I’ll likely be honest about where I stand if people ask me, but this walk is — to steal an idea from Hillary Clinton — all about listening. It’s a listening tour; if dialogue happens along the way, that’s great. Otherwise, I’d like to find out, in as candid a manner as possible, what people of various religious traditions (and even those not in a particular tradition) feel about other traditions. I’m sure some of the conversations I have will bleed into the area of “OK, we’ve talked about other religions, so what happens next?”, and I’ll be curious to hear various traditions’ insights into that matter, too. So perhaps I will be playing things close to the vestments, but such a strategy will be more in the service of listening than because I don’t want to alarm people with my frighteningly nontraditional views.

(As you might guess, a lot of people within these traditions don’t toe the line, and it often comes as a relief to them to hear that they’re not alone. Check out the Catholics.)

Kevin

Thanks for the clarification. Indeed I was using the two terms without care as to the important distinction you point out, and you are quite right to correct me.

You are still an interesting case, though, as your upcoming walk seems intended not simply to study the phenomenon of religion, as a cultural anthropologist might, but also to be something of a religious activist — to influence the practice of religion itself.

How do you suppose your nontheism will affect your conversations with believers? Are you going to be keeping that “close to the vest”?

(Perhaps that should be “close to the vestments”.)

Not quite sure what to say about that, but you’re welcome, of course.

FYI, I wouldn’t describe myself as a trained theologian, as I haven’t gone through seminary, nor have I made a deep and extensive study of Christian scripture. What I am is, as you noted, an elder of the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), a title that conveys no spiritual authority but indicates that I have a function within the church’s polity (active elders vote on policy matters and engage in other aspects of church government). My academic background does contain some of what might be called “theology,” but most of my background falls more appropriately under the rubric “religious studies,” which is, in many ways, a close cousin of “soft” disciplines like anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc. (An atheist can comfortably engage in religious studies, for example; he need not have a personal religious commitment. A theologian, on the other hand, almost always has a vested interest in the doing of theology. Exceptions to this are exceedingly rare.)

The terms “theology” and “religious studies” represent concepts with blurred boundaries; while not truly interchangeable terms, they are used interchangeably in some surprising contexts. Example: when I was a French major at Georgetown University, my minor was listed as “theology” — GU had no other category to describe the courses I was taking.

All of which is to say that, in the eyes of Georgetown University (more specifically, in the eyes of the people who wrote up the undergrad course catalogs), I might be said to have a theology background, but in truth my background is more properly in the field of religious studies. My MA from Catholic U. was in Religion and Culture, which is essentially religious studies plus a Catholic theological component (interesting experience for a Protestant).

Kevin

I “sort of” wish I hadn’t linked to your site from you know where. I think I’ve added about 15, maybe 25 sites to “My Favorites list.”

But thanks anyway.

JK