25 Years of "Modern Theology"

If there was one journal that was a "go to" venue for the sorts of discussions encouraged by the "Church and Postmodern Culture" series, it would have to be Modern Theology (which Greg Jones describes as a "mis-named journal" since the conversations there have been largely concerned with a critique of modernity).  In particular, it has been a theological journal very hospitable to first-hand engagement with contemporary philosophy, particularly in the Continental tradition (Heythrop Journal also comes to mind in this respect).  And while some mistakenly see it as the organ of a particular "school" of thought, if one scans the contents from the past decade one will find an array of perspectives and traditions represented, including voices that are otherwise quite hostile to one another.  So relatively speaking, it's a "big tent" venture that is also focused on a particular 'region' of philosophy and theology.

So, many churchandpomo readers will find the latest issue of MT of interest: a 25-year retrospective (and prospective) evaluation of the project launched by Ken Surin in 1984.  It includes contributions from past and president editors (including a fascinating peek into its origins from Surin, who then offers some interesting comments on the state-of-the-field today); some usual brio from John Milbank (think what you will of Milbank, but don't pretend he's not erudite, and I still find him one of our most provocative theologians in the best sense of the word, even when I'm disagreeing with him); a call from Stanley Hauerwas to perhaps rethink who we're publishing for; and some don-like reflections from David Ford which close with his list of 10 (forthcoming) books he's looking forward to reading.

One of the virtues of this collection, it seems to me, is that it could be profitably read by non-specialists who are looking for a snapshot on where the field has been, and where it's going.  (Footnotes are minimal, and almost all the articles have an autobiographical element to them which makes them almost immediately accessible--though there may be 'names and faces,' so to speak, which are not familiar.)

Some light holiday reading I'd highly recommend.

Comments

[Andy Rowell]

I too think the issue is worth reading to get a glimpse into what is going on in theology.

I thought this quote from Milbank a zinger:
"Indeed one of the most striking things about the contemporary theological scene compared with twenty-five years ago is the way in which the “live” names in debate are now not so much Barth, Bonhoeffer, Moltmann and Rahner etc, but rather St. Paul, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus, Augustine, Anselm, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Scotus, Cusanus . . . and even Cajetan!"

It seems the issue is viewable online but that may just be because I am at Duke accessing this page:
http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/0266-7177

[Andy Rowell]

R.O. Flyer compares the opposing viewpoints presented by Surin and Milbank at:

Milbank and the papal cosh
http://rainandtherhinoceros.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/milbank-and-the-papal-cosh/

[adhunt]

Andy,

I think you can access the articles because you're at Duke. I am not able to do so here at home.

[James K.A. Smith]

Alas, this issue of "access" is directly related to something Hauerwas gets at in his article: are there ways that the work of "Modern Theology" could reach audiences beyond the theological academy? Well, if institutional subscription is an effective firewall, then why bother?

Time for theology journals to talk open access?

[adhunt]

Or just drop the price of subscription. I know if subscription was closer to $30 or $40 for a student - print and online - instead of $75 or whatever it is, I'd be more able to afford a subscription.

[Evan]

I've posted on the problem of subscription prices for journals before, and unfortunately, Modern Theology is about the most expensive general theology journal out there. See here for some of my comments.

My sense is that journals on big name independent publisher lists are the most expensive, university presses tend to offer journals for cheaper than you might think and are generally the middle range, and it's the no-name publishers or self-published journals that are often the cheapest (and often the work is just as quality as you might find in a Wiley-Blackwell published journal).

[Eric Speece]

Since I'm not currently in a position (academically or financially) to access the journal, I'd love for someone to discuss the main points of Hauerwas' article. I recently had a conversation with someone about the question of academic publication. I do believe there's an important place and practice for academics in a specific discipline to write about things pertaining to that discipline. But too often the stereotype of 'academics writing about academics for academics' is just too much even among popular publishers. Writing / publishing for the Church (as we do here) I hope continues to become more of a priority, not only so that the writings can be accessible, but also so that the dividing wall of suspicion between church and seminary can hopefully be effaced.

