Religion and Knowledge in the Post-Secular Academy

John Schmalzbauer

Religion has returned to intellectual life in what might be called a “post-secular moment.” This essay is a tour of recent efforts to reconnect religion and knowledge, a group portrait of the individuals and organizations behind the growing prominence of religious scholarship. Its purposes are threefold: to document the comeback of religion across the disciplines; to map the networks of scholars and organizations responsible for these developments; and to describe the competing visions animating efforts to heighten religion’s place in the academy. It concludes by considering what the return of religion means for American society and the sociology of religion. "Religion and Knowledge in the Post-Secular Academy" (with Kathleen A. Mahoney). In The Post-Secular in Question: Religion in Contemporary Society, edited by John Torpey, David Kyuman, and Jonathan VanAntwerpen. New York: New York University Press, 2012, 215-248

chapter nine Religion and Knowledge in the Post-secular Academy John Schmalzbauer and Kathleen Mahoney The university has long been perceived as one of the most secular precincts of American society. In the academy and the media, the secularization narrative dominates accounts of religion’s place in higher education.1 Yet recent scholarship suggests that the secularization narrative may have overstated the extent to which universities have marginalized the teaching and practice of religion. Such scholarship points to the survival and growth of the academic study of religion as well as the vitality of campus religious life. It rejects what historian Martin Marty dubs “complaints and whimpers” about “what went wrong with Christian scholarship.”2 Yet there is strong evidence that something close to the secularization of the university did occur. Until the late nineteenth century, religion exerted a powerful influence over higher education. Intertwined with the rise of the modern research university, the process of secularization overtook most fields in the early twentieth century. Across the academy, the influence of Freud, Nietzsche, and Darwin cast doubt on religious understandings of reality. As disciplines matured, scholarly inquiry became increasingly specialized. According to historians Jon Roberts and James Turner, the goal was “to think small: to ask questions for which there were determinate and publicly verifiable answers.” In an age of empiricism and specialization, religious questions became increasingly irrelevant.3 In The Secular Revolution, sociologist Christian Smith argues that the secularization of higher education was not a faceless process unfolding over time but an organized social movement with identifiable leaders, 215 organizations, networks, and financial resources. By the 1930s, efforts to secularize higher education had largely succeeded, thanks to social scientists such as Lester Ward, organizations like the American Sociological Society, and philanthropists such as Andrew Carnegie.4 Despite the success of the “secular revolution,” it was not irreversible or complete. Following World War II, religious scholarship staged a brief comeback, reflecting the public piety of the postwar years. More recently, religion has returned to intellectual life in what might be called a “postsecular moment.”5 Like its predecessor, the resurgence of religion has been driven by wider shifts in American culture and around the globe. Since the 1980s, articles on the return of religion have appeared in a dozen disciplines, including art, English, philosophy, music, political science, social work, medicine, history, and sociology. Fifty religious scholarly associations foster the integration of faith and learning, most of them established within the past thirty years, while new centers for the study of religion can be found at Columbia, Virginia, Chicago, Emory, Princeton, and New York Universities and other campuses.6 In a postmodern era, scholars are challenging the boundaries between faith and knowledge, acknowledging the importance of religion as a human phenomenon and as a way of knowing. Far from inevitable, the comeback of religion has been realized by organized networks of scholars. Their efforts have benefited from the support of religious professional associations, centers and institutes, journals, and philanthropic foundations.7 The emergence of multiculturalism, the advent of postmodernism, the rise of the new Christian right, and the role of the sacred in international affairs have also fueled the return of religion to campus. Some have called the return of religious scholarship a “movement.” A closer look reveals not one movement but many. Like most shifts in academic culture, it has been achieved by diverse groups of scholars with competing conceptions of religion and its role in higher education. Reflecting this diversity, the religious resurgence has included believers and skeptics, the spiritual and the religious, those who integrate faith and scholarship and those who approach religion as an object of study. Sometimes they have worked together. Sometimes they have worked at cross purposes. This essay is a tour of recent efforts to reconnect religion and knowledge, a group portrait of the individuals and organizations behind the growing prominence of religious scholarship. Its purposes are threefold: to document the comeback of religion across the disciplines; to map the networks 216 John Schmalzbauer and Kathleen Mahoney of scholars and organizations responsible for these developments; and to describe the competing visions animating efforts to heighten religion’s place in the academy. It concludes by considering what the return of religion means for American society and the sociology of religion. The Postwar Religious Revival and Its Collapse The secularization of intellectual life—even in mainstream settings—was never absolute. Religion became more visible in the 1950s, as theologians made the cover of Time and Billy Graham preached on network television. In higher education, the postwar revival led to more religion in the curriculum. In his 1947 book The College Seeks Religion, Merrimon Cuninggim wrote that religion held “a larger place in the college’s thinking and practice than at any time in the twentieth century.” Along the same lines, Will Herberg described the “intellectual rehabilitation of religion” and its prominence in the “‘vanguard’ journals of literature, politics, and art.”8 Tied to mainline Protestantism, the postwar religious resurgence was as lasting as its sponsor’s hegemony over American culture. When the Protestant establishment declined, its efforts to reconcile faith and knowledge faltered. In the face of student radicalism, “secular theology,” and social unrest, organizations like the Faculty Christian Fellowship underwent a collective identity crisis.9 Some disbanded; others changed their names and missions. Explaining its 1968 transformation from The Christian Scholar into Soundings, the religious revival’s leading journal argued that to “forgo the word ‘religion’ in preference for ‘common human concerns’ is not to put on the armor of contemporary atheism or secularism” but to pursue a deeper agenda.10 The Society for Religion in Higher Education (the journal’s sponsoring organization) became the Society for Values in Higher Education in 1975. In the early 1970s, religion’s place in the academy seemed more tenuous than ever. Describing the situation in sociology, Nancy Ammerman writes that in the “pervasively secular” culture of the decade, the topic of religion “had simply passed off [the] radar screens” of many scholars.11 In other fields, reductionist approaches to knowledge further marginalized religion. Although new programs were steadily added in religious studies, the field seemed to move in a secular direction. Once dominated by mainline Protestant concerns, scholarly studies