David Brooks

channels the Augustinian inside him...

Historical Theology OR History as Theology

An insightful piece from "Andrew" at memoria dei on the identity problem facing many div schools: when is Historical theology just historical and why is that a problem? When does Historical theology become a field with arguments like that of systematic theology, and what does that mean?
Toward the bottom comes this summary:

a study which interprets faithfully something of the past is a good thing.  But its significance as a work of theology, defined by the end of theology, will depend a great deal on the extent to which one is also able to clarify its value for the task of affirming the reign of God in the midst of the contemporary situation.  Theology is defined by history only while at the same time being defined by the end of history.

The issue can be easily framed in terms of Bernard Lonergan's 'functional specialties', an eightfold division of labour. Mind you, such a 'functional' approach in theology can - in our day especially - have the negative effect of legitimizing "theological" inquiry that is not essentially or even tangentially theological. History as "theology", yet all we get is history. To some extent, this position is set in default by departments of Church history - in some denominational colleges and faculties. But church history is not historical theology.

Regarding Historical theology proper, take Lonergan's functional specialty of history (or interpretation). If you assume that the theological task of either interpretation or history (functional specialties #3 and #4 in Lonergan's schema) is something that is autonomous from the larger theological inquiry, then you can end up with atheological interpretation or atheological history. Inasmuch as autonomous interpretation or historical analysis concerns religious material, then we are dealing with Religious Studies...but nothing more.

To some extent, Lonergan conceded the scenario of the independence of Theology from Religious Studies by commenting on the fact that functional specializations 1 through 4 (Research, Interpretation, History, Dialectics) are carried out within Religious Studies. The question that Lonergan - writing in the early 1970's - didn't ask (although he was certainly aware of the cultural impact of a pervasive atheism) is this: what if the constructive question of God (seen through the layered (intellectual, moral, religious) act of conversion) simply drops off the radar screen for interpreters and historians in Theology faculties? What does that bode for institutions of theology? The experience of many departments and faculties in British universities over the course of the past 50 years is instructive, as is the number of formerly religiously committed private colleges and universities in the U.S. But, this and other historical matters would take a set of long paragraphs to unfold...

Medieval Wisdom for Modern Universities

A great article by Matthew Milliner, here.

The Problem with Democracy in Canada

Is that there is less and less of it - actual real democracy working in neighborhoods and ridings. So says Fr. Raymond deSouza in the National Post. Wonder whether the editorialists of that paper or any other newspaper think this is important?

On Syria.

Thinking waaaaay outside the box!

On religious freedom in Europe

There's good news and some bad news..

Congratulations Mr. Berry

On your new Humanities medal.

Real Threats to Academic Feedom

As opposed to fictitious threats to academic feedom, as noted in this CHE article.

Book Note: God's Century

A forthcoming book titled God's Century: Resurgent Religion and Global Politics is due out this month. A must read by the sounds of it at the Mirror of Justice blog.

On CAUT and Academic Freedom

As you may know, I've been busy these past few weeks - along with a growing number of Canadian faculty - fending off the Canadian Association of University Teachers or CAUT. Our efforts are catalogued here, in a statement of petition requesting CAUT to cease and desist in its investigations and castigations of Christian colleges and universities which require faith statements as a condition of employment.

As I have mentioned before here, the CAUT investigation into Canadian Mennonite University concluded with a report that recommends, among other things, that institutions which "do protect academic freedom" develop policies in regards to those institions which "don't." Which of course means that CAUT wants to drive a wedge between public universities (and their supposedly ideology-free understanding of academic feedom) and private universities which have faith statements that are deemed so dangerous to academic freedom. The implications of such a wedge abound.

With this recommendation and other charges in the air, I daresay CAUT has already met its objective of tarnishing the reputation of Christian colleges and universities among those who may not have even known about these institutions' existence. (Though, I note that in the press, it has also received some very negative publicity, including from its own "members.")

But the comedown of the other day is a bit mealy-mouthed. On Wednesday, CAUT told the National Post that it will stop its practice of establishing formal investigations into institutions which require faith statements.

This is a meaningless gesture for two reasons: 1) CAUT will continue to develop its list of institutions that require a faith statement with the obvious intent of besmirching reputations. It is a contemporary version of the Index of Forbidden Books (a la Inquisition). 2) It is now clear, since Redeemer University College announced recently that they will not cooperate with any CAUT formal investigation, that the launching of formal investigations would go nowhere anyway. Another factor in all this is: CAUT may not have any other institutions to complain about - for the moment. We don't know.

The point is, of course: the Christian academies with no CAUT members are none of CAUT's business. If an institution is Christian and seeks to foster that religious identity through the sharing of a common statement of faith, than, ipso facto, in a free country, it is free to do so. And that institution should not be branded as acting contrary to the fostering of liberty for doing so. Signatures appended to faith statements are voluntary acts.

I personally do not think that faith statements are the best instrument for fostering a Christian identity in an academic setting. But, again, the point is: what do I know? Perhaps an evagelical or Mennonite (Or dare I say it, Catholic) college president and Board of Governors knows better. It's a prudential judgment, not properly subject to second guessing from national bodies that obviously do not share the aims of said institution.

