Why an Academy of Religion?

CLYDE A. HOLBROOK

W O U L D like to place before you some observations which have bearing on the important business which will come before us in the Report of the Self-Study Committee. I would not have you think that these remarks are merely limited in import to the proposals to be made by the Committee, for I believe that they suggest wider perspectives for our several concerns than those referred to in the Report. Let me present several theses and attempt to document them to the degree that time allows. The first thesis is that scholarship in America in religion is being carried on to a significant extent not by professors in the college, seminary, or graduate schools of religion, but by scholars outside the professional field of religion as such. I shall use as examples a number of journals where one might expect to find scholarship in religion. The Journal of the History of Ideas, a journal whose domain is humanistic studies, from 1951-60 published one article by a Roman Catholic seminary professor and one by a person who might have been a Protestant clergyman. During the same period there were several articles bearing on religion, all of which were written by men from philosophy, history, and literature. W e may say that it is not the kind of journal in which scholars in religion are expected to publish. And we may also ask, "What of the journals which are more clearly connected with the field of religion?" 1 should make two replies. If religion is a field of scholarship whose normal associations are primarily with the humanities, and if this journal is a fair example of a humanistic journal, which I think it is, why does not more scholarly productivity from the pens of men in the field of religion appear in such journals? Can it be that our training, largely out of seminary orientation, has led us away from the humanistic orientation of the field and turned us too largely to ecclesiastical interest? Have we become the victims of a graduate training which led us away from confrontation with other disciplines? If such dangers exist is there a possible remedy by constituting a professional society in which men working outside of the field of religion are brought together with those in the field on the basis of a mutual interest in the field itself? My second line of reply is that the evidence drawn from journals which are more closely related with the field itself is equally disquieting in its implications. Here are the further results of spot-checking. Church History for the years 1954-55 and 1957-60 contained 118 major articles: 2 were contributed by college professors of religion; 34 by
CLYDE A. HOLBROOK is Professor of Religion at Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio. His most recent book is Religion, A Humanistic Field (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963). The paper here presented is his presidential address to the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biblical Instructors, given December 30, 1963. The report of the Self-Study Committee, to which he refers, can be found on pp. 200-201 of this issue of the Journal.

1964, by American Academy of Religion

98

CLYDE A. HOLBROOK

seminary professors, 1 by a graduate professor, and 64 by faculty members in other disciplines; 13 were contributed by "others" by which I mean foreign scholars, graduate students, clergymen, and unidentified contributors. The Harvard Theological Review for the years 1952-53, 1956-57 contained 56 major articles; 3 were contributed by college professors of religion; 10 by seminary professors; 6 by graduate professors; 18 by members of other disciplines and 19 by "others." The Journal of Biblical Literature for the years 1956, 1958-60 contained 97 major articles: 15 came from college professors of religion; 47 from seminary professors; 5 from graduate professors; 1, by a member of another field and 28 from "others." Clearly in this journal the preponderance of scholarly output is due to professors in the field, and even more strictly from seminary faculty members, who accounted for a little less than half the total. The Journal of Religion from the years 1952-57 contained 101 major articles; 15 were contributed by college professors of religion, 37 by seminary professors, 4 by graduate professors, 3 3 by faculty members in other disciplines, and 15 by "others." Clearly there are many ways of interpreting such figures as these, and I am not making a case for the exhaustiveness of these data. All I wish to note is that these are typical of what is going on, and that they strongly point to several conclusions about which this association should be concerned. The first conclusion is that scholars outside of the field of religion are producing in the field of religion to a degree which should make us ask some serious questions of ourselves questions which cannot be evaded by referring to ourselves as being primarily teachers rather than scholars. W e are not producing scholarship in proportion to our numbers, since in colleges, universities, and junior colleges, omitting seminaries, there are estimated to be about 3500 persons teaching religion in some form or other! And noticeably more who were unknown to the U. S. Office of Education. It might also be noted that seminary faculties, contrary to popular opinion, are not producing scholarship in large amounts, with the exception of biblical studies. I could also document for you the fact that Jewish scholars less often than might be expected publish in journals in the field of religion which are non-Jewish in orientation, that Protestants tend to keep to their journals and Catholics to theirs. In brief, with the possible exception of the biblical area, there is much less interchange of ideas than might be expected from the various denominational sources, or from those scholars who have no religious affiliation but who have an intellectual interest in the field. It appears that religious affiliation, as well as graduate training, may be having some injurious effects upon certain forms of scholarly publication. And again may this line of thought not direct us toward the need for a professional society which represents in its constituency, its publications, and its programs the variety of religious and non-religious perspectives which illuminate the area of religion? The second thesis I propose which bears upon the question of the need for an Academy of Religion is this: that an inspection of the courses typically offered by undergraduate departments of religion indicates that they tend to have three biases; these in turn present a distorted view of the field of studies of religion to the student and academic world. (I might in passing argue that not a little of this bias derives from the heavy influence of the seminary oriented curriculum for graduate work which then is passed on into the undergraduate department.) But to return to the main line, the three biases which seem to me to have warped the presentation of studies of religion are these: courses in western religions, especially Christianity, heavily outweihg those offered in non-western religions; secondly, biblical courses make up more of the curriculum than do courses in phenomenology, and thirdly, a Protestant orientation of auricular content is more common than that of other

