michaelsen, cutting edges

7/27/2019 Michaelsen, Cutting Edges

1/13

!"##$%&'()&*+,"#-./0+12'3.4*/#'56'7$8-9*:+*%5."/8*2';."/%9:'.'K/*++5#94:*'N3P2'http://www.jstor.org/stable/1465438

,88*++*)2'QGRSARQSSB'DF2IJ

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of the

American Academy of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1465438?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1465438?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup


2/13

Journalof theAmericanAcademy f Religion.LIX/1

ESSAY

Cutting EdgesRobertS. Michaelsen

THE PURPOSEOF the AmericanAcademyof Religion,accordingtothe 1990 annual meeting program,is to foster "teaching, research,scholarshipand critical wareness bout the studyof religionas a human-istic field of learning"(AAR/SBL1990:18). The applicationfor mem-bership states that the purpose is to "stimulate scholarship, fosterresearch,andpromote earning n the subdisciplinesthatconstitutereli-gious studies as an academic discipline" (4). Much food for thoughtthere. Leaving aside possible probings about "religious studies,""humanistic ield,""subdisciplines,"and "academicdiscipline,"I wantto focus on: teaching, research, scholarship, learning, and "criticalawareness"-all within the context of "American,""Academy,"and"Religion."I begin with the last-religion. I understand he practiceof religionin the same way that Tip O'Neal understands he practiceof politics:It's all local. I also affirmthe corollary hat flows fromthis: Successinthe scholarlystudyof religionas in the practiceof politics requires hatyou stayclose to yourbase. In otherwords, I understand he scholarlystudy of religion to be significantlyconcerned with what some havecalled "religionon the ground."I also take it as elementary,however, that that study requiresthedevelopmentand use not only of tools and methods, but also of con-structsand theories thatwill lead to accuratedescription,criticalanaly-sis, and evenplausibleexplanation. I don'twantto call that"religion nRobertS. Michaelsen s Professorof ReligiousStudiesEmeritusat the Universityof California,SantaBarbara,SantaBarbara,CA 93106.

137


3/13

the air,"as contrastedwith "religionon the ground." ButI do want tosuggest that scholarship in religion can best be done both "on theground" and "from the air." (Note the prepositions.) That's whereacademy omes in.American understand o be more descriptiveof AARmembershipthan of orientation, venthoughthe marksof our environmentareheavyupon us. There is some reason to rejoice,however,at increasingevi-dence of transcendenceof nationalparochialism.I take as my texts two recentlypublishedbooks: Omer Call Stew-art'sPeyoteReligion:A Historyand James Samuel Preuss'sExplainingReligion:Criticismnd TheoryromBodin o Freud. These two exemplifywhat I understand o be necessaryto the systematic,scholarly studyofreligion.Stewart'swork significantlyrounds out studies of peyotism in thiscountry. It is impressive n its thoroughness.Basedon more thana halfcenturyof first-handstudy as well as familiaritywith the considerableliteratureon the subject, Stewartamply documents and convincinglyportrays he role that peyotismhas playedas a unifyingand stabilizinginfluence in Indian life. (It is regrettable hat SupremeCourtJusticeScaliaand his co-conspiratorswere not exposed to it or did not take itsmessage seriouslybefore they decided that the criminalizingof peyoteuse in a service of the NativeAmericanChurchdoes not violate the freeexercise clause of the First Amendment[Employmentivisionv. Smith,110 S.Ct. 1595, 1990].)

Stewart'sworkis a model studyof an importantAmericanreligiousmovement. I cite thatwork, however,not only as a model but also forthe author'sprofessed ack of interest n theory.He makesit quiteclearthat he is concernedonly with "religionon the ground." His fifty-pagebibliography, tself worth the price of the book, includes only two orthree references o worksconcernedwith such general subjectsas nativ-ism or new religions. "[M]y onsiderationof peyotism,"he writesin thePreface, "rests primarilyon ethnographicinterviews and participantobservationsand not on theories"(xiii). Who needs theories? There issomethingadmirableaboutStewart'sattachment o his data and his sin-gle-minded commitment to description. His book exemplifies onemeaningof the word"monograph."It's like a first-class etter n a plainenvelope. (Since I've retiredI seem to be receivingmore second classmail. It has occurredto me that in an effort to stay afloatMedicare sselling addresses. In any case, I am inundatedwith smiling seniors,curesfor irregularity, nd sure-fireoffers of immortality.All verygloss-ily packagedbut all frothand no substance.)

Journalof the AmericanAcademyof Religion38


4/13

139If Stewart is a first-class letter, Preuss is an urgent electronicmessage: Understandingnd explanation equiremore than description,however full that descriptionmay be. If we are to develop "criticalawareness,"we must move fromthe particular o the general,or, moreaccurately, ee the particularboth in its own and a largercontext. SamPreussreminds us that the scholarlystudyof religion is rooted in thecriticism of religion,an attemptto look at the subjectfrom a distance,from outside it, from anotherperspective. The earlycritics,aware of avarietyof particular eligions,raised the question,which is true? Subse-quentcritics moved from a questfor the truereligionto explainingreli-gion within a naturalisticor scientificframework. Preussunderlinestheimportanceof this historyto ourenterprise oday. "What,"he asks, "isthe fittestway to studyreligion? What are the most significantsortsofquestionsto be tackled? The stakesareenormous,"he correctlypointsout, "becausebasic decisions are involvedabout how the next genera-tion of scholar-teachers ughtto be trained" xix). I would addthattheway these questions are answeredwill decisively determinethe well-being if not the very survivalof the scholarly study of religion in theacademy. Who needs theories? We do. Carefully onsidered, estedfor

plausibility,employedwithout reservation-other than that they makesense. Religionand the studyof religion,Preussargues n advancinghisown answers,enjoyor shouldenjoyno privilegedstatus n the academy.Jim Wigginsreached me last springin the El Rancho Moteloutsideof Sacramentowith his requestthatI tryto see some order n the chaosof the AARannualmeetingprogram. (I hasten to add thatI was at theEl Ranchoenjoyinga couple of days with my grandchildren-anotherkind of chaos.) I was flatteredand honored to be asked to follow myfriend and one-time colleague, the distinguished"inaugural ecturer,"JonathanZ. Smith, in undertaking his cosmic task. (Read "cosmic,"not "comic,"although he lattermightalso be appropriate.)AfterI readJonathan's admirable statement on "Connections," delivered inAnaheim last year, I wasn't sure there was anythingmore to be said."Connections II?" Followed by "ConnectionsIII," etc. From some-where in the recesses of my brain came that overusedcliche, "cuttingedges." Why not? It is a metaphorwith a varietyof possible uses:"Ragged edges?" "Thin edge?" "Overthe edge?" "Edgedout?" A"cuttingedge" must be sharp. Further, o have a "cuttingedge" theremust be a center. PerhapsJonathanprovidedthat center last year? Butto giveyou some idea of "where I'm comingfrom" n this regardI havebrieflystatedmy view in the prolegomenonto these remarks.And to give you some idea of where I'm going;I regardas "cutting

Michaelsen:utting dges


5/13

edges": 1) expandingattentionto "religionon the ground";2) moreconcentration on theory, doing religious studies from the air, so tospeak;3) the rediscoveryof the undergraduatend the studyof religionin the generalcurriculumof college and university;and 4) increasingfocus on the Academy'spublic responsibilityand role.In preparationorthis speech I perusedannualmeetingprogramsofthe Academysince the late 1960s. The predominant mpressionis thatwe have becomemore and morelike the DemocraticParty-a collectionof interestgroupsstrungtogetheron a slender thread.A second impression is that our roots in theologicaland biblicalstudies are still clearlyevident. As we have continuedtojoin forceswiththe SBL he amountof attention o biblical studies as such has declined.(The section on BiblicalLiteraturewas droppedin the early'80s.) Butthe interest n theologyand theologicalthemes is impressivelypervasive.The Theologyand ReligiousReflectionsectionhas continuedas a hardyperennialsince its creationout of the Philosophyof Religionand Theol-ogy section in 1979. Perhapsthe Nineteenth-CenturyTheologyGrouptakes the prize for longevity. (Will it be succeededor augmentedby atwentieth-centurytheology group?) Other theological foci include:Scandinavian,Evangelical,Liberation,and, from early in our history,Radical Theology;Theology and Process, Currentsin ContemporaryChistology,Theologyof Catastrophe,Theologyand Science, Theologyand the PhenomenologicalMovement. In addition there are variousgroups, seminars, etc. on individual theologians such as Bonhoeffer,Rahner,and Tillich.A session in 1980 on "DoingTheologyin the University"called tomind a nationalconference at the Universityof Michigantwo decadesearlier at which serious doubts were expressed by scholars about thelegitimacyof doing theologyat all in the university. Is doing theologynow a "cuttingedge"in the university?Hasthatmarginalization f the-ologyin the academy,which began in this countryalmosttwo centuriesago,been significantly eversed n our time? Clearly heologicalsystemsareamongthe data of religiousstudies and relatedfields. Has God alsobecome a datumfor study,analysis,explanation?Or is theologymoreakin to poetry,dramaand othercreativeartsthanto the analyticaldisci-

