Talk: Religious Studies and Theology 2018-2019

QUESTION: Move Theology jobs to a different page?

[Moved from front page - 21 July 2018]

I've received a request to move theology jobs to a different page this year. Since traditionally these jobs have always been posted on the Religious Studies page, I'd like to hear from users on the market this year about whether this would be desirable. If you have feelings about this one way or another, please leave a note below. Thanks. --Una74 (talk) 18:59, July 16, 2018 (UTC)

• My thought is, what does it hurt to have them together? There are some folks for whom both are relevant, and it’s not like most of the RS positions don’t have a particular specialty you are going to have to scroll to check anyhow. I’m in favor of not confusing people by changing it from previous years. Thanks. --Applicant2019

• I agree with Applicant2019. Why change something that works. Most of the jobs on this board are irrelevant for most of us, but that in itself is not enough reason to remove them. I see theology as part of the RS field, so I favor keeping it. -J2b2

• I agree with leaving it. Theology is part of religious studies and I'd rather not have to check both pages regularly. Thanks.
• I agree with the others. Creating a separate theology page would simply mean that I now have 2 pages to check regularly. Why not just keep them together?

• I would like to see them seperate.

• I'm not a theologian, so I have to look through the entire page to find the religious studies jobs, and it's a headache to have to look through it every time to see what was added, when less than half the jobs on here are relevant to me. Leaving them together is like having Anthropology and Sociology be on the same page. They're different fields, so it would be so much more convenient to have two different pages for them.

• Putting theology jobs with religious studies is like putting creationism gigs in biology.
• Yep, I figured this was the sentiment behind this request. 

• Cultural Anth., Linguistic Anth., and Archaeology are seperate pages.

• FOLLOW-UP: So obviously views are pretty mixed here so far. Thanks to everyone for chiming in so far - I'm still interested in hearing from more people if they care to contribute. I can make one suggestion that might help to navigate the page if we do keep everything together: use COMMAND + F to enable a word search function on your browser. That way you can enter THEOLOGY or whatever you want to find and go to those posts more quickly without needing to scroll through everything. I deal with a lot of large pages on this wiki all the time and I find this search really helps. --Una74 (talk) 20:36, July 17, 2018 (UTC)
  • The problem with this is that search committees come up with position titles. For example, "religious material cultures," or "religion and science," or "religious foodways." We can't anticipate them, so we have to look through everything. And in doing so, we have to also look through an entire other field.
• ALSO: using the RSS Feed above or subscribing with an RSS reader helps keep track of updates to this page and should also save the trouble of needing to scroll through everything to find what's new. There are lots of free RSS readers out there (https://feedly.com/ is a good one); here's the link to subscribe for updates to this page: http://academicjobs.wikia.com/wiki/Religious_Studies_and_Theology_2018-2019?feed=rss&action=history --Una74 (talk) 20:54, July 17, 2018 (UTC)
• This seems like a LOT of trouble to go through just to keep these two fields in the same wiki page. It's starting to seem political.

• I too would like theology to be on a separate page, in order to streamline this page. Thank you.

• I too would like them sepearte. It's very inconvenient to have to scroll through so many non-religious studies jobs to find non-theology jobs. 

• I also vote to have a seperate page, but a compromise may be reached to subdivide the Religious Studies Wiki, like the History Wiki. (I'd also vote for renaming the whole page Religious Studies and Theology if we're going to keep the Theology jobs here. Without disparaging anybody, these have largely become seperate disciplines. And Theology is almost exclusively Christian Theology; when's the last time you saw a job for constructive Buddhist thought posted here? But this is a larger issue that may be best left for next year's Wiki.)

So here's the issue: There's one camp that sees theology as a completely separate field, doing very different work from religious studies. And as the person above mentioned, it's exclusively Christian. In this camp, we are historians, social scientists, etc. On the other hand, theologians insist on being part of religious studies because it gives them legitimacy as an academic discipline and is the reason why they insist on staying on this page. These are the ongoing politics of the field, #tbt to AAR/SBL issues. So one camp is invested in their separation, another is invested in their equivalence. Said theologians are bright, insightful, and accomplished individuals and we have much to learn from them. But theology is not religious studies, and it will never be.

Now, having to scroll through so many theology/div school/seminary jobs is just damn annoying and inconvenient and it's ridiculous that theologians are bringing these politics to a space that is the site of all of the anxiety, precarity, and depression of the religious studies job market. It's disappointing that theologians aren't willing to make this process any easier.

• Wow, so fucking salty. I've never met a theologian who gave a rat's ass about being considered a religious studies scholar. In fact, most theologians I know prefer to distance themselves from religious studies. The problem isn't these (imaginary) theologians fighting to keeping the two disciplines united. The problem is the ACTUAL REALITY OF ACADEMIA, which is not going to change overnight. What I mean is that many theology positions are offered by departments that call themselves "Department of Religion" or "Department of Religious Studies" (Princeton University, Baylor, etc.). Then you've also got people who are not theology professors per se, yet they're doing constructive theology and/or philosophy of religion, and they're in RELIGIOUS STUDIES departments (e.g. Florida State). To complicate matters even further, you've got institutions that have BOTH religion departments AND divinity schools (Harvard, Duke). Some professors hold joint appointments in both departments. And there's plenty of inexplicable crossover, too. For example, J. Kameron Carter, who previously held a position in theology at Duke Divinity School, just got hired at Indiana University as a professor of religious studies. MORAL OF THE STORY: Regardless of your own personal opinion, and regardless of whether theologians do or do not care to be afilliated with religious studies scholars, the reality in academia is that these boundaries can be very fuzzy. And that gets reflected in job postings. Some religious studies positions are actually well suited to someone with a theology PhD. By the same token, sometimes theology departments want to hire someone with training in religious studies. So we need to discuss this question as a practical matter, without projecting our own bullshit onto everyone else. There may very well be a case to be made for separating the job wiki postings, but we'd need to delineate some clear principles first.
• Agree with Mr. Salty on the tone of this discussion and the reality of the academic scene, and might prefer the archival historian's suggested solution below. Mr. "Two Camps" gives with one hand and takes way with the other. Theologians are "intelligent" conversation partners, but (wink, wink) let's be honest, they need us RS people to confer real scholarly legitimacy upon them. (Implication: they have none, otherwise.) Ok, but let's not debate the Wissenschaftlichkeit of theology here today. This is really just a debate over expediency: some, who can/are willing to look for jobs in either type of field/department, find it convenient to have all listings on one page. Others, who don't want to scroll past unicornology postings, find it convenient to have RS postings by themselves. If there's any hidden motives at work here, it's with those who insist on the "purity" of their field, not those needily grasping for undeserved legitimacy. Finally, the job search is anxiety ridden for EVERYONE, so please don't give us this crap about theologians making it harder for you. This is a boutique career, and we all knew that going in. It's no different from heading to Hollywood to be an actor. But, hey, if you want an employer to throw a job at you, there's a shortage of truck drivers in the nation. It's hard work that we all depend on. And the pay's probably better. 

• Completely agree on the fuzziness. But it's a problem that needs to be solved, not a justification for equating two ENTIRELY different fields.

• As an archival historian, I have never found scrolling on this wiki to be a burdensome labor.  As a historian of religions employed in a religious studies department, but with training in a divinity school and in the study of religion at the undergrad and grad level, it is the case that the complicated relationship between Theology and Religious Studies means that many candidates can find employment in a variety of department/program homes/arrangements.  And the varieties of religion departments nationally make space for people with training in ethics and theology to offer constructive work rooted/seriously engaged in religious traditions.  Several divinity schools incorporate anthropologists/archaeologists/sociologists of religion, working in non-Christian religions, in addition to people whose work incorporates critical theories of race/religion/gender/sexuality/class, while maintaining fluid connections with religion departments.  Many of these hires are not expected to have confessional affilations with the tradition(s) they study, although it is true that "theology" generally refers to one of many Christian traditions.  In short, the job market at this point might be a (constructive) mess that mirrors the posting arrangment on this page.  I don't know if there is enough feedback on this page yet to suggest that there are "camps" in either position, but perhaps subdivisions on this page, with the ability to keyword search as mentioned above, would be the least politically aggressive resolution.

Hi y'all. So this is weird. Theology is a much more legit field than religious studies, and that's a fact. But theology is not religious studies. What's the insistence on keeping their job posts together. These are job posts. Separating them is not a "politically aggressive solution," but a very practical one. So what's up with the drama? It feels like keeping them together, however, is a politically aggressive solution.

The first job post, right under this, is the perfect example. The job posting is in the Duke Divinity School, not the Religious Studies Department. Boom. Different. Separate.

• Overly simplistic: We have jobs listed below that are housed in Departments of Theology and Religion. So which is it then, by your measure?

Isn't this an ACADEMIC jobs wiki?! Why does theology even have a page?

• LOL I'm more mad about having to scroll through this long series of diatribes (&c.) to get to the postings than I am about the legitimacy of my discipline (theology) being undermined. 

I have been perusing this page for at least the past 7 or so years and have found it very useful and usually very cordial. It has not been a venue for fighting ideological battles over what counts as 'religious studies' or 'theology' and so on - something the fields themselves cannot even agree on. I hope that tone and spirit can endure. The job process is fraught enough without this page becoming a site for conflict. I do not think it makes sense to creat separate pages nor do I think doing so is practical. Many jobs could easily fit in the category of both theology and religious studies. Many jobs in theology departments or divinity schools or seminaries are of interest to those with PhD's from religion departments. (The reverse is true as well, to some extent.) That Duke job, for example, will surely attract interest from countless folks who study Hebrew Bible, whether they are from a theology department or not. Some religion departments (e.g. UVA) offer degrees and hire in theology. Some non-theology jobs in religion departments are at schools that require adherence to a statement of faith (e.g. Calvin) or support of a mission statement (e.g. Villanova). Jobs at Chicago or Harvard, where there are no departments of religion, are in schools of Divinity - does that automatically make them theology jobs? Who is going to decide how to do all the sorting? What criteria would be used? How will it not be controversial? The point of this page is to be useful to individual candidates. For anyone, only a very small fraction of what is posted will be relevant and often that will not fall out across neat theology vs. religious studies lines, insofar as those lines can even be drawn. Often one will discover some surprising job description that is of interest that one would might otherwise have missed or dismissed. The best approach is to search with the relevant key words. Given the structure of religion and theology alike, at most there is only ever a handful of jobs for which a given candidate could truly be competitive. Wouldn't you rather err in the direction of coming across some possibility you might otherwise have missed than missing something that might have been the job you would have gotten? Like the AAR itself, this page has long been a big tent for academic engagement with religion - theological and otherwise. Let's keep it that way and not let this devolve into what would be an impractical and inevitably (and interminably) controversial effort at policing, one for which the moderator didn't sign up and for which none of us is equipped. 

• This is insane. 

• Do you mean that the above paragraph, which basically says to keep things as is, is insane? -- J2b2 (talk) 19:01, July 23, 2018 (UTC)

All right. So this is not my field and I'm not qualified to adjudicate among these various claims. I was asked about the possibility of splitting up the pages, so I put the question to users to see if we could find a consensus. So far, I'm not seeing that emerge, so I'm going to stick with the status quo for this page for now. I'm open to subdividing the page as a compromise, as several have suggested above, but, again, not sure I feel qualified to make decisions about what goes in what section, given "fuzziness" others have raised. If anyone feels like suggesting perimeters for subdivisions, I'm open to this. If a consensus does eventually emerge, we can revisit the topic. Please feel free to carry on the discussion; I'm just moving here so it is less disruptive. --Una74 (talk) 23:28, July 21, 2018 (UT)

• This is a wiki, so we'll help.

The simplest solution seems to me to subdivide the page based on jobs that do or do not require a confession of faith. If an institution is legally allowed to discriminate based on religious affiliation, or at least for the job in question, that's as good as a way to split things up as any.

• This might be too limiting.

It's quite easy to do: jobs that are at a div school or seminary, and jobs that include keywords such as theology and biblical studies. These four keywords: Divinity, seminary, theology, biblical studies. If they appear in the name of the instituion and job title, it must be moved to theology. This is a good start and it would be so helpful

• At least in my experience, there are several jobs involving "theology" or at a divinity school that are non-confessional and tend to go to people with RS degrees/those that attend AAR -- J2b2 (talk) 19:01, July 23, 2018 (UTC)
• I would never apply for those jobs. Maybe if a few years have gone by and I'm desperate for a job?
• Most of us don't apply for those jobs, but RS folk who would like to, can head on over to the theology page and look for them there.

