Policy and Guidelines for Discussing Religion in the Online History Classroom
"[Some] will see me as just another liberal professor trying to cajole them out of some of their convictions, and they are dead right about that - that's what I am, and that's exactly what I am trying to do." - Daniel Dennett, "Breaking the Spell", 2006, p. 53.
While that remark from Dennett does not exactly reflect my teaching goals, it does speak to the tension in the classroom caused by approaching religion and other "hot" topics with the cold tools of scientific inquiry. Living openly with that tension instead of dancing around it will be percieved as an attempt to "witness" or "de-witness."
One of the most rewarding pursuits in the study of history is asking hard questions about institutions and traditions that areusually subject to reverence in everyday life: religions, nation states, family institutions, etc. In our daily lives and in our popular culture, religion is sometimes ignored. Sometimes its institutions are mocked. Sometimes it is the focus of great admiration. Sometimes it is central to our lives. It is rarely, however, analyzed and questioned. But as historians, that is our job. Religion has played a major role in shaping the course of history. We cannot take a "safe" path around the historical origins and roles of religions. But even while we take the "dangerous" route and discuss religion directly and openly, we must remember that religious history is important precisely because of its current relevance. The ideas and traditions we are discussing are alive today in the hearts and minds of many of us. Thus I would encourage open and scholarly discussion, but not at the expense of others in the discussion. The discussion will be interesting precisely because we come to it from a variety of perspectives.
The internet lends itself very well to heated debates which get nasty very quickly. Remember, we are in a university classroom, even if you're sitting at home in your bathrobe (with an open bottle of beer on your desk?). And remember you are not hiding behind an anonymous screen name! So keep it civil and scholarly.
Personal beliefs or lack thereof can be mentioned or hidden at each participant's discretion. That will depend on whether you feel like mentioning it or whether you feel it is relevant to a point you are making. Personal beliefs and "unbeliefs" may not be attacked, however. Some tension is not to be avoided, of course, since what constitutes an "attack" is unclear. For example, the very foundation of the historical study of religion - the very idea of religion originating in history, and not the other way around - is already a profoundly unholy idea for some. But by sticking to historical issues and demonstrable claims and ideas, we can keep that tension to a minimum.
Now, how might scholarly discussion about religion in history but not about the religious views of others in the classroom look? There is usually no problem, but here are some tips:
- Discuss ideas and facts, not personalities: If you attack something, make it that something and not the person defending it. Don't personalize the discussion.
- Secularize/historicize vocabulary: By this I mean to differentiate between theological and historical terminology. Examples: Say, "Jesus Christ" when referring specifically to his role in the religion as "Christ", but refer to "Jesus of Nazareth" if you are talking about the historical person. Say, "early Christian writings" instead "the Scriptures" (they are not everyone's holy text).
- Precision: An extension of that last idea is to be specific. Say we are talking about Christian attitudes toward women. Now, if we are talking about any time after about the fourth century, you can say, "the Bible." But even later, and always when dealing with earlier periods, it is better to be specific about which text you mean. So don't say, "The Bible says that women should keep silent." If you do, someone might interpret that to mean that that is what you think God's message is from the Bible and they will find another quote somewhere to refute you. Instead: "In an early Christian letter traditionally attributed to Paul of Tarsus, women are admonished to keep silent." One could (if appropriate for the context of the discussion) go on to talk about claims of authorship for the passage.
- Think historically: By "thinking historically" I mean to not assume that your current theology was always the theology. When we discuss an historical belief, don't talk about it as wrong or right theologically, but about whether or how we can reconstruct the belief back then from our sources. In other words, it doesn't matter in an historical discussion whether the trinity is a true doctrine or who - the Catholics or the Protestants or whoever - may be right or wrong about the Eucharist or justification through "works" or "faith." What matters historically is the historical context of these beliefs and the roles of those beliefs in their historical time. There is some room for maneuver here. Students find these discussions relevant precisely because they have some of these beliefs and I don't want to squash that side of the discussion entirely.
- Don't talk about religious truths or falsehoods as truths or falsehoods unless it can be shown with academic argument and is germane to the discussion. In other words, don't say, "God did X," but rather "The Hebrews believed in a God who did X." Don't claim that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day, but discuss rather that Christians believe(d) that Jesus rose on the third day (and how and why that is interesting or relevant). Apply this to everything having to do with doctrine or miracles.
- While that remark was aimed primarily at believers, I would encourage non-believers to approach the subject with the attitude expressed by Diarmaid MacCulloch in the introduction to his monumental The Reformation: A History: "I do not now personally subscribe to any form of religious dogma (although I do remember with some affection what it was like to do so)." I think that is a healthy attitude to take into a discussion, even if you personally don't happen to have any such "affectionate" memories yourself.
These rules of thumb tend to favor the "secular" over the "religious." But history as a science does this anyway -it is and will remain to some degree subversive- and we are here to study history, not theology. They offer enough protection of religious opinion to avoid insult.
Student evaluations which have mentioned discussion about religion in my classrooms have been positive.
Mark R. Hatlie
Recommended Reading: Finally, I would like to encourage any students interested to read the first two chapters of Dennett, Daniel C.: Breaking the Spell. Religion as a natural phenomenon for a succinct discussion of why "science" (in the broadest sense, including fields such as history and sociology) should not only take an interest in religion, but should approach it with the same methodology as they do other fields of inquiry. Students interested in a broad survey of how social scientists approach religion will be interested in Pals, Daniel L.:Seven Theories of Religion (Oxford University Press, 1996).
There is some evidence that higher education can have a corrosive effect on religious faith, of course:
