Troppman Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 I'm hoping to teach history/do research at some sort of college or university. I'm persuing the MTS for good grounding in theology and religious history, then hope to do the PhD in a secular history department, but I'll be applying to both religion and history departments to up my chances. I'm more interested in studying religious history in its secular context, if that makes any sense. Secularism is protestantism. Discuss Seatbelt Blue 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belichick Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Good point. I was not clear enough. I mean that when I translate such texts I don't read them with any purpose to fulfill my own faith. My point is merely that I don't consider reading ancient documents critically (which, as you say, includes the attempt to better understand the 'theological' context of the translator(s)) theology. Again, anyone else reading (religious) ancient Greek documents does this very thing (historical-critical); yet no one would dare call it theology. cheers Copy that. Thanks for the clarification! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacklunch Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Easy there, caretaker, i'm trying to be critical over here. And thus the most absurd debate to ever be funded took place... Haha I'm also confused. Oh well.....so yeah....happy Valentine's day?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devona Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Awesome! We should all keep in touch as we move forward in our educations. This might be a bit of a burgeoning network. I agree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troppman Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Haha I'm also confused. Oh well.....so yeah....happy Valentine's day?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marXian Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 I completely disagree. It only becomes interesting at the AAR after everybody gets drunk. Then, maybe, it is interesting. Otherwise it is boring and uninspiring watching a discipline continue to operate decades behind "critical theory" (or anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc) in its exciting 'new' turns... Gardener vs. Botanist; 1800s Botanist vs. 2013 Botanist. Religious studies is the worst discipline from which to study religion. Edit: I am clearly and mindfully attempting to provoke an interesting conversation. I wasn't clear enough. I'm totally on board with what you're saying about critical theory. I have an MA in English and did most of my work in that degree on theory. When I did my MA in theology, I spent a lot of time thinking and writing about how theory could be used as a tool in hermeneutics. I actually think critical theory could be a productive point of contact for RS and theology. There ARE people in RS who are interested in theory--they just don't know how to jump in. I find myself in the unique position of being a theologian who does critical theory AND I'm in an RS department that largely does ethnography. I have to say, it's extremely exciting. It sounds like you may not be aware of the critical theory work that's been and is being done in theology? I mean, critical theory these days is largely the bread and butter of English departments, but most English students who are worth their salt in theory will acknowledge their discipline knows how to use theory because of people like Mark Taylor and Thomas Altizer. They were (arguably) the first people to take someone like Derrida out of philosophy and apply him to a different humanities discipline (if we were to call theology a part of the humanities.) There is quite a bit of work being done with theory and theology these days, some good some bad (Adam Kotsko and Anthony Paul Smith come to mind as two stars that are rising very quickly.) I will agree that the discipline is a bit behind the times generally, but I know many people who are using theory to write dissertations on constructive theological method. The reality is that RS is a discipline in secular humanities departments. In my experience, theology is typically relegated to divinity schools or done under the banner "philosophy of religion." You may hate what RS does, but I think there's some constructive work to be done there with the help of contemporary theology that can help make theology relevant in the secular academy again. If you think that's a waste of time, I'm okay with that. There are many of us who don't. Also, I think given that theology is a lived discipline (or should be), there's probably something to be gained from theologians engaging in a little bit of ethnographic research. Respectfully, when you say that RS is the worst perspective from which to study religion, all you're doing is adding fuel to the already burning fire that separates theology from RS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Body Politics Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Awesome! We should all keep in touch as we move forward in our educations. This might be a bit of a burgeoning network. Agreed. I'll shoot you two a PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devona Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Agreed. I'll shoot you two a PM. Lovely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now