of religion underwent a dramatic shift in Religion and Knowledge in the Post-secular Academy 217 the 1960s and 1970s. In 1964 the National Association of Biblical Instructors became the American Academy of Religion. Distancing themselves from the Bible and theology curriculum of Protestant divinity schools, members of a new generation of scholars worked to professionalize religious studies. Modeling themselves after the social sciences and history, rather than Protestant theology, scholars articulated an explicitly secular rationale for studying religion. At the same time, they widened their focus to include non-Western religions, ushering in a “post-Protestant” phase of religious studies.12 The Return of Religion in the Disciplines Given these developments, some might expect that religious scholarship would remain on the margins. But growing interest in the sacred for three decades in the humanities and social sciences belies this interpretation. Increased interest in religion is evident in the growth of religious studies departments. Between 1990 and 2006, membership in the American Academy of Religion (AAR) doubled from 5,500 to 11,000 members.13 According to the AAR, the number of religion majors increased 31 percent between 1996 and 2005, while overall enrollment in religious studies courses grew by 23 percent. Since 1970 the number of students earning undergraduate degrees in philosophy and religion has doubled. This growth has continued following the events September 11, 2001. According to Newsweek, we are witnessing a “religious studies revival.”14 While portrayed as secular in some accounts, religion departments have continued to take Christian theology seriously; in the year 2000, 45 percent of classes were on Christianity, with nearly 10 percent focusing on Christian theology. Since the 1980s, a range of theological approaches has blossomed in the academy. Among the most outspoken, advocates of radical orthodoxy and post-liberalism have launched a no-holds-barred critique of secular rationality, calling for a full-blown Christian theology that emphasizes the biblical narrative and postmodern theory. A spokesperson for this movement, Duke’s Stanley Hauerwas, was named America’s Best Theologian by Time magazine in 2001 and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2003.15 So seriously have theological perspectives been taken that some prominent scholars have criticized the American Academy of Religion for its 218 John Schmalzbauer and Kathleen Mahoney pro-religious outlook and founded an alternative organization, the North American Association for the Study of Religion (NAASR). While leaders of the NAASR have called for a more objective approach to religious studies, others have rejected a perceived dichotomy between advocacy and objectivity, recognizing with Conrad Cherry that the study of religion “requires empathetic participation as well as critical distance.”16 Because the “founding fratricidal conflict” between theology and religious studies remains unresolved, normative religious perspectives continue to have a place in the AAR.17 Reflecting this normative emphasis, more and more scholars are speaking out of traditions besides Christianity. The 2000 AAR annual meeting featured the panel “Coming Out as a Buddhist and Hindu in the Academy,” reflecting a tendency of scholars from many traditions to reveal their own religious identities.18 Paralleling the expansion of religious studies, religion has become increasingly visible across the humanities. Nowhere has the return of religion been more dramatic than in philosophy. In a recent article in Philo, Quentin Smith chronicles the “desecularization” of American philosophy. Estimating that “one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians,” he writes that “it became, almost overnight, ‘academically respectable’ to argue for theism, making philosophy a favored field of entry for the most intelligent and talented theists.” According to Smith, Oxford University Press’s 2000–2001 catalogue contains ninety-six books in the philosophy of religion, of which ninety-four take a theistic position. A half dozen philosophy journals currently focus on religion.19 Founded in 1978, the Society of Christian Philosophers grew to more than one thousand members by 1994, about 12 percent of American philosophers. 20 Though Christian philosophy has enjoyed impressive growth, it remains a minority subculture in a discipline that pays scant attention to religion. As MIT philosopher Alex Jones notes, “Contemporary Christian philosophers often content themselves with pulling up the drawbridge and manning the barricades” rather than mounting arguments that convince their secular colleagues.21 Though less dramatic than in philosophy, a religious resurgence can also be seen in the field of literary studies.22 As early as 1983, Edward Said remarked on the rebirth of “religious criticism,” noting that “when you see influential critics publishing major books with titles like The Genesis of Secrecy, The Great Code, Kabbalah and Criticism, Violence and the Sacred, Religion and Knowledge in the Post-secular Academy 219 Deconstruction and Theology, you know you are in the presence of a significant trend.”23 By 1997 John McClure could speak of the “return of religion in contemporary theory and literature.”24 In a more theological vein, the 1,300-member Conference on Christianity and Literature has explored the connections between faith and literary criticism, enlisting René Girard, Denis Donoghue, and the late Wayne Booth.25 Even more than the field of English literature, that of history has witnessed a return of religion. Between 1975 and 2009, the proportion of historians specializing in religion rose from 1.4 to 7.7 percent. Currently, “religious history” is the most popular specialization in the American Historical Association. When Henry May wrote “The Recovery of American Religious History” in 1964, the study of American religion was still the property of liberal Protestant “church historians” in mainline Protestant divinity schools. By contrast, more than half of the American religion scholars surveyed in 1993 identified as Catholics (26 percent) or evangelicals (32 percent).26 Since May’s essay, historians have shifted their focus from white mainline Protestant clergymen to African American Pentecostals, Orthodox Jews, Japanese American Buddhists, and Southern evangelical women. By the late 1990s, centers and institutes dedicated to the study of American religion had been established at Princeton University, Indiana University, Boston College, and the University of Southern California. Many were established with the support of foundations.27 A major force in mainstreaming American religious history has been the emergence of the “new evangelical historiography.” In books such as Fundamentalism and American Culture and The Democratization of American Christianity, a network of evangelical historians helped reshape scholarly views of evangelicalism. 28 By 1991 historian Jon Butler could describe the “evangelical paradigm” as “the single most powerful explanatory device adopted by academic historians to account for the distinctive features of American society, culture, and identity.”29 Drawing on their autobiographies and confessional traditions, scholars such as Mark Noll, George Marsden, Edith Blumhofer, and Nathan Hatch have brought their Christian convictions into the field of American history.30 Through organizations such as the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals, they have heightened the visibility of religion in the academy. Like the larger project of American religious history, the institute was supported through grants from Lilly Endowment and the Pew Charitable Trusts. During the 1990s alone, Pew spent $14 million on programs focusing on evangelical scholarship.31 220 John Schmalzbauer and Kathleen Mahoney Across the social sciences, scholars have rediscovered the power of religion. Heralding “the return of the sacred,” Harvard sociologist Daniel Bell gave a widely reported lecture at the London School of Economics in 1977, arguing that the exhaustion of secular ideologies had led to a hunger for meaning and transcendence.32 During the 1980s and 1990s, survey researchers in sociology and political science documented the continuing influence of religion. Such research challenged theories predicting the secularization of modern societies. Chronicling the “desecularization of the world,” scholars envisioned a new era “after secularism.”33 Established in 1994, the religion section of the American Sociological Association had 686 members in 2010, larger than thirty-four of the association’s forty-nine sections. 