Duke Theology Series...Or How Did We Get Here?

Here's the intro I put together and presented at our first lecture in the series. I thought since I took the time to write it, I'd put it up here for comments.

Duke Theology Series – An Introduction

Welcome to the first of the Duke Socratic Club and Women’s Center series on Duke Theology…or How did we get here?

If you do not attend Socratic Club regularly or have not been involved in the planning of this event, then you are joining into a conversation that is already in progress. There are several assumptions that this conversation has developed. I want to share those with you up front so you are not entirely lost. While you may not agree with the assumptions, they are important to understand because they guide the way this series is put together. Let me share those assumptions by telling the story of how this came be.

The seed of thought for this series began several months ago in a weekly Socratic Club meeting and then continued thereafter for many weeks on our Socratic Club blog (all of you are welcome to read through that discussion: www.dukesocraticclub.blogspot.com and join in). Every week at Socratic Club, students come together to ask one another questions and discuss them. That week’s question was: Is there a Duke theology? And if there is, what are its contours? Another way to ask the question in a somewhat more sarcastic manner is this: What is considered “orthodox” (small “o”) here at Duke and what is considered “heresy” (small “h”) here at Duke?

Let me give you a small example of what we mean by this. One day in Dr. Wacker’s American Christianity class, Dr. Wacker was describing all the different denominations that exist in the United States. The chart was breathtaking. One student raised their hand and asked, “Do you find all these denominations disturbing?” Dr. Wacker responded, “No. Not a bit. I have no problem with it at all. Actually its great. Because what it represents is the rainbow of Christian expression.” There was an audible gasp in the room. At Duke, one isn’t allowed to think that the variety of denominations is a good thing. Ecumenical dialogue on unity is the major voice or major stream of thought at Duke. But how did we get to this place? Is it possible for the fish to examine the stream within which it swims?

This conversation and this series work under the assumption that the answer to the question of whether there is a Duke theology is, “Yes.” This is not to suggest that there is an entirely homogenous or unified voice at Duke (or that there ought to be). But rather that there is a major voice and several minor voices. Or to put it another way, there is a broad stream or current of thought. Alongside this broad stream of thought are certainly several smaller streams or currents. The goal of this series is to understand the major voice of theology at Duke or the broad stream of thought so that we might better engage it both appreciatively and critically. By studying these major voices we also have the opportunity to understand why some other voices are minor. None of this is to suggest that the major voices are better. We’re trying to describe what we see here at Duke. Hopefully this will help everyone better engage, again, both appreciatively and critically, the air that we breathe and the water that we swim in here at Duke.

The second assumption we hold about Duke Theology is the course of this current over time. The source of the stream begins with Schleiermacher. This is not necessarily because Schleiermacher is generally greatly appreciated here at Duke. In fact, Schleiermacher and other “liberal protestants” as they are sometimes referred to, often seem to be what the major voice at Duke is speaking against. Schleiermacher is considered the father of liberal theology. And so our conversation and exploration begin with him. Following Schleiermacher the stream runs through Barth. Barth appears to be the primary foundation upon which much of the major voice of Duke Theology is based. Surprisingly, I will have graduated in May without having Barth assigned to read in any of my classes! Following Barth, the stream jumps the pond to the Niebuhr brothers in America and then travels through Yale divinity school’s George Linbeck and Brevard Childs which is sometimes referred to as “post-liberalism” or “post-critical.” From there the stream flows down south to Duke with Stanley Hauerwas and his sometimes larger than life presence and influence at Duke. Along the way we will take some time to explore some of the minor voices at Duke to understand why they are “minor” here but “major” in many other seminaries around the country.

My description of the stream of thought leading up to Duke is a greatly over-simplified description. Actually, I don’t know it well enough myself. That’s why I’ve helped along with many others (including Phil Anderas, Christa Mazzone, and Leah Welch) to put this series together. If my description of this phenomena of Duke Theology has in some way not been true to your experience here, then I ask you to forgive me and to help me and others see things through your eyes over the next several months. This isn’t a one time event. The Socratic Club and Women’s Center are taking a risk to try to understand and describe more fully the air we breathe and the water we swim in so that we might ultimately be more faithful to the Gospel we are called to preach and the Kingdom of God that has drawn near.

Today we begin with Schleiermacher. Dr. Mary McClinton Fulkerson, professor of Theology, has graciously agreed to begin our series by helping us understand this seminal figure. She will be back again to help us explore womanist theology later in the series. I think you all know her well enough, and she needs no further introduction. Dr. Fulkerson…