,
16 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
My seminary neighbor wrote an article that created some digital hubbub to which I guess I'm adding.
In the field of religion, there are some recurring debates – one of which is the “insider/outsider” problem. Thankfully, I haven’t personally participated in one of these debates in a while…but that’s a conversation for another thread.
The crux of the issue is whether and how scholars may speak about traditions in which they do not actively participate. [caveat: this is a different question at a theological institution offering practical degrees]
The insider/outsider problem tends to run up against the normative/descriptive problem – as part of producing scholarship, should scholars offer practical advice or instructions or conclusions that require/encourage action from the community that they study?
If so, some will ask, “is it problematic that scholars have a different set of stakes in the practical ramifications of their argument than adherents of the tradition?”
If not, some will ask, “what is the point of producing that particular piece of scholarship about that particular group?”
Essentially, If you aren’t offering solutions, why discuss a problem? Or, what are the implied or assumed solutions that you are bringing to a problem? Should scholars be doing something quantifiably different than the groups that they are studying?
Issues with the tone and tenor of the article aside, I *think* this leads to a (maybe the?) central tension that some are wrestling with in Adam’s essay – what is the practical import of this piece and for whom?
The article seems to be a singular case study regarding a struggle to fulfill ordination requirements. In that sense, the periodical’s facebook tag “Why is it hard for Adam to find a church” is more helpful than “A church leader who doesn’t go to church.”
The former speaks more to the particularity of the article while the latter encourages broad, sweeping statements about the relationship between scholarship and practice (though the article seems to do both)…
The former speaks more to a particular set of congregations while the latter encourages those of us in local congregations to feel like we ought to be doing something different (though the article seems to do both)...
The former speaks to the challenges of looking for a church as a multiple-full-time-job household while the latter encourages considering the author a category (church leader) that implies a set of relationships (students/pastors/churches) (though the article seems to do both)…
So the piece continually alludes to the way that various social fields/categories shape and constrain social actors (spoken and unspoken requirements of a job, implicit ideas of “church”, “leader”, “professor”) while only being grounded in one particular e.g.
While I engage in, and encourage, thinking about the way that social actors engage and are shaped/constrained by networks, it doesn’t seem like that’s the explicit aim of this essay.
I’m admittedly unfamiliar with this publication’s intended viewership other than, apparently, a bunch of people I went to seminary with and/or follow on social media;
But I guess my practical import is to encourage Adam and his readers to consider who they take to be the article’s audience and why, and what is at stake for the various audiences of the piece?