plines of the sciences? Does the constructiveor creative heologian, ikethe artist,havethe capacity o perceiveshadows,"thepowerto see whatother people do not see, to jump to conclusions and to be right?"(Davies: 8).Is doing theology in the universitya "cuttingedge"? One wouldsupposethatthatdependson what kindof theologyand who is doingit.

140 Journalof the AmericanAcademyof Religion


6/13


7/13

on theology and/or philosophy and theology, two of which presenteddistinctivelyEuropeanperspectives,and two of a programmatic ature.The geographic nclusiveness was impressive: all continentsexceptingAustraliaand Antarctica.Hence,while we areAmericans nd while ele-ments of tribalismsurviveamong us, our rangeof vision has extendedwell beyond NorthAmerica,and our focussedenergieshave tended totranscenda confining regionalism.The recentawardsfor Excellencein ReligiousStudies,given annu-ally to books deemedpathbreakingn the field, also reflect the breadthof the Academy's nterest: FourTheoriesfMyth n the Twentieth entury(Strenski);ParadigmsndRevolutionsGutting);TheFirstUrbanChristians(Meeks);Altarity Taylor);ProtestantThoughtn the NineteenthCentury(Welch); Models of God: Theologyor an Ecological,Nuclear Age(McFague); t.Jerome n the RenaissanceRice);Zen and WesternThought(Abe);Rediscoveringaul: Philemon nd the Sociology f Paul'sNarrativeWorldPedersen);Salvation ndSuicide:AnInterpretationfJimJones,thePeople'sTemple, ndJonestownChidester);Defenders f God: TheFunda-mentalistRevolt gainst heModemAge (Lawrence);andBreakinghe Fall:ReligiousReading f Contemporaryiction Detweiler).

Parallel with the broadening scope in subject-fociis a welcomeincrease in the diversityof religious,ethnic, and generalrepresentationin the membershipand leadershipof the Academy.So there is great variety. And why not "let a hundred flowersbloom" or, as a more recent sage put it, "a thousandpoints of lightshine?" Come one, come all. Who is to say what belongs other thanthe individuals who have an interest in belonging-and the ProgramCommittee? (One who wishes to study trendswith real thoroughnessshould get into the minutes of thatgroup.)"Cutting dges"? 1. Why not make a virtueof ourvariety hen? Itsuggests that increasinglight is being shed on the local, that we arelearningmore and more about "religionon the ground." This is ourprimaryraisond'etre.2. But what, other than an expandingpluralism,is our commonbond? We do paylip serviceto some connecting inks, such as compar-ative, cross-cultural,and interdisciplinary tudies;yet these areas havenot flourished.Two decades ago ClaudeWelch discerned an identity risisamongus. Splitpersonality uts it more bluntly. JonathanSmith spoke aboutour "bilocality," epresenting eminaryand university,and the resultant"duality"n the Academy(1990:3).Yet the bifurcationis not just due to our different localities. It

142 Joumal of the AmericanAcademyof Religion


8/13

springs romourpropensity,whereverwe are,to be protective f thesanctities.We wantto be scholarly; e wantto be analytical; e wanttobe critical;wewant obe integralotheacademy.Yetwe continueosee or want to see the sacredas given,the heartof the subjectas off-limits o theordinarymethods f scholarlynquiry. Seethe debate verreligionas "suigeneris.")We wantto assume hatto understandeli-gionor a religion oumustget inside or be an insider.Itis encouragingonote thateventhoughattentionotheorys not abig sellerin the Academy, ome devotedsouls areengagedn livelydebateof thesekindsof issues. Theoryorcesor canforceorderon adisparateield. It canhelpsensitizeus to how muchor howlittlewereallyknowaboutreligion.Onehopes,then,formoresystematictten-tionto thekindsof issuesdealtwithbyPreussn hisExplainingeligion,by JonathanSmith n Imaginingeligion,ndby otherssuch as IvanStrenski,DonaldWiebe,and HansPenner.Using hedevelopmentf linguisticssamodel,Penner tates onfi-dently hata similar cienceof religions "apossibilitybut]hasyettobe constructed.Thefirstchallenges to presenta well-formedheorywhichwill defineanddescribeheobjectof religion .. Thegoal . . .wouldbe nothingshort of a theoretical escription f the universalstructuref religion"174-175). I'd iketosharePenner'sonfidence;hopehe is right.Buta caveator two: R.A.Jonesskillfully ointsoutthattheory,ikehistory, anbe but"'abagof trickswe playuponthedead'"(137;citedbyStrenski:5).Or,tochange hemetaphor,heoristscan be engagedn a floatingcrapgamewhichseldomdocks. To beadequate,heorymust be tied to context. It must be related o suchdimensionsas the historical,he phenomenological,he sociological,

and thepsychological.Or,to use anotherieldof scientificnquiry sadistantmodel: The"hunches" f thetheoreticalhysicistsmustbe putto the testin thelaboratoriesf theexperimentalists.3. I amdelightedwiththerediscoveryf theundergraduate.hemembers f the TaskForceon Studyn Depth n Religion-TheUnder-graduateMajorwillbringa reportouseatthismeeting.Copiesoftheirwritten eport,LiberalearningndTheReligionMajor, avebeendistrib-uted to themembership. ncisive,perceptive,ndcomprehensive,t iswellworthreading.As a prologueo theirconsiderationf theunder-graduatemajor heCommittee icelydescribeswhat s involvedn thestudyof religion n depth. References madethere o "cross-cultural"and"interdisciplinary"tudies n religion,"withoutectarianias,"andto the "experimentaluoyancy"which"hascontinued o enliventheacademic tudyof religion" Crites:3,4). Some forms of buoyancy

Michaelsen:CuttingEdges 143


9/13

involve air;but clearlythe Committeehad in mind that kind of excite-mentwhich can be elicitedby a lively studyof "religionon the ground."That attractsundergraduates.While discerningincreasingmaturity nthe field, the Committee also, in a statement reminiscent of Preuss'monition, underlines as "the most serious problem" the "disparitybetween the undergraduateDepartmentof Religion and most of theavailablegraduateprograms hattrain ts faculty" (5). One notes atten-tion to thatchallengingconcernin a generalsession in the 1986 annualmeetingand in the NEHSanta BarbaraColloquy(see Norman and Lar-son.) Finally,many an undergraduatewill be pleased to learn that inaddition to being one way of "joiningthe human race" the study ofreligioncan also be fun! (17) And that's no joke. Unless the subject staughtwell it cannot compete in a budget race where it is clearlyanunderdog. Rigoris in, but it's rigorvitalis, not rigormortis.4. My fourthedge involves evidence of increasingconcern aboutthe public role and responsibilityof the Academyand the profession-"Committinghe Studyof Religionin Public,"as MartinMartyput it inhis presidentialaddress two yearsago. Althoughit may seem obvious,this is a dauntingtask. Most of us in academiccommunitiestend topreferthe relative solation affordedby such communities to the hurly-burlyof the public arena. Even if we wish to break out of that isolationwe may not be sure how to go about it. And when we have exposedourselves, so to speak, we may be surprisedat how few people takenotice. Ours is but a side show which is not even granteda place underthe big top. What,e.g., havewe contributed o a betterunderstanding fthe intimate nvolvementof religion n affairsof the PersianGulfandtheNear Eastgenerally?On anotherpublic front,while Academyinterest in religionin thepublic schools has been sporadic,it has increasedin recentyears-asseen, e.g., in the work of the Committeeon Educationand the StudyofReligionand in general sessions on the subjectat the last two annualmeetings. It is an importantand difficultarea n which there is no quickfix. This was broughthome to me forcefullyduringthis past yearwhenI served on one of the instructionalmaterialsevaluationpanels of theCaliforniaStateBoardof Education. Itwas ourjob to examinematerials

which had been submittedto the Board of Educationby publishersinresponse to the Board'sHistory-SocialScienceFrameworkor CalifomiaPublicSchools,adoptedby the Board in 1987. The Frameworkets thepattern orwhatneeds to be includedin textsif theyare to receiveBoardapproval. This History-SocialScienceFrameworks a remarkablynclu-sive document and one that is especially noteworthyin this context

144 Journalof the AmericanAcademyof Religion


10/13

because of its specificationhat adequateattentionbe given to theimportancef religionn historyand culture.My particular ask involved examination of instructionalmaterialsforworldhistorycourses in gradessix and seven. The materialswhichwe recommended or adoptioninclude attention to the beginningsandsubsequentdevelopmentof such majorhistoricalreligionsas Buddhism,Christianity,Hinduism,Islam andJudaism,as well as to the religionsofancient Aryan civilization, China, Egypt, Greece, Israel, Sumer, andRome,religionin Byzantium,amongthe Aztecs, Incas,and Mayans, nthe OttomanEmpire, n medievaland modem Japan,and in the Refor-mationand the Renaissance see Armento,et al.). No lack of attentionhere to "religionon the ground."The Californiaadoptionprocess has stirredup much debate. Sev-eral interestgroupshave protestedthat the materialsare inadequateorjustplainwrongin some of theirentries. FundamentalistChristiansandrepresentatives f some Jewish and Muslimgroupshave criticizedvari-ous treatmentsof religionin the texts. SomeJews have arguedthatthesixth-grade ext is more criticalof Judaismthan of Christianity nd thatit tends in places to depictJudaismas primarilypreparatoryo Christi-anity. Muslimshaveexpressedconcern aboutthe treatmentof the rootsof Islam in the seventh-grade ext and some have even suggestedthatonly a Muslim authorcould write an accurate account. Some Black,Chicano,Asian,and NativeAmericancriticshave argued hatthe booksare too Eurocentric,and some of them go on to assertthat a commoncultureis neither possible nor desirable. To which argumentthe LosAngeles Timesresponded: "Oh,really? In a stateas diverse as Califor-nia, some commonculturehadbetterbe possible or we'reall lost." (10-

11-90:B6).What has the Academyto say about such issues? Clearlywe canunderline and reinforce he importanceof knowledgeof detail,of accu-racy in description. But can we be an arbitratorbetween competinginterests?And what aboutcommonground?NormanLearwas sketch-ing some kind of common groundwhen, in his speech to the annualmeeting in 1989, he dramaticallyportrayeda "typicalAmerican"whopoignantlywondered where all the values had gone. Lear advocatesteaching about the core values that bind our society togetherwhileavoiding stress on those attitudes and beliefs which separateus (seeMichaelson). There'spunch in such an approach,but is it oursto give?Or can we, while urging accuracy n their treatment,only point at andpossiblycelebrate he differencesamonggroups? Do we havesome roleas informed critics? And if so, what?

Michaelsen:CuttingEdges 145


11/13

146 Journal f theAmerican cademyf ReligionCanwe, in keepingwith the hopefulprojectionof Hans Pennerandothers,developascienceofreligion?Are we or canwe become a commu-nity of scholarsand scholarshipthat can offer a perspectiveon the aca-demic study of religion that might gain increasing acceptance? Thatadvances the importanceof knowledge to understanding,that offersaccurate description and critical awareness? That can provide anArchimedianplatformor point that is less and more than the ultimate,the sacred?Drawinguponherresearchon conversationalstyle,linguistDeborahTannen has written a best-seller which apparently helps men andwomen understandbetterwhy theyhave difficultycommunicatingwith

each other. It's a problemthathas bedeviled human relationssince theexpulsion of the originalmale and female from the Garden,an expul-sion which resulted,no doubt, from a misunderstanding!Will one ofour own scientists of religion one day achieve a similarbreakthroughwhich will help increase our understandingof why people of differingreligiousorientations o disagreewith or misunderstand ach other thatthey seek to destroyeach other? It's a naive question perhaps. But Iwould regardsuch a breakthroughas both a possibility and a cuttingedge.

REFERENCESAAR/SBL AnnualMeeting rograms1969-1990

Abe, Masao Zen and WesternThought,Honolulu: Universityof Ha-1985 waii PressAnonymous Editorial,LosAngelesTimesOct. 11: B6.1990

Armento,BeverlyJ., A MessageofAncientDaysandAcross he Centuries,Bos-et al. ton: HoughtonMifflinCo.1991

Chidester,David Salvation ndSuicide:An InterpretationfJimJones,The1988 PeoplesTemple,andJonestown,Bloomington: IndianaUniversityPress.

Journal f theAmericancademyf Religion46


12/13

Michaelsen:utting dges 147Crites,Stephen,scribe1990

Davies, Robertson1990Detweiler,Robert1989Gutting,Gary,ed.1980

LiberalLearning nd theReligionMajor A Report o theProfession,AmericanAcademyof Religion.

"Literature nd MoralPurpose."FirstThings.A MonthlyJournalof Religious ndPublicLifeNovember: 15-23.Breakinghe Fall: ReligiousReadings f Contemporaryic-tion. Basingstroke:MacMillan.Paradigmsnd Revolutions: ppraisalsndApplicationsfThomasKuhn'sPhilosophyfScience. Notre Dame: Uni-versityof Notre Dame Press.

Harvey,Van "Reflectionson the Teachingof Religionin America."1970 Journalof theAmericanAcademy f Religion 8: 17-29.History-SocialScience CurriculumFrameworkandCriteriaCommittee,

CaliforniaStateBoardof Education,1988

History-Social cienceFrameworkfor CaliforniaPublicSchools,KindergartenhroughGradeTwelve.Sacramen-to: CaliforniaStateDepartmentof Education.

Jones, R.A. "On Merton's'History'and 'Systematics'of Sociologi-1983 cal Theory." In Functions nd UsesofDisciplinary isto-ries. Ed.by L. Graham,W. Lepenies,and P. Weingart.Dordrecht:Reidel.Larson,GeraldJ.,Norman,Ralph,etal.1988

Lawrence,BruceB.1989Marty,MartinE.

1989McFague,Sallie1987

"The Santa BarbaraColloquy: Religion within theLimits of Reason Alone." Soundings:An Interdiscipli-nary ournalLXXI:2-3.

TheFundamentalist evoltAgainst he ModemAge. NewYork: Harper& Row."Committing he Studyof Religionin Public."Journalof theAmericanAcademy f ReligionLVII 1:1-22.Modelsof God: Theologyor an Ecological,NuclearAge.Philadelphia: FortressPress.

Michaelsen:utting dges 147


13/13

148 Journal f theAmericancademyf ReligionMeeks,Wayne TheFirstUrbanChristians:TheSocialWorld f theApos-1983 tle Paul. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.

Michaelson,Judith "Diviningthe New Lear." LosAngelesTimes/Calendar:1990 "Television,"Dec. 2: 3.Neville, RobertC. "TheDepths of God."Journalof theAmericanAcademy1988 of ReligionLVI/1: 1-24.Pedersen,Norman Rediscoveringaul: Philemon nd the Sociology f Paul'sR. NarrativeWorld.Philadelphia:FortressPress.1985

Penner,Hans "Criticismand the Developmentof a Science of Reli-1986 gion." Studiesn Religion15/2: 165-175.Preuss,J. Samuel ExplainingReligion:Criticism nd Theoryrom Bodin to1987 Freud. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.

Rice, EugeneF., Jr. SaintJerome n the Renaissance.Baltimore:The Johns1985 Hopkins UniversityPress.Smith,JonathanZ. ImaginingReligion:FromBabylonoJonestown.Chicago:1982 The Universityof ChicagoPress.1990 "Connections."Journalof theAmericanAcademy fReli-gion LVIII/1:1-15.Stewart,OmerCall PeyoteReligion:A History.Norman: The Universityof1987 OklahomaPress.

Strenski,Ivan FourTheories fMyth n TwentiethCenturyHistory:Cas-1987 sirer, Eliade, Levi-Strauss nd Malinowski. Iowa City:The Universityof Iowa Press.Tannen,Deborah YouJust Don't Understand:Talk BetweenSexes. New1990 York: Morrow.

TaylorMarkC. Altarity.Chicago: The Universityof ChicagoPress.1987Welch, Claude ProtestantThoughtn the NineteenthCentury, I. New1988 Haven: Yale UniversityPress.Wiebe, Donald "The Failureof Nerve in the AcademicStudyof Reli-1984 gion." Studies n Religion13:401-422.

michaelsen, cutting edges

Documents