Teaching and Learning > DISCOURSE

Whither Theology and Religious Studies in Ireland and the UK?

Author: Ann Loades

Journal Title: Discourse

ISSN: 1741-4164

ISSN-L:

Volume: 5

Number: 2

Start page: 29

End page: 47

Return to vol. 5 no. 2 index page

This is the Presidential Address given at the final event of the joint conference of the Society for the Study of Theology and the Irish Theological Association, held at Trinity College, Dublin, in 2005.

Introduction

This paper attempts to get some discussion going about the present and the future of theology and religious studies (T/RS) in HE, and, as such, is very broadly conceived, and attempts to allow for national and cultural differences. I assume nothing about what is meant by 'theology' or 'religious studies', since nowadays it is essential to attend to the staffing and programmes of particular subject- groups/departments to see what is on offer under various headings. For instance, 'religious studies' need not necessarily include 'other' religious traditions any more than 'theology' necessarily excludes new methods and resources or sources of reflection and critique, least of all the challenge of studying another major religious tradition.

1. Institutions

At one level, it might appear that we have nothing to worry about. A trawl through websites reveals at the very least forty universities or university colleges offering degrees involving T/RS (including the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies). There is an astonishing variety on offer, from RS offered as a joint subject in a modular honours degree at the University of Wolverhampton, with an emphasis on field-work in relation to local religious communities in the West Midlands,1 to degrees in theology completed under the aegis of Queen's, Belfast.2 In addition, very many institutes, theological colleges/courses and seminaries are responsible for degrees of different kinds—in some cases now extending into doctoral work, in tandem either with a neighbouring university or under the aegis of the Open University. Important points here are that the boundary-line between degree and non-degree giving institutions has shifted, and that at the doctoral level new part-time modular degrees (including thesis work) are being developed, not least for 'practitioners'. There also exist some venturesome 'distance learning' degrees which foster T/RS among a range of candidates.3 Given the large size of undergraduate groups for supposedly full-time degrees nowadays, there may be more to learn from 'distance learning' programmes than we may as yet be prepared to acknowledge! And we can attend to some significant achievements where there are neither departments of T/RS nor their predictable degree options, such as the Centre for the History of Religious and Political Pluralism led by the Revd Professor Richard Bonney at the University of Leicester, with its Geza Vermes Lectures in the History of Religions, the Dr. L.M. Singhvi Lectures in Pluralism, and the Sir Sigmund Sternberg Lectures in Inter-Faith Dialogue.4

On the other hand, some of the groups teaching T/RS are very small, and in some cases on the receiving end of the threat of 'being too small to be viable'—though from whose perspective, or in terms of what criteria, is not always clear, to put it mildly. Administrations precipitate 'being too small' if they fail to fill posts promptly and then fail to fill them at all; take departments out of 'clearing' to prevent them from reaching their 'quota' of new entrants; control admissions centrally, and gradually ensure the demise of a subject group without any public policy decision being made, beginning the process by amalgamating them into some larger groups of disciplines. Some university departments are as vulnerable as those in university colleges, and may be closed in a manner worthy of 'worst practice' in some of the business world; staff have been 'exchanged' or re-grouped between universities, and no doubt other such shufflings are in view in a number of places. Of course, better that people should still have positions to fill than be pitched out into the job-market, as in the Sunderland case, or the point at which the department at the University of Derby disappeared, though the excellence of most of the academic staff so pitched out was speedily exhibited by their employment in other academic institutions. Even if representatives of T/RS have been more courageous in making the academic and intellectual case for their subject area, this alone will not secure it in the context in which we now find ourselves.

The position of T/RS in some former Church colleges looks good at first sight (the University of Gloucestershire originated in one5) for the survivors of the closure/amalgamation of so many Church-founded instutions in the last quarter of a century. There are, in England and Wales, now just nine HEI colleges with Church of England foundations, two ecumenical colleges (i.e. Church of England and Roman Catholic foundations) and several Roman Catholic college foundations, in addition to Heythrop College, University of London. Degree awarding validation may be by a local university; some colleges award their own undergraduate degrees, and some, degrees beyond that. Church of England colleges alone serve at least 5% of HE candidates in England and Wales. Commitment to teacher training varies from 13- 85% of students, and some of these will become RE specialists, or will opt to work in Church schools where opportunity arises. As is the case at QUB, a substantial proportion of those reading T/RS will be laity, and intend to remain so.