WHY AN ACADEMY OF RELIGION?

99

religious traditions. I would prefer not to take your time to discuss in detail the historical justifications which can be offered for what I have called biases. But I would suggest that among other reasons the predominance of Christianity over non-western religions reflects the same limitation of vision and lack of trained personnel which afflicts the academic scene generally in this regard. In the case of religion, however, the lack of personnel may also be tracked back to the influence of the virtually seminary-controlled graduate training, which generally has failed to make a significant place for the preparation of persons trained in the non-Western field. The problem of imbalance between biblical and phenomenological studies also has a strong historical tradition behind it, not a small amount of which is due to the heavily Protestant character of departments of religion which in turn is connected with the problem of graduate training. In the second instance of bias, I take it the study of the Bible at the undergraduate level needs no defense before this body; but what may need to be said is that more room should be made, especially at the introductory range, for systematic presentation of the forms and types in which the religious consciousness expresses itself so that the study of the Bible itself may be set in a broader context of thought than that provided by some forms of biblical theology or textual criticism. The third bias, that of the impress of the Protestant ethos on departments of religion, is again understandable in terms of the history of the development of undergraduate departments of religion and the hand which seminary graduate curricula have had in the structuring of these departments. It simply seems to be a fact that the majority of the departments of religion which developed over many decades, did so out of a Protestant interest in higher education, and out of the relative ease with which persons of Protestant inclinations with their diversity of beliefs fitted in to both the church-founded and related colleges and the free university tradition. Neither Judaism nor Catholicism at earlier stages of the development of these departments was specifically preparing men for teaching in free liberal arts colleges and universities. The result clearly has been that the personnel teaching in the liberal arts college and university are largely drawn from Protestant backgrounds, and the curricula offered reflect those issues and materials which Protestant scholarship believes to be of preeminent importance. Consequently, as with non-western religions, courses in post-biblical Judaism and certain areas of Catholic thought appear as rather esoteric subjects in curricula. To remedy this situation the inevitable and exasperating cry goes up for representatives of these faiths to serve as instructors in such fields. In short, the failure of Protestant training in the fields of Judaica and Catholic thought, and the laggard attentions paid to the desirability of developing personnel from these faiths for service as scholars and instructors in the liberal arts non-denominational college leaves us with that vexing question of sectarianism as a basis for faculty selections. I would totally deny that members should be brought to a faculty because of their religious affiliations in order to "present" a particular religious point of view. There should be no infringement on the integrity of the university by religious bodies any more than by management, labor, or political parties. In short, sectarianism should not be a determining factor in hiring faculty. The focus must be rather on the production of scholars and professors, regardless of religious affiliation, whose competence meets the highest standards of scholarly professionalism. The field of religion as an integral ingredient of a liberal education should not be turned into a battleground for sectarian tenets for the benefit of religious bodies whose province and authority lie outside that of the university community. For that very reason Protestants, in spite of a certain historic, presumptive interest in the development of the field of studies of religion, cannot continue to treat it as a private preserve.

