PZ Murghl has challenged me to explain why there are theology departments in universities. Of course, most universities lack theology departments, and some, like the Princeton Theological Seminary, have been hived off their home institution. Back when I actually did theology, at Ridley College at the University of Melbourne, the theology was run independently of the university under the aegis of a nationwide theological umbrella institution, and its entire connection with the university was as a domiciliary college.
But that's not what PZ is asking. So I will give a reason and limited justification for it.
Theology is a human activity. Like all human activities, it forms a series of traditions that are increasingly complexified by interactions with the social context of the day (including the sciences), and so it deserves as much academic study as does any human tradition, such as art, literature, politics and so on. Theology is a humanities subject or discipline.
One can disregard literature, etc., and still be a happy human being, so having such a tradition taught in a university doesn't imply that one has to take it seriously. To be honest, literary studies often leave me as cold as theology does PZ. But I do not think it ought to be eliminated from the curriculum of a university for that reason. Of course, if I were king...
Many hitherto theological departments have mutated into comparative religious studies departments. The difference lies in the normativity of what is studied and taught, although my experience is that individually, researchers and lecturers often are adherents of the religion they study. No student is required to believe in Islam, or Buddhism, or animism in such a department. In theological departments, one is. That is a signal difference.
No university ought to require of its students that they must believe in the field being taught, although arguably one must accept it pro tem in order to do the subject if it includes some factual discipline such as science, engineering, medicine and so forth. But this is exactly what theology departments do require of their students. On the other hand, nobody does theology unless they already believe the religion it is a theology of. When I did it, I lost my faith about halfway into it, and despite duxing the year, I decided I couldn't continue, as the suspension of disbelief was too great even for me. So I changed to philosophy and history instead.
Any tradition is a viable candidate for funding if the interest to learn is there. But exclusivist religious traditions are best taught at colleges established by the denomination or traditional faith community itself. Theology taught at a university had better be fairly inclusive, at least within the confines of the overall religion. Unlike PZ, though, I see no reason to either bemoan the existence of a theology department in a university, so long as it is open academically, nor to desire there be one, like those who are members of that faith community.
For if you do think there oughtn't be a theology department, why should there be a literary department? An Art or Drama department? All of these are humanities activities that arguably contribute nothing to science or rationality.
Okay, that's the limited defence. Now, is there a better justification for theology, one that doesn't equally get met by a comparative religion department or course? I can't think of any that is not exclusivist. In other words, theology is comparative religious studies with the proviso that you must believe it. Students can, of course, lie, and pretend that they believe it, but that isn't what we want to encourage in academe, is it? Sorry, sorry, I'm still an idealist. My bad.
- Log in to post comments
I didn't know that. I assumed most people studying theology would be believers but didn't know it was a requirement that they believe that version of theology.
Now, I can see art, or hear music. I may or may not like it, but it's tangible or audible. It is a something. But be buggered if god's ever touched or spoken to me, though a former parish priest has been done for kiddy fondling. Perhaps that was god's way of reaching out to the flock. God doesn't seem to fit the analogy. But, I'm not a philosopher and my informal logic isn't that great. I'm probably wrong. :)
I don't really care if the subject matter exists or not. I'm talking about the tradition of theology itself. I also do not think that Beauty is an existent, but I don't think that makes the study of art otiose.
I see. But the tradition of art, studies art. It seems to me it is studying something. If art didn't exist, or drama for that matter, why bother? Existence does seem pertinent. Theology on the other hand gets a free pass......
Theology certainly exists. What's the problem?
The problem appears to be my inability to express my thoughts.
Drama is to the study of Drama (Drama-ology)
...... is to the study of god (theology)
That's my inane line of thought. Take away Drama, and Dramaology is meaningless.
OK, comparative religion is reasonable, and as I mentioned, anthropology and sociology. Those focus on something that is real -- and it's certainly true that people believe, and studying that belief is legitimate. The requirement that someone must believe doesn't seem right, though. I know a few atheist theologians, although offhand I don't know if their departments are called "theology" or "comparative religion". Demanding belief from theology faculty sounds like a way to select for irrationality, which doesn't seem like a good idea.