Indeed, some colleges may well continue to flourish by offering networks of opportunity for ministerial training as well as for teaching or general education. York St. John, for instance, offers a theology and ministry foundation degree and a Master's in T/RS, with courses available not just in York but in Ampleforth Abbey, the Wilson Carlyle Church Army College and the Sheffield (Roman Catholic) Diocesan Centre. The impact of the Church of England's Hind review of ordination training, with its encouragement to draw on a whole range of existing resources, has yet to be fully evaluated.6 Shifting patterns of the age of candidates for ordained ministry make a difference to education in T/RS, inevitably. Even in the college context, however, there are worrying signs. In a very few colleges, numbers of full-time staff in T/RS are down to just one or two people. Can T/RS survive there? Or are colleges, like universities, going to wake up to find themselves without the places for a 'growth market' of students in T/RS? (Of which, more shortly.) And what of 'life-long' learning in T/RS if teachers are not available for those who want to be taught? I will return to problems to do with fostering and funding doctoral work specifically towards the end of what I have to say.

So, no university college or university department of T/RS can feel complacent about how its administrative bodies regard its future. A different kind of problem occurs when, for instance, departments which hitherto thought of themselves as being of a good size, with long-established reputations and distinctive traditions, find themselves amalgamated into 'colleges' or 'schools' in which they become 'small' departments in comparison with some of their new neighbours, and they in turn begin to feel somewhat dependent on the good will of administrators, even when their continued existence is not, for the time being, in question. Feelings of insecurity, and the tensions they produce, are thoroughly detrimental to the confidence and energy needed to sustain good work of all the different kinds now expected of HE academics, not least 'performance' which meets RAE criteria. We should not underestimate the way in which the RAE is now being used as a kind of lever or crowbar to force the attention of academics in some directions rather than others, arguably to the detriment of their relationships with the communities of which they have hitherto been interconnected. Unsurprisingly, there is evidence, I think, that some academics continue to find it difficult to distinguish between 'publications' and 'RAE publications', and this has knock-on effects of a kind we could not have predicted. For instance, one effect of the RAE is to inhibit moves from, say, a theological college/institute or seminary post into a university one. Someone's publication list looks good—but is it RAE material? And there's the problem of finding a publisher, since work which is RAE 'top-grade' may not be the kind of work which will sell. And if the bottom continues to fall out of religious book publishing more generally, the problem of finding financial subventions for publication will increase rather than diminish.

So there have been, arguably, several quite unforeseen consequences of the RAE, quite apart from its effect of positively devaluing not only some kinds of scholarly work thought to be valuable until very recently (and on which some 'research' crucially depends) but devaluing particular persons and their contribution to the success of enterprises shared with colleagues and of great interest to students. Who can afford to edit even the most scholarly journal nowadays, or mastermind that crucial encyclopaedia or reference book? Not being 'entered' for the RAE can be more destructive of a sense of self-worth and collegiality in a group of people who need to hang together rather than let one another hang separately than most other things I can think of. Which friend and colleague is going to be nudged out when the cash runs short, or taken out of study leave as well as out of research leave lists? Agood deal more hanging-in-together might support the needs of those staffing theological colleges/courses/seminaries/institutes too, currently without time safeguarded for reading/reflection/writing, and thus no model for those they teach, who themselves need to establish appropriate patterns of work to sustain the revitalisation of their own theological heights and depths, and the congregations they may serve. Given the numbers of theologically literate laity the ordained may encounter, at least in some congregations, surely time for reading and reflection, and such old-fashioned habits as the daily reading of a commentary, need to be re-secured as a priority? And we might all benefit from those whose work helps to establish a clear sense of their own ecclesiastical identity, in contexts where 'ecumenism' means anything but being well-informed and sustained by distinctive traditions. It is certainly not necessarily the case, but sometimes those institutions most concerned with 'ecumenism' seem to produce people theologically/ liturgically so rootless and undifferentiated that the much-proclaimed 'respect for difference' can make little sense in their cases.

2. Recruiting into T/RS

The lifeblood of all institutions where T/RS is learned depends on its 'recruits', and here again there are important signs to which we need to attend, though just how we are to attend to them is by no means clear.7 On the one hand, there is unequivocal evidence that RS is the fastestgrowing of all A-level subjects (using data from WJEC /OCR/Edexcel/AQA). It is certainly of considerable interest to the examination boards looking for their 'markets', and to teachers determined to secure the viability of their departments. In 2004, there were 14,418 A-level candidates in RS, and at A/S level 20,081, an increase of 13.8% over the previous year. RS is ahead of other subjects which are increasingly popular including law, psychology, media/film/TV studies, sociology and mathematics. At GCSE level, the full course RS numbers went up from 132,304 in 2003 (up 8.9% on 2002) to 141,037 in 2004, and the short course figures went up from 223,885 to 246,905. Apparently, the increase at GCSE level has risen every year for five consecutive years, and the number of entries for RS is greater than those for history, geography and French. Its popularity is held to be based generally on ethical issues underpinned by religious traditions and tenets. Put the full and short course figures together, and, at GCSE level, RS is now taken by over half the school cohort. (I have no comparably detailed information about what is happening in the Scottish education system, except that I understand that a new 'Higher' option of religious, moral and philosophical studies is proving popular and having an impact on recruitment to university departments). At one level, this is certainly good news, and it is in everyone's interest, I would have thought, that good graduates (including those with nonspecialist degrees) are encouraged to apply for teacher training in RS—indeed there has been an increase of some 30% applying for PGCE courses in England and Wales. There is plenty of opportunity for them at the school level. So need we worry?