[Andy Rowell]

I have access to the article through Duke University but also from Durham County Public Library. Eric, I see that you in Davidson have access to it through the Public Library of Charlotte & Mecklenburg County. Look under Magazines and find Academic Search Premier.

[James K.A. Smith]

Ad Eric, and at the risk of receiving a "cease and desist" missive from the Wiley-Blackwell corporation, here's a selection from the latter part of Hauerwas' essay (I fear italics and such will drop out in the paste):

------------

I worry that MacIntyre's description of philosophy as a specialized discipline has also been, in a similar fashion, the fate of theology. The articles published in Modern Theology are, to be sure, models of rigorous academic analysis. But often I worry that they are at the same time unreadable by anyone who is not already well-schooled either in the subject or deeply familiar with the person who is the focus of the article. I think that it is a good test to ask those who read the journal if they read all the articles in every issue. I know that for me and my house I often find that I simply cannot read intelligently some of the articles because the author presupposes that I must be as familiar as she or he is with its subject matter.

I am not—at least I hope I am not—calling into question the need for the scholarly production of knowledge. That I am unable to read intelligently some of the articles published in Modern Theology is not a bad thing. We do need articles that introduce subjects and thinkers that challenge how we have learned to think. I take it as a given that one of the purposes of Modern Theology is to be a forum that invites new generations of theologians to contest what some of us thought we knew when we were the "new generation."

So I am not calling into question the need for a journal that publishes scholarly articles that often make "difficult reading" on a number of levels. Rather what I am calling for is a different kind of writing that might provide an alternative to the kind of specialization identified by MacIntyre. Our graduate training in theology, as well as the demands for gaining tenure, encourage a current generation of theologians to write for readers who are just like us. In short, we are trained primarily to "write-in." I should like us to encourage Modern Theology to publish articles that foster a form of writing I would characterize as "writing-out." To "write-out" is to write in a fashion that welcomes the reader who may not share our academic specialty but who nonetheless can identify and resonate with the issue or problem that the article addresses.

To be sure, many of the articles published in Modern Theology over the years have in fact exhibited precisely the kind of writing for which I am calling. But I think we need to be more intentional as authors, but also as reviewers of articles for the journal, not only about the content of articles but how they are written. Please note that I am not calling for the journal to publish material that might be characterized as "popular." The distinction between "writing-in" and "writing-out" is my attempt to circumvent the divide between the received division between the academic and the popular. I am trying to avoid the latter distinction because that divide I take to be one that only underwrites the kind of specialization MacIntyre has identified as destructive of serious intellectual work.

The distinction between "writing-in" and "writing-out" I should like to think is determined by the ecclesial considerations I mentioned above and that have been a central feature of Modern Theology from the outset. Namely if Modern Theology has been and wishes to continue to be the journal that has reclaimed the centrality of the church for the work of theology, then we need somehow to break out of the academic ghetto even as we transform it from within. It may be suggested that other journals already exist specifically designed for readers from a wider ecclesial public; but I think that no journal exists, perhaps other than Pro Ecclesia, that combines the theological seriousness of Modern Theology with a commitment to making a difference for ecclesial practice.

Am I therefore calling for Modern Theology to be more like Pro Ecclesia? I quite frankly do not know how to answer that question. I do not even know if the question needs to be asked. What I do know is that contemporary theology needs both journals. If I were forced to name a distinguishing difference between the missions of these two fine journals, I would suggest that Modern Theology should be more concerned than Pro Ecclesia to negotiate the relation between the university and the church. This means, at the very least, that Modern Theology needs to encourage inter-disciplinary (or, as I would prefer, non-disciplinary) work that I believe is required by the very character of the subject matter of theology.

[Eric Speece]

Thanks Andy and Jamie for taking the time to provide these. I appreciate it. Hopefully, Jamie, Wiley-Blackwell will be gracious! As I suspected, Hauerwas does get at the issue. I, for one, hope that more take to heart his encouragement towards "writing-out" and I believe that journals like MT will find a very receptive audience in places they haven't reached yet, if it happens. I know from experience that there is a desire within the church for theological depth and some people will take the time to engage various aspects of theology if it's accessible. I'd love to justify having this as resource in the church library.