Tony Jones asks in this article “are academic theologians useless?” The picture above is not of Tony, but from his article. He accuses theologians “of falling asleep at the wheel, of giving up the populist agenda, …of caring more about tenure and academic guilds than about changing the minds of the people in the checkout line at Wal-Mart.” He dared to suggest that the academic theological guild is becoming irrelevant and challenged theologians to market themselves and learn how to reach/affect the broader public.
I think Tony is right to raise this issue. In relation to Tony’s challenge, I have three comments for those entering academic life who wish do serious theology yet impact the concrete life of the church and culture.
a.) The problem of the Tweener book. The tweener book is a book which is neither an academic monograph nor a trade book written for a broader untrained audience. These ‘tweener’ books are written for pastors, the theologically interested and well read, the leaders in the church who communicate regularly to the lay person/ who is not theologically trained or motivated. The problem is these ‘tweener’ books don’t sell 40,000 copies, never mind 20,000 copies. They cannot be priced as a monograph reference text for other professors/libraries that usually buy these books. They fall in between. They are risky and not as economically feasible for a lot of traditional publishers. Yet they fulfill probably the most important educational task. For it is among this audience of leaders – pastors-theologically interested readers where the significant changes are cultivated through books. The economics of these books make it imperative that serious theologians become more creative in marketing and writing publications that are in essence tweener publications.
b.) There is a need for more Ph.D. pastors. There is a need for people who think, lead and pastor out of the church context and then write seriously out of this same context. These pastor theologians are in the position to write some of the most impactful theology. (Think Augustine (bishop of Hippo), Luther, Wesley, Barth (early on), Yoder (ecumenical engagements, post WW 2 Europe reconstruction peace church activities) theologians who were active pastors. But too often, too quickly, academic Ph D’s are swerved into pursuing an academic job at all costs. Yet in a time when seminaries, and religious departments in universities are shrinking, there are less and less of these jobs available. And those that get those jobs find them suffocating and extremely inhibiting in terms of offering little time to think, write and minister. Writing theology then becomes a task reserved out of the guild for the guild. I therefore urge Ph.D.’s to consider ministry and adjunct teaching as a vocation. You can still participate in the guilds as much as before. Seminaries need these kinds of teachers. And you’ll get more time to write, a better context from which to write and you’ll also probably (all-tolled) make more money .
c.) The Publishers Have Become the Pope and we need to deal with it. It bothers me that for the reasons cited above by Tony, that the church in America is being theologically led more and more by the publishing houses who can market their books to the most people in a young age group. The new pope of especially American evangelicalism and progressive evangelicalism are the publishers and the media empires behind them. They are dictating theology and direction of the upcoming church. Meanwhile the history of the church’s theology and Scriptural interpretation, the understanding of the history of doctrine, is too easily left to the side. We have gurus who travel and write on the fly. They write well, some do excellent work, but many never engage in the dialogue and conversation that has gone before them in the history of the church. What results is unreflective blundering into many of the same dilemmas we’re writing to correct or advance beyond. And then, the academic theologians end up wining about it. We need more theological academically trained pastors/writers who can enter these conversations and subvert the publishers from always equating good theology with what sells.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Professor – great post. One of the greater questions to be answered and one that has never been given much reflection I’m afraid. I remember, back in the day before computers and such things, time spent with 2 very close friends from university. They were moving into the field of speech philosophy (existential phenomenology) and those days were fun discussing Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and continental thinkers – some of who were extremely relevant (the current thinking at the time was the serious error of empiricism as foundational for knowledge – an undercurrent leading to the growth of post-modernism?) as well as extremely difficult to follow at times as I think you know – Zizek seems to be following this path for today. Well, part of our discussions were about what this meant for the mass of us who were not into this field of study and what would be the benefit to culture. While there were times when the reading was something I could grasp much of the writings went beyond my comprehension. My friends wrote papers that were later published and while at times there were some provacative thoughts more often than not I (not to be too arrogant but i presumed I was more of the common person in trying to understand their work) was lost. I don’t recall every really getting into an answer for that question other than the necessity for the pursuit of the valid means of understanding and realizing the accurate human condition. So I guess in trying to understand the whys of this situation, many roads lead to the possibilty of the capture of academia (and this includes seminaries) by the economic-think and capitalism that dominates the West. Efforts to balance all this out must be delicate and difficult. So great post with much room for thought but I’m afraid not one many are willing to tackle as the some of the answers point to areas we don’t wish to tread into.
David-
As usual, you are right on the money here. As someone who is an academic, a practitioner, and an avid reader of tweener books, I agree with you that they are the most important kind of writing. I have often wondered how they even get published at all given the economics you point out.
As a seminarian at a rather academically-inclined seminary, I have noticed that the current crisis in seminaries and the wakening up to the decline in Christendom in general has made some of the faculty realize the need to be more “practical.” As a result, they are more frequently using these tweener books as texts. E.g., one of the profs who teaches homiletics here assigns Doug Paggitt’s book along with Michael Pasquerello’s dense ‘Trinitarian Theology of Proclamation.’