It is worrying if we attend to the fact that by far the majority of candidates are studying philosophy of religion and ethics, with relatively few of them studying biblical material, or indeed the specific study of non-Christian and non-Western religion, and even fewer specifically Christian history/belief (though this probably represents little change at the school level).8 I'll return to problems arising from the current limitations of philosophy of religion at a later point. My concern at the moment is with the disjunction between what people study at school and what is on offer in HE. This is revealed when we look at numbers applying for T/RS at university, where there is only about an 11% 'transfer rate' from school to HE, where one might expect about 28%, as is the case with many other subjects (compare the increase in applications for sociology). How do we negotiate the shifts and persuade more applicants to think of T/RS for their first degree? How are they to be encouraged to risk critical reflection on religion, with or without a confessional stance towards particular religious traditions?9 And what about new concerns, such as the interests of the British Association for Jewish Studies and its promotion of the scholarly study of Jewish culture in all its aspects within HE? What of the interests of the British Association for the Study of Religions, deliberately distinguishing itself from 'theology' on the one hand, and from its reduction to one of the social sciences or cultural studies on the other, when we are thinking about our degree programmes?10 What of concern about the misrepresentation of Islam in our societies?11 We cannot all of us tackle everything, but what changes still may have to be made, and how are we to identify and evaluate them when we think about our possible applicants for HE?12

Applicants for degree study cannot be said to be afraid of critical thinking as such if applications for philosophy are anything to go by. The increase in applications to read philosophy is at least 70% in just the last few years.13 This has significant consequences for those T/RS departments who have, in somewhat predictable ways, been trying to respond to the changes in interest at GCSE/A-level. In some cases, Oxford for instance, applicants for joint honours theology/philosophy now outstrip those for theology, and in other places constitute an increasing proportion of applicants (e.g. a third of those applying to Durham's Department of Theology and Religion). Where there are other successful joint honours with philosophy competitors, and/or lots of applicants for single honours in philosophy, JH in philosophy/ theology may attract excellent applicants who have to make their way in a much tougher competition for entrance than is the case for single honours candidates—and the same problem surfaces in competition for graduate funding, as I will show. If they negotiate the competition, it is important to keep them in their JH programme! Three modules of one degree course bolted onto three of another is hardly fair to the candidates. They need to learn a strong central 'core' from each, but they also need modules which explore the areas in which the two disciplines most directly and obviously interact with one another. At Durham, it is within theology that we have devised such modules specifically for them to integrate the two disciplines together, and most of them stay in the joint honours programme, with many choosing their dissertation supervisors from theology.14 Another option is to distinguish clearly (as at King's, London, or the University of Gloucestershire, Heythrop or Lancaster), between a degree in theology and a degree in religion, philosophy and ethics which recruits at least equally well.

But do we not need to think beyond these options? Do we not need to think to what extent T/RS degrees can be so 'profiled' with some appropriate mode of philosophical theology and of theological ethics sufficiently in view as to attract more than that 11% into first degree work? Having got them there, how might we teach them the areas currently so largely overlooked at school, so that these areas may be rejuvenated, eventually, at the school level? And will not departments themselves have to make some significant shifts if that 'profiling' is to be possible? For instance, given the importance of theological ethics/moral theology/social ethics etc., and the success of the network represented by the Society for the Study of Christian Ethics and its journal, what is the value to departments of T/RS of continuing to undersupport this area, of such interest to our applicants, to the life of our churches and in our shared social and political life? How could our specialisms be reconfigured to allow for the shifts which surely need to be made? Is there no space to re-think the inter-relationships of the different facets of T/RS so that staffing can be appropriate to the interests of our candidates whilst getting them to think somewhat differently about the texts and traditions and practices of which they are currently so wary? To take one obvious example, quite whose responsibility it is to re-think and imagine how all the new developments in biblical work can be transmitted into school syllabi, and even into GCSE/AS/A-level, seems to be an open question, but must at some point be a concern of the Society for New Testament Studies and the Society for Old Testament Study, if it is not so already. How might we support the spokespersons who have the energy and enthusiasm to rebuild interest in schools? Of course, circumstances alter cases, and certain subject areas—such as biblical studies—have not been so treated in the past in every culture and context as to have bred a kind of indifference to them, or a presumption of their irrelevance, if that is indeed part of our problem.

