THE SOCIAL APPROACH TO RELIGION AS A METHOD OF COLLEGE TEACHING' EDWIN E. AUBREY This article describes an approach to the undergraduate study of religion, using the technique of sociological analysis. Current religious problems, raised by the students, are analyzed in terms of their history and the social-psychological factors involved in them as social phenomena. The organization and conduct of the course and some of the results obtained are here reported. INTRODUCTION This paper is not intended to be a pronouncement upon the sociological approach to the study of religion. It is rather a description of a project in teaching undergraduates how to think about the problems of religion. Being a new experiment so far as the speaker is concerned, it is here described not for the results achieved, but rather for the possible value of its method. I It will help to make my project clearer if I indicate its lifehistory from its conception to its present infant condition. Some years ago I entered a graduate theological seminary of the modern type and found myself dissatisfied (thanks to the critical attitude of my instructors themselves) with the lack of foundation for the programs of religious education current in the field. Study in the psychology of religion led on to further study in social psychology in which the graduate department of sociology was particularly strong. Slowly the idea took shape that more satisfactory results could be obtained by taking good fundamental courses in religion and sociology respectively and making my own synthesis. For a time I con 1A paper read at the Seventh Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biblical Instructors (Mid-West Section) Chicago, Illinois, June 29, 1925. centrated on sociology in an attempt to acquire a technique for analyzing social phenomena; and then sought to apply the social psychological laws to religion as a social process. The tracing of the "life-history” of given phenomena was to furnish the data for compiling the factors of social causation, so that certain principles might be determined upon as tools for further analysis: this was the approach developed. A year passed, during which traditional courses in college instruction left me, as teacher, no chance to apply this technique in the classroom. Then, called to teach in a department of sociology in a state university, I decided to try the experiment which I had been planning. Three considerations led me to select contemporary religion as a social problem. The first was a practical consideration: I was to teach in a state university where an organized department of religion was not feasible, but where I might deal with religion as a sociological phenomenon. The second consideration was my desire to stimulate in the thinking of my students upon religion an attitude of careful research rather than dogmatic finality. To supplant pious prejudice by scholarly investigation was my aim toward the objective of a more intelligent outlook on religion. A third consideration was prominent in the enterprise. This was a sense of the need of studying religion as a significant complex of social phenomena which a comprehensive sociology cannot afford to evade. This should be stressed because so many reputable sociologists have either scorned or feared to deal with the phenomena of religion. No study of society can be adequate which evades its obligation to face frankly the problems of religion as a social process. I therefore feel absolutely no need of apology to the sociologist for incorporating in a department of sociology such a project as I am about to describe. Let us first state the project itself as succinctly as possible: It is an advanced course in sociology entitled Religion as a Social Process, open only to upperclassmen, and designed to prepare undergraduate students for a more thorough and comprehensive approach to the study of current religious problems. Traditional studies in religion have been largely intellectualistic, as though the theologians had made religious history. A closer study of current religious conditions shows that doctrinal and ecclesiastical considerations play only a secondary part, and that we need a more comprehensive study of the social matrices out of which religious phenomena are born. In other words, the approach of this course seeks a more complete study in social causation. Three steps are involved: (1) To trace the historical data (the life-history) of a given religious phenomenon, such as the sect; (2) To analyze these data into factors of social causation, as the rise and growth of sects; (3) To formulate certain tentative principles for treatment of the problem, or a psychology of sectarianism. As you now see, this is primarily a course in method. Because of the multiplicity of religious phenomena which are open to this treatment, my hope is that this will eventually become a department comparable to those of Bible and religious education. But it must grow, and for the present we have in one course a large undivided area of phenomena studied by this method. This leads me to indicate some of the problems and the procedure of the project. II The project is limited by a number of initial handicaps. In the first place, bibliography is meager for the reason given, that religious history has been written mainly from the doctrinal or else the "great man" approach. Few books-fortunately an increasing number, among which Case's Evolution of Early Christianity was a pioneer-have made available the facts needed. The leader of men is followed only because he either formulates or executes or embodies the wishes of the group. Consequently, Pauline propagation of Christianity, papal growth under Leo, Luther's reform movement, or Whit field's revival, not to mention the rôle of the Old Testament prophets or the leadership of a Baha Ullah, cannot be adequately understood without certain facts about the social conditions they met and the popular needs they filled. Further, the class was handicapped by the lack of library texts on religion. This was to be expected in a state university, which had, to be sure, many good old books of Presbyterian sermons and doctrinal debates dating back to the middle of the last century, when the institution was for a period under denominational administration. Thanks to the sympathetic attitude of the present administration, the religious library is being generously increased. A third handicap lay in the lack of preparation among the students, who are all undergraduates, without research tools or an appreciation of research study. They often strained at the leash which held them to an investigation of beginnings and wanted to settle current issues without so much waste of time on the past! Finally, the course, being in the department of sociology, had to delimit its field so as to avoid, so far as possible, poaching on the preserves of the philosopher and historian. The delimiting factor was the method, and this had to be stressed continually in the classroom; especially when metaphysical solutions were demanded. Such seekers after ultimate proof were always referred to the department of philosophy for answer! Since method was the raison d'être of the course, the procedure was of prime importance. Here three important changes were made this year from the previous year. The first demanded a prerequisite of introductory sociology. The second had to do with the selection of the problems. On the first day, after a statement as to the nature and purpose of the course, an assignment was made requiring each student to bring in to the next class meeting the two problems in religion which he or she considered of paramount importance today. This gave a clue to the interests of the various students, and these problems were, according to previous agreement, made the syllabus of the course. Because of overlapping they were classified and organized. You may be interested to know the topics that were presented for class discussion: God, immortality, the possibility of a world religion, missions, sects, the use of the Bible, the dispensability of religion in a scientific world. The topical problems were so worded as to include the various questions raised, and the class was asked to select the problems each wanted to investigate intensively. This done, papers were assigned accordingly, to be read later in leadership of the class discussion. Weekly conferences with the instructor insured prevention of fruitless study. In order to secure a working basis for all the studies we next embarked upon the study of religious origins, but the class soon revolted against this and demanded a tentative definition of religion. Five or six sessions were accordingly devoted to clearing the air. This proved a most liberalizing experience to the class, composed as it was of two avowed atheists, two agnostics, two fundamentalists, a Methodist minister, a Jewess, and several girls who were on the fence! With the guiding hypothesis that religion was composed of some emotional reaction to one's world, some intellectual formulation of this experience, and some program of social behavior to promote this experience, the class proceeded! After some time filled in by my talks on the sociological bases of Scripture, the papers were due, and the writers presented to the class their factual findings, which were often strenuously discussed pro and con, and the facts sifted out from the opinions. Following each paper an effort was made to draw together the social psychological principles which might be tentatively set down. This completed the first semester's work, but the same students followed through, in practically all cases, on the same problems during the next semester. For instance, the girl who studied the general back |