And, a final point for now: one of the impressive aspects to this exercise of drawing up a statement of petition against CAUT's actions has been receiving and acknowledging the many (hundreds) of emails from faculty with PhD's conferred at secular institutions (some among them are from the world's leading universities) who now work at Canadian Christian colleges and institutions.  There are scholarly credentials worth protecting from the likes of CAUT.

And, as Alasdair McIntyre has reportedly argued in a lecture in Oxford in 2009 (during the Q&A perhaps) but published in New Blackfriars, it is probably the case in North America that academic freedom thrives to a significantly greater degree in Christian colleges and universities than it does in public universities. And CAUT and all of us who work in Canadian universities should think about that - just the very scandalous possibility!
 

The Deactivated Bible

Adam Kotsko has a rather brilliant yet brief take on our problem with the contemporary guild known as biblical studies. Here is a snippet from one of Adam's responses to the comments after the blog entry:

The practical effect of “disqualifying” all historical/traditional uses of the Bible does, however, seem to me to be following a basically “Protestant” impulse of seeking to assess theological claims based on their groundedness in scripture — but it then radicalizes this principle by essentially ruling that no theological claims whatsoever can be legitimately grounded in scripture.
The notion that a basically Protestant view would be lurking in the background shouldn’t be surprising, given that critical biblical studies was for so long an exclusively Protestant endeavor.

Kant and the Deactivated Bible: A Must Read....

Snippets: Latest Reading

1. Insightful critique of Stanley Fish and the "ideal" of the universities' Enlightenment quest for knowledge.
2.Chris Wilson, at Slate, on "Jesus of Wikipedia" OR why you should never rely on wikipedia. Note the verb I use here: 'rely'.
3. Marilynne Robinson on theology, culture and writing.

This is not just a British crisis

Grade inflation ...  it's everywhere.

Pre-Christmas Reading

Here are some things I've been looking at recently:

1) David Brooks intuits communitarianism in a Jewish paradigm - very good - here
2) One and a half cheers for "Two Cheers for Nature" an article by David Barash - here (He makes a number of category mistakes himself; for instance by confusing the Catholic natural law view as equivealent to the nature is good claim...)
3) A mistitled but nonetheless decently argued piece about Downs Syndrome persons - here
4) Regarding gnosticism: is it the same thing under different historical forms? A review of the multi-volume series of works by Cyril O'Regan broaches the question - here
5) John Milbank: on the unjustly maligned Big Society, statism, toryism, distributism, welfare, charity, socialism, third ways, etc. etc. - broad strokes - in the inimitable Milbank style - here.

Enjoy. Merry Christmas

Academic Freedom Turns to Religious Persecution

It's quite the op-ed title (by Peter Stockland of the Cardus Centre, printed in the Vancouver Sun, copied here) but it's pretty accurate insofar as the campaign launched by the Canadian Association of University Teachers is concerned. This organization is a faculty union that is known for its griping and whinging more than anything else.

In recent months, it has moved against small religiously affiliated colleges in Canada, targeting those which attach a 'faith test' as a condition of employment for faculty members. The 'faith tests' spoken about in its campign are likely diverse, but the one that got attention last year if memory serves me correctly was the requirement by Trinity Western University in B.C., where faculty are required to sign some sort of creedal statement upon (or shortly after) hiring.

Well, the latest target is the Canadian Mennonite University in Winnipeg, as detailed here in this article from the CAUT house organ. There is also a link from this article to the actual report conducted by two faculty on behalf of CAUT into the situation of academic freedom at CMU. From that report, on can glean that the CMU actually wants to retain or (hold your breath) strengthen its Christian identity as an educational institution. Just imagine, those uppity Mennonites actually succeeding in this diabolical plot.

Well, you can see for yourself, but the bottom line is that CAUT is pushing a militant secularism on academia, particularly by calling into question (discussed in the article) agreements between colleges like CMU and larger secular universities. You see where this is heading, don't you...

From the article:

The report also recommended that CAUT formulate a policy statement to deal with protecting academic freedom for instances where an institution that does guarantee academic freedom has, or plans to have, joint academic programs or other academic relations with an institution that does not. 

 So, in other words, CAUT wants to deliberately isolate Christian colleges, and slowly squeeze them out, deny those insitutions the accreditation and affiliation credentials that those colleges need to promote their own programmes for the many thousands of students who attend those colleges and who then want to move on to other programmes elsewhere later with their college degree in hand. (Maybe CAUT sees Christian colleges attracting all these good students and enviously wants to find a way to get them into the universities instead, or is that tooooo machiavellian. I digress..)

Will those college degrees be recognized under conditions in which universities are relinquishing association with those colleges - on the limp excuse of protecting academic freedom? It is now a question.

Will universities be bullied by CAUT into shoving these colleges aside? Odds are, yes, sadly, in some cases.

Now, I don't think faith statements are a good way to promote the Christian identity of an educational institution. But, I do think that institutions who believe otherwise should be free to do so without being bullied into the sidelines by a bunch of elitist secularist faculty bureaucrats who think they know better.
 
Insidious, that's what this CAUT campiagn is. It should be stopped.

As I said, Peter Stockland of the Cardus Centre has put the issue into perspective here. Let's see where this goes.