At present, some of our students face formidable problems on arrival as it is—e.g. learning the habits of focus, concentration and attention which build competence (and which will hopefully be recognised and supported by those who want to build their confidence) as well as having to make the move from virtually 'paper-free' schools to library-based disciplines. Must we also continue to confront them (if we do) with expectations about how much of 'traditional subject areas' taught in terms of 'traditional methods' they can assimilate which may be simply unreasonable in the circumstances? Are we offering degree courses still predicated on the assumption that undergraduates are candidates for ordained ministry, whereas in fact the vast majority of them are laity whose mode of engagement is via 'ethics' and the kinds of problem-solving they will encounter in many non-ecclesiastical contexts? Some of them, of course, apply because they want to learn about subject areas they have not had the chance to study before, and they may sometimes be learning about them in ways new to many of us, unless we are certain kinds of biblical specialists. The same may be true of the study of doctrine and tradition/theology-and-history, etc. That said, I still think we need to consider how best to re-frame some areas of T/RS rather than simply refresh work done within familiar boundaries, valuable though that may be. None of us can be complacent here, for no subject area is free of the dangers of being marginalised over the course of time—least of all some of those currently the most popular. How much can we learn from new ventures not least at the school level, such as the Government of Ireland Religious Education Syllabus, rather than thinking that the process must always, so to speak, run the other way, from HE to school?15 And, re-framing apart, what might we learn from such documentation about how to justify T/RS as an academic university subject at all levels including HE, (and at that level comparable to the statement produced by philosophers for the UGC so many years ago [see footnote 13 above]) as well as of importance for the churches and their associated colleges, where its study and significance at research level is certainly undervalued, as we have already noted?

3.The realm of the AHRC

Let me now turn to the context in which I first became somewhat unnerved about the understanding of the whole T/RS area—the Arts and Humanities Research Board, (AHRB) which became the Arts and Humanities Research Council AHRC) on 1st April, 2005. Whatever our problems with the RAE, it has had the merit of providing unambiguous evidence of the sheer wealth and diversity of intellectual vitality and published research in the Arts and Humanities, and so supported the case for a Research Council comparable to those for other disciplines. As some of you will know, one of the benefits of the AHRC has been to provide funding for research leaves of a term/semester or even a year, not to displace, but to add on to those already provided by someone's institution. There are eight research panels to assess applications, exactly parallelling the panels for postgraduate funding, but with separate assessors. Panel 8 in both cases is for applications in philosophy, T/RS and law and you can look the results up on the AHRC website. The lists are not absolutely up-to-date, but, whilst the number of awards to each panel is equal, the distribution of awards within a panel can only relate to the number of applications received and to their quality. So far as I can see, T/RS get nowhere near a third of the awards, and it is pretty clear that the main competition on Panel 8 comes from the philosophers. What is happening in T/RS to inhibit applications for time to complete books? Have the philosophers licked the problems we all face?

I never had to face the problems of being on the Research Awards panel but I had some limited experience of being on the Research Centres Committee in the years when there were T/RS bids, and the very interesting experience of chairing five years of the Postgraduate Panel 8 (for philosophy, T/RS and law), being on the overall Postgraduate Committee, and a couple of years on the overall AHRB Board (when I could get to it). The fate of T/RS in respect of Research Centres was particularly disturbing. To my knowledge, there were very few bids. Why so few, given the size and clout of some major departments? Few of these even had a chance to succeed, not least because people did not understand that what was being asked for was support for something more or less up and running, and aiming to make a real conceptual shift in a discipline. Some bids suffered, as too many (but by no means all) bids do in Arts and Humanities, from what seems to be a chronic inability to map out in respect of a particular project just what postgraduates might do for a doctoral degree in respect of the overall enterprise. Just one, which was excellent, was pipped at the post for reasons which had little to do with the particular Centre involved, which was indeed up and running, had unrivalled proposals for the dissemination of the work of the Centre to the wider public, and had an international profile. It is true that, by that time, the AHRC was becoming uneasy about the whole Research Centre enterprise, and that there was some worry about giving another Centre to a major University which already had one. All that said, what struck me most forcibly was the level of sheer incomprehension (and I might add prejudice) on the part of some members of the Committee about T/RS, and about the importance of T/RS within particular cultures and national traditions. They certainly were not going to learn much about its importance (as we might claim) from so meagre a range of applications. And just let me refer you to one significant achievement which connects up with a major shift which has taken place over the last few years, as I shall point out in a few minutes: the fact that it is the Universities of Reading and of Southampton, neither of which have a T/RS Department, which secured AHRC Research Centre funding for the study of 'The Greek Bible in the Graeco-Roman World'—concerned with 'evaluating the Greek Bible as a source for Jewish interpretation of the political, social and intellectual culture of the Hellenistic world (continuing into the early Roman Empire)'.

