Scholars make no distinction between voices inside and outside a tradition

E.g. You don’t have to be a Mormon to research Mormonism

Those within a religion cannot disallow a scholar from study

Information given from within is suspect

Inside stories reproduce (unknowingly) the story their leadership wants to tell

An outside scholar does not have to be denaturalized. Tends to be more objective.

An outsider is less likely to perpetuate a biased identity

IV. What does a Scholar of Religion do?

Contextualize a social group's origins, texts, and claims

Compare claims of a social group with the historical record

Critique social power structures and how they are used

Analyze the ways social groups perceive and simplify complex social problems

Sometimes a religious group will take a complex issue and spin it as a simple case of “good vs evil”

Resist social forces that aim to make religious authorities unquestionable

V. Scholarly Claims about Religion

Normative - claims that assert this is what you ought to do (Explanation.)

Descriptive - reporting on historical and cultural phenomena in a way that is not prescriptive, but is instead focused on an objective explaination

This is the approach scholars of religion take

Scholars of religion are neither "pro" nor "anti" theology

They simply respect the role of theology as separate from the academic world

The academic study of religion is not the same as a "religious course”

VI. Long Live Theology!

Separating this course from theology is actually defense of theology!

Theological training belongs in a religious institution, not a public school

Example lessons: theology vs. academic scholarship

"A Christian cannot serve in the military, because the Bible says "those who live by the sword die by the sword.”

Notice how the above statement makes a normative claim? It’s telling you what you ought to believe about the Bible.

"In 1527, at a meeting of the Swiss Anabaptists, a statement of faith called the Schleitheim Confession was signed. One of the seven articles agreed upon by these Anabaptists was that Christians should never engage in violence for any reason. This doctrine is known as Christian Pacifism.”

This claim, on the other hand, doesn’t depend on one’s beliefs. It’s simply a matter of historical fact

The separation of theology and scholarship limits the scholar in important ways

World Religions: Then & Now

I. The (Former) Comparative Study of Religion

Academic concept of “world religions” began in the early 1900s

1918 | WWI ends. Europeans and Americans decide there is a practical need to better understand the beliefs of other peoples.

Why do they do what they do over on the other side of the world?

1933 | The phrase "World Religions" is first published as a book title

Comparative Religious Studies begin, wherein the "essence" of each religion is compared to other religions

(e.g. Jews follow laws, Christians love, andBuddhists are mystical.)

Problematic approach: religions don’t have essences, because religious identities are polyvalent and change over time!

II. The Functionalist Approach of the Academic Study of Religion Today

Scholarship focuses on the “function” of religion within a certain time and place

Studies a religious identity (e.g. Islam) on its own terms

Also focuses on the social and psychological function religion has for its self-identified members

Religion as a dynamic, changing, historical force

III. Conceptual Errors We Want to Avoid!

A. Myth - synonym for falsehood and presumes theological claims

B. Essence - scholarship does not claim an unreachable essence to religious identities