Maybe part of the solution is folks like you inside the academy opening up the door to these tweener books as legitimate sources of reflection for the academic-practitioners you’re advocating for.
I also share your concern about the power of publishing houses. One of my concerns with the emergent movement–as much as I consider myself a friend–is how market-driven and celebrity-centered it has been. As a result, most of the emergent functions I have been to seem to be filled with white, middle-class, recovering evangelicals whose imaginations about what it means to be missional has been shaped by middle-class consumer culture.
As someone who was a target of and impetus for the ‘Why We’re Not Emergent’ book, I can also vouch personally for the fact that good marketing gets confused with good thinking and thus exerts too much influence on the church (note the recent CT award that book got).
amen, brother Fitch!
Great stuff David. I especially resonate with your third point: publishing is driving our thinking and ecclesiology WAY too much. It is interesting that in our society, we assume that the prophetic voices are the very voices that are marketed to us. This creates a false sense of reality where we feel like we are free when in reality we are only free within a limited set of safe options.
To me, the question isn’t whether or not we need educated thinker/practitioners (we do) but whether or not we still need the Academy. Current academic institutions are insufficient and embedded with all sorts of other-than-holistic assumptions. In my experience at seminary, ministry courses were sorely lacking in theological insight, and the theology/bible courses were sorely lacking in practical or ethical reflection.
We need communities to begin to subvert the educational systems as it is in an attempt to do better–to go beyond and find ways of fostering an organic intellectualism that is more deeply connected with praxis, more aware of present realities (rather than the public issues that dominated thirty years ago), more conversant with the Tradition, and more agile in its ability to help students connect the best of ideas with the most faithful ways of embodying the Gospel.
I don’t believe that seminaries are doing this very well, because of their generally static nature, their desire to play it safe to ensure their own survival, their need to remain accredited, their costly ways of doing things (buildings and staff), etc.
I’m meeting with some folks at the local free university to move towards a free seminary. In our area, there are enough scholars, smart practitioners, and free meeting places to make this a reality. Will it replace the Academy? No. At least not for some time. But I see examples like the Chaikovsky Circle in pre-revolutionary Russia as a way of deep thought and innovation in the midst of a stagnating intellectual climate.
And I’m also beginning to talk with some folks of creating a cooperative publishing group that would help distribute great old materials and publish new materials, using relational promotion instead of marketing and share the revenue cooperatively among participating communities.
Perhaps none of this will stick. It may all end up being a waste of time, but we need to remove the layers of abstraction in our learning and create new ways that better correspond to our world and our calling.
David,
i was thinking about this some more, and I wonder if “papacy.” is the correct analogy here. It seems that “magisterium” might be more appropriate, given the fact that publishers are not a single person. Nor is there a unidirectional influence from publisher to readership Obviously the readership to some extent determines what the publishers publish. there is a sense here in which readership gets a vote A sense in which there is a sort of democracy. And there is certainly a kind of accountability with the publishers–no ex cathedra.
I think it would be fair to say (and worth saying) that of the publishing houses, Baker–the guys who publish your own book–are probably doing the best job of producing these kind of “Tweener” books that you recommend.
But you know, as I was thinking about this last night, it occurred to me that it might be said that today publishers have less power than they did even 10 years ago. And this would be largely due to the influence that blogs have upon public thinking. Blogs are not moderated by any publishers. I think an analogous scenario might be the rise of Independent film Due to the better accessibility, but high quality, of digital media.
Phil Cooke makes the point that today, largely due to Internet media it is becoming less and less about making money and more about influence.
I guess what I’m suggesting is that with the coming of the digital age, the power of those who possess the “keys to the kingdom” (e.g. the publishing houses) is diminishing in power. That is not to say that they are completely without power. Nor is it to say that they are without significant power. But what I am saying is that it seems that the balance of power is becoming more and more equally distributed. Every one, now,can be an author and a publisher. It is not up to the publishers who visits your blog.
But the publishers do control, to some extent, the amount of traffic that gets to your blog, and thus the influence of your blog. There are also book tours and so on and so forth.
anyway I just wanted to share these thoughts. Thanks for writing.
blessings…
Adam
Wow This converstion is encouraging. Thanks Bill for your perspective. And Jeremy, thanks for your take. I agree with your assessment of things…
Adam you got me thinking as well. I think blogs have certainly helped alot. I think of some blogs that receive alot of hits that I would call tweener blogs – Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed, Michael Spencer’s Imonk and Mark’s Jesus Manifesto. I even see the recent discussion on Nate Kerr’s book on church and pomo blog as the kind of thing that can take academic discussion and make it accessible to tweener people. Despite the power of blogs and what we see in the work of blogs like these and many others, I also see blogs in danger of being absorbed by the publishers and the promotion of books. I’m interested in how this is all going to wash out.