My closest acquaintance with T/RS and the AHRC was through chairing Panel 8, which was concerned with postgraduate applications for funding, both one-year and three-year. It is important, actually, to notice what some referees still have not noticed, believe it or not, i.e. that such funding is no longer handled by the British Academy but by the AHRC; and that applications for the competition are no longer connected to institutions but are student-led. Of course, many candidates for higher degrees in T/RS come from overseas, or fund themselves by one means or another. However funded, they are likely to be the pool from which the next generation of teachers and researchers in HE are going to come.

You may recall that, a few years ago, the British Academy conducted an investigation into why more students from the UK were not opting for postgraduate work—assuming that they could embark on 1+3 years of study free from debt—and the answers were predictable. Many of our students know all too well that, at the end of another four years of study, they will begin work earning much what they would have earned four years earlier, even if their longer-term prospects are better, and that, if they enter HE, their pay and prospects for promotion are not exactly enticing. So, if they do opt for postgraduate work, we need to ensure that they emerge having made a significant contribution to knowledge, are trained researchers, may be prospective teachers in HE, and, above all, are employable. We need to ensure (to quote one Research Council statement) that they are 'generally highly-qualified and talented people, who will use a wide range of knowledge, understanding and skills that they have gained through doctoral research in wide variety of contexts, in employment and beyond, enriching their own lives and the lives of others.' We also need to be clear that a doctoral thesis 'shows substantial evidence of original scholarship and contains material that can be prepared for publication, and can be produced by a capable, well qualified and diligent student, properly supervised and supported within the period of the award.' The targettime for submission of a thesis is four years, but with the fourth year regarded as a 'year of grace' (seven years in all from the start of a parttime award) and the AHRB's figures for 2003 show an overall fouryear submission rate of 75%. Penalties for departments which do not get their candidates through in the agreed time-frame are severe: no candidates from such departments will be awarded funding for a period of two years.

Applicant, supervisor(s), referees and institution are together making a bid for public funding (full or part-time) for someone who is going to emerge as employable—hence the emphasis on 'skills' training from all the Research Councils; and if you look at the statements which are publicly available, you may find them invaluable in helping to construct references and identifying what needs to be put in place for candidates not simply in the initial stages of their 1+3 programme, but throughout it. The institutional statement is very important to the assessors, and pleading RAE scores, antiquity of foundation, years of experience, etc. will get a competitor nowhere. What is needed is the case for the 'fit' of the particular competitor with a particular supervisor or supervisors and the institution, and the precise justification for the bid for public funding being made. Recall too that EU candidates are in the competition (for 'fees only' awards) as well as that excellent applicants are not all concentrated in one or two universities.

I will spare you comment on the process, the outcome of which will be that approximately 28% of applicants will receive an award across all the eight panels. I would, however, like to emphasise the importance of the references which need to be written from a knowledge of a competitor's overall performance, which provide detailed and accurate evidence about them, including marks for particular pieces of work if known, and refer to the judgment of other colleagues and if possible, external examiners. I also want to stress here how damaging to an application it is when examiners in arts and humanities perpetuate the indefensible habit of taking 30% off any piece of work before they have so much as read a line of it, find themselves incapable of using the top 30% of the mark scale, and then claim that 'x' is the most outstanding candidate encountered by 'y' in thirty years. The claims made for a candidate must be matched by the evidence provided. And, if someone has already begun doctoral research, it must surely be possible to provide information about the progress of thesis planning, how many chapters are in draft, what presentations of work have been made and to whom, publications so far, and so on. What I am saying, in a nutshell, is that we need to remember that we are involved in a competition; and that for competitors to be successful requires high standards of professional competence on our part. Many competitors, to be frank, are let down by the lack of such competence.