100

CLYDE A. HOLBROOK

My second thesis thus again points to the encouragement of a national professional body which could represent, and increasingly make evident, the common concerns for scholarship and instruction in studies of religion, and which would move us away from the partialities which at present afflict the field of religion. A society which orients itself to the academic community at large rather than to ecclesiastical bodies, and aims at demonstrating to the academic world at large the need for both a more inclusive view of the field of religion and a more intensive examination of the nature of religion should have a place in the contemporary scene. By the same token it should offer a platform of confrontation where scholars from specialized societies may meet together to their mutual advantages. The third thesis which I propose has to do with the development of an intellectual tradition in American religion. 1 do not suggest that American scholarship is in the doldrums, but I do see the need for a franker recognition of our shortcomings. The word "scholarship" is a slippery term, including as it does both the most minute pedantries and the works of creative power which set new problems and move thought into untried areas of interpretation. At both extremes American scholarship has been busy, but at present admittedly it seems in many areas, American scholarship is deeply indebted to foreign learning. Biblical studies, church history, and theology have to a very large degree depended upon European and British scholarship for fresh leads. W e are somewhat less indebted to these sources for workmanship in the sociology of religion, Christian ethics as related to empirical data, studies of church and state relations, and for bridge studies between theology and the arts and literature. To some degree the dependence of American scholars upon foreign authors is understandable by virtue of our past associations with Britain and Europe. The roots of our spiritual and intellectual heritage lie there, and although a distinctive civilization has been developed on this continent, those foreign roots have continued to nourish our arts and religious life. But more than past associations have been at work here. The deference paid to foreign scholarship in religion, in the last analysis, is due to the excellence of that scholarship. It has been thorough and creative it has provided the fresh viewpoints which in turn have stimulated our own scholarship. I cannot explore in any depth the reasons for this capacity in foreign scholarship but I do wish to point to what I believe to be an important and incontrovertible factor namely the recognition and development of an honored intellectual tradition abroad which in this country has not as yet won a place of respect even in our academic institutions. The scholar from abroad has inherited and developed a tradition of academic excellence which is oriented to basic research and pioneering efforts on religious issues. Their work has not customarily been evaluated on the grounds of its immediate relevance to the religious life of their culture and churches. It is a tradition that has stood on its own feet as scholarship, although at the same time it has eventually had profound effects upon the modes of religious activities and parish responsibilities. Furthermore, opportunities for specialization have seemed to be larger than those offered in this country, particularly for our undergraduate professors. In this country the development of an intellectual tradition in religion has had a checkered career. The scholarly tradition with which an influential segment of the clergy and laity of the seventeenth and early eighteenth century was familiar was seriously curtailed by the excessive pietistic ardor of the evangelical movements of the mid-eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A popular religion of the "heart," which took precedence over a religion of "head and heart," joined with a native pragmatism to depreciate the value of the intellectual life in matters religious. To this day in many quarters, including the academic world, the notion that religion is an area for study in its own right, distinct, but not necessarily irrelevant

WHY AN ACADEMY OF RELIGION?

101

to, the religious life in its institutional forms, is almost incomprehensible. As recently as 1957 the Niebuhr-Williams-Gustafson study of seminary education could say: "Faculty members who attempt to turn the tide of anti-intellectualism must fight every inch of the way." 1 Little wonder that Professor Robert Calhoun felt it necessary to state: "If judged by the standard of the freest, maturest, most distinguished inquiries man has performed, much religious thinking has been vitiated by too constant subordination to ulterior practical demands. Religious preoccupation which forever urges the thinker to find what shall be edifying, consoling, or somehow spiritually useful rather than just to find what is the case, is more than likely to shorten perspectives, narrow his purview and deflect his line of vision."2 The cultural and religious changes of the nineteenth century moved the center of religion scholarship into the theological seminary where it has since lived a precarious existence in the face of competing claims upon the time and energies of faculty members. The remarkable burgeoning of practical courses, the insistent call of churches for clergy who knew how to "run" a church, provide counselling, preaching, and religious education techniques continued to run parallel with drains upon faculty time for extra-academic duties. Under these circumstances the intellectual tradition in studies of religion has had a difficult time of coming to fruition. Where it has done so it has been by dint of extraordinary effort, and in some cases the work has been connected solely with the issues which concern the churches. The increased interest in the development of departments of religion and chairs of religion has also played a curious role in the lack of a firmly established intellectual tradition in religion. The auspices under which undergraduate departments of religion were refurbished or established in the thirties and forties aroused false expectations in some quarters. It was suggested by influential spokesmen on behalf of strong departments of religion that religion should be taught not simply because it rightfully belonged to any genuinely liberalizing educational process but also because and here matters went astray because the curricula of colleges were fragmented and religion could provide a necessary focal point of synthesis or because secularism had a strangle hold on liberal education and moral relativism was abroad and religion could answer secularism and show moral relativism where it was wrong or because student morals were low or confused and studies of religion plus chapel or other extra-curricular duties attached to the religion professor's job could have a beneficial effect on morals and morale or because, in short, religion was supposed to do in the college what the churches failed to do in the culture at large. Therefore, religion should be taught. The religion professor's task was thereby set in the ambiguous context of a morale officer and teacher. Scholarship did not seem very important. He was supposed to teach general courses, avoiding the danger of impinging upon the precincts of seminary training where it was supposed the real work in studies of religion began. Consequently, impetus for scholarship among the undergraduate faculty members in religion lagged behind that of the seminary faculty member. Furthermore, he, the undergraduate professor, taught religion as such he was not supposed to be a specialist in anything. He was hired to teach religion not New Testament, philosophy of religion, or history of Christian thought or world religions. By dint of effort he managed some scholarly output. To be sure, this situation has been gradually improving but only slowly! The expectations that the introduction of religion was going to revolutionize the liberal arts
1

Clyde A. Holbrook, Religion, A Humanistic Field, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 259.

*Ibid.

102

CLYDE A. HOLBROOK

program did not come off, nor did many of the other expectations materialize. What did develop on the hopeful side was that religion as an academic subject began to have its opportunity to prove itself as an academic field of consequence in the orbit of liberal arts. But when publicly cast in the role of a nostrum for social, educational, and religious ills and proclaimed, as it was in some instances, as coming on the campus with scarcely concealed polemical, if not indoctrinational, ambitions, it has had steadily to fight for an interpretation of its role consistent with the highest aims of a liberal education which would include scholarship as well as instruction. And outside a fairly small circle of academicians this battle has yet to be won. Not only Protestant professors in undergraduate seminary and graduate institutions have had to labor for the establishment of an intellectual tradition in studies of religion. Roman Catholic scholars have also bewailed the loss of an intellectual tradition, a tradition which had its incipient beginnings in the eighteenth century before the influx of foreign Catholic populations laid a heavy burden upon seminaries for the preparation of priests to undertake pastoral duties for these immigrants. Professor J. Tracy Ellis, for example, has marked "an absence of love of scholarship for its own sake among American Catholics" even among those engaged in higher education. Oscar Perlmutter complains in a similar vein that "outstanding works, even in fields of direct Catholic interest, are written by non-Catholics."3 The pressure which was placed upon the Catholic seminary to produce priests to care for the ever enlarging populations which came to these shores in the nineteenth century has reacted upon these institutions in somewhat the same way as the revivalism and the proliferation and growth of Protestant denominations in the same century did upon Protestant divinity schools. The need for pastoral care, the development of practical courses to meet parish needs, tended to thrust aside a concern for what might be called disinterested scholarship. What we are saying here is not that the establishment of an Academy of Religion will in some mysterious fashion bring about an intellectual renaissance in scholarship in religion. Nor am I suggesting that there is no such intellectual tradition extant today. What I do wish to affirm is that the broadening of the spectrum of interests of this association may assist in a fundamental way to excite, especially among undergraduate professors of religion but also those who work anywhere in the field, an enthusiasm for scholarship which can be sustained across a broad front of diverse methodologies. The meeting place of the historian of religion, the sociologist of religion, the specialist in medieval literature, the psychologist whose research has turned to some aspect of religion, as well as the biblical scholar, the church historian, and theologian should be in this Academy. This organization should provide an opportunity not only for the exchange of ideas from differing segments of the field of religion, but also a platform where religious affiliation or the lack thereof offers no barrier to the pursuit of our common concern for a more enlightened understanding of the nature of religion. And by so doing we may rightfully expect that there shall be a strengthening of that tradition of intellectual excellence which has lived a precarious existence in American culture. You may wonder why I have given over so much of this address to the matter of scholarship. I assure you this emphasis is not intended to imply that the establishment of an Academy of Religion would lessen concern for the teaching function. But I have been

Ibid., p. 263.

WHY AN ACADEMY OF RELIGION?

103

struck by what seems to be the fact that the teaching of religion has already become a fairly well established aspect of higher education. In 1960 it was estimated that sixty percent of all colleges, one hundred percent of all church-related colleges, forty-five percent of state colleges and universities have religion departments or chairs, to say nothing of various alternative arrangements for academic work in religion.4 The teaching of religion in state supported institutions of higher learning has met difficulties, to be sure, and studies are being carried out on this problem by the Society for Religion in Higher Education. The problems met in this case may be less formidable than often supposed, but they must be dealt with. But my immediate point is that in one way or another, by some means or other the teaching of religion has largely won a place for itself. The existence of this association and others underlines this fact. But on the other hand, I am impressed by the fact that scholarship in religion has not clearly won for itself an authentic and independent place as a scholarly pursuit among humane studies. As I have already suggested this study has often been excessively church-related rather than university oriented. At the undergraduate level the importance of the teaching function has too often put scholarship in a weak second place in the eyes of both the instructor himself and the college community at large. And the impression remains that much which rightfully can be called scholarship in religion has been produced by scholars outside the ranks of professors of religion at all levels of higher education. For many, in addition, the field of religion is an amorphous affair which has yet to define itself as to content without undue dependence upon the structure of the theological seminary curriculum. This last observation moves me to offer a second reason for emphasizing the role of scholarship in this address; namely, that a field of study identifies itself as much, if not more, by the scholarship produced in respect to it as it does by what goes on in the classroom. It is scholarship which defines the dimensions of content and the variety of methodologies which are appropriate to a given subject matter, and this scholarship must be of an order which commands respect not only from those who practice the scholarly arts in that area but also those who work in other areas of humanistic studies as well. It would seem to me that this problem of definition of the field of religion may be given public form by an organization one of whose paramount aims is that of the encouragement of scholarship aimed at clarification of the field itself. Certainly if among its members there are those who work this territory from diverse viewpoints and methodologies there should gradually come into more prominence than now exists a recognition of the conformation of the field and a more clearly articulated sense of its position among the fields of study now offered in institutions of higher learning. And for this third reason I have emphasized scholarship as an important aspect of the program of an Academy of Religion. An Academy of Religion should stand as a society which gives high prominence in the academic world generally to the serious importance attached to religion as a scholarly enterprise. In American cultural life it is my conviction that this "image," if I must at last use the term, can best be given public form by an organization whose programs, journal, membership, and projects reflect this concern. But I have belabored this point sufficiently and must now say a few words on how this purpose is to be fulfilled. I will by-pass problems of organization as these properly will come up in connection with the report of the Self Evaluation Committee. One of the more important ways in which we may carry forward our aims as a professional body is that of

* Ibid., p. 57.

104

CLYDE A. HOLBROOK

engaging in projects which call for research by groups of scholars or an individual, which project would be carried on under the auspices of a publications committee. There are undoubtedly many such projects which members of this body have had on their minds for some time but have not had time or incentive to carry out. Some of these surely are worthy of support from this body and could be carried out if we seriously went after the procurement of funds for this purpose. It might be desirable that funds for the development of such projects be provided for sub-regional meetings of scholars to work on problems of mutual interest. A possibility which moves me to suggest in passing that this organization might well be more active during the periods which elapse between national and regional meetings. With the establishment of a publications committee there would come into existence a group which could sift through the possible projects and make decisions as to their potential contributions to scholarship in religion. I should also think that our programs should increasingly reflect the scholarly interests of our membership, and to this end the time given for our national meetings should be expanded so that the different fields within the area of religion can have adequate opportunity for exposure and discussion. It seems to me that our journal has shown us the way in this respect, for it has steadily improved in quality and breadth as it has brought before our own members, if not as yet before a still wider audience than it now reaches, substantial contributions to scholarship. It may even be that the journal eventually should itself be enlarged to accommodate increases in scholarly output. As might be expected there is a catch in all these grandiose hopes and possibilities and that is the matter of finances. W e shall need more members and more of these members should be drawn from outside the range of professors of religion at the undergraduate level. The separation between seminary and graduate professors on the one hand and undergraduate faculties should be increasingly overcome by an Academy which aspires to represent fully the total field of religion. Beyond this normal expectation there is the need for drawing into membership those scholars whose subject matter is religious phenomenology in some form or other but whose methodologies and approaches stem from other fields. I think here particularly of those in the areas of literature, history, philosophy, psychology, and sociology. The Academy, in short, should not consider itself solely a group of professors of religion, but a group of scholar-teachers whose common concerns center upon religion. This expansion in membership, which will take time to develop, will also answer in part our ambitions for support of scholarly projects undertaken under the auspices of the Academy, because additional dues may be expected from increased membership. It may be necessary even at this initial step before extensive additions in membership occur, to increase dues and here I defer to our Treasurer to spell out in his report the cruel economic facts of life. Personally I see the need now for increase in membership fees since we are one of the least expensive professional societies in existence. Last of all in respect to matters financial we must look forward to securing funds from foundations for the prosecution of our plans. I am not overly pessimistic nor optimistic on this score. But I am morally certain that an organization which boldly steps forward at this juncture with a program for organizing the resources for scholarship in religion across the entire field and which would worthily represent the total field of religion, somewhat on the same pattern as the American Philosophical Association provides for philosophy, would stand a better chance of securing funds for its work than is possible under our present title and structure. Yes, money is close to the heart of our problem, but before money there come plans and I hope to that end that the Self-Evaluation Committee will be enabled to continue its work for another year at least and with plans must come

WHY AN ACADEMY OF RELIGION?

105

the conviction and courage of the present membership to seize the opportunity which lies before us. That opportunity is one that we in comparison to other bodies now existing in the field of the study of religion should be best fitted to take. W e already "cover" in our membership and interests the wide spectrum of the field of religion and there is simply no other body which will at present attempt to provide a similar coverage for the field of religion as a whole. There is nothing simple about this step to be taken; it may turn out to be an exasperatingly slow process but let it be said that we matched big words with big deeds. To that end I commend to you the report of the Self-Evaluation Committee. A beginning can be made in the light of that report toward those goals which we all cherish and with whose successful accomplishment our professional destinies are intertwined.