Spring Break
Notes on the etiquette of scholarly dialogue and debate
Susanne Johnson, susannej@smu.edu
Issue date: 4/4/07 Section: Opinion
Any critique I have of President Bush's faith-based initiative-one of three areas his partisan institute actively will pursue and propagate-is similarly based on my own extensive, interdisciplinary research over the past six years, out of which I have fashioned an alternative faith-based paradigm for addressing children and families who live in poverty. My critique is academic in nature, not political.
Yet who is more qualified to do a critique of President Bush's faith-based initiative than its former Deputy Director, David Kuo? Far from basing his critique on political differences (he is a card-carrying conservative Republican) or liberal Christianity (he is an evangelical Christian and member of the religious right), Kuo gives a first-hand, insider's critique. Kuo's book, "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction," exposes the faith-based initiative as a political sham and, as such, lacking the scholarly integrity one would expect of any academic program connected with SMU's name or reputation in the Academy. [See video clip references at end of article.]
Alongside scholarly research, in responding academically to the proposed institute, I also draw on my training and expertise in the discipline of practical theology. Theology is not the same thing as personal faith, spirituality, religious beliefs or individual moral values.
Theology is an academic discipline with rules of engagement, methodologies and received traditions, similar in this respect to political science, philosophy and all other disciplinary areas in the university. As do all faculty members, theologians have a responsibility to bring the tools and qualifications of their professional, scholarly expertise to bear on academic and curricular concerns shared by the wider SMU faculty.
Theology is best seen as critical inquiry into the credibility of claims as to the Christian witness of faith. Trained theologians are qualified to conduct critical appraisal, for example, of theological claims iterated by George W. Bush when used as rationale for policy initiates. This is not judgmentalism; this is appropriate practice of the profession.
Yet who is more qualified to do a critique of President Bush's faith-based initiative than its former Deputy Director, David Kuo? Far from basing his critique on political differences (he is a card-carrying conservative Republican) or liberal Christianity (he is an evangelical Christian and member of the religious right), Kuo gives a first-hand, insider's critique. Kuo's book, "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction," exposes the faith-based initiative as a political sham and, as such, lacking the scholarly integrity one would expect of any academic program connected with SMU's name or reputation in the Academy. [See video clip references at end of article.]
Alongside scholarly research, in responding academically to the proposed institute, I also draw on my training and expertise in the discipline of practical theology. Theology is not the same thing as personal faith, spirituality, religious beliefs or individual moral values.
Theology is an academic discipline with rules of engagement, methodologies and received traditions, similar in this respect to political science, philosophy and all other disciplinary areas in the university. As do all faculty members, theologians have a responsibility to bring the tools and qualifications of their professional, scholarly expertise to bear on academic and curricular concerns shared by the wider SMU faculty.
Theology is best seen as critical inquiry into the credibility of claims as to the Christian witness of faith. Trained theologians are qualified to conduct critical appraisal, for example, of theological claims iterated by George W. Bush when used as rationale for policy initiates. This is not judgmentalism; this is appropriate practice of the profession.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Susanne Johnson, Ph.D.
posted 4/04/07 @ 8:31 AM EST
Space may have prohibited the inclusion of the endlist of websites (referenced in the body of the article). The first two sites are video clips of David Kuo commenting on President Bush's faith-based initiative; the third gives the title and website where information on the IRD documentary can be found; the last two give further insights into the IRD. (Continued…)
Jim Berkley
posted 4/05/07 @ 2:17 PM EST
Dr. Johnson is overstating her case. There is no general scholarly consensus about IRD having devious, underhanded tactics. What you have is a small handful of conspiracy theorists who have concocted a clueless theory that IRD is entirely evil and deceptively sinister, a far right-wing POLITICAL attempt to smash the witness of mainline churches. (Continued…)
Post a Comment