2003 was the first year in which panels were asked to analyse the distribution of applications (and I concentrate here on the competition for three year awards—those for one year awards follow much the same pattern). I think that the first thing that needs to be said is that to the extent that postgraduate applications constitute indications of the intellectual vitality of a subject area, I think we have to ask questions about whether T/RS is making a good showing if we look at the numbers of competitors for T/RS (94) as compared with philosophy (160)—the major group under Panel 8's remit. I have checked, and so far as I know the pattern has not shifted very much so far. First of all, the biblical specialist (New Testament as it happened) on the Panel in 2003 (and still on in 2004) thought that applications in NT (11) are weaker in quality than those in Hebrew scripture etc. (12), where there are some highly qualified specialists emerging. Then there are very few applications in patristic and medieval theology (8). Here we can identify one marked shift—which is that 'patristics' has to some extent migrated to departments where students study classics and ancient history. The latter now stretches to CE 700, and some departments of classics are thriving on the interest of undergraduates in ancient history. There may well be much for T/RS to learn from the revivification of classical studies and the ability of the Classical Association to defend the interests of its members. Patristics in non-T/RS departments may be less 'theological' (though the series edited by Andrew Louth with Professor Gillian Clark of Oxford Early Christian Studies thrives) and Byzantinists may yet be more interested in theology than previously. All in all, however, it looks as though there is much to be done to foster applications in this area, and we will need to move out of T/RS to do so by linking up in new ways with the classicists. So far as the medieval world is concerned, there is a dearth of applications to the History Panel as well. I would have thought, however, that T/RS might well be concerned both about that and about another shift—that of Reformation/Counter-Reformation (5) and ecclesiastical history more generally, to history, where again, theological interests may not be given much weight. As for the rest, there is little as yet in theology and the arts; and virtually nothing in liturgical studies/liturgical theology, sacramental theology, the Orthodox-Oriental Churches, ecumenical studies, missiology, hermeneutics or gender studies. There seems to be little interest in Judaism, though some interest in the conceptual study of Buddhism, and the study of Islam and of Hinduism is largely sociocultural (14 in the area of major religious traditions). The most signifi- cant problem with the study of religion/applied theology (15+10) area is the lack of the appropriate relevant methods which have to be built into all four years of postgraduate training programmes. The same has to be said about some inter-disciplinary work, e.g. where expertise in law, criminology or medicine may be needed. All of this needs much greater inter-departmental co-operation of a kind that takes time and energy which cannot therefore be disposed of in other directions. And there is one self-evident problem which now affects many disciplines but which is key to development in many areas of T/RS, and that is the need and provision of opportunity to learn both ancient and modern languages at all stages of postgraduate work. This is clearly a problem across all universities that needs to be tackled. We hear much about inter-university co-operation in postgraduate 'training', but, as yet, the issue of language-learning, which cannot be tackled by any one department, or even institution, on its own, seems hardly to be on the agenda, but it is surely crucial for T/RS.

Finally, let me return to a point which connects up with recruitment from school and how we 'profile' or re-configure what we do at first degree level at any rate. In 2003, there was just one application in philosophy for philosophy of religion, a matter, I may add, which has received no attention whatsoever at the British Society for the Philosophy of Religion, though, when established in 1993, it aimed 'to advance the education of the public in the philosophy of religion, with special reference to the Christian religion'. I understand that philosophy of religion as we know it in the UK, a phenomenon of the last halfcentury and dominated by the analytic tradition, is a minority interest in philosophy departments, though not in the US.16 Having said that, there have been some important conferences sponsored by the Royal Institute of Philosophy17 in the UK. I suggest that the shift of 'philosophy of religion' from philosophy to T/RS (19 applications for system- atic/philosophical theology in 2003) obviously affects or should affect what 'counts' as philosophy of religion, (as is also true of 'theology', 'religion' and 'religious studies' and 'philosophical theology'!) For it does not look as if philosophy of religion is going to be sustained at postgraduate level unless it is sustained in T/RS, where, crucially, it need by no means be limited to the current range of topics tackled via the 'analytic' tradition as understood in the UK,18 and to which it must not be limited if it is both to engage the attention of school-age and undergraduate students in T/RS alike. This is most emphatically not a plea for giving priority to philosophy of religion, either as we think we have known it, or as we think it might be transformed, but simply to point out that, for the foreseeable future, it is something-or-other philosophical in relation to ethics which is capturing the attention of candidates for RS at school level, and affecting applications for HE. We cannot afford to let it collapse under the weight of its own predictability, as may have happened in the case of other areas of T/RS we have neglected to our peril in the past, and about which, for the moment, we seem to attend with great difficulty so far as schools are concerned. Nor should ethics in relation to T/RS allow itself to be hijacked by non-religious/ theological ways of thinking about ourselves either, and there is a whole agenda for consideration there, too.