The comparison with art and literature and politics doesn't seem valid to me, though. Somebody can show me art and literature and politicians, but they can't show me the subject of theology's study...unless you're going to argue that theology studies theology, which sounds awfully masturbatory.
And I wouldn't bemoan theology so much if theology departments weren't churning out such awfully stupid arguments. Can they at least exercise a little more quality control?
The comparison with art and literature and politics doesn't seem valid to me, though. Somebody can show me art and literature and politicians, but they can't show me the subject of theology's study...unless you're going to argue that theology studies theology
Hey! PZ read my mind! Squids be praised.
For if you do think there oughtn't be a theology department, why should there be a literary department?
Similar to what Brian says:
Literary departments study literature. Theology departments study God.
Literature exists and can be studied.
There is no evidence for God, so all theology departments can do is... study theology! It's an endless loop.
Theology can't study itself. It should be studied by sociologists and historians and anthropologists.
Brian, that's not the case, actually. Theology is not the study of "God" but the study of religious texts, traditions, and beliefs. And these do indeed exist, whether we like it or not! b.t.w. I also studied theology at a (German) university for several semesters before I went on to study more useful forms of fiction (American literature, that is ;-)). I never believed in anything supernatural and always clearly said so. They didn't mind and, e.g., even encouraged the most critical and precise reading of religious texts in general and the bible in particular---readings which inevitably shred any conception of the existence of "sacred" or even "godly inspired" texts.
gyokusai- good point.
Theology did give us higher criticism and the documentary hypothesis. Perhaps we should leave theology departments alone a little longer, and they will destroy the faith completely...
I would beg to differ in you assertion that students must accept factual subjects such as biological sciences. At my institution, I have had undergraduates do research in my laboratory who are graduating with degrees in genetics and microbiology that are young earth creationists. These students are academically sound, from a transcript perspective, but are clearly phoning it in, to turn a phrase, throughout their college careers.
Theology indeed studies theology. That is, it studies theological traditions, philosophical arguments, liturgical traditions, and so on. The study of the traditions, and they are rather more complex than is often recognised, is a legitimate field of study. When I did theology we didn't study God as such, but the ideas and arguments of two or more thousands of years of rich cultural traditions. Even bible study was about the development of ideas amongst the ancient Hebrews, and the period described by the New Testament. And this wasn't some wishy washy liberal theology college, oh, no, this was an evangelical college (with a high degree of scholarship).
Part of the problem is that American bible colleges are very monodimensional and think that they have the inside running on all ideas; this is hardly the best of theology. The British and Continental traditions of theology are layered, sophisticated, and often require commentators on extratheological topics to have a very good knowledge of their targets. Not all succeed, and certainly when it comes to science, they rarely do (exceptions: John Polkinghorne, Arthur Peacocke, &c.). I'm very sorry for Americans that they have such a poor set of representatives (although again it may be the squeaky wheels that are look upon askance - decent theology is often much better than what gets into the popular domain). But that is not the norm in the Christian tradition.
Theological arguments have affected political discourse and law (Filmer, Locke, Hooker), science (Bellarmine, Galileo, Harvey, Ray) and so studying theological traditions opens up insights into our history. They have affected our treatment of history and archeology. I'm not saying they were all good, most weren't, but, and this is the point, some were.
gyokusai, the German tradition is rather more integrated than the Angloamerican, so what you did probably is more like a Religious Studies course than what we would call theology.
Drama is to the study of Drama (Drama-ology)
...... is to the study of god (theology)
It could also be reworded this way, depending on your perspective: fiction is to the study of literature, as God is to the study of theology. Hamlet and Othello never existed, but that doesn't stop scholars from studying them.
Not at all! It was one the most prestigious Protestant theological faculties in Germany, and I was enrolled full scale. Could have proceeded to become a pastor, LOL. Unspeakable!
Oh, so rather like an Anglican theological college then?
It could also be reworded this way, depending on your perspective: fiction is to the study of literature, as God is to the study of theology. Hamlet and Othello never existed, but that doesn't stop scholars from studying them.