34 Reflecting the heightened role of faith in American politics and across the globe, the study of religion has achieved what Kenneth Wald and his colleagues describe as a “new prominence in political science.” Ignored by postwar political scientists, religion has been rehabilitated as an independent variable. Founded in the mid-1990s, the religion and politics section of the American Political Science Association (APSA) is now larger than the sections on public administration, urban politics, and the presidency. In 2006 the APSA established a special task force on religion and democracy in the United States. 35 Like sociology and political science, psychology has become more open to religion. In a 2003 essay in the Annual Review of Psychology, Robert Emmons and Raymond Paloutzian tracked the dramatic growth in the psychology of religion since the late 1970s. Noting the proliferation of books and journal articles between 1988 and 2001, they argued that the psychology of religion has “re-emerged as a full-force, leading edge research area.”36 Founded in 1975, Division 36 of the American Psychological Association (which focuses on the psychology of religion) had more than 1,100 members by the year 2000, making it larger than twenty-nine of the organization’s fifty-five sections. 37 Social workers are also rediscovering religion. While the 1,650-member North American Association of Christians in Social Work advocates “a vital Christian presence” in the profession, the Society for Spirituality in Social Work fosters “connections and mutual support among social workers of many contrasting spiritual perspectives.” Between 1995 and 2001, the number of accredited social work programs with courses on religion and spirituality rose from seventeen to fifty. 38 Religious approaches to social work are Religion and Knowledge in the Post-secular Academy 221 being published in the top journals. In 2005 the flagship journal Social Work featured no fewer than six articles on religion. The field of medicine is turning its attention to spirituality and healing. The number of medical schools offering religion-related courses has grown from 5 in 1992 to 101 in 2005. At places like the Center for Spirituality, Theology, and Health at Duke University, researchers are exploring the impact of spirituality on blood pressure, depression, and alcoholism. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, part of the federal National Institutes of Health, has promoted research on Ayurvedic healing, prayer, and mind-body medicine.39 The relationship between religion and the natural sciences is also receiving more attention. Huston Smith notes that “God-and-science talk seems to be everywhere,” citing the profusion of science and religion centers (ten across the United States), journals (Science and Spirit, Zygon, Theology and Science), and hundreds of science and religion courses (including eight hundred funded by the John Templeton Foundation’s course development program). Like the research on spirituality and health, many of these initiatives have been sponsored by Templeton, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion.40 According to Dennis Cheek, there are now more than 150,000 citations in the literature on religion and science.41 Across the university, religion has returned to the disciplines. Many have written articles lamenting the neglect of religious topics in their disciplines. Others have celebrated the return of religion. In most disciplines, faculty interested in religion can point to the existence of religious professional associations and journals as well as high-profile scholars. In almost every corner of academia, religion is making a comeback. Religion in the Academy: Multiple Movements, Conflicting Agendas Over the past three decades, scholars have forged connections between religion and their disciplines. Now many of them are working across disciplinary lines, addressing the sorts of meta-questions that concern the entire university. It is this interdisciplinarity that makes the contemporary resurgence of religion so consequential. By blurring departmental boundaries, religion scholars are resisting a key process of secularization: the differentiation of 222 John Schmalzbauer and Kathleen Mahoney knowledge into specialized disciplines. If the rise of specialized departments led faculty away from questions of ultimate meaning, the emergence of interdisciplinary discussions of faith and knowledge has helped bring those questions back into the spotlight. Those conversations are happening in centers and cross-disciplinary concentrations. Though departments still have the power to hire, grant tenure, and promote, flexible disciplinary boundaries have changed the kinds of knowledge they produce. Recognizing the heightened visibility of religion within and across disciplines, some have spoken of an interdisciplinary movement. In 1999 researchers Alexander and Helen Astin wrote that a “movement is emerging in higher education in which many academics find themselves actively searching for meaning.”42 In our 2000 evaluation of Lilly Endowment’s work in this area, we reached a similar conclusion, describing the “emergence of a movement to revitalize religion in higher education.”43 Ten years later, we believe it more accurate to speak of multiple movements rather than a single effort. In our judgment, several different movements (with many variations) have heightened the place of religion in the academy. Sometimes intersecting, they each have a unique justification for the academic study of religion, and each has its own leaders, organizations, and sources of funding. Most visible are efforts to promote religion as an object of study. As noted above, such efforts can be found in individual disciplines, in places like the religion section of the American Political Science Association and Division 36 of the American Psychological Association. In some cases, attempts to promote religious scholarship transcend departmental boundaries, involving university-wide efforts to transform curricula and research. Nowhere has this effort been more visible than in the creation of religion-oriented centers and institutes.44 Ten of the most prominent were funded under the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Centers of Excellence program, a multiyear initiative begun in 1998. Its goal was to establish an academic foothold for the study of religion at leading U.S. universities, including Boston, Emory, New York, and Princeton Universities and the Universities of Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Most of the centers are interdisciplinary in focus.45 Though some are more active than others, most have continued to operate after Pew phased out its funding.46 In addition to social scientific endeavors, scholars in the humanities have made a public case for the academic study of religion. The author of Religious Religion and Knowledge in the Post-secular Academy 223 Literacy (2007), Boston University’s Stephen Prothero, outlined what “every American needs to know” on the Daily Show and in other media outlets. Directing a similar