Teaching the History of Religion

SASSUME that in this symposium we are concerned primarily with undergraduate instruction and shall speak entirely from this viewpoint. How shall the history of religion be taught best to undergraduates? I shall tell you at least how I do it, without pretending that it is the best way. I must start, I think, by stating the objectives I have before me in my teaching. This influences the way I go about it and the materials and helps I use. Negatively, I am not deliberately out to make Christians out of my students. Maybe I should be. I am not concerned to offer an apologia for Christianity in relation to other faiths or to demonstrate its superiority at all points. There may be, and I believe is, a place for this, but I do not think that place is a class in a cosmopolitan university where my students may include members of many denominations and none, and sometimes of differing ethnic faiths, Jewish, Chinese, Buddhist, Moslem. There is always a substantial Jewish group. I have no hesitation in telling my students what my own religious faith is. I am a Protestant, a Methodist, an ordained clergyman, but I do not regard my classroom as a proper place to propagandize for a particular faith, including my own. I wish this were more true of some of my ultracapitalist friends. When students ask direct questions involving my own beliefs, I state them freely, especially, as more often happens, when this is done in personal conference. A student has a right to know, and often it is just this which helps him make up his own mind about important religious questions. Positively, what objectives do I seek? Well, first of all there is a definite body of factual material which I want my students to have. There is an indispensable basis of fact upon which any understanding of the development of religion must rest. I suppose we differ among ourselves as to just how much detailed information should be required. I know of no absolute criteria by which we can decide the question. Certain experiences over the years have helped me to decide the question for myself. One was the experimentation from time to time with differing amounts of time allowed for a course. In general, I have found that when I lengthen the course so as to permit a much more detailed study of the religions the enrollment drops. When I shorten the period and thus of necessity have to limit more closely the detail into which I go in considering them, the enrollment increases. I find myself, then, practically required to make up my mind whether I want more students to get at least some knowledge of the field, or fewer students who will have a more detailed knowledge of it. Faced with the necessity of making this decision, I unhesitatingly choose the larger number of students. Why? Because I believe it is of the utmost importance to an understanding of our human culture that one study the history of religion. Quite apart from the religious values involved, and I think they are great, there are few, if any, courses-at least on my campus-which are so broadly cultural as the history of religion. There is no course which brings the student face to face with so many peoples around the world, or which lets him see those people as human beings like himself in their quest for meaning and value in existence. And, incidentally, the student gets not a little acquaintance not only with the religion but the social, economic and political life of these people. A course in the history of religion is the one course most likely, I think, to create an interest in other peoples and lead to a be* Professor of the History and Literature of Religion and Chairman of the Department at Northwestern University. His new book on modern cults under the title of These Also Believe is to be published by the Macmillan Company this spring.