Overall, indeed, I would suggest that we face a number of opportunities and problems, and I would welcome discussion and debate about how best we might identify and make progress in respect of some of them. It may be that we need something akin to the new British Philosophical Association, formed in 2002, to support T/RS, unless we can act together to rejuvenate AUDTRS with its new Chair, so far as getting institutional 'clout' together is concerned. It may be that we need some sort of equivalent of the AAR systematically to address some of the intellectual and conceptual shifts which beset us. So, how do we move from here?

Endnotes

  1. My thanks to Dr. George D. Chryssides for information here.
  2. My thanks here to Dr. Richard Clutterbuck for information about the concerns of the Irish Inter-Church Committee about the state of theology in Irish universities and public life. Constituent colleges of the Institute of Theology (Belfast Bible College, Edgehill Theological College, Irish Baptist College, St. Mary's University College and Union Theological College) teach and supervise degrees administered by Queen's, Belfast. The BD includes biblical languages; languages are not compulsory for the BTh; the MDiv is for good graduates in another discipline and the MTh is part module, part research. The PhD and MPhil are both research degrees. The Methodist and Presbyterian colleges share a joint degree programme and also deliver QUB degree modules as evening classes; and the Methodist College also has an arrangement with the Mater Dei Institute in Dublin to deliver ecumenical courses for mature students. Access and A-level courses are also on offer.
  3. T/RS at University of Wales, Lampeter, is one impressive example, and, in tandem with the Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies (formerly the PRS-LTSN), actively examines issues associated with Open and Distance Learning (ODL). The Subject Centre is also concerned with Philosophy, History of Science and Philosophy of Science.
  4. The 8th Sir Sigmund Sternberg Lecture was given on Thursday 28th April 2005 by Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, on 'Christianity Among the World's Religions: Forty Years after Nostra Aetate'.
  5. At Gloucestershire, two undergraduate programmes in T/RS have closed, but two new programmes are agreed: religion, philosophy and ethics (RPE); and applied theology. An existing BA Hons. in theology (by distance learning) continues, as do MA programmes in T/RS and PGR. The RPE degree may be taken as a joint degree, and will also be 'an attractive complementary element for those taking a range of humanities degrees and other programmes across the University'. I am grateful to Dr. Peter Scott for this information.
  6. See the essay by Professor Dianne Willcocks, Principal of York St. John University College, who published her reflections, entitled 'Church Colleges: Keeping the Faith' in Borderlands, St. John's College, University of Durham, (summer 2004) pp. 10-11.
  7. Grateful thanks here to Dick Powell of the Culham Institute, Oxford, for information.
  8. It is not that a variety of possibities are not on offer. One example: ...study one or more religions across one or more of the following areas: Textual Studies, Theological Studies, History of Religious Tradition(s), Religious Ethics, Religious Practice, Philosophy of Religion, Psychology of Religion, Sociology of Religion.
  9. In Christopher Lamb's article, 'The Theology Generation' in The Tablet (2 October 2004, pp. 16-17) he writes that 'More people want to study theology as part of a search for understanding that goes beyond academic enquiry. The subject treads the delicate balance between personal belief and critical distance, while providing young people with a depth of meaning in what they often perceive as the dry world of academia.'
  10. Note also that, since its foundation in 1975, the Sociology of Religion Study Group has become the second largest discipline study group within the British Sociological Association, concerned with contemporary religious issues and the sociology of religion. The 2004 conference topic was 'A Sociology of Spirituality', with participants from Asia, North and South America as well as Europe. The theme for 11-13th April 2005 was 'Religion and Gender'.
  11. For the 2001 census in England 3.1% of the population stated that their religion was Islam (0.7% in Wales), with 21% of Leicester's population born outside the EU, from a range of geographical areas. There are some 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide.
  12. See David F. Ford, Ben Quosh and Janet Soskice, (eds.) Fields of Faith: Theology and Religious Studies for the Twenty-first Century, (CUP, 2005).
  13. There has never, I think, been anything for T/RS comparable to the UGC Review of Philosophy in 1989, which at least produced a valuable public statement about 'The Place of Philosophy in the Humanities'. I am not aware of anything comparable for T/RS. So, from the review: 'A philosophy department may be concerned with issues such as the appraisal of argument, the nature of thinking itself and the nature of the mind that thinks. It is interested in the concepts and the language through which our understanding of the world and of ourselves is expressed, and interested (no less) in the world we perceive, affect and think about. To raise questions about the rational foundations of morality, or about the nature of explanation in the physical or the social sciences, or in history, is to raise philosophical questions. These include also basic questions about human nature, human freedom—its presuppositions—and questions