Religion and Religious Studies: WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

The Problem with Classification
Each of the readings this week contributed to the discussion of categorization and raised several significant problems with the way we understand the term “religion” and “world religions”. In van Voorst’s article Eastern Scripture among the World’s Religions, he makes an attempt to define scripture by listing several similarities and differences between different Asian traditions. He is not interested in a single blanket term rather he understands the need for a multivalent definition, if one is needed at all. He understands that the way we approach scripture, specifically eastern scripture is heavily influenced by our predecessors. His brief history mentioned at the beginning of his chapter (van Voorst, 2) surveys the past 150 years of scholarly study of “world religions”. He explains that it is was this period that was highly influential in shaping the way we read Asian scriptures today. It was this period that defined the way we talk about and classify different “religions” of the world. In Masuzawa’s book she expands further upon how history has influenced modern discussions on religion by using the example of classifications in religion textbooks, which always seem to contain the “great” religions of the world (Masuzawa, 2). She argues that these sorts of classifications are often a reflection of our distinction of East versus West. This is but one way to classify. Another way in which this classification manifests is in the discussion of “theirs” and “ours” (Smith, 276). The ways in which we categorize religions, I think, stem from our understanding of the term “religion”.

The Problem with “Religion”
The problem with religion and especially world religions is one of terminology. Jonathan Smith points out that religion is a term that is “a category imposed from the outside on some aspect of native culture” (Smith, 269). The accuracy of the term “religion” and the legacy it (almost unknowingly) brings has a long history. Smith argues that after the 16th century we can begin to see the development of the term “religion” being used to shape contemporary thinking. However there are certain ideas (such as “us” versus “them”) have been around much longer. The discussion that we touched upon last week in class about the classification of “primitive” or “natural” was a development which stemmed from the 19th century anthropological approach whereby religions were sought to fit into a sort of ethnic stage of development (Smith, 277).

At the end of Smith’s article he writes: “Religion is not a native term; it is a term created by scholars for their intellectual purposes and therefore is theirs to define” (Smith, 281). While I agree that there is a problem with our classification systems of religions and that they are filled with biases and assumptions, is it really only up to intellectuals to define? I don’t think that such pervasive word could ever be left simply for scholars and academics to define. The term is loaded with meaning and history that cannot be reduced to a single definition nor left in the hands of a few intellectuals to define.

Where Do I Fit Into the discussion of “Religion”?
“Surely, our thorough lack of interest in [nineteenth century Europeans] logic is ultimately to the detriment of our own historical understanding”

This sentence really struck me. Masuzawa really hit the point when she wrote about how most people today would scoff at the ways in which the thinkers of the nineteenth century understood the world and the religions of the world. I agree that to scoff and dismiss their approach would ultimately be to our detriment. If we think that we are beyond reproach and that our methods are “objective” all the while using the nineteenth century thinkers as our point of comparison we will not so much as learn from them rather we will distinguish ourselves as superior in our knowledge and not learn from our past. I think that it is very important to look at the past and the ways in which religions were studies because it can help us find where some of our biases and preconceived assumptions are and where they have stemmed from. By disengaging ourselves from the past we are essentially cutting ourselves off from a part of the history that has shaped our fields of study and thus limit the understanding we can gain through its study.

My studies will be taking me into the field of Biblical interpretation and the history of the Bible in the Second Temple period. I have learned that my field has been strongly influenced by criticism, specifically the historical-critical method. This has been a dominant trend in biblical studies that emerged in the 19th century. I think that by knowing the main methodologies that have characterized my field I can better get a sense for where my research fits in and how I can use different approaches to access my information. Moreover, the best way for me to fit into the discussion about “religion” is to acknowledge the past and seek to understand how these have had an affect on my assumptions that I bring to my studies.