ALISON WEBSTER suggests that academic theolo margins — Black, Gay, Feminist, Sea of Faith — if they want to communicate with the rest of the world.
THEOLOGY TODAY gians should venture out of the academy and look to the Why are so many Churches Intellect-Free Zones? arlier this year, the religious Bees was agog (briefly) with the observations of a young Professor of Theology, lan Markham, on the state of academic theology today. Together with a group of other theologians, he had put together a statement calling for the setting up of a “Forum for Religion and Theology”.
The theologians’ stated aims are to encourage a spirit of openness and conversation: “We want to encourage interdisciplinary study. We want to see the academic community engage with those perspectives which have been marginalised — the lay, feminist, gay, people of colour, interfaith. We are a group which hopes that some sort of umbrella organisation shall emerge that can encourage the creation of a British equivalent of the American Academy of Religion. Such structural change will open up theological discourse in this country.” As a fan of, and frequent visitor to, the American Academy of Religion, I said bravo to Markham’s statement, but it set me thinking about where exciting and innovative theology is developing in Britain today. By coincidence, I read of all this at about the same time as I attended the launch of Robert Beckford’s book Jesus is Dread:
Black Theology and Black Culture in Britain. This was held in Robert’s own church in Handsworth, Birmingham — of the Black Pentecostal tradition.
The launch was a mixture of eclectic worship and intellectual (though accessible) discussion. It was fun, but also gripping and challenging. “On the occasions when theology does get a look-in in church life, it’s usually to answer lamely-constructed questions such as ‘What does theology have to say about. .?’ or ‘What is the Christian perspective on [...insert desired contemporary political or social question]’?” Jesus is Dread is a critique of both the Black Pentecostal tradition for its lack of structural, political analysis of racist oppression, and a critique of the white malestream Christian theological tradition, with its Eurocentric thought forms and language. The launch was a celebration of Robert’s achievements in putting together his first book, but there was also an element of calling him to account for the various positions he adopts in it. As I left the event, it struck me how rare are such opportunities for theological interaction in a British context. How come I usually have to cross the Atlantic to find them?
Robert’s book is exciting-because it is a case study of just the theological approach which Markham et al advocate. It is interdisciplinary, drawing explicity upon cultural theory, sociology, film theory, political theory, and philosophy, as well as theology. It contains a discussion between Robert and Faisal Abdullah, a Black Muslim artist; it assesses portrayals of Black Christians in popular culture (exploring, for instance, the exploitation of Black British gospel music on “Songs of Praise”, and representations of Black Church life on the BBC soap, “Brothers and Sisters”). Robert talks of Bob Marley as Black liberation theologian, and draws upon the work of Black British dub poet, Linton Kwesi Johnson.
I say this to make the point that the work which Markham recommends is already being done, and Robert Beckford’s book is just one example among many that I could cite. But I wonder how Robert’s work will be regarded in the academy? And how will it be regarded by the churches which it challenges? I’m willing to bet that Jesus is Dread will be all but disowned by both. Not explicitly, of course. Both institutions will say, very politely, that his work is “interesting” contains much which “should be taken on board”. But his work will not be taken into the institutional heart either of the church (certainly not the white-dominated church) or the academy.
Academic theology, it seems to me, has lost the will to communicate with the rest of the world, perhaps largely because at some point in its history it became too bound up with one tiny bit of that world: the church, which has now almost disowned theology in 4 fit of anti-intellectual pique. And we're all familiar with the disastrous effects this has had on churches, many of which are now intellect-free zones. On the occasions when theology does get a look-in in church life, it’s usually to answer lamely-con- ‘Academic theolo the rest of the world, aps large ly because at some point in its history it became too bound up with one tiny™ s a fit of anti-intellectual pig structed questions such as “What does theology have to say about...?” or “What is the Christian perspective on [...insert desired contemporary political or social question?]” The model here is of theology as an academic exercise which paid professionals do on our behalf, the only question being what happens when the fruits of their activities are “applied” (like an ointment) to everyday life.
So what’s the solution? I was interested to come across the following suggestion from Don Cupitt’s The Religion of Being: “We should turn away from theology as a distinct subject with its own special matter and methods, and instead see creative religious thought simply as a branch of philosophy. As such it is closely related to such topics.as-ethies,—political theory, aesthetics and metaphysics... Religion is now applied philosophy, edifying philosophy, philosophy appropriated and lived”. Now there’s something for Markham to chew on! Is this what he had in mind, I wonder? I think Don has a point — for two reasons. Firstly, having recently undergone a course on “interdisciplinary women’s studies” (which included just about every discipline except theology), I became convinced, rather to my surprise, of the usefulness of theological language in addressing questions of meaning and value. I believe, therefore, that theology has intellectual resources which are found in no other discipline, but resources which only come into their own if we venture out of theology as a narrow discipline of its own, and into the “interdisciplinary intellectual market place”.
Secondly, all fields of intellectual endeavour need to ask what “applied” and “appropriated and lived” actually mean. Another thing I discovered through my recent foray into academia, is that there are two “types” to be found there: those who pursue.academic study purely for the sake of it, and those who come to it in search of tools and resources to address particular real-life questions.
I wouldn’t want to say that the former category are in any sense “useless”, but it was definitely those in the latter category that I found most exciting. They were usually “political people” in the widest sense, and usually members of non-dominant social groups.
To return to theology, then, I applaud Jan Markham’s efforts to reform and restructure its traditional academic forms. As far as I can see though, much contemporary creative religious thinking is being done at the very margins of the academy (through journals like Theology and Sexuality, if 1 may be so bold), and the margins of religious communities (within Sea of Faith, for instance). Perhaps Markham’s next step should be to open up a dialogue with those involved in initiatives such as these.
Alison Webster is an editor of the journal ‘Theology and Sexuality’.