In Analytic Theology and the Academic Study of Religion William Wood argues that the discipline of analytic theology (AT) can make a distinctively valuable contribution to the mainstream academic study of religion. He deftly navigates the intellectual public relations work required to secure mutual appreciation across these domains of scholarly discourse. In evaluating the characteristic goods of AT, Wood also seeks to recognize and address what Laruen Winner calls ‘characteristic damage’ or deformation in the practice of AT, which he identifies with its apparent inadequacies in addressing ‘history, mystery, and practice’ in the study of religion and theology. I argue that Wood's diagnosis fails to recognize how AT's characteristic damage emerges from its monomaniacal fixation on the epistemic value of theological theorizing to the exclusion of disciplined attention to other kinds of value. While at one point he engages a previously published version of this critique (as an explanation for AT's neglect of liberation theology), he mischaracterizes my argument in that paper in ways that lead him to miss its relevance to the objections from history, mystery, and practice. These objections can be met, I suggest, but only by significant reform to AT as currently practised.

An overarching question in William Wood's Analytic Theology and the Academic Study of Religion concerns the conditions under which theology belongs in the public university. On this question, many or most academics today are methodological naturalists, and they would not accept explanations that appeal to supernatural entities. Wood devotes a chapter to arguing against that position. Nevertheless, Wood is not a ‘sectarian’ who argues that Christian theology should only answer to its own, tradition-specific norms, and so it is important to see how close his proposal and methodological naturalism (MN) actually are. In this response, I seek to clarify both MN and Wood's proposal regarding the proper norms for academic inquiry. Key to my argument is a distinction between a MN based on strict or scientific naturalism and a MN based on liberal or expansive naturalism. Analytic theologians and expansive naturalists can agree both that a theology that operates according to proper norms for academic inquiry belongs in the public university and that strict naturalism is not the norm that we want.