about the meaning of life. Philosophy also seeks to articulate the best available view of the overall setting of human existence—its cosmic environment.' Philosophy 'interpenetrates with an extraordinary range of subjects, examining their central concepts, their methodologies'...stretching from 'highly technical, abstract and systematic work...'to 'applied philosophy...The case for keeping philosophy among the "core" subjects rests partly on its content and partly on the intellectual training that studying it provides. It furnishes an invaluable training in the interpretation of demanding texts and in the appraising and inventing of arguments and theories: training in lucidity and the acquiring of critical and constructive power through discussion and writing about complex and difficult abstract problems. These are skills transferable to many sorts of non-academic professional work' but a proper defence of the subject should also 'unashamedly affirm the value of philosophical thought in its own right as an element in civilized life. Human beings would be diminished if they ceased to raise and (some of them) explore in a disciplined way the fundamental questions with which philosophy engages.' (Taken from the Subject Centre for PRS website).
  14. A quarter of Durham's joint honours philosophy/theology graduates go on to at least Master's degrees, and another quarter to PGCE courses.
  15. At Junior Certificate Level, the documentation repeats the aims of education published in the White Paper on Education (1995). Such aims include the fostering of 'an understanding and critical appreciation of the values—moral, spiritual, religious, social and cultural—which have been distinctive in shaping Irish society and which have traditionally been accorded respect in society'. Of the ten aims, the fourth is 'to develop intellectual skills combined with a spirit of inquiry and the capacity to analyse issues critically and constructively' , and the fifth and sixth are 'to develop expressive, creative and artistic abilities to the individual's full capacity' and 'to foster a spirit of self-reliance, innovation, initiative and imagination'. The specific aims of religious education have to do with the human search for meaning, and how this has found, and continues to find, expression in religions; how such understandings, and in particular the Christian tradition, have contributed to the culture in which we live; appreciation of the richness of religious traditions and the acknowledgement of the non-religious interpretation of life, and the contribution of study to the spiritual and moral development of the student. Options for study include, in Part 1, two of Communities of Faith; Foundations of Religion—Christianity; Foundations of Religion—Major World Religions. All of Part 2 is required: The Question of Faith; The Celebration of Faith; and The Moral Challenge. The Celebration of Faith is particularly interesting, it seems to me, including material on 'The World of Ritual', particular places and times and their significance; 'The Experience of Worship'; 'Worship as Response to Mystery'; 'Sign and Symbol' or 'Sacrament'; and 'Prayer', including 'important people in the spiritual traditions' and with key concepts including meditation and contemplation, praise and thanksgiving, penitence, personal and communal prayer as well as petition and communication with God. At Senior Certificate Level the summary rationale points out that 'religious education can justly claim an integral part of any curriculum which aims to promote the holistic development of the individual in the light of the stated aim of education'. There is notable emphasis on 'the value of religious belief and on diversity and mutual respect is of particular relevance for national and global citizenship' and the student must 'assume the roles of critical questioner and reflective searcher: roles which are at the heart of a commitment to lifelong learning'. The course is taken in three units. The first consists of 'The search for Meaning and Values'. In the second unit, the student chooses two of 'Christianity: Origins and Contemporary Expression', 'World Religions' and 'Moral Decision-Making'. In unit three, (excluding two sections designated for course work in any one year) students choose one of 'Religions and Gender', 'Issues of Justice and Peace','Worship, Prayer and Ritual', 'The Bible: Literature and Sacred Text'; 'Religion: the Irish Experience'; and 'Religion and Science'. It could be both interesting and important to see how the patterns of choice work out over a period of time.
  16. See Ann Loades, 'Philosophy of Religion: Its Relation to Theology' in Harriet A.Harris and Christopher Insole, (eds.) Faith and Philosophical Analysis (Ashgate, 2005). The American Philosophical Association sustains interest, and importantly, there exists the Society of Christian Philosophers with its distinctive journal, Faith and Philosophy. Writers from the US dominate the pages of Religious Studies.
  17. Talk of God (1969), Reason and Religion (1977), The Philosophy in Christianity (1989), Religion and Philosophy (1992), Philosophy, Religion and the Spiritual Life (1992).
  18. See for instance David Brown, 'Experience Skewed', in (eds.) K. Vanhouzer and Martin Warner, Transcending Boundaries in Philosophy and Theology (Ashgate, 2004).

Return to vol. 5 no. 2 index page

This page was originally on the website of The Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies. It was transfered here following the closure of the Subject Centre at the end of 2011.

-
The British Association for the Study of Religions
The Religious Studies Project