How one approaches the “study of religions” depends much on how one “defines” religion. Possibly ones “definition” of religion was determined by the way one had approached “the study of religion”. “Definitions” tell us a lot about the interests and orientations of the people who make them.
Different approaches mentioned below are taken from Chapter 2, “How is Religion Studied?” (Pp. 9-21), of Robert Crawford’s What is Religion? London and New York: Routledge, 2002. To this I have also added approaches mentioned in “Approaches to Religion” Chapter 2 (Pp. 6-27) of Richard E. Creel’s, Religion and Doubt: Toward a Faith of Your Own, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1977. For a more serious student I will suggest Walter H. Capps, Religious Studies: The Making of a Discipline, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Pp. xxiii+368.
1. Theological Approach - Theology explains and validates a particular “faith” justifying and promoting the religion that prompts that faith! Christian Theology, Hindu Theology, Islamic Theology, etc! (Not Buddhist Theology!) Theology produces creeds and confessions, and articles of faith and explicates further the creeds, confessions, and the articles of faith! It is possible to explore “other religions” from these particular theological perspectives! What is good about this? And what is bad about in this?
2. Historical Approach – This approach “relates what has happened and tries to interpret it.” It examines the literary and archaeological sources of a given religion. Other secondary sources are also considered but does not probe the truth or validity of religious claims. It adopts a scientific and objective approach that tends to treat the sacred books of the religions in the same way it would treat any other book often offending believers. You may want to read Fisher’s “Historical-Critical study of scriptures”, in LR, p. 20 as an example to this approach.
3. Philosophical Approach – This is a useful tool to understand and clarify “the truth or otherwise of belief statements” of religions. Philosophy can explore “a great variety of expression” religions use: “metaphor, simile, analogy, symbol, allegory”.
4. Psychological Approach – William James (1842-1910), Rudolf Otto (1869-1937), Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), and Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) are some scholars who used this approach. This approach to the study of religion accepts the role of emotions and other mental factors in the making and sustaining of religions. Some scholars treat the religious experience of humans as normal human experiences while others consider and explore the “extraordinary” of the trances, ecstasy and visions. This approach is useful to probe the “religious instinct” of masses and the “charisma” of the religious leader!
5. Sociological Approach – Emile Durkheim’s Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912) is a classic for this discipline. Max Weber, Karl Marx, Peter Berger and many others adopted this approach. Religion here is taken as social construct evolving from and fulfilling a human need. Sociologists explore the social structure and social function of religions.
6. Phenomenological Approach – In this approach the student is plainly “descriptive, looking at similarities and dissimilarities”; “free from value judgments”; shows empathy with the culture and beliefs”; “it walks in the moccasins of the faithful”; looks at the phenomenon of “religion x” from the perspective of the believer/practitioner to discern pattern and meaning. Phenomenological study does not examine the truth claims or validity of the “religion” examined or explored. In this sense it is neutral! You would notice Fisher advocating this approach in her LR, p. 13f.
7. Feminist Approach – This is fairly a new approach used quite a bit to interpret “religion” and “religious data” becoming aware of the patriarchal context in which “religious” teaching was done. Some of these studies bear fruit in areas such as translation of the scriptures, revisions of prayer books, etc and have promoted feminist interpretations to the bible. Please read Fisher’s “Women in Religions”, LR, p. 25ff.
8. Anthropological Approach – This approach involves studying religion in its cultural context and closer to the historical approach. It explores how a particular religion thrives in a particular culture.
9. Existential Approach – This approach is neither completely cerebral nor totally impersonal. “It is at one and the same time emotional and intellectual, subjective and objective”. Richard E. Creel, p. 26. Mary Pat Fisher in her Religion in the Twenty-First Century appears to suggest that her approach is one of existential.
10. Comparative Approach – Comparing of religions went on for thousands of years but Comparative Religion as an academic discipline was established in 19th century and attributed to Max Muller. Christian missionaries used this much, in whose hand Comparative Religion had more of an apologetic purpose than an informative one. Today scholars use this approach to communicate the diversity of forms in such categories as ritual, myth, sacrifice, symbolism, etc to be found in religions. Today comparisons and contrasts are done in a “non-judgmental” manner. Amanda Porterfield’s (The Power of Religion, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998) can be considered to fall into this category! Fisher says that this discipline “attempts to understand and compare religious patterns found around the world” (LR, p. 10) Please read the story of the “Descendants of the Eagle” in LR, p. 17 and compare it with the “Flood Story” in the Bible (Genesis, chapters 6 to 9). To read the biblical flood story you may go to http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Genesis
Question to Explore:
Look at the following two quotes and discuss the two different approaches they may suggest for the study of the religious phenomenon of the humanity. Among the two which will you prefer to adopt. Explain your answer.
- "He who knows one knows none” Max Muller (1823-1900).
- “Anyone who does not know this religion (Christianity), knows no religion, and anyone who knows Christianity, together with its history, knows all religion” Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930).
Different approaches mentioned below are taken from Chapter 2, “How is Religion Studied?” (Pp. 9-21), of Robert Crawford’s What is Religion? London and New York: Routledge, 2002. To this I have also added approaches mentioned in “Approaches to Religion” Chapter 2 (Pp. 6-27) of Richard E. Creel’s, Religion and Doubt: Toward a Faith of Your Own, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1977. For a more serious student I will suggest Walter H. Capps, Religious Studies: The Making of a Discipline, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Pp. xxiii+368.
1. Theological Approach - Theology explains and validates a particular “faith” justifying and promoting the religion that prompts that faith! Christian Theology, Hindu Theology, Islamic Theology, etc! (Not Buddhist Theology!) Theology produces creeds and confessions, and articles of faith and explicates further the creeds, confessions, and the articles of faith! It is possible to explore “other religions” from these particular theological perspectives! What is good about this? And what is bad about in this?
2. Historical Approach – This approach “relates what has happened and tries to interpret it.” It examines the literary and archaeological sources of a given religion. Other secondary sources are also considered but does not probe the truth or validity of religious claims. It adopts a scientific and objective approach that tends to treat the sacred books of the religions in the same way it would treat any other book often offending believers. You may want to read Fisher’s “Historical-Critical study of scriptures”, in LR, p. 20 as an example to this approach.
3. Philosophical Approach – This is a useful tool to understand and clarify “the truth or otherwise of belief statements” of religions. Philosophy can explore “a great variety of expression” religions use: “metaphor, simile, analogy, symbol, allegory”.
4. Psychological Approach – William James (1842-1910), Rudolf Otto (1869-1937), Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), and Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) are some scholars who used this approach. This approach to the study of religion accepts the role of emotions and other mental factors in the making and sustaining of religions. Some scholars treat the religious experience of humans as normal human experiences while others consider and explore the “extraordinary” of the trances, ecstasy and visions. This approach is useful to probe the “religious instinct” of masses and the “charisma” of the religious leader!
5. Sociological Approach – Emile Durkheim’s Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912) is a classic for this discipline. Max Weber, Karl Marx, Peter Berger and many others adopted this approach. Religion here is taken as social construct evolving from and fulfilling a human need. Sociologists explore the social structure and social function of religions.
6. Phenomenological Approach – In this approach the student is plainly “descriptive, looking at similarities and dissimilarities”; “free from value judgments”; shows empathy with the culture and beliefs”; “it walks in the moccasins of the faithful”; looks at the phenomenon of “religion x” from the perspective of the believer/practitioner to discern pattern and meaning. Phenomenological study does not examine the truth claims or validity of the “religion” examined or explored. In this sense it is neutral! You would notice Fisher advocating this approach in her LR, p. 13f.
7. Feminist Approach – This is fairly a new approach used quite a bit to interpret “religion” and “religious data” becoming aware of the patriarchal context in which “religious” teaching was done. Some of these studies bear fruit in areas such as translation of the scriptures, revisions of prayer books, etc and have promoted feminist interpretations to the bible. Please read Fisher’s “Women in Religions”, LR, p. 25ff.
8. Anthropological Approach – This approach involves studying religion in its cultural context and closer to the historical approach. It explores how a particular religion thrives in a particular culture.
9. Existential Approach – This approach is neither completely cerebral nor totally impersonal. “It is at one and the same time emotional and intellectual, subjective and objective”. Richard E. Creel, p. 26. Mary Pat Fisher in her Religion in the Twenty-First Century appears to suggest that her approach is one of existential.
10. Comparative Approach – Comparing of religions went on for thousands of years but Comparative Religion as an academic discipline was established in 19th century and attributed to Max Muller. Christian missionaries used this much, in whose hand Comparative Religion had more of an apologetic purpose than an informative one. Today scholars use this approach to communicate the diversity of forms in such categories as ritual, myth, sacrifice, symbolism, etc to be found in religions. Today comparisons and contrasts are done in a “non-judgmental” manner. Amanda Porterfield’s (The Power of Religion, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998) can be considered to fall into this category! Fisher says that this discipline “attempts to understand and compare religious patterns found around the world” (LR, p. 10) Please read the story of the “Descendants of the Eagle” in LR, p. 17 and compare it with the “Flood Story” in the Bible (Genesis, chapters 6 to 9). To read the biblical flood story you may go to http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Genesis
Question to Explore:
Look at the following two quotes and discuss the two different approaches they may suggest for the study of the religious phenomenon of the humanity. Among the two which will you prefer to adopt. Explain your answer.
- "He who knows one knows none” Max Muller (1823-1900).
- “Anyone who does not know this religion (Christianity), knows no religion, and anyone who knows Christianity, together with its history, knows all religion” Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930).
