Teaching Theology as a Foreign Language Linda Woodhead Lancaster University Though I work in a religious studies department, I teach a number of courses with a strong theological component. To people who think of religious studies as a subject defined and constituted by its difference from theology, this may seem surprising. Yet the idea that religious studies is a detached, non-confessional, and scientific approach to the study of religion is increasingly called into question, and the enterprise it describes is now recognized as something of a chimera. This is well illustrated by a paradox which attended my own department, the Department of Religious Studies at Lancaster, from the time of its opening in the 1960s. The paradox was pointed out to me by a colleague who was appointed at that time. What he noticed was that, far from being attracted by the ``scientific'' study for which the Department was known, the large numbers of students who came to Lancaster were often deeply and earnestly engaged in the pursuit of religious truth. They came to Lancaster not because they were attracted by the ideal of scientific detachment, but because Lancaster allowed them to pursue their spiritual quest in relation to a much wider range of religious traditions than any theology department could cover. Many of the students who came to Lancaster in its early days were particularly interested in Eastern religions, and their interest was symptomatic of the upsurge of interest in this area so characteristic of youth culture in the 1960s and '70s. This interest seems to have died down somewhat in more recent years ± in Lancaster today more students take the ``Western'' than the ``Eastern'' course options (though there is also immense interest in the New Age movement, Shamanism, and neo-Paganism). Yet students are no more disinterested today than they were in the 1960s. Questions about religious truth are still a matter of fascination and concern, and many students have either a clear spiritual commitment or a clear interest in making such a commitment. Likewise, many of the teaching staff have some commitment to the religion they teach, several being practicing members of a faith community. In both theory as well as practice then, the Department has long abandoned the language of religious ``phenomenology'' and the aim of detached, scientific study of religion. We are, however, still proud of our ``Religious Studies'' label at Lancaster, and it remains the flag under which we sail. Most departments of theology in the UK, unable to beat us, have joined us, adding the suffix ``religious studies'' to their names and becoming departments of theology and religious studies. Yet there has never been any question of the Department at Lancaster adding ``Theology'' to its title ± and this remains the case even though the Department long ceased to define itself over against theology depart- ments. The reason why such a move would be unnecessary is that we believe that religious studies is not a methodology, but a subject area. Lancaster, like other departments of religious studies, particularly in the United States, is distinguished by its concern to study not just Christianity, but a wide range of the world's religions. It is distinguished, in other words, by its scope. And this scope includes not just the number of religious traditions studied, but also the number of approaches or methodologies employed. There are many approaches to the study of religion ± theological, sociological, psychological, anthropological, biological, historical, feminist, post-colonial, and so on. Many or all of these may be illuminating, and at Lancaster we try to accommodate and exemplify as many as possible, believing that this can only enrich the study and understanding of religion. It is this inclusive understanding of religious studies which makes it possible for me to teach theology at Lancaster. It would be wrong, however, to pretend that the way I teach theology is unaffected by the fact that I do so within a religious studies department. This context has shaped my teaching in a number of ways, and has forced me to break away from the pattern of more traditional courses of historical and systematic theology. In particular, I think the Religious Studies context has forced me to rethink the way in which I teach theology in two ways. First, teaching theology in a religious studies department has helped me confront the fact that, for most students, theology is a foreign language. While I ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1998