message to the academy, the drafters of the Wingspread Declaration on Religion and Public Life, which was sponsored by the Society for Values in Higher Education, concluded that the “study of religion and its public relevance is a crucial dimension to liberal education.” Its signers included the editor of the Journal of American History and the president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities.47 Many of the calls for religion in the academy have focused on nonsectarian approaches to religious education, prizing scholarly objectivity and the separation of facts from values. Recently, some have explored the origins of this objectivist epistemology. In the judgment of Talal Asad and others, the emergence of religion as an academic topic was bound up with the history of Western colonialism. Recognizing the ideological character of “religion as an object of study,” the Journal of the American Academy of Religion recently commissioned the special issue “The Return of Religion after ‘Religion,’” noting that “public talk about the return of religion is taking place at precisely the same time as we see within the academic study of religion a sharp genealogical critique of the category ‘religion.’” Others have considered religion’s new visibility in the context of feminist theory and liberation theology. Along these lines, a 2007 conference asked, “What new openings for feminism and gender theory are being made by the renewed interest of intellectuals in religion?” Such discussions have raised awareness about the political implications of religious studies.48 Equally critical of the ideology of objectivity, another group has played a far more active role in promoting religious scholarship. Envisioning a dialogue between Christian faith and academia, a loose network of scholars has called for overtly confessional approaches to research. Portraying religion as a way of knowing, rather than an object of study, these scholars have incorporated religious beliefs into the content of their scholarship.49 The case for confessional scholarship has been articulated mostly by Protestant historians and philosophers, most notably historian George Marsden.50 The prominence of philosophers and historians is due partly to the heavy presence of Christian scholars in American religious history and the philosophy of religion. Another reason is the ability of philosophers and historians to reflect on the presuppositions and historical origins of the secular university. While historians have described how the university came to 224 John Schmalzbauer and Kathleen Mahoney exclude religion, philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff have challenged this exclusion as intellectually untenable. Given the central role of Christian philosophers and historians in discussions of religion and academic life, it is fitting that the Lilly Seminar on Religion and Higher Education was codirected by Wolterstorff and historian James Turner. Paying special attention to faith and knowledge, the Lilly Seminar explored “the epistemological question of what relation might come to exist between religion and mainstream academic scholarship.” Located at Notre Dame, the seminar met six times between 1997 and 1999. Bringing religious academics (Turner, Wolterstorff, Mark Noll, Douglas Sloan) into conversation with others (David Hollinger, Richard Bernstein, Alan Wolfe), the seminar helped raise the profile of religion scholarship. Wolfe went on to write a dozen articles on religion for the Chronicle of Higher Education and a cover story on the “opening of the evangelical mind” in the Atlantic.51 Paralleling efforts to integrate faith and knowledge, a very different group of scholars has called for the integration of spirituality and higher education. If George Marsden has served as the unofficial leader of efforts to re-Christianize the academy, education consultant Parker Palmer has been central to the movement for spirituality. A 1998 survey of eleven thousand faculty and administrators identified Palmer as one of the thirty “most influential senior leaders” in American higher education. The New York Times has called him a “phenomenon in higher education,” and his books are best sellers.52 In works such as To Know as We Are Known (1983), The Courage to Teach (1997), and A Hidden Wholeness: The Journey toward an Undivided Life (2004), he has described education as a spiritual journey.53 A practicing Quaker, Palmer has advanced a holistic model of teaching that integrates body, mind, and spirit.54 Reflecting this interest in all things spiritual, the Education as Transformation Project at Wellesley College drew eight hundred faculty, students, staff, and administrators, including twenty-eight presidents, to a 1998 conference on “religious pluralism, spirituality, and higher education.” Attendees witnessed presentations on classical Indian dance, spirituality and jazz, and Tibetan Buddhism as well as talks by Palmer and Diana Eck. Since then, the project has produced a nine-volume book series on spirituality and higher education. In 2000 the project cosponsored a meeting with the University of Massachusetts, Going Public with Spirituality in Work and Higher Education. Organized by then chancellor David Scott, it featured Religion and Knowledge in the Post-secular Academy 225 presentations such as “Science and Spirituality,” “Spiritual Intelligence,” and “Going Public with Spirituality in the Course Catalogue.”55 At both the University of Massachusetts and Wellesley, efforts to bring spirituality into the classroom have been supported by high-level administrators. Reflecting on the themes of the Education as Transformation Project, Wellesley president Diana Chapman Walsh said that colleges should “envision a whole new place for spirituality in education.” In a 2004 piece, project organizer Peter Laurence chronicled the “history of a movement.”56 Using the chancellor’s office as a bully pulpit, physicist Scott wrote hopefully of an “integrative university” where questions of ultimate meaning could be brought “into every one of the majors.”57 The quest for the spiritual is making inroads in national higher-education policy circles. In the past decade, religion and spirituality have been the subject of cover stories in Liberal Education, Academe, and Change.58 In 2002 the Association of American Colleges and Universities sponsored a conference on spirituality and learning. The keynote speaker was Alexander Astin, of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), the most cited higher-education researcher in the United States.59 The same year, Astin and his spouse, Helen, signed a statement criticizing the exclusion of spirituality from colleges and universities.60 Since 2003 they have served as coinvestigators on a massive Templeton-funded project on spirituality in the academy. In a national survey of 112,000 undergraduates, the project documented strong student interest in spirituality and religion. Consistent with this goal, UCLA held a national institute on ways to “incorporate spiritual perspectives into the curriculum and co-curriculum.”61 The current emphasis on spirituality is an expression of the metaphysical tradition in American culture, the “missing third” of U.S. religious history.62 Its influence can be seen in the late John Templeton’s philanthropic commitment to the reconciliation of spirituality and science. A lifelong Presbyterian, he was influenced by “the New Thought movements of Christian Science, Unity and Religious Science.” His foundation reflects these commitments.63 Closely related to the quest for spirituality are recent efforts to revive moral and civic education, a cause Templeton has also supported. Since the 1990s, the foundation has funded a variety of college-level character initiatives, including the Institute on College Student Values, In Character magazine, the Journal of College and Character, the