This is a good summary of how things are changing. I’d like to learn what you think about the relationship between theology and religious studies as academic disciplines.
I apologize for taking so long to reply. That is a great question! When I am teaching undergraduate students, I explain the difference between theology and religious studies by using the insider/outsider distinction. However, we also discuss some of the ways that distinction is inadequate. For example, half the class might be non-Christian, and therefore "outsiders," but we are still trying to "do theology." And we talk about how a scholar's presuppositions and religious beliefs, or lack thereof, is inevitably going to impact their study of a religion. As for myself, I honestly don't have a worked-out view of how to explain the difference. My own sense is that a distinction between the normative and the merely descriptive comes into play. In theology, there are certain norms you need to follow to "make a move", to try to explain a belief or practice in a coherent way. In religious studies, the purpose is simply to describe the beliefs and practices of the religious tradition being studied, somewhat detached from the normative questions like "orthodoxy". I know that is not very adequate, but just my initial thoughts.
Thanks for responding to my question. This issue is indeed difficult to handle. I once chaired a theology department in a Catholic college that transition to a religious studies department. With respect, I didn't find the normative vs. descriptive dichotomy helpful. Rather, we used Frederick J. Streng's definition of religion as "a means toward ultimate transformation." I've found this helpful in teaching various religious traditions since it structures the approach: (1) determine the sort of transformation that adherents experience or to which they aspire; (2) understand what they consider to be ultimate; and (3) investigate the means by which they aim to achieve their transformation. Streng was a scholar of Buddhism and used this approach to address the various traditions withing that world. Moreover, I've always felt that Christian theology aims to uncover the truth of expressions of Christianity for that tradition or community, but not necessarily for everyone. Because of the extreme variety of religious traditions, I look askance at any claims to universal or exclusive truth.
I hope this furthers the discussion a little. I'm sorry that this is so long.
This is a good summary of how things are changing. I’d like to learn what you think about the relationship between theology and religious studies as academic disciplines.
I apologize for taking so long to reply. That is a great question! When I am teaching undergraduate students, I explain the difference between theology and religious studies by using the insider/outsider distinction. However, we also discuss some of the ways that distinction is inadequate. For example, half the class might be non-Christian, and therefore "outsiders," but we are still trying to "do theology." And we talk about how a scholar's presuppositions and religious beliefs, or lack thereof, is inevitably going to impact their study of a religion. As for myself, I honestly don't have a worked-out view of how to explain the difference. My own sense is that a distinction between the normative and the merely descriptive comes into play. In theology, there are certain norms you need to follow to "make a move", to try to explain a belief or practice in a coherent way. In religious studies, the purpose is simply to describe the beliefs and practices of the religious tradition being studied, somewhat detached from the normative questions like "orthodoxy". I know that is not very adequate, but just my initial thoughts.
Thanks for responding to my question. This issue is indeed difficult to handle. I once chaired a theology department in a Catholic college that transition to a religious studies department. With respect, I didn't find the normative vs. descriptive dichotomy helpful. Rather, we used Frederick J. Streng's definition of religion as "a means toward ultimate transformation." I've found this helpful in teaching various religious traditions since it structures the approach: (1) determine the sort of transformation that adherents experience or to which they aspire; (2) understand what they consider to be ultimate; and (3) investigate the means by which they aim to achieve their transformation. Streng was a scholar of Buddhism and used this approach to address the various traditions withing that world. Moreover, I've always felt that Christian theology aims to uncover the truth of expressions of Christianity for that tradition or community, but not necessarily for everyone. Because of the extreme variety of religious traditions, I look askance at any claims to universal or exclusive truth.
I hope this furthers the discussion a little. I'm sorry that this is so long.