As is the case in so many other countries, the Australian government is revisiting the question of higher education. The United States isn’t all that different. We’re worried about how to finance our gigantic system, and we’re concerned about how to ensure that various institutions are doing a decent job.
The rub, of course, comes in deciding what counts as good, or at least good enough. With the usual Byzantine bureaucratic complexities, various organizations in Australia are setting about to establish educational standards, what the educational establishment calls “learning outcomes.”
The document produced by an association of Australian and New Zealand theological schools, “Threshold Learning Outcomes in Australian Theological Education,” makes for interesting reading.
OK, not interesting, but at least telling—a reminder of why it’s a very bad idea to empower contemporary academics to police theological education.
First, we find the usual rhetoric about diversity, openness, and critical freedom.
“Particular church commitments are respected [whew!], while at the same time not shielded from scrutiny—critique and commitment go hand in hand.” Sure, but we know which gets to let go when it wants.
Indeed, unlike physics, chemistry, and biology, where a student denying basic theories will surely be denied a degree, apparently the study of theology imposes no deep cognitive commitments: “Holding to any particular world-view cannot be required for a person to graduate with a degree in theology.”
But wait. There’s critical freedom and then there’s critical freedom. Somehow, the committee that drafted the learning outcomes feels confident that one can expect the study of theology, like other disciplines, to lead to “a lifestyle of integrity.” “Attitudinal outcomes are therefore looked for,” the document ominously intones. And those “attitudinal outcomes”? Here’s a hint: “Since theology is concerned with what is ultimately real, true and good, its own commitments continue to set fairness, consistency and openness at is heart.”
In other words, respectable study of theology imposes no worldview—except, of course, for the worldview of liberal modernity. Lots ends up being excluded, not the least of which is the traditional view of theology as the act of intellectual obedience to the Word of God.
What about the commitment to consistency? As this document makes clear, liberal modernity seems to exclude intellectual consistency. Somehow, the “attitudinal outcomes” of “fairness” and “openness” don’t entail a worldview? Somehow believing that “holding to any particular worldview cannot be required” is not itself an extremely aggressive and obligatory worldview?
Parochial—to imagine one’s own way of thinking self-evident and universal. Are there any people on earth more parochial than modern liberal academics, including (and perhaps especially) modern liberal theologians?
August 17th, 2010 | 1:44 pm
Somewhere I read that the basis of early Christian persecution by the Romans was atheism, i.e. denying that the other god’s were gods at all. They didn’t mind including Jesus in the pantheon it was the Christians insisting on the truth of their claims which was felt to be disruptive to Pax Romana.
I sometimes feel as though we’ve gone full circle and are now back where we started. Though I tend to think it’s a good thing. Anything that forces Christians to see the choice between following God and pleasing man can’t be all bad.
August 17th, 2010 | 2:59 pm
“It is strange but informing to discover that these wretchedly provincial attitudes of mind always think themselves universal, and nothing surprises world reformers of such a sort more than the discovery that other men differ from them.”
– Hilaire Belloc, ‘On the Place of Gilbert Chesterton in English Letters’
August 17th, 2010 | 3:22 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Billy Belk, DNC DUDES. DNC DUDES said: Policing Theology: As is the case in so many other countries, the Australian government is revisiting the que… http://bit.ly/aI2tzL #tcot [...]
August 17th, 2010 | 5:56 pm
Though I liked your input in your blog I wanted to write and ask you about your book “In the ruins of the church”.
I am a pastor of the fledging and liberal United Methodist church in Sweden, though educated and mentored by Holiness movements people and institutions in the US. The ruins language speaks to me on several layers. It simply makes sense here on the frontline of Christianity and culture.
However, I must admit that ever since I found out that you converted to Catholicism and admitted to not being able to do what you preached/wrote in your book the whole thing started to feel a lot less potent. Why didn’t it work for you and, excuse me for asking this question, what exactly did you mean by living in the ruins of the Church (save the Daily office)?
Thank you for your commitment to thinking and writing so deeply for those of us with too little time to do so,
Andreas Kjernald
August 17th, 2010 | 6:22 pm
You’re almost right. But consider this in light of “Freedom of Religion” within a State.
Guidelines for a State and how it behaves toward religion, could of course, not favor any particular religion.
Then too, this fits the Bible: God wants us to come to him out of our Free Will; not because a given state told us that a particular religion was the only right and legal one.
Or are you, RR Reno of First Things, now advocating sending the Police to arrest theologians that do not fit your religious preferences? Sure that God is not tolerant?
August 17th, 2010 | 9:07 pm
@Wendy,
Did I read Mr. Reno wrong? I gather that his introduction of the Australia state was just to show a source of a difficulty with theology curricula. So the actions of the state are not at issue.
I think his point it that “viewpoint neutral” theology is not theology at all but rather the personal beliefs of the academics involved. That is pretty slim pickings for a theology department when there are so many rich traditions out there.
August 19th, 2010 | 8:43 pm
These people are cruel.
I know from bitter personal experience they are tolerant of everything except doctrinal historical Christianity. Their self conceit is so immense, their philosophy so poor, I couldn’t even speak with a biblical scholar who thought miracles were by definition ahistorical, without being accused of projecting or being hostile or narrow minded. This was an Australian female biblical scholar working in Adelaide of 18yrs experience!
The Archbishop there allows scores of vulnerable Catholics, teachers, parish workers, young uncatechised people to this particular divinity school every year; and spread the poison throughout the diocese.
Categorically they are of negative value. Under the aegis of the Catholic Church they are most effective destroyers of faith.
RR Reno is working hard to protect our people from these sharks, with his lucid thinking and deep commitment to orthodoxy.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact