The Study of Religion

Douglas Davies

a Sociologists stress the social dimension of leligious ideas. Religion Drovides an agreed way of looking at ihe world. It gives rhe individual a seDseol purpose ano meanlng. describe religion in aHistoriatrs terms of events resulting from beliefs; tleologians are concerned with the beliefs themselves, the question ofwhether they are true or false, and with people's response to them. The different approaches are valid in different ways and within their own limitations. The basic difference is rhat of standpoint: there is the way of the believer and the way of rhe scholar'

outward and visibleasDecrs ofa relision. even when this meansdescribin-e the narure of people's religious exi periences, rather than DinDointins the great issues of rrurh ind awarel ness of God as felt by the believer himsell It is possiblefor rhe religious person to speak in one context as a believer about the intimate thinqs -asof his religion, and in anorher a scholar about the way his fellowbelievers see things. \What, rhen, are the different methods scholars have adopred in studying rhe whole subiecr of relieion? And whar are rhe kev ideas rhir will help u-s understand rhe'scholarly approacn i

Fveryadult male Muslim ]s requtred to make the pilgrimage to lvecca ance in hislifetime.These pt19nhsate settingaut'

Whar is religion? There have been many definirions.Some have simplv described ir as 'belief in spirirual oerngs . (Jthers have anempted more comprehensivedefinitions in telms of beliefs or a descrip on of pracrices. Jome ot the dttferent approaches to retrgtonare as follows:

a An^thropologists describe religious DeLtets and practices as thev nDLl them in Iiving communiries. R;ligji,n nelps.to unlte people in a sharud experrenceand explanadon of life. Il provides a paltern of human behaviour, often in response lo thc hazards of life.

.scholarlv aDDroach' is . The phrase oecepdve if it means lhar' relieious peoplecannot adoor an inrelleirual Evolution work of Charles Darwin proapproachro relieious thinss. Verv The vided scholars wirh rhe kind ofrheoroltenthey canand do. But rihe schol'- etical explanation of religion which a.rlY, obiecriveor scientificDe6Dec- had oot been present in the eightuve is one which emohasizes'rhe eenth-century arguments of philos-

Reductionism Theologtis the rerm usually given to the study of one's own rcligion. It is The differenr approaches are nor, of concelned with the meaning of rhe course, mutually exclusive. In facr doctrines which have develooed over each method of study can add to our the years, with the way docrrine is total picture. This is in conrrasr to the 'reducderived from scipturcs, ^nd the interpretatio.l of the sc prures. tionism' of some approaches which N nian Smad, Rel/glors try to explain everlthing in terms of This often leads to rhe formation of one theory. Religion is 'nothing bur' different schools of tradirion and to economic) sexual or evolutionary sectarian divisions within major ctrlves. teligions. For instance, Man It also leads to the application of explained this knowledge ro ordinary behaviour religion in economic terms. Freud --+tbi.cs----and to special acts of explained it in sexual terms. Some worsnlp-rt,l/g). nineteenth-century anthropologisrs explained ir simply in rerms of evoThese are the names used of Chrisrian theology, bur similar lution. sttands can be found in orher world religions. Theology. rhen, is rhe srudy of a rligion flom the inside. Ir assumes Anthrcpology is the srudy of human that the fairh is true. Then ir seekslo behaviour: religion as a pattern of explore it more fully, and often ar- behaviour can be obseNed like any rempts to relare rhat fairh to chaneine other humaD acriviry. world situarions. Theolosv is aliavi As a discipline ir has added enorgrounded in a relisious r;;dirion. mously to what we know of DeoDles throughour rhe world. parricul;rly The scholar the more primirive tribes. Anthlopol'scholarly rne approach' ro relieion ogists from the last century on have means a neurrli. non-commi'tted been particularly keen to study such rorm of studv. It looksat the form of tribes becausethey wele interested to a leligion: ir'does nor ask wherherit relate lhe new scienceto the rheory of rs true. evoluIl0n.

The believer

'No.ono can undorsland mankind wilhout unde.!tandinq tho faiths ol huminitv. Somlimes naive-. somolimea ponelratinglynoble, aomenmeactude. somelimes subtld. somelimacrugl. sometimea sulfuaod by an overpowgring gontloneSa and lovo, som6lime8 worldaffirming, aomslimes negating lhe world, somglimes inward. looking, Bometimes univrsaliBtic and missionary minded, somotimeEshallow and ofleh profoundroligion has permoalod human lilo since oarly and obscure timos.'

The anthropologists

--.'Jti 1l

r*

n.rr E*&

$a: .,

il il

ophcrs sLrches (i.\l'.F- Hegcl and '[ . ( i . I I e r d e r . Instcad of abstract ideas of pro_ such qressand derclofmcnt. scholars is Il.B. 1'r1or, J.G. F'razerand \\'. RobertsonSmith. $hose $'orksspanncd the pcriod belrveen 1870 and 1920, souShI Io idenrif-! specific Dcriods lhrough {hich man had lhe belieis bv characterizing oassecl, held during these succcssiveeras. Thcv namcd lheseslegcsof religjous lifc according lo thcir own, largclY speculalive.theoJl' of,lhe dominant conccrn presenl ln cacn one, Often rcligjon \eas said to ceasclo replaccdit bc signilicanloncc science as ir sllge jir human thought. This argumcnt of Sjr was a characteristic T.(i. Fr.rzcr, $'hose book The Golden lloag, is still in prinr cven though it is morc a work olspcculationthan of fact. Functionalism Thc twcntieth centurv saw a mlrked diffcrenceof approachro the srudl of religion, and in particular the question ol rhe der'clopmentof religion changed iIS li)rm. Instead of asking the c\'(tulrontrv quesllon ol ho\\' rcligion lirst originarcd. anlhropologistschoscto ask s hat function $as scrvcd bl religion in each parucular sociclv rr hcrc it occurred. Ihc Pritchard anlhropologislE.E. F-r'ans cxprr:ssedrhis neall!, saling lhal 'religion is $hirt religion does'. Bronisla\\' Malioowski ( 188'+ l9'12) abandonedlhc historicaldimension, prolerring ro studl intcnsively rhc role playcd by religion in the Trobriand lsland community rvhere,as an Austrian citizen, he u'as inlerned during \vorld \{'ar L MaLinorvski hclieved that therc wcre scicntilic la*s of culture and thrt rhe_v could also be applied to rcligion. I'he indi!idual biological necds ol laod, shcltcr, sex and sccuritv c()uld also be vie.,vedas socialnccdswhich peopleprovidc tbr corporirlelv rhrough economic,politi cir1, kinship and religious insritullons. llirgic \!as uselul becauseit broughr one tuiln irLro a lcadership Posrlx)n during rimes of crisis in sociel\'.It mrdc somesorl ol positive actnn possible and rherebl pre-

vcnled chaotic bchaviour. Rcligion \\,ilh magic providcd thc basjc alonE! integratingforcr in socicl\'.ior it rvas lo thc human dcsir!'for thc response sur|ival. Ilagic. pcriirrnred in the face of natural calamitr', providcd a psrchological supporl li)r pcoPlc's fear. ,\luch of this lhcorl rcsulted from,\{alino$ski's obscrvelion ol primiri\'c socioly. bul as his privdte diarics shorv published long llter his dcath his own lcars of lonelincss.thc dark. and ol dcalh probably guidcd the way hc constructedhis thcory ol rcligion.

Structuralism
Aficr thc | 95()s, anlhropologisls turncd thclr rltcnli{)D more to the ot the rolc ol religionasan cxprcssi()n valucs and structLlrc of thc idcas. 'lhcy Llrew a beliefs of a socielv. picrurc of thc relationshipsrvhich existcd bctrvccn doclrirlcs.'lhcv askcd horv people ergued, horv thcv and rvhetrvas organizrd thcir bclici.s. lhe inncr logicalprltcrn ol a rcligion. For cxanrplc. r'illuge l) uddhists cscapepainlul expcritncesb) mcans of etorcists: ho\! do lhcv squarethis u ith thc Buddhist idcal stich denics thc validil\ of such cxorcism? Or ho\\ do Christlangroups relatethcir belieli about c\trldav lrle lo lhe concefl of thc l rinit\'? l his slructuralist approachdrir*s tllcnlron to Ihc organizalionoi hurnan thought, and to lhc wr]' nllo brtnlls an or_ dered pettern lo his c()mplex$orld. IioL insrancc.lhc l'reDch rnlhropolhas sludicd ogist Claudc Lrvi Slrauss tlic questionof how {his works out in thc case()l mYths.

,iilll l1 i .rr

,g
\\.N\

The psychologists
!flhcrcas in Ihe niDelcenlh centurY scholars \{erc happy () comblne anthropologicxl idens wilh thosc conccrninlt lhc hunl.rn mind. in lhe rwcntirth ccntLtrvth(j mind hds bccn singled out iirr specirl altcntion bv thc pslchologist\. Sigmund Irreud dren heevill lion c\1)hrtlonlry anthropolog\'. cspeci.rlhirorr \\'illiam Robertson Snrith s frnrous 1-,irrr['s llil89 . r, 11. .S,Lrrrt'r 01 th. Rtltguttt but his sish \\'iis lo \hoN how thL' underlying po*cr ol the human

;r,--i.s r,r.i . 1.,-: s.-a,-:jf,,:.s jt-art ."sl/ii' ai. ',,a-.h a/,rr Gj.:rrj liLi r,:r ra araia irfris a: :tl]a sriJ :i,i

nrinJ. grounilcd rn ir kind of sc\url 'fhe cDcrg\ crllcd thc librtlo. asrribcdto a disciplinc ol socrrlogr ll:o tl go.l ligurr rllitudc uhich ori.qrnelcd r ' e l ( r p e dr r p r L i l r i n t h c c l t l l v t u t n t i i . r i n r h c c h i l t ls r c l a t i o n s h i p lith his centur\. Ilere lor lhc idcu ol nrL)jrL l r u n L Ul r l h c r . I'roiodion 'lhis inlf(r(luccsu mlior- conccpl in stLrrlics : l l lo l ' p r o i c c t i o n ' . rc l i g i o u s th il lt'lll \\'hi!lr cnrLrllces not onlv tlre o l l : r e u db u t f : , r c h o I r g r c ru l pproach l rgu.rl:o thc rurlrcr philosophiela r n ! n l o 1 I r r L l r r h i r r h l l l 0 . 17 l r . n h r r . l . r i | l r f . ll h r r : r l r c n r c n t st l b o u t ( i o d
\trf rfllll\ l(Jlrr LlndffslooLl as sl,Lrerrrnl\ rlr(irlt nrln. ,\\rn hiid lcndrd io f o n \ l r u ! i 1 ( i c r i \( ) 1 ( ; o d a n d t h c n I o Ir,li rt tlrrrr ls rh,)Lrgh ihcl hrd r reillrt\ '.1 rirajr (J\\n For l pfoFer (ii L r n ( l r r \ r . r, l i r q Lhr()lollr one s h o u l J r . r r r , . t h i q n r o c r s s. r n J i n t c r ' hunrin l)rrr rrlrgiLii\ docirlnr i r ( f n l . . l ' . r . l r rh . l . h l n l l u f n . . J . \ 1 a r \ lnrl I:ngc1'. ir:rJ thcrcb| th. risc oi ! ( i r l l r n l r n r \ r n j i r c l \ u i l d l 1 \ ' .r r \ \ o l l t,l inlcrf r l i t r ( ) r r r s u n l , L L l n r ( ) J c\L r\ l r r r l l n ! l i lr l : r LL r J l l . r ' i l c i r J c L l t h r t r c l r g i o L t s f o \ r l i L i n \ ! \ c r . n t i l o ! s c r u \ c i L t Ll d r r r . r n .u ' h r h o , , k 7 l r , I r r t r l l J t . : , r -/1irr.r,,ir I,.rl- .1,:.rrh 'hLurtLt hcrt i r l ( r r a a l l t , nt ( ' f f D l t ( r l L u i i L i n .i h a l r L r n r . r rn r r n J l c . r d r n ! : n r . r n . i \ r . r ! f r o n r l r u l l l . L n Jr . r l l r l \ . r r t t l t h c r c l , r r t o t ' t depL,r'cJ. 'lhr rsr chli,rr:rst \\1ll1rnr J.rm.! r(l(iflf(l .l frllr .f nr(irc po\rii\'a irttl 1u(lr ro jhr r,,lr rt Icligron. ln Tlii l,rrr,tr,' r ' 1 / i , l ; r ' , r r r l : r 1 ' .n , r r ' r I 9 1 ) 1. h e s r ! . . r l L r l l J r \ r r i n l r o n o l r.llSlor.ls r\Jrrricnrrs fos\.s\trll h\ v.rrious ptople. c()nrlriirjng rnd con t r . r s r r r r\ gh u h c c i r l l e . i r h c r . ' l i g r o no f hurllh\ mil]dfllne\s \\i1h lhal of lhe s r . k \ ( ) ul ' Iirl J.rnrts. rclrgiln t,rr o1 ,,lltte.in hclflng nrrn to li',e lL positire antl c ( ) r l r r g c o u \L i l c . I t K a s s e e n i r s u l r i nralclr ebout thc lact rhrt rherr- rs s()urclhirrg $rong rvith us. rnrl \rth \\ll|s 01 sx!ir1[j us liom lhar \\rongncrs. In othcr \!ords. rcltgion hclps nlrn 1o ir..cfr liilnsclf .rnd his lil_ec(mdilioD rrrhcr lhrn l:llling prcv to t h c i n i i r n l i t i e so f h i s l i l e . ; \ l l t h i s i s o l Posrti\'c rd!anlagc Io IJlrn. so thal Jrmcs rlici nol scc rcligion ds an lllusion wilh no rcal lururc as Freud l h ( r u s h 1r t l o b c .

The sociologists

tion \\its o1 trrt.rt signilicurree. I.iI tlcuLnrl\'lir l-:nrilc I)urkh!inr I l35li 1917r. IIis llmoLts stLtdr rrl 71' I:lontnt<tn l.ornts tl tltt llrltgunts l.t o$ed lllllch lo lhc sxrrrc lellLlrrs I lLobeflson Smith $hich hrcl rlso rr flu|.nccLl Iircud. lr prcsLlpl)('srd c\1)lLlIlonrn Nffro.lah l() rcllgror buI cliLl n('r lc.cpl lhc vic\ rlr roliSious idcrs \\'crc simpl\ nrislu, ing products ol lha hulnlrl rlrinl I Ierc l )urkheinr rs l \(\ roltjq' h(ilh \\ ilh r Filrled eompinv rr l ) L ll h . . l ] e f l r l fjs\.holog\ {il lrrlrLrL ri\'. rnlhr(Jlolog\ ol IirTd l)Lrl Ilcim \vit\ L('n\1n.,j(l rhrr rher. \\ s o m a t h r n g 1 . l : . l il n f a l i g r o n - . r n r l t l r ml]n \\e! nol Jcecrrrng hinrsell i d e n l i l \ i n g t h d r . r l i t r L r r r r l t r lrrr r ! r l j e i o u \ h . h r t r i ( ) u rh f r l : r ' p r L r t t . t .,,:: 11.ln\\ ' \'ilh lhc(,lrgrfrll (rllun.LlrL,rl lor thc rcrlitr lnllLr.n(lncf.li!ir)n. cnnle lt, bclic\f. i' rrerct'. rt'cll I)urkhcrnr \\.r\ ur nrro.r'ut,r, \ r ' i t l t I h c i d r ' . i 1 , 1\ L , i r r i \ r r \ I r f L r r l \ ! \\'itlt il-f ilrlarin\!1()u\ nriir!1 lrf I liertJ rh.rt Lhcfc!\r\ r LlrllrIcnt . o1 rcriil\ .rl \ijrli in \o.riri rroll i ; t i l r r h r l r n l n J r \ i J u r ! 1l i ! . . S , t r r . .lrulLl hf \tLlLll.Jolurh.r: hLrr.tnL. tl stLlr.Ll flrntr. l{clrgr,rn l.r. humrn r;tiritr rrhiLh .polL .rl., \ L i . l r l r . l l r l \ \ h r l e u ' i n g \ \ 0 r r 1 .L r h , , g0Ltr I n o n c s c n s cl ) L u k h c r n r r r u . . r . 1 , , t , , rng r siInrllr oull()rl t(, I fLr.rl).lrlr Ihrt nr.rn rrlrr.l\ ser'ntr to hclrert, , rnrl t(i sfnk rhorl (ioJ. rrhr[.r'e.i]l t r L k r n g L r b o L rh t ts o\n rrciul r|r,r \\ilhr)ul rclliring rr. IlLlr r(,r 1)Lrl heim. *ho diJ nor belirrc in u (i,' \\ho err\ts in his orrn riglrt rrr. lnd!'lcndcnlL\'ol nril11. \ocrrl\ is su! r n i n r l l r r r l i r n lt h i n g t h r t r t e . r r r . , r r r , p l c l c l \ h l l I h c p h c c o l ( i o d . S o i r r : t rr Ihcrc bciore I urn l.rrrn rn.l crirr ailcr mv darth. It gives nrc irlcas ull l e n g u a g el o l h i n k r n d \ p c r k \ \ ' i l h . I p r o t c c r s n t e i n e l n r i r k r s l r .c l e , \rorthv of lile. So. d|sPitc tht 1r,. thdt man projcclsrll lhcs. idcls ()nr, a g o d h g u r c . r h c i d c r : l h r l l l s r l v i \ r r rt true. lrnd Nhat r\ nr()rc. lhrv llrr ntcessar\ if socicl\' is ro b( h.1,1 l o g c l h c r i 1 sr n o r r l c o m n r r i r \

W ll arnJames, the broiherof the ce ebrated Amercan noveist Henry waschiefly James. r e s p o n s b en t h e y e a r s aroLr ncithe tLr rn ot the EDWARDAURNETT centurytor popular z ng (r832*19r7) wLoR of the the newsubject psycho In its earyyearsthe ogyof religion. study oi comparative A s 6oak The Varietiesaf ve re lg on , .omoarat g re on was mLrch Religious Experience ch Mar Mul er was Firecir ('1902 concerned w ih theor g n s)a c a s s c , a n d thesono1a Geranan gion and evolui on of rel s1| \ ridelyreadtoday Poel rle Rornantic as a !rnversahuman Trainedn medicne he ano In studed n LeP2l9 phenomenon. Tylor E B. taughtbothphyso ogy Pars wherelreDegan who n 1896 becarne worK a ano psycnorogy ar h s frst malor ol Br la n s frst professor of jlarvardas eary as the edltron monLrrnenta ln anthropc ogy, the 1870sand n 1890 t iextol the ihe Sanskr publlshed ln 1860s co nedthe term a celebraleci Yeda, R/gr P!blrsneo m an sii tc descr be textbook IhePrirclpies lourvo umesDelween ed what he bei eved io be the of PsychoiogyMost ol 1849 and 1862He sett earlests:agen thrs and hisoiherbooks rnciucng n Engand In_1846 o^lr^^,r,.,^.oc.i The Will to Belteve oTlhe. \1896) spentraost r t u a l lTe n b e r e i n nls s n p e s p Prcgmatisnll9Al) anj remainderoT ngs . iy ;n be or studred Hunan i.r,.norlelty becomrng Oxiord, (r908)wereor grnaly tei oi Col.nPafaiive Mexco.th s r sI res{r Professor A n h s frst book Anahuac co! rsesoi leclures Phio ogyrn 1868. (l861I l1es!rsectuent prolifcwr ter.h s ater n h s Ydrie|eshe are!! l/ p!b strecResearahes Incudecl .iany va !able books Mvlhology tn!athe Ea.if Histarycf Camparattve d st nctons between (-865). (1856J. lnltoducttonto the Mankrno anc h s types o{ relg o'Js r'roslmacrlant lvor( Science af Reltgian exoer enae lne oesl 1,) (1813). I n.ni!t /e C! ilti re (181 lndta. Whatcan tl knc,r','. re ng thal teach us?(l883) ancl n r,'hcl'ihe an .n srn betwee.the coi ..l'sia manyotherworks i h e o . rs c e a | " i s t a t e c re!gronoi heath!. ncludnq three (iyD serres ci 8r eily t ,s iFateai y fec b_ rn nodness G fJord Leciur-as and rwc .-4. s:!cer encescl Cl-r'si an ScrenceJ and v ou m e s ol0erscnal ,jreamanai.anc3 ec n if tie oessian'st a fe q oa rem nrsceraes Fi\,!as i.-rt'a a:i e;.; cl i'e s af 3aL: alsoresponsbeior aeSaraie aci anr,'ral. { i . a c i c l l aC ar n s r n l edrtnq thefftV.volLrrne fr fi'seI anc aterto Hea so hac mLchto sa,r' seriesoi Sacr;o Eooksof postLr atethe existence ol or mystlc sm anc the Fast-st ll an sun,/,ngsous (ghosts). nvauabe soLtrce forthe and oi manysuch so! s' many of conscrcusness sludy of relcton n an ma s. plants lhe yearsoelore the s!b)ecl MaxMu lerbrouqhi the atmosphere etc.Outof Jash He became onable. wor d lor 19 qlonsol th-" thisbe el in sou s or camelrorna Ine trrst f me to ihe not ce <^ r t< lFo'. o ,.n1 ':1 | an S\,!edenborg ot lhe EngIshspeal"rna . l o , o . . o n F,o oJ ,. .^.1( background. and h sown interOreted Publc to ll-re As an evoLttronary re ig on \,!as an ind strnct west theancent and theory, thrsrsof very ttle irom theism lar reffroved modernrel q ons of n.l a val!e. but t cioes orthodox Christ an ty n a vital f soanet mes represent accLrrately the Aithough he s st I vvorth o osyncratr wa,,. Hs w a v n w h c h p r m a l ( a n d reaong n s approacn rneoaes thatre rdon peopes lookonthe lvastoo ndividuast c. other) arosethrouclh ihi Lrnseen wor d Tyor s anci he had lttle to say Persoffcationof natural exampre, aswe as abo!tthe corporate Pnenomena have on th-o provid ng forthef rsttime aspects of re ig on. His olnerhand beenv/holv a wayof understand ng melnoos loo !!ere :uperseded re g on at a basic eve serousy cal ed n serve0to porf]l question bythe depth. anthropo oqyalonga psychoog sts (Fre!d paihwh ch t si lto some Jungandtheirlo lowers) extentloliows e and arehardly appllcab today.