Mark,
I love your phrase “organic intellectualism.” I have hopes for this as seminaries continue to shrink and must rely on new sorts of pastor/professors. I think there are a few seminaries rethinking their mission and the cost that could lead to some of what you talk about.
I think there’s going to be some amazing changes in semianry education. The issue is, how do the “free seminaries” avoid the danger of lack of discpline and rigor which avoiding the established seminaries temptation to self-perpetuation of self enclosed specialized language. There has to be a way to carry on orthodoxy and its ongoing development for post Christendom without it becoming ossified and cloistered.
I do see hope in all the short run publishers (wipf and stock etc.).
In the end , all these places have to find a way to survive financially …
This conversation is also happening in Canada, and of course has spurred initiatives like ALLELON and FORGE. FORGE has arrived in Canada and it looks like it might take a uniquely Canadian shape. I’m encouraged by the people and vision involved.. http://www.forgecanada.ca
the best theologian is the one youve never heard of who has impacted the lives of those around him by integrating his passion with his circumstances.
as a pastor and academic theologian at same time, i applaud the sentiments but warn against romanticisation. doing both has at times negatively impacted both my church ministry and my academic “career.”
in ministry, i am boxed as “intellectual” and thus for some, treated with suspicion. in academy, i am treated with suspicion cos i dont’ write enough theologically. it’s tough to do both.
and for a interesting catholic perspective on this – check out http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6607117.html
steve
It was great to meet you at the Toronto “Evolving Church” conference last month. I have your book “The Great Giveaway” to my right and I am re-reading it. I appreciate your perspective and apt critique of the church.
I teach at Tyndale University College that not only offers liberal arts degrees but also ministry-oriented ones as well. We are trying to provide practical training for our ministry students. Our Seminary component is touted to be missional but every institution has challenges fleshing that out. Our In-Ministry degree is helpful as it is 1 day/week and does more integration.
I am re-thinking theological education as one who teaches ministry. I am doing more coaching and mentoring of pastors and students these days “on the side.”
Dan, I appreciate what you’re doing there at Tyndale! I hear many god things.
Steve,
I agree it is difficult, I think part of my argument here should be, given the current demise of Christendom and Christendom forms of seminary, seminaries and academia of the church are going to be forced to think seminary differently (I know this is an ongoing mantra out there). Part of this rethinking is that pastors become professors and vice versa as part of a communal educational network.
I realize that what I’m about to say is going to come off as a bit extreme. But let me preface it by saying that I am a firm advocate for deep learning. I’m not anti-intellectual in the least.
However, the older I get, the more I’m convinced that our educational systems in the West are largely to blame for the problems in the world. Maybe I’ve read too much Ivan Illich and Paulo Freire and been influenced too much by radical streams of theology that refuse to go along with the program.
My experience…real life experience…tells me that uneducated folks committed to radical living make MUCH better and more astute students than educated folks that are committed to radical ideas. Modern education has, regardless of subject matter, an embedded set of values that are often antithetical to holistic discipleship. It also limits our imaginations…making us susceptible to external agendas and better cogs in the imperial machine.
Even seminaries that, from within the inherited model of western education, try to integrate ministry and theology, tend to make too many assumptions about privilege, the educational process, what constitutes “good” theology, etc. And so, my experience tells me that while most seminarians end up being more adept at living and leading within Christendom, they are certainly less adept at helping lead people beyond Christendom. They aren’t able to challenge the Principalities and Powers because they no longer have imaginations to see beyond them.
The best of us may suspect what is wrong enough to recommend some helpful reading to those in captivity, but it is a rare person indeed who offers a way of holistic praxis and thought that can show people a way beyond.
While our world has space for academic theologians and good-old-fashioned ministers, it has a greater need of theologically minded practitioners and praxis minded theologians. But even MORE than that, we need pioneers who can move beyond Christendom to embrace new ways of ministry and new ways of pedagogy.
This is why I chose, about 6 years ago, to depart from the path that would lead to my becoming an academic theologian. And it is also why I chose, about 4 years ago, to depart from the path that would lead to my becoming an institutional pastor. But folks that know me would say that I am still a fledgling theologian and an active minister in the Body of Christ. It has been a painful (but I believe necessary) thing for me to seek a more radical path. And I am doing everything I can to make that path more feasible for as many people as possible.
[...] Reclaiming the Mission » Tony Jones Asks: Are Academic Theologians Useless? Posted on April 17, 2009 by jasonsmith Reclaiming the Mission » Tony Jones Asks: Are Academic Theologians Useless?. [...]
The world is groaning under the collective weight of all the theologies. There is more theology being done now than ever before.
And yet the entire world is getting more and more insane every day. Indeed much of the insanity is being generated by benighted self-possessed religiionists.
All theology is useless because it is incapable of changing any one or any thing at a DEPTH level.
In fact the mind that does theology actively prevents any such change from occurring, indeed its very purpose is to keep the status quo intact.
The story of Humpty Dumpty addressed this issue. You know— all the kings horses and all the kings men (that is NO theology) can never ever put Humpty back together again