But the critical difference is:
Literature departments know and admit that Hamlet and Othello are literary creations.
Theology departments seem to work from the premise that God exists.
Bad axioms -> bad theorems...
OK. Thanks for dispelling my prejudice that theology studied god. The theo bit probably lead me to that erroneous conclusion.
So, what we have is believers studying several thousand years of argument to support their belief?
It seems somehow dishonest to me. They are not following the argument for truth's sake, but only when it supports their belief.
Jeff. When we study Othello, we're not studying the life of historical characters are we? So theology, in your casting, is the study of a fictional character? I like that. :)
Guess so, might be similar, yes. Another point of interest: every student indeed had to hand in a statement as to why they wanted to study theology. Which sounds pretty much like you had to believe to become enrolled. But no. Truthfully, I wrote that I didn't believe in nothin' I coudn't see but was prepared to change my mind if enough evidence came my way, though not exactly in these words. 'twas perfectly okay: not only was I accepted, it even seemed to be appreciated.
Oh, a liberal Anglican theology college :-)
Literature departments know and admit that Hamlet and Othello are literary creations.
Theology departments seem to work from the premise that God exists.
The critical word there is "seem". I've never taken a theology course, so I wouldn't know :) However, most literature does indeed require that you suspend disbelieve. And all fiction has elements of reality in it. Campbell, power of myth, and all that...
Where I went to school, we had a Religion Department, not a Theology Department. Since I don't have much perspective, I have to ask: is that the norm? Which is the more popular term for departments, "Religion" or "Theology"?
"Theology," as I've always seen it used, is a very specific term that implies belief in the system, and is absolutely NOT the same as anthropology of religion. A Religion Department, however, can incorporate both theology and anthropology.
But here "Theology" is being used to describe both what I know of as theology and religious anthropology. Is that indicative of widespread use in the academic world, or just a fluke of the language of this conversation?
However, most literature does indeed require that you suspend disbelieve.
To understand the story. I don't think you need or would want to accept fiction as reality or descriptive of something actual. That way lies madness.
But theology does require that in some sense. Otherwise it's just religious study.....
Theology, like religion itself, evolves over time. It is the place in which a number of subdisciplines evolved, such as critical hermeneutics, which has a role in the rise of literary criticism, and so the departments that were once hard line dogma factories have become more "modern" (for want of a better term) in many older universities. Another kind of tradition (that of not renaming well established departments) has left what we in the Anglo world might call a cultural anthropology department still being called a theology department.
But the rule is, observed more in the breach, that a theology department is designed to teach a particular dogmatic tradition.
Incidentally, ever since Harnack's work, it has been recognised that theology is itself a dynamic tradition even within particular denominations.
Extremely liberal. It's the protestant tradition 'round here. Of course, this is Europe: and although some Christian undignitaries, especially from the catholic perver- persuasion dish out offensive rubbish quite liberally and regularly, they are in no way able to constitute a genuine threat, as they do in the States. People around here have the same problem, though, with this other nutcase religion, and their demands are quite terrifyingly and increasingly catered to, too, in England and continental Europe as well.
Anyways, I'd be glad to see all of these departments, faculties, colleges, courses, liberal or crazy or rabid or whatever, converted to comparative religious studies.
So, it's cultural inertia that keeps the god in theology? Seems to me the guy PZ was railing against was not a cultural anthropologist.... ;)
When medieval and modern meet. Why must the liberals be so illiberal and bend over backwards and let tolleration of intollerance be seen as a "good". That probably didn't make any sense at all.
*sigh* ... critical hermeneutics ... von Harnack ... now it all comes back to me! And especially the massively chaotic but still wonderful romantic relationship I enjoyed with a direct descendant of von Harnack, a violinist ... so long ago ... *doublesigh*
There's lots of big words floating here, so maybe I'm outgunned.
Another kind of tradition (that of not renaming well established departments) has left what we in the Anglo world might call a cultural anthropology department still being called a theology department.
So when PZ says theology sucks but anthropology is fine, and you say that theology departments dont all suck, only the ones that have not become, like, anthropology, then this means... what? that you and PZ agree? Except that maybe you really like the name of your theology-but-really-anthropology-not-theology department and want to keep it.