Hello all. I appreciate people saying that it is inconvenient (and annoying for various reasons) to have to scroll through to find religious studies jobs. At the same time, there are many of us who look at both types of job offers. It would be inconvenient for us to to have to constantly go back and forth between pages. (And for the record, I have taught in a theology post though I am not Christian.) Whose convenience is more important? Maybe we can just have another wiki that has just religious studies (however that is defined), and keep this one as it is. That is double duty, to be sure, but if we end with two pages anyway, it might be worth it. My question is to the organizers of this page - would this be the same amount of work as separating them completely or am I off base?

This has gotten so RIDICULOUS. How is a community of scholars having such a hard time with this? I'll use J Cameron Carter as an example, just because he has already been mentioned here. JC is looking for a job. He looks at religious studies jobs, he looks at theology jobs, he looks at ethnic studies, English, American studies, and maybe even Philosophy jobs. He finds jobs he wants to apply to, in different fields, and he applies. There's a reason why each field has its own page, because it's LUDICROUS to try and combine pages/fields just because a few happen to look at both. If you're only looking at this page for job posts, you're definitely doing it wrong. It's not an inconvenience to look at different pages so quit whining about it. It IS an inconvenience, however, to have to look through shitty theology jobs and do the work of finding the religious studies jobs every single damn time.

I just did a count: 22 comments for separating, 9 comments for keeping it together. Can we get this over with already?

NOTE (7/31/18): The following actions have been taken:

• The main page has been sub-divided into "Religious Studies" TT Positions and "Theology and/or Divinity School" TT positions.
• The main page has been renamed "Religious Studies and Theology 2018-2019" to better reflect the content of the page. The RSS feed has also been updated. All old "Religious Studies" page links should redirect to the new page.

As always, if questions / concerns continue, please feel free to leave them below. I hope the new organization of the page satisfies some concerns expressed. Happy to keep working on it as needed. --Una74 (talk) 20:13, July 31, 2018 (UTC)

Marian University Discussion

Moved from Religious Studies and Theology 2018-2019 main page on 11/3/18:

• I wouldn't even bother applying to this one.  The chair of the department has a wife who works "underneatth" him and she will get this job.  This department has a long history of unprofessional nepotism in the department. Beware!

• This of course makes me suspicious of the job but also a bit suspicious of this post itself. Always wonder if such posts mean to dissuage people from applying for ulterior motives. 
• Oh no -- no ulterior motives -- I would post the names  -- but I don't think we are supposed to do that here.  But, yes, there was a chair of the department for 28 years and his wife worked "underneath" him (neither had PhDs and the guy ruled the place as if he were God).  Then, they unseated the tyrant, but put in his place another guy whose wife works in the department, too.  The wife is on a one year contract -- so I am guessing this tenure-track job is going to her. Sorry cowboy or cowgirl -- you should trust me a bit more.  Your choice to apply --- but you aren't getting this job most likely.  

• Oh no not this place again.  No support for the new Masters program. Nepotism Central.  You have no chance at getting this position unless you are the wife of the department chair. 

• - The wife of the department chair already has a tenure-track position at the University. 

• Gee -- I wonder how she got that position?  Could it be because she threw several fits in the department to the point where she had to be reprimanded by the former chair??  Stay away from this place.  

• Oh yeah -- I am familiar with this place---- neither the former chair or his wife have doctorates -- yet they were able to control the department for decades while better and more qualified candidates were shunned away.  I think the former chair was removed because a student complained about the fact that he was a bad professor who lacked the qualifications to actually be a professor. They finally removed him from the chairship -- but then replaced him and his under-qualified wife with another male with an emotionally unstable wife. Stay away from this place.  Run, don't walk.

• Chiming in here--- so now there are two married couples in the department?? Doesn't sound good at all !! Factions, biased votes on departmental matters, kissie-huggie in the hallways ----- wives getting special privileges from their higher status husbands.   This does NOT sound good. 

