Gender in Theology and Religion: a Success Story?! Report from a Conference

In January 2011 some fifty scholars from different parts of Europe met in Groningen, the Netherlands for an expert meeting entitled Gender in theology and religion: a success story?! to analyze the factors that contribute to the successful mainstreaming of gender in a theological discipline and to reflect on the future of gender studies in theology and religious studies. Different speakers highlighted the many successes of gender studies in theology and religious studies: its power to 'trouble' the disciplines and their heuristic categories; its contribution to the development of other disciplines such as queer studies and postcolonial studies; the many PhD studies produced; the number of significant publications that had appeared over the last years. All indicate that gender studies in theology and religious studies have matured. But the participants also pointed towards the ambiguity of the success of gender studies in the academy: the indeterminacy of the institutional position and positions of gender studies in the theological disciplines in seminaries, departments faculties and universities; the lack of male scholars’ engagement in gender studies, which is expressed by their absence in these studies and/or the low reception of gender studies publications in their disciplines. Both ambiguities represent a danger for the future of gender studies, according to the participants in the meeting. In order to further the success of gender in theology and religion they formulated the following recommendations: to analyze the position of these studies in their institutions from the perspective of the implied audience (church, academy, ordinary theologians); engage men in gender studies; embrace the cultural turn in religious studies; develop interdisciplinary cooperations with gender studies in the humanities; engage creatively with the changing role of religion in contemporary society; analyze whose perspective one follows and authorizes in the perception of theology, religious studies and gender studies themselves; record the history of women’s and gender studies in theology and religion, and honor and celebrate the successes.

Religion as Social Reality. A Take on the Emic–Etic Debate in Light of John Searle’s Philosophy of Society

In this article I argue that the shift from a private to a public–social understanding of religion raises new ontological and epistemological questions for the scientific study of religion\s. These questions are deeply related to three central features of the emic– etic debate, namely the problems of intentionality, objectivity, and comparison. Focusing on these interrelated issues, I discuss the potential of John Searle’s philoso- phy of society for the scientific study of religion\s. Considering the role of intentional- ity at the social level, I present Searle’s concept of “social ontology” and discuss its epistemological implications. To clarify Searle’s position regarding the objectivity of the social sciences, I propose a heuristic model contrasting different stances within the scientific study of religion\s. Finally, I explore some problematic aspects of Searle’s views for a comparative study of religion\s, and sketch a solution within his frame- work. I shall argue that a distinction between the epistemological and ontological dimensions of religious affairs would help clarify the issues at stake in the past and future of the emic–etic debate.

Value Priorities and Content of Religiosity - New Research Perspectives

In this study the relationship of religiosity and value priorities is differentiated, based on a multidimensional measurement of different contents of religiosity. The structure of values is conceptualized using Schwartz’ (1992) two orthogonal dimensions of Self-transcendence vs. Self-enhancement and Openness to change vs. Conservation. The relations between these two dimensions and eight religious contents, ranging from open-minded to more close-minded forms of religiosity, were tested in a sample of church attenders (N = 685), gathered in Germany. The results show, that depending on the content of religiosity, different values are preferred (self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition and security values). The results indicate the importance of the content of religiosity for predicting value-loaded behaviors.