I teach in a religion department at a school with no religious affiliation, but I studied in a theological context. When many religious believers who have no theological training or depth of understanding speak of "God" they mean a literal invisible oversized father figure. Most theologians take the language of God as symbolic, as a pointer to the human experience of the transcendent and of "ultimate concern". That most ordinary people (whether religious believers or atheists) understand the idea and the terminology in a problematic way is no more relevant to the academic discipline than are the popular misunderstandings of evolution in the general populace (whether by the misinformed creationist who thinks that Ken Ham knows something about something, or the well-meaning supporter of evolution who thinks it ultimately means that "everything is getting better").
If one thinks of the creation stories in Genesis, most religious believers are completely clueless that there is more than one, and I suspect most critics of religion (or at least of religious fundamentalism) are too. But this in itself may indicate that those who collected these stories appreciated them in non-literal ways that neither the Christian fundamentalist nor the atheist does. For a theologian, as arguably for the authors, the stories in the first chapters of Genesis are pictures of Human Being (not 'Adam' as though that were a proper name in Hebrew). We all experience a loss of innocence, and at some point in the process we also realize we are naked. I ask my students when I teach on these stories "When did you first realize you were naked?" and I have yet to find someone who can answer that question. These insightful little stories have lasted so long not because people interpreted them literally (they didn't, and even the fundamentalists today can only claim to interpret them literally while being at best selective in their literalism in actual fact), but because they realized that their are aspects of human experience that we want to talk about but cannot pin down precisely, and myth is useful for talking about those aspects of life.
So there is broad agreement that theology departments, where they study religions but don't necessarily believe in any of them, are unobjectionable. The real question is whether a modern secular university department should be in the business of apologetics.
Another question is whether or not there is a great mass of moderate believers in any faith who make the fundamentalists just a noisy and sometimes violent minority. John Haught is a highly-educated, sophisticated, literate and articulate theologian but is he representative of anyone other than a small group of like-minded academics? Does he have anything in common with those who flock to the televangelists or through the doors of the megachurches or even those who belong to the congregations of the mainstream denominations?
My impression of my home country, the UK, is that people there are largely indifferent to religious matters which drive people to court in the US. This makes me wonder whether or not, in the long run, Wilkinsian apathetic agnosticism may not be a greater threat to faith than aggressive New Atheism. I doubt that you can destroy a religion by criticising it, however well-earned the criticism might be. Groups tend to unite in face of an external threat. Religions wither away when people are just no longer interested, when they have become boring and irrelevant because there are better things to do. The pantheons of Greece and Rome are still the subject of academic study but there are few, if any, who still believe in them. Who knows, perhaps one day the gods of the monotheistic faiths will have gone the same way.
That most ordinary people (whether religious believers or atheists) understand the idea and the terminology in a problematic way is no more relevant to the academic discipline than are the popular misunderstandings of evolution in the general populace (whether by the misinformed creationist who thinks that Ken Ham knows something about something, or the well-meaning supporter of evolution who thinks it ultimately means that "everything is getting better").
Oh come now. Popular misunderstanding of evolution is extremely important -- notice PZ and lots of other biologists fighting so hard to correct those popular misunderstandings. And the misunderstanding is orders of magnitude simpler than your theology case. I mean, you are trying to redefine "theology" as anthropology, "god" as just a symbol for human experience, "religion" as philosophy, "original sin" as just everyday coming of age, and dogma as insightful little myths.
I'd say you are outnumbered. Everyone else on the planet uses these words to mean what they normally mean. You don't get to redefine them. Especially when theologists go talking about cameras that can't record the resurrection and stuff.
Yes, biologists have co-oped some from common usage, but I think it is fair to say they try to match usage with the normal meaning, or find a better word. And no biologist anywhere pretends otherwise. Since there are plenty of good words for what you are doing (anthropology, philosophy, mythology, ...), why not just use them?
So it's useful fiction. Like lies you tell little children because a complete telling of the truth would be to much to comprehend? Why not throw away the chaff and keep what grain remains? If it's so open to interpretation by non-theologians. Or possibly better, why not teach psychology?