• ”Chiming in here,” but the two above comments are linked to the same IP address.
• Yeah, this all sounds suspicious.  It sounds like the same person posting under the guise of several different people.  Just one person with an axe to grind against the school for some reason.
• It is very very very very suspicious -- however, the person who is doing the posting is not doing anything other than reporting the truth: 1) This department currently has 2 married couples in the same department; 2) the wife of the new department chair was rejected for a tenure track job a few years back.  Then, her husband got a tenure-track position at this place (where she was rejected a year prior).  As a concession to the new hire, they employed the wife as an adjunct.  She proceeded to have a series of emotional outbursts due to her inferior position, and to the point where she had to be reprimanded.  And then, the idiots who run this place, instead of firing her for her outbursts, gave her a 1-year postion and eventually a tenure-track job.  I am simply suggesting that you may not want to work in such a dysfunctional environment. If you consider the TRUTH merely an "axe to grind," then I suggest you not apply not based on the suspiciousness of any of this, but rather because you are not bright enough to not label someone trying to help you from a bad working situation as someone with an axe to grind.  Maybe you are in denial about the dangers of this place because you need to see a flowery picture rather than the truth, in which case you are the one with an axe to grind. You're welcome ! 
• In other words, what does it matter if the person posting is from same IP address? It is not the messenger who is important, it is the truth of the message.  Where did you get your Ph.D.?  An online university from the moon? Wow. Actually, you would fit right in at this place as you sound like someone who does not want to see the truth or realize its implications.  

• There is no reason for your to make personal attacks on people like this.  You clearly have an obsession with this department, as you aren't just offering a dispassioned assessment.  Obviously, you have personally been hurt by this school, and you might want to seek assistance from mental health professionals for unhealthy rage issues.

HAHAHAHAAA --- wow -- you must either work for the school or no these people personally.  Everything said above is absolutely the truth. It actually sounds like you are the one who has the mental health issue -- it is called denial -- I got this infomation from someone else.  --- Just passing it along --- there is a reason for passing along this info -- it is to prevent others from suffering a fate of working here.  Wow -- sounds like you need the mental health pro.

Let's say there was an institution that regularly discriminated against minorities over and over for years.  Let's say that one of the minorities got burned by the place and then posted on here as a way to expose or blow the whistle on the place. Would you accuse that minority of rage or mental health issues - whoever accused the person of having mental health issues sounds like a truth-suppressing idiot - blaming the victim.  Maybe someone was burned by this place.  And maybe the place should be criticized.   You are the same type of person who would accuse MLK, Jr. of having rage or mental health issues. Or maybe you are just too stupid to see the obviousness of calling someone crazy as a way to silence them.  Again -- this place is nepotism central and the wife of the new chair is insane. That is the truth,  She only got the position because they like the husband so much (who happens to be a little kiss-ass arrogant prick). These are the facts.  

Marywood University Discussion

Moved from Religious Studies and Theology 2018-2019 main page on 11/3/18:

• Beware of this place ! Feminism central --- they don't really do theology here.

• I am having a hard time seeing why feminism is so scary. (x2)
• I'm sure you are also having a hard time seeing how Kavanaugh survived the pathetic attack on him or why D. Trump is now your president, or how Hilary lost, etc. etc. Listen -- the chair of this department dislikes the Catholic Magisterium and the other woman in the department isn't even Christian --- which wouldn't be a problem in a very large university. But, at a small Catholic school like this one, it is not a good idea. I am not scared of feminism. What I am scared of is a so-called Catholic theoloigy department made up of a magisterium-hating feminist and a non-Christian feminst and still calling itself Catholic. Get a grip.

• Wow, the vitriol. I think your red cap's on too tightly. You'll be safe in your sticker festooned van. Seriously, though, I don't know what your critique was supposed to achieve. The Catholic tent is large, and Catholic social teaching extends well beyond the abortion litmus test.

• There appears to be an inside candidate anyway (VAP who is a Catholic Social Ethicist) so this is all kind of moot isnt it?
  • The VAP hire was only done in August of this year, so that might be something to consider. It's not like they had the time to do a complete vetting of the candidate before hiring the VAP.

• This whole place is moot !

The Catholic tent does not invite selective positions --- you have to pass all litmus tents - not just the abortion one.  No cafeteria catholics -- sorry.  Abortion wasn't even mentioned.  Guess you are not Catholic or understand how Catholicism is supposed to work. 

I am guessing you are pretty stupid.