fli!|tii,li'dil?".
Eric Sharpe

WILLIAM JAMES (r8{2-r9r0)

ffiil.#l{"ffi:r"'

WILLIAM ROBERTSOiI sMtTH (t816_91) Robedson S..ith best knownior his ma!isteral Dooklectures on lhF Re/gionof ihe S-"mi les ( 1 8 8 9w ) asamnsierof the Free Churcfr ol Scotland n lB70l-e Prolessor became of O1d Testament Studes at the Free ChurchCo ege ri Aberde-"n. In the -"ar y T880s he wasd snrssed from hrschaiffor unscnptural teachnal and n 1BB3 wasel-"cl-"(l Professor of Arabical Cambridge. A ibefti evangecal ne was responsib 10r e br ng nq toqether tradt ona phro og cal stldy ot lhe B b e ani the new ns qhls o{ anthroDo ogy Hefrsl v s led Nodh Air ca n 1B;9.and ,\'as rqpressed bythe exrstenc-o oi tolemsrrl an onlJ th-o Srna E e c o u r li.h s ' e s ! t e d . h s firslTalor work tF Kinshrp aid M.1n)aQe (1885) Erl/y Arab/a nhs he at-'r Lecirre.s conce.lrated on the acnceot ol sacrf.e ^e ,.rF Cr saw essas 3 ioa ira.saclon llan as a ar:a: c3 n eansa_ establsh.g colrl'lJnioa v\ th de ty He also recogf'red that n lq on cuslorn r-o and r t,.ral are oiten Trofe s alnfcant ihaf systerrs . n di h a t t , s o i b e r e 1a v tal y mportanl lhat the StU0enl 0e an accurale ano sympathetlc obseryer oi the prilci cal s d-"of re igion.H s nfllence ne v\ras wroespreaci: nsp redJ 6. Frarer to studytotemsm andwas ol the a forerunner soco og ca studyol re igion.for wh ch ne a mosr reason nrs a one amonQ conlemporar es s st I respected among socloogrsls ano anihropo og sis Despte hisbrushwith

r0 /

rtE lcvEepirrcrrtvr

r\clsrurl

authority, ecclesiastical warmlY he remarned l']is evanoelicalin personalbelie{s. T{ATHAI{ SODERBLON (r866-rofi) The link between religion and comParative was theology Christian in the firmlv established earlipart oJthe twentieth centuryby a 0roup ol scholarsof whom Nathan was perhaps Soderblom the most outstanding. Born the son ot a Lutherancountryminister to in Sweden,from 1894 1901he was Swedish pastor in Paris; legatron in 1901 he became Prof essorof Comparative in Uppsalaand Rell0ion in thispost remained to the until h s elevation of Uppsala archbishopric in 1914, a posthe occupled unt lhis deaih Hisscholarly in 1931. work spannedmany flelds, among them lranian Luther studies, studies,mysticism, Catholic modernism and generalcomparative reliaion. Thoughfew of his many oooxswere translatedinto English, his GiifordLectureslhe llvlrg God(published posthumously ln 1931) were wldeiyread in thelr day. He endeavoured to locatehistorica Protestant sm within Christianitv, and Christianitt withinthe religions ofthe world.He d rewva uable distinctlonsbetween mystical' and'revealed' formsol religion, and later betweentwo f orrns ol mysticism,'mysUcism (Paul, oi personality' Luther)and'mysticlsn]ol (lndian the inflnite' religion). As wellas this academicwork, $derblom made an invaluable contribution to tweniieth-centurv Chrishanity as oneof the