Anway, the theologian in question actually went after Dawkins, et al for being too fundamentalist or not understanding serious theology as you put it.
Dawkins isn't attacking the "god" of serious theologians. And this guy is being dishonest by pretending Dawkins is wrong in his book.
This guy is making money by giving believers a rational face to hide behind. Serious theologians need to start attacking ordinary believers who believe in a literal big sky daddy and not atheists who are trying to stop literal believers from stuffing the world.
Oh, the Stupid is out in force on the Internet today. Generally as soon as I see the words "sky daddy" I close the tab, but had to throw in my 2 cents...
Me, I see theology as roughly equivalent to, say, metaphysics (and let's skip over Aristotle's inclusion of theology in metaphysics...) -- every person, whether they know it or not, takes a particular stance on at least some if not most metaphysical matters, e. g., the nature of causation or what counts as an object. The business of philosophers is to tease out these ideas, study how they have developed, criticise arguments for and against them, etc., that is, to put ordinary unexamined experience in context. Similarly, your average religious believer takes a particular theological stance, and where would we be if we refused to examine it in context?
Re: religion in the UK, my pet theory is that by establishing a state religion that everyone belongs to by default, so to speak, unless they announce otherwise, the state has made the personal practice of agnosticism much easier. But that's just speculation.
Oh, the Stupid is out in force on the Internet today.
How rude! I'm on the internet most days!
John, which part of Oz do you reside in? If it's the Melbourne area and you like to talk to unlettered computer scientist, maybe I can shout you a beer or n. Don't think you'll suffer irreparably. I had a few pints of Guinness with Russell Blackford and he seems to have recovered.....
"nobody does theology unless they already believe the religion it is a theology of"
As gyokusai already mentioned above, this is quite far from the truth.
Just a bit of personal experience:
Back when I was studying for a B.A. in philosophy at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem (Israel), I got an invitation (together with a few other students) to join a theology seminar at the Catholic Ratisbon Monastery. Most of us were secular, and of Jewish decent. Needless to say, no conversion was needed. We just studied philosophy under a rather charming elderly Catholic priest (whose name I do not recall). As I learned later on, the Vatican is organizing many such seminars, in which secular scholars, Jewish, Christian, and even Muslim clerics (usually of the Sufi tradition) meet and study together.
As for the subject matter - yes, it was the study of God: the seminar was about the logical problems arising from the notion of a god, and the attempts to address these logical issues by medieval philosophers. Much of it was brilliant logic theory.
As the About tab testifies to, I now live in Brisbane. But come by and buy me a beer if you like.
Read the about tab? Please, I'm unlettered.
Well, maybe when you are in Melbourne 1 day. Brisbane, in my prejudiced opinion seems a waste. Only bettered by it's proximity to the gold coast. This is based on the tv adds of Brisbane, that Brisbanites call the place BrisVegas and the fact that the gold coast has theme parks. Theme Parks!!! America in Australia. Pass.
I do love Cairns though, and it is bogan central but tropical. Any hoo.....
I would love for believers to go through that course. So many logical problems as to make religion unteneble, except for the most needy. Who get omnipotent Santa on a stick.
A few words to try and add some more clarity to the existence and function of theology departments at German universities; although denominational and partially under the control of their respective churches, if a theology department is part of a German state university then it is open to anybody who wishes to study there, irrespective of their own personal beliefs, who possesses the necessary educational qualification, an Abitur (read High School Diploma, GCE A-levels, Baccalaureate etc.) Its main purpose however is twofold, on the one hand to train priests and on the other to train teachers of religious instruction for the state school system. All German Gymnasium (the highest level of German secondary school) teachers are qualified to teach at least two subjects and as I was studying mathematics at a large German university at the beginning of the 80s (as a mature student!), we had in my maths course about thirty students doing teacher training degrees (Staatsexam) who were studying maths and theology because this was a combinations that was guaranteed to get you a job on the, at that time, difficult teaching market. As far as I could tell none of them was particularly religious although to get a position as a religious instruction teacher in the German state school system, as well as having your teaching degree, you have to be a paid up member of the church and also have the blessing of the local bishop. Recently my university, with which I still have ties, has been, and still is, undergoing major structural reforms. As part these reforms the possibility was discussed of completely closing the theology department that has a disproportional number of chairs for the number of students, it has up till now been jointly financed by the state and the Lutheran Protestant Church, with the threat of closure the church took over the total financial burden.
Before anybody asks, religious instruction is compulsory in German schools but the pupils are free to choose between instruction in the religion of their choice or some form of secular instruction usually titled ethics, comparative religion or something similar.
Well, why SHOULD those things have departments? The limited defense here seems to be based on the general presumption that those things are valuable and ought to have departments dedicated to them - since theology has just as much reason to exist as they do, clearly we must conclude that theology should also be departmental.
But what happens if we question the value of those things? What independent justification actually exists for the academic study of the humanities?
"It's a tradition" is not a justification. It is actively avoiding having to supply a justification.
I've only read a little on theology, Aquinas & Augustine plus some Hindu works mostly, I found it very useful as a way of learning how to construct logical arguements as well as learning about the religions.
There is no harm in having it in a University if it is an open department.
Given the fact that there are University departments in place to study a lot of things I find ridiculous, irrational and/or barmy I don't understand why anyone should be upset about a Theology department.
I suspect it is actually not theology some of them are objecting to.
Bad timing? My impression from reading the likes of Crossan, Spong, Pagels, Thompson, Armstrong, Haught, Ehrman ... is that the best time to lose one's faith -- or have it transformed into something that only remotely resembles the faiths of the faithful flocks -- is after attaining tenure.
"Its a tradition" is a justification when you make the claim, as John did, that all traditions of the human experience equally deserve study. I would agree, learning about the human experience that has gone before us is valuable. We have historically separated the study of past human experience into what John refers to as "Traditions" such as Art, Literature, and Theology. Perhaps to boil it down more simply, Theology is an aspect of the human experience, and as such, deserves study.
I think one thing that some here are missing is that yes, Theology does study theology. This is no more masturbatory than the fact that Art studies art and Literature studies literature. While I believe that most theologians that studying how deity was viewed at different times in history and how those views have changed leads them to a better understanding of the underlying subject of the nature of deity, most readily recognize that what they are studying is in fact views and beliefs of deity and not deity itself.
Oh, a liberal Anglican theology college :-)
Heh. I'm pretty sure I remember seeing a comment somewhere by Keith Ward, a former Professor of Divinity at Oxford, to the effect that around half of his students were atheists or agnostics. In fact, I'm actually rather surprised that theology departments in secular Australia require a credal commitment from their students. It seems a little... restrictive, somehow.
We are in the penumbra of a definitional transition. The way I see it, if agnostics and atheists can study at a department, then it is no longer a theology department, except in name. It has become a religious studies department. But names of departments often remain well past their useful descriptive time.
Jack, is it possible that you are just being bloody-minded? Theology departments adopt premises (both substantive and methodological) that make the beliefs they generate and organize systematically, and probably predominantly, false. How can that be academically legit?
Religious studies departments would seem to be uncontroversial but can the same be said of theology departments staffed by believers committed to the propagation of their personal faiths? Should religions be entitled to their own departments in secular universities?
... it is no longer a theology department, except in name.
And you seem to welcome that "definitional transition".
And if that is the case, then I think I understand that you completely agree with PZ: that theology as a department might just as well close up shop, and the remaining rational thinkers either be absorbed into other departments, or just transition into a religious studies department in all but perhaps name. Which makes me wonder why your initial post didn't just say "I agree with PZ that true theology departments, the ones he is talking about, are pointless and should be abandoned, with the caveat that many theology departments are really just mis-titled religious studies and philosophy departments"
Are you lot all seriously trying to say that any given department in a university, supposedly a bastion of learning for its own sake, should be forced to shut up shop immediately if it doesn't conform to some poorly defined and probably arbitrary concept of logic and accountability? Please stop it. And don't look too hard at the syllabus of an old-school anthropology course, because you know it'll just be glorified and out-of-date biology, which in turn is just chemistry, which is really just physics... that way lies madness. And I happen to like my universities messy and varied and contrarian.
