Read on Twitter
Lots of discussion on Church of England Twitter recently about bishops and Ph.D.s, following on from this post by Peter Anthony. I have no criticisms to make of Peter& #39;s post, but I think we might be asking the wrong question. 1/ https://twitter.com/FrPeterAnthony/status/1273893592709431296">https://twitter.com/FrPeterAn...
I have no view on whether being & #39;academic& #39; helps or hinders one& #39;s becoming a bishop, and the deliberations of those who decide are not open to us. (I have views on whether it should, but that& #39;s not my concern here). 2/
I& #39;m less concerned about the demand for academically-trained theologians among the folk who appoint bishops, but more with the supply. The question is: who (that is, which organisations) should support the training of people to do theological research? 3/
Two names are often mentioned as examples of the kind of academic bishop needed: Rowan Williams & N. T. Wright. But both were the product of the largely unique Oxbridge world of interlocking chaplaincy and teaching, and of the late 1970s. What about now? 4/
Broadly, there are two kinds of theology - that which directly nourishes the life of the churches (doctrinal, liturgical, pastoral, biblical)- and the broader study of religions. (It maps to an extent onto the division between T & RS). Both are necessary. 5/
We might still expect a secular state in what remains a religious world (if it understands its own needs correctly) to want to support - that is, *fund* - research and doctoral training in the latter. Not so the former, it seems to me. 6/
The question that needs to be faced is: why should the state fund the kind of work that only Christians would recognise as being of any value? Why is this kind of theology any different than private research into the inner workings of any organisation? 7/
It seems to me that the answer to this particular question is likely to become more and more firmly negative as time goes on. One straw in the wind is the recent British Academy report on the discipline, showing calamitous decline in undergraduate numbers in the last decade. 8/
So: if the bishops appointed in 2040 or 2050 are to be academic theologians, who will support their higher degrees if the research councils, or the universities (from their own funds) will not? 9/
It seems likely that the churches will need to do some or all of three things: (i) begin providing bursaries for full-time graduate study.
And/or: (ii) support able scholars - lay and ordained - later in life, with time and money, to study part-time. 10/
And/or: (ii) support able scholars - lay and ordained - later in life, with time and money, to study part-time. 10/
And/or (iii) massively increase research support for staff in theological colleges. 11/
Fundamentally, the churches (by which I mean all Christian people, rather than nebulous institutions which are easy to criticise) need to decide how much value they place on the theological enterprise, and whether they will support it. 12/
Perhaps the churches can get along well enough with the work of those who carve out time from full-time jobs, or have access to private means. (Surely no theologian survives on book royalties alone.) Perhaps not. But it is a question that will need to be faced. 13/
Discussing the present bench of bishops is to hear the echoes, as if from deep space, of the educational situation of thirty years ago. The need is to look forward. /ends
(As it has provoked some interest, I& #39;m contemplating working this thread up into a blog post. Would that be a useful thing to do?)
