biblical precedents and more effective educationally. The implications of this for the role of faculty of theological institutions are explored.