ln 1923. ln t, he faihers oftheecumenical English attemptedio showthat movement. 'the

the Inter'Relig ous League, whichwas not,l religion beginswilh In his lastYear! success. his internationalism OTTO sense oTlne num nous, RUDOLF (r869-rs37) is, of a mysteriously himto tallfoulof that caused 'other'deity in at Erlangen and both the NaziOovernment Educated fearsomeand tascinating Germany, and he died r Gdttingen,mostof Otto's (numen = deity). This 1937. careerwasspentIn teachingpostsat book becamea religious Otto'smost lasting Gottinqen,Breslauand classrc. contribution to the stud! Marbuig. After earlywork His later Indianstudies of religionlay in his he in Luther studies, includedMysticlsm Easf insistence on the and importanceof immedlatl iurned his attentionto the and West(1932) philosophy lndia's Religion of Grace non-rational experience and (1930), psychologyof religion, and a critical to any estimateoi the '1911 and after to the nature edlUon of the thagavad of re igion. religlons. Gi ta (The Otig inaI Gita, Athough lhe /deaof th.l studyof Indian His best-known and mosf 1939). In 1921, convinced Hotwas not a wayswe importantwork, Ihe /dea of the importance of understood,t spoke af the Holy,fi'sl appeared liv ng, inter-religious direcily to the mindot th' in German in 1917, and in dia ooue,he inaugurated twentiethcentury,and helped laythe foundaiions for much laterworkn the a.eaot personar re rg ous exper encean0or mystrcrsm.

oi. rcligion The posilive funcrion ''i takcn. s o m c t h i n g " was .'9.Dt.llt^ " \eDer ilno+ lYlu.\\no l l a x logisr rellglous- locJ\ .o-ueht to shol\ hu\r' soLlal J inflienceJ the actlre .lllc.ul stuo\ ol / /,r 11rt_ sroup. His famt'u\ thc.slttlt.rt LLtltttll' isun Lthit attt) ho\ lnc LJI\lnl\l t s r r S O L l S htto s h o \ \ led oelle\ cr\ l') idea of prcdesllnallon tdopl an earn(st dnd rallonJl-lll.'ln whiih thel endcavoured to Iulnl lhtrr or lrorl \ calling as good slc\taros gracL- Thi\ led tu the \ltuaIInn In which (ommcrce lno InousrrY coulo develon raP,Jl\'. \rirh ma\jmunr in vcslmcnt oI capllal ano nllnlnltlIll loss of uncrgy bv thuse respunsible for producli,'n nf goorjs- litligi,,us idcas thus motlvate man s aclrcn ln Malx rather than-as the world, an anacsthclic c l a i m ed - p r o v i d i n g for worldly life.

ogv crnnol dcal $iIh qucslions of trulh. Il c n onl! dcscribe\\hat can bc sccn bv rn outsidc obscncr.

The historical approach

,\lircca Iilirde u as born in Bucharest in 1907. and has rvorked and llught in mrnt pNrlsol rhe !\'orld. IIe is the bcsl-kno\\n !nd m()slinlluenlial reprcscnlrti\'c()l lhc slud! oJ the histolr ol rcligrons. Ir is dilliculr lo disringDish clcrrl\ bcl\\'eenblsloriansand phcnonrcnohgisrs of rcligion bccausc thcir pcrspcetives are similar. So rvhile llliadc sceks to discover how 4 C u . . _ r r l r ris r. i . i r r . r, religions hrve dcvelopcd throulth k l l e e l S0 l j - I l r t s 1 | r , t 1 r r ,r.,,/ their hisloricxlphascs. his ajor con- l h e E r l n h ; n r : r l r r i r , r r r 'holy'. is with the idca of rhc ccrn

Thenineteenth-century intetestin anthropology was arcu'ed by expeditions such as Charles DaNin s warla voyageon boatd HMS Beagle.

'Phenomcnologl' differs from thc previous approachcsby concernrng irselfneithc|rvith the hisloricalorigin of religion nor \\'ith the funclion ol r rcligion in conlemporar! siluatjons. It selsout to classifl thc phcnomena that are associaled \\ith religioustraditionsrobiects.riruals,doctrines.or fcclings. Each phenomcnologist identifies{,har he rhinks is thc css cnce of these phcnomena, and scts aboutdescribingrhcir in{luence upon man. Gcrardus van der Leeuw (1t90, 1950) was among rhe mosl dis llnguished of phenomenoloqists of rcligion. For him, po.u,.er is rhe source and underlying cssenceol_all rctlglon; il is mdnifested in manv wnys. lrom thc idca of nrrn in Melanesran rcligjon ro the J\\e xnd wonder expcrienced in the \rorld rclrgrons. Hi\ nh!-nom<nolor\ i\ u description rhc man.,. ri;rvs rn whic'h 'man "l conducrshimself in his rclatlon to po\\'er,. Sith,ationcomes aboLrt whcn the source of po*.er is possessed oa a(tained. n pcrson,s reliqious exocricncc cannot, of coLrrse.-beobseiled bv someoneelse. The phenomenoloeist can only see the ionsequcnccs_ of people's experience. So phinomenol

Religion as phenomenon

I,j

I
i

6 /

|ie

ucve,!L[

c, r u

ne g u

TheenarmausHindu Wat at Angkor,Kampuchea, is almosta mtle square.

<) t,,-) th.l..l h\. ) v..l

cloisterand moat, the centralshrine reprcsents the hubofthe universe.

\(/hat are the various ways in which mankind becomes aware of rhe holy? His task leads him to discuss 'hierophanies' the ways in which the sacred is manifested-including sacled places and persons. For instance, JesusChrist was said to be the supreme hierophany because in him the sacred, which normally belongs ro a realm totally different from our own, is manifested in something belonging emirely ro our world, his human nature. Eliade believes that the Western world has allowed its ability to perceive rhe sacred to witherJ and that the task of the history of religions is to help it to regain this senseof the holy within its materialistic life. Eliade resembles Rudolf Otto (1869 1937) whose famous book Z/te Id.ea of the lloly asserted thar the central reality oftrue religion lies in a senseofthe magnetic and awe-inspiring nature of the source of religious experience. Some critics argue that this approach,which does not question the exislence of a divinity but rather seemsto presupposethe exist ence of a supernatural realm) has sought to foster religion rather than to be a dispassionate study. Historians and phenomenologistsmay reply rhat they seek only to avoid reductionism and to treat the evidencewirh the seriousnessit deserves and in a method appropriate to it.

development of the names given to the gods. Miiller's study of religion is thus q study of language. For instance, the Latin derr, rhe Sanskrit de"a, and rhe Greek rDeosare related and refer Io the idea of brightness. He is usually remembered for his notion of tl6 'diseaseof language': the descriptiot given to something actually becomeg its name, and then is imbued wirh a narure all of its own. It is as thougfi man forgets that he has given a nams to something, and comes 10 believe that it has a reality and power 14 itself, as in the caseof the bright sun becoming a deity in its own right Miiller's work has been largely forgotten in the rwest, but he is still recalled in India as the man who opened up the sludy of Eastern tex$ and stimulated an enlire generation of later scholars of comparative rejigion. He laid the solid foundation of attemp(ing to classify and order the vast amounl ofmaterial in a systematrc way.

Theory of meaning

In place of the evolurionary approach to religion inheriled from the nineteenlh century! there is now emerging another idea which may well provide an inregrating theory for the study of religion. This approach stresses man)s drive to establish a mcaningful world oflhought and lile. I1 avoids all simple cause-and-effcct arguments! and encouragesus to look In 1888, the same year that Smith at the complex inter-relationshlps gave the Burnen Lectures on 71rc rvhich exist between man and his Religion of the Semites,Friedrich Max envtronment. '!fle might call this approach the Mi1ller delivered the Gifford Lec'theory of meaning'. It is much more tures entilled Natural Religion. Miiller told how he became en- concerned with what religion does for tranced as a young man with the idea people norv, than wilh how religio! of translating the sacred texls of might have originated in the past- lt India, how his early work in lhe sees each man as one pattner rn'science of language' led him ro a volved in an exlensive series of co study ofmythology and linally ro 'rhe municalions with olhers, receiving science of religion'. Religion is rhat feedback from rhem and changing his mental state which'enables man to own oudook in the process. Thls apprehend the Infinite under differmodel of meaning further emphasizcs ent names', and the scienceof religthe dynamic nature of religion and cn ron rs llre attempt to retrace the religious experience.

Comparative linguistics