Character Clearinghouse, and the Center for the Study of Values in College Student Development. The 226 John Schmalzbauer and Kathleen Mahoney guidebook Colleges That Encourage Character Development currently lists “405 exemplary college programs in ten categories that inspire students to lead ethical and civic-minded lives.”64 These initiatives are part of a larger shift that Alan Wolfe has called the “moral revival.” In an overview, Wolfe points to the rediscovery of moral development by psychologists, James Q. Wilson’s work on the “moral sense,” and the rise of communitarianism.65 Of the movements on Wolfe’s list, communitarianism has done the most for the academic study of religion. In philosophy and political theory, Charles Taylor’s Sources of the Self, Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue, and Jean Bethke Elshtain’s Democracy on Trial have made room for religious voices. Though distancing themselves from the communitarian label, Robert Bellah and his colleagues used the biblical and civic republican traditions to articulate a critique of American individualism.66 Along the same lines, Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone and American Grace (coauthored with David Campbell) have sparked a lively debate over religion and social capital. From 1995 to 2000, Putnam’s Saguaro Seminar included several participants with an interest in religion and public life, such as John DiIulio, Glenn Loury, Martha Minow, Jim Wallis, Stephen Goldsmith, and a young Barack Obama.67 A by-product of the emphasis on community was the birth of Campus Compact, the nation’s leading service learning organization. A national network of presidents “committed to the civic purposes of higher education,” it helped make service learning one of the most widespread curricular innovations of the late twentieth century. By 2010 more than 1,100 presidents had signed on.68 Church-related colleges and universities have played a central role in the leadership of Campus Compact. As of 1995, 20 percent of member schools were Catholic (Catholic institutions make up about 10 percent of American colleges and universities).69 Like other forms of civic education, service learning has blurred the boundaries between morality and learning. As Julie Reuben notes, moral concerns have long been consigned to the nonacademic, extracurricular world of student development, with the “institutional structure [reinforcing] the divide between the Good and the True.” 70 The reintegration of the good and the true can be seen in the growing focus on civic and moral education among higher-education policy makers. In 2003 the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching published Educating Citizens: Preparing America’s Undergraduates for Lives of Moral and Civic Responsibility, a study Religion and Knowledge in the Post-secular Academy 227 of twelve colleges and universities that “have made broad institutional commitments to the development of all students’ moral and civic development.” A disproportionate number of the schools were church-related. In a related study, Helen Astin and Anthony Lising Antonio argued that church-related colleges strengthen civic values and promote character development.71 Colgate University president Rebecca Chopp observed that the “movement of civic education in this country is vast and sustained,” adding that in “recent years educators, educational associations, and students have returned to the long and deep American tradition to educate citizens.” 72 Clearly, religion in higher education has taken many forms. From campaigns for religious literacy to the movement for spirituality in higher education, the return of religion has been accomplished by heterogeneous groups of scholars with divergent visions of academic life. Much of this heterogeneity reflects not only ideological differences over the role of religion in public life but also an increase in religious diversity on American campuses. The growth of Islamic Studies, Jewish Studies, Buddhist Studies, Hindu Studies, and Sikh Studies has greatly expanded the range of religious traditions represented in American higher education. Such pluralism has enriched academia while creating new challenges. At Columbia University, the creation of a Middle Eastern Studies position honoring the late Palestinian American scholar Edward Said drew sharp criticism from some Jewish groups. Columbia has provided another perspective on Middle Eastern history and culture by establishing a professorship in Israel and Jewish Studies and an institute devoted to the same topic.73 In the field of South Asian Studies, a different kind of conflict is brewing between Hinduism scholars and Hindu Americans.74 To address the challenge of diversity, the Ford Foundation initiated its Difficult Dialogues Initiative in 2005. In a letter signed by the presidents of 15 leading American universities, foundation president Susan Beresford invited proposals for projects that promote “new scholarship and teaching about cultural differences and religious pluralism.” With 675 institutions applying, 136 were invited to submit final proposals. In the end, 27 universities received $100,000 grants to “promote campus environments where sensitive subjects can be discussed in a spirit of open scholarly inquiry, academic freedom, and respect for different viewpoints.” 75 At the University of Michigan, thirty faculty took part in the seminar “Student Religion, Faith, and Spirituality in the Classroom and Beyond.” At Columbia, the initiative 228 John Schmalzbauer and Kathleen Mahoney has led to several innovative projects, including “Religion versus the Academy,” a class taught by Randall Balmer and John Stratton Hawley.76 Taken together, the Difficult Dialogues courses are a reminder of the contentious nature of religious discourse in the university. Faculty Reponses to the Return of Religion: Indifference, Anxiety, and Engagement The most difficult dialogue of all may be between the advocates of religious scholarship and their colleagues. Research indicates most faculty members devote little class time to religion. According to the UCLA spirituality study, 62 percent of students said their professors never encourage discussions of religious or spiritual topics.77 Religion may also be absent from the vast majority of research agendas. Analyzing four years of scholarly output in one discipline, Nancy Ammerman found only 4 percent of three thousand books reviewed in Contemporary Sociology were about religion.78 Lack of attention to religion may reflect the religious demography of the faculty. Recent surveys of the professoriate indicate the most popular religious affiliation after Christianity is “none.” Though a majority of faculty claim a religious affiliation, they are much less likely to do so than the general population. According to a 2006 survey, 31 percent of faculty identify with no religion. Similarly, the UCLA study found that 37 percent are “not at all religious.” The number of nonreligious faculty is even higher at elite institutions. A 2005 survey of scientists at twenty-one top-ranked universities found that half of elite social scientists had no religious affiliation. Though 69 percent identified as “spiritual,” only 37 percent described themselves as very or moderately so.79 While most faculty have paid scant attention to religious topics, some have criticized efforts to raise the profile of religion in the academy. Several critics have been actively involved in discussions of faith and scholarship. Berkeley historian David Hollinger attended five of the six meetings of the Lilly Seminar. Though appreciative of his colleagues’ insights, Hollinger questioned their conviction that religion had been unfairly marginalized in the academy. In “Enough Already: Universities Do Not Need More Christianity,” he wrote that the “Lilly group was a seminar in search of a problem.”80 In some