So, PZ has an issue with something some theologist said. That seems to happen a lot these days, and is probably at the heart of this issue. I think we should put them together and let them sort it out mano-a-mano. Ding ding!
Let it be noted that I totally agree with what PZ said about Haught's argument. This thread is just about the existence of theology departments.
As much as I would like to see, as I said, mainstream (and halfway sane) theological faculties/departments converted into (comparative) religious studies and/or have them "close up shop and the rational thinkers be absorbed into other departments" as Kevin suggested, I'm not so sure whether that would be helpful, or indeed healthy, at all. In the European tradition, the training of priests/pastors, teachers, and "theologians" follows more or less the same track, and as long as everyone's free to attend the courses without having to hand in their brains, we have a good idea what's going on in there, what's being taught, and in what direction the different brands of belief are developing.
Now, as long as there are beliefs and organized religions, abolishing these kinds of studies/departments could leave us with believers-only seminars for priests and pastors, not unlike Christian madrasahs. And who would want such a thing? For example, it happens from time to time that the Catholic or the Protestant church fires one of their professors (mostly Catholics, though, like Hans Kueng or Uta Ranke-Heinemann) because they dissent on essential beliefs or doctrine. But that's not so easy, because these often become high-profile cases with immense media coverage, and the professors usually keep tenure at their universities and shift "sideways" into, indeed, comparative religion and the like.
Basically, theology departments in universities keep it thoroughly transparent for anyone interested as to what's going on not only in theological theory, methodology, textual studies, and such, but also how priests and pastors are actually trained. Here, contrary to a system of self-contained "Christian madrasahs" for the training of priests and pastors, academic freedom can even override papal decisions: even if your license to teach as, say, a Roman Catholic theologian is revoked, you can keep tenure---same university, different department---and keep teaching. And if it's a high-profile case, you can even become famous into the bargain, with your lecture hall actually filling up.
John, it seems o me that you are making the wrong distinction here. It's not "true theology departments" versus "false-theology-departments transitioned-into religious-studies-departments". It's about different Theology department having different roles.
Some Theology departments, apparently abundant in the US and Australia, seem interested only in giving spiritual guidance to future priesthood. Like you and PZ, I see no reason why a university should have one of these.
But that is not the essence of theology. Theology is the study of god, and of religion. I personally don't see why a Christian priest should not study theology in the company of non Christians. Your "true theology departments", as narrow minded and as closed as you describe them, seem to me to be a fundamentalist creation. These are, in my view, bad for religious training. How can you study Aquinas without mention of the scholars he learned from (Maimonides, Ibn Rushed, etc.)? And if you teach those, than shy not do so with someone of their faith?
But the main point is that, apparently, most Christian institutions around the globe (that is, in Europe) seem to agree with my view: most Theology departments (regrettably, only those out of the colonies) are not restrictive. In my eyes, this makes them true to their original goal.
Religions wither away when people are just no longer interested, when they have become boring and irrelevant because there are better things to do. The pantheons of Greece and Rome are still the subject of academic study but there are few, if any, who still believe in them. Who knows, perhaps one day the gods of the monotheistic faiths will have gone the same way.
I don't think any of the theology departments in the UK have a requirement to believe. In fact, I know one person studying Theology and Philosophy at Oxford who is quite the Heretic (a smaller, female version of myself, in fact). According to her, the course normally starts off about 50/50 unbelievers vs. believers and ends up 75/25, with virtually all the conversions being away from religion, and with all the believers ending up more moderate if nothing else.
That being the case I, personally, can't see anything wrong with it. Theology is a particular kind of study that incorporates skills from philosophy, literature and history, and it covers a particular kind of literature which has been particularly influential in the history of our civilisation, from art and music to politics. I don't think one can hope to study huge swathes of European history and art without at least a grounding in the prevailing theological ideas.
The idea, however, that you have to be a believer to study theology seems abhorrent to me. Is it really the case that to study theology at an American University one has to be a believer? We aren't talking about a seminary attached to a university here, are we? If this is the case, well, it's no wonder you're all fucked.