cases, Christian scholars have invited such critiques. By disregarding the “rules of the academic game,” they have undercut their own Religion and Knowledge in the Post-secular Academy 229 professional credibility.81 In particular, the emphasis of some evangelical scholars on bringing supernatural explanations into scientific discourse has made their colleagues less open to religious scholarship. Nowhere is this ironic outcome more apparent than in the movement for “intelligent design.” As recently as ten years ago, its leaders had high hopes for reshaping the conversation on religion and science. Instead, it has been perceived as a thinly disguised version of creationism. In a 1999 book, philosopher William Dembski exemplified such confidence, predicting that “in the next several years intelligent design will be sufficiently developed to deserve funding from the National Science Foundation.”82 According to a recent study, there is absolutely no support for intelligent design among the nation’s elite natural scientists. Rather than building bridges between faith and science, it has led to more anxiety.83 The John Templeton Foundation’s initiatives on science and religion have also elicited a backlash. In 1999 physicist Lawrence Krauss expressed serious reservations about Templeton’s agenda, concluding that “science and religion don’t mix.”84 More recently, Richard Sloan of Columbia University called studies of prayer and healing “garbage research.” 85 In response to Templeton, some secular scholars have formed organizations and networks of their own. New movements spawn countermovements, and the religionand-science movement is no exception. In 2006, three dozen faculty, journalists, and academic leaders gathered for a conference sponsored by investor Robert Zeps, the self-described anti-Templeton. Titled “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival,” the gathering was a response to the perceived vulnerability of science. Warning that the coming years could be “the twilight for the Enlightenment project,” conference organizers asked, could science “create a new rational narrative as poetic and powerful as those that have traditionally sustained societies?” The list of presenters reads like a who’s who of the new atheists, including Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Steven Weinberg.86 Many of these initiatives have actually heightened the profile of religion. The publications of the new atheists have served to energize religious intellectual life. In 2006 Pulitzer Prize–winning novelist Marilynne Robinson wrote a stinging critique of Dawkins’s book, faulting his “simple-as-that, plain-as-day approach to the grandest questions.”87 Across the Atlantic, literary theorist Terry Eagleton published an equally unforgiving review in the London Review of Books, calling Dawkins’s performance “lunging, flailing, 230 John Schmalzbauer and Kathleen Mahoney mispunching.”88 Former Human Genome Project director Francis Collins has emerged as Dawkins’s chief debating partner.89 According to Elaine Howard Ecklund’s survey of elite scientists, Collins is widely respected by his peers. Recently, Barack Obama made Collins the director of the National Institutes of Health, the largest scientific grant–making agency in the world, a decision that attracted some criticism.90 Support for religious scholarship is more widespread if one distinguishes the academic study of religion from efforts to revive Christian intellectual life or promote spiritual development. This focus on the empirical study of religion is one of the most common approaches in the discipline of religious studies. Former American Academy of Religion president Robert Orsi articulated this vision when he warned against “the language of good/bad religion.” Instead, scholars should cultivate a radical empiricism that “disentangles normative agendas” from academic scholarship. Orsi’s comments have provoked a vigorous debate among historians of American religion.91 Systematic surveys and anecdotal evidence suggest that faculty pursue divergent approaches to the study of religion. Ray Hart’s 1991 study found that public university religion departments were much less sympathetic to theological studies than their counterparts in church-related colleges and seminaries.92 More recently, a 2006 survey of introductory religious studies courses uncovered a similar divide between faculty in secular and religious colleges. While 42 percent of religion faculty at church-related schools thought it was essential or very important for courses to “develop students’ own religious beliefs,” only 8 percent of faculty at secular institutions felt the same way.93 From the point of view of students, it may not matter what faculty think they are accomplishing in the classroom. Although professors at religious and secular colleges embrace different goals, students at both types of institutions view the classroom as a place for spiritual discovery. At all four institutions profiled in Religion on Campus (including a large public university), students reported growing spiritually in religion classes.94 Such findings suggest that undergraduates take what they want from the classroom, regardless of faculty intentions. Surveys of American faculty reveal that a significant percentage of the professoriate sees the spiritual formation of students as a worthy goal. In a 2005 survey conducted by UCLA, 30 percent of faculty agreed that “colleges should be concerned with facilitating students’ spiritual development.” 95 Religion and Knowledge in the Post-secular Academy 231 In fields such as philosophy, a determined minority of 10 to 30 percent has managed to put religious perspectives back onto the scholarly agenda. In some fields, an even smaller group has made a difference. While these individuals are not likely to carry the day, their mere presence indicates religion’s importance. Conclusion For decades, scholars have told a widely accepted story of decline, chronicling the exclusion of the sacred from American universities. Strong evidence indicates that a new story needs to be told about religion in the academy, one recognizing the resilience of the sacred in an overwhelmingly secular institution. Over the past three decades, religious scholarship has returned to American higher education. In almost every discipline, faculty can point to the existence of religious professional associations, high-profile scholars, influential books, and religion-oriented centers and institutes. What is the significance of these developments for sociology? What do they say about the place of religion in American society? In the writings of Peter Berger and other theorists, higher education and the college-educated professions are depicted as the carriers of secularization in the modern world. In recent years, the secularization thesis has come under attack. Yet even critics agree that the academy is the great exception to the vitality of American religion. According to R. Stephen Warner, sociologists have resonated with secularization theory because it fits their own life experiences. Likewise, James Spickard attributes its appeal to “a biographic loss of religiosity on the part of many intellectuals.”96 What happens to secularization theory when the secularity of the academy is called into question? Over the past two decades, the university has become more open to religious discourse. Across the university, the advocates of religious scholarship have carved out new organizational niches, bringing the sacred into a secular institution. These niches have challenged the structural differentiation of religion and education. They have also resisted the privatization of faith, taking religion into public settings. To be clear, such changes have been limited. In most disciplines, a minority of scholars have turned their attention to religion. Of these individuals, only a few have attempted to integrate their religious convictions into the content 232 John Schmalzbauer and Kathleen Mahoney of their research. Yet clearly something has changed. Today the academy can no longer be depicted as an island of secularity. Far from isolated, the university has served as “a bellwether for society’s religious revival.” Historian Diane Winston notes that “the exclusion of religion from public life” does not adequately describe the place of the sacred in American culture, adding that “‘diffusion’ may be a better term, signaling the scattering of religious ideas and behaviors.” This diffusion can be seen in electoral politics, as candidates from both major parties court the faithful. It is also evident in international affairs, as a resurgent Islam has reshaped geopolitics. In the words of sociologist José Casanova, “we are witnessing the ‘deprivatization’ of religion” as “religious traditions throughout the world are refusing to accept the marginal and privatized role which theories of modernity as well as theories of secularization had reserved for them.” 97 Along the same lines, sociologist Charles Harper and historian Bryan Lebeau write of an era of “de-differentiation” in which previously separated spheres “are increasingly connected and interpenetrating: politics and economics, church and state relations, religion and health, family and media, religion and sports, and so on.” 98 By far the most visible religious group in American politics, evangelicals are one reason religion is making a comeback on campus. Known for their involvement in the new Christian right, they have only recently staked a significant claim in American higher education. Creating a parallel subculture of academic associations and religious colleges, they have built an organizational infrastructure for the integration of faith and learning.99 This activity is a reflection of the increasing number of evangelicals in the professoriate. In a 2006 survey, 19 percent of American faculty identified as born-again Christians.100 Evangelicals have participated in the revitalization of student religious life. In less than a decade, the number of students involved in Campus Crusade for Christ tripled, rising from eighteen thousand in 1995 to sixtyfour thousand in 2008. In a sign of increasing religious pluralism, Muslim Student Associations and Mormon Institutes of Religion have also experienced significant growth. The same goes for Hillel and Chabad, mainstays of campus Judaism. In recent years, the university has become a lively religious marketplace. In a reversal of previous patterns, young adults are less likely to lose their religion if they go to college. Researchers at UCLA found that undergraduates desire more attention to spirituality Religion and Knowledge in the Post-secular Academy 233 in the classroom. Student demand may be one reason for the growth in religious studies.101 The resurgence of religion and spirituality has been aided by the diversification of the American faculty. The 2004–2005 UCLA survey on faculty spirituality found that women and African Americans were more likely than others to describe themselves as religious or spiritual. Consistent with this finding, America’s most prominent black intellectuals are also some of today’s leading religious thinkers, including Cornel West, bell hooks, and Michael Eric Dyson. Likewise, feminist and minority group scholars have challenged the ideology of objectivity, championing women’s ways of knowing, queer theory, and Afrocentric epistemologies. Echoing the rhetoric of identity politics, people of faith have demanded a seat at the academic table, arguing that religious ways of knowing are a legitimate form of inquiry.102 The responsiveness of higher education to these developments raises questions about the autonomy of the university in a post-secular age. Defending higher education as one of the few American institutions not dominated by religious discourse, historian David Hollinger argues that universities “should not surrender back to Christianity the ground they have won for a more independent, cosmopolitan life of the mind.” Already some analysts have warned of a pro-religious bias in the sociology of religion, pointing to the influence of Protestant assumptions on this subfield. Hollinger has raised similar concerns about religious scholars, arguing that “religion is too important to be left in the hands of people who believe in it.” Social critics have articulated a parallel critique of the influence of popular spirituality, arguing that a new irrationalism is responsible for the rise of fields like “positive psychology” and “religion and health.” From this perspective, higher education is in danger of losing its independence.103 As a bellwether, the university is continually buffeted by the winds of public opinion. Yet higher education can also serve as a rudder, steering the American conversation in more productive directions. Because of their training, scholars of religion could play a special role in bridging the conflicts in American society. In our polarized times, fewer Americans have regular contact with those who think differently from themselves. As Bill Bishop argues in The Big Sort, the clustering of Americans into ideologically homogeneous neighborhoods is pulling the country apart. While it is possible to exaggerate these conflicts, the battles between tea party activists and progressives suggest that Americans remain divided by culture and class.104 234 John Schmalzbauer and Kathleen Mahoney Such conflicts often rage on the border between science and religion. According to a 2005 survey, 42 percent of Americans can be classified as strict creationists. Suspicious of scientific expertise, many also question global warming. Given the threat of an ecological catastrophe, it is crucial that scientists talk to their fellow citizens. Sometimes this means speaking to religious audiences. Sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund points to the need for scientific “boundary pioneers,” figures who bridge the domains of religion and science. By increasing the number of bridge builders, the return of religious scholarship may end up lessening the antagonism between faith and science.105 In the United States, colleges and universities play a key role in professional education. If the professional project is about “the production of producers,” the academy is at the center of law, medicine, and social work. In all of these occupations, practitioners must deal with the challenge of religious pluralism and the boundary between church and state. To the extent that professional schools can provide them with a basic knowledge of religion, they will be better prepared. As a recent Pew survey indicates, lawyers and doctors are not the only citizens lacking in religious literacy. Administered in 2010, it found that only half of Americans knew that Joseph Smith was a Mormon and that Ramadan is the Islamic holy month. In Our Underachieving Colleges, Derek Bok writes that “certain bodies of knowledge are essential to enlightened, responsible citizenship.” Religion is one of those areas.106 The future of this civic conversation will depend on the conduct of the speakers. As this chapter has documented, the return of religious scholarship has been accomplished by a diverse group of faculty and administrators. Reflecting this diversity, they have been motivated by competing visions. Though sometimes overlapping, these visions are not always compatible. In such instances, it is a challenge to maintain the norms of civility and tolerance. Very often, greater contact leads to more conflict, not less. At the same time, we have little choice but to keep talking. Whatever shape the conversation takes, it is not likely to disappear. In the final analysis, the continuing presence of faith in public life is the best sign that religious scholarship is here to stay. In an era when presidential candidates compete for religious voters, Islam powerfully shapes global politics, and patients turn to spirituality as a therapeutic balm, the influence of religion can no longer be ignored. Religion and Knowledge in the Post-secular Academy 235 Notes A shorter version of this chapter was published in John Schmalzbauer and Kathleen Mahoney, “American Scholars Return to Studying Religion,” Contexts, Winter 2008, 16–21. 1. See Lawrence Veysey, The Emergence of the American University (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965); Richard Hofstadter and Walter Metzger, The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States (New York: Columbia University Press, 1955); George M. Marsden, The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994); Douglas Sloan, Faith and Knowledge: Mainline Protestantism and American Higher Education (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994); James T. Burtchaell, The Dying of the Light: The Disengagement of Colleges and Universities from Their Christian Churches (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998). 2. See Douglas Jacobsen and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen, eds., Scholarship & Christian Faith: Enlarging the Conversation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004). See also Mark Noll, “The Future of Religious Colleges: Looking Ahead by Looking Back,” in The Future of Religious Colleges, ed. Paul Dovre (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 73–94. The Martin Marty quotation comes from Marty’s foreword to Jacobsen and Jacobsen, Scholarship & Christian Faith, vii. 3. Marsden, The Soul of the American University; Sloan, Faith and Knowledge; Julie Reuben, The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996); Jon Roberts and James Turner, The Sacred and the Secular University (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000), 36. 4. Christian Smith, introduction to The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests, and Conflict in the Secularization of American Public Life (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003); Christian Smith, “Secularizing American Higher Education: The Case of Early American Sociology,” in Christian Smith, The Secular Revolution), vii–159. 5. See Mark Clayton, “Scholars Get Religion,” Christian Science Monitor, 26 February 2002, available at http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0226/p12s01-lehl.html; Kathleen Mahoney, John Schmalzbauer, and James Youniss, “Religion: A Comeback on Campus,” Liberal Education, Fall 2001, 36–41, available at http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-fa01/le-fa01feature.cfm. See also Alan Wolfe, “A Welcome Revival of Religion in the Academy,” Chronicle of Higher Education 19 September 1997, B4. On the terms “post-secularism” and “post-secular,” see Peter Steinfels, “Swapping ‘Religion’ for ‘Postsecularism,’” New York Times, 3 August 2002; John A. McClure, 236 John Schmalzbauer and Kathleen Mahoney “Post-Secular Culture: The Return of Religion in Contemporary Theory and Literature,” CrossCurrents, Fall 1997, 332–347. 6. Sally Promey, “The ‘Return’ of Religion in Scholarship on American Art,” The Art Bulletin 85:3(2003): 581–603; McClure, “Post-Secular Culture”; Quentin Smith, “The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism,” Philo 4:2(2001), available at www.philoonline.org/ library/smith_4_2.htm. See also Andreas Andreopoulos, “The Return of Religion in Contemporary Music,” Literature and Theology 14:1(2000): 81–95; Kenneth D. Wald, Adam L. Silverman, and Kevin S. Fridy, “Making Sense of Religion in Political Life,” Annual Review of Political Science, 8(2005): 121–143; D. W. Miller, “Programs in Social Work Embrace the Teaching of Spirituality,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 18 May 2001, A12; Katherine S. Mangan, “Medical Schools Begin Teaching Spiritual Side of Health Care,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 7 March 1997; Harry S. Stout and Robert M. Taylor, Jr., “Studies of Religion in American Society: The State of the Art,” in New Directions in American Religious History, ed. Harry S. Stout and D. G. Hart (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 21, 15; Helen Rose Ebaugh, “Return of the Sacred: Reintegrating Religion in the Social Sciences,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41:3(2002): 385–395. William Ringenberg estimates that there are about fifty Christian scholarly associations in the United States in The Christian College: A History of Protestant Higher Education in America (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 215. 7. In emphasizing the importance of activists, organizations, and networks in the desecularization of the academy, we follow the lead of Christian Smith, “Preface,” introduction to Christian Smith, The Secular Revolution, vii. 8. Merrimon Cuninggim, The College Seeks Religion (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1947), 30, as quoted in Sloan, Faith and Knowledge, 35; Will Herberg, Protestant, Catholic, Jew: An Essay in American Religious Sociology (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 53. 9. See D. G. Hart, The University Gets Religion: Religious Studies in American Higher Education (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999). This paragraph also relies on the analysis of Dorothy Bass in “Church-Related Colleges: Transmitters of Denominational Cultures?” in Beyond Establishment: Protestant Identity in a Post-Protestant Age, ed. Jackson Carroll and Wade Clark Roof (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 157–172. See also Sloan, Faith and Knowledge; Amanda Porterfield, The Transformation of American Religion: The Story of a Late Twentieth-Century Awakening (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001); and William R. Hutchison, Between the Times: The Travail of the Protestant Establishment in America, – (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989). Harvey Cox’s The Secular City (New York: Macmillan, 1965) helped define the “secular theology” of the late 1960s. Religion and Knowledge in the Post-secular Academy 237 10. 11. Sallie TeSelle, “Editorial,” Soundings 51:1(1968): 2–3. Nancy T. Ammerman, “Sociology and the Study of Religion,” in Religion, Scholarship, and Higher Education: Perspectives, Models, and Future Prospects, ed. Andrea Sterk (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), 77, 78. 12. See Conrad Cherry, Hurrying toward Zion: Universities, Divinity Schools, and American Protestantism (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1995), 112–123. Porterfield discusses the “Post-Protestant” phase of religious studies in The Transformation of American Religion, 209–226. See also Hart, The University Gets Religion; Bass, “The Independent Sector and the Educational Strategies of Mainstream Protestantism.” 13. American Academy of Religion Annual Report, 2000 and 2007. The 2000 annual report was retrieved at http://www.aarweb.org/about/annualreport/AR2000.pdf. The 2007 report is available at http://www.aarweb.org/Publications/Annual_Report/ default.asp. 14. David V. Brewington, “AAR Undergraduate Departments Survey Comparative Analysis of Wave I and Wave II,” Religious Studies News, May 2008, 14-15. Data on bachelor’s degrees is from Lisa Miller, “Religious Studies Revival,” Newsweek, 12 September 2010, available at http://education.newsweek.com/2010/09/12/religiousstudies-thrive-in-troubled-times.html. 15. See Hart, The University Gets Religion, for an account of the secularization of religious studies. The figures on religion courses come from Hillerbrand, “Going Our Way,” 6. On Hauerwas, see Jean Bethke Elshtain’s profile, “Christian Contrarian,” Time, 17 September 2001, retrieved from www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/americasbest/ TIME/society.culture/pro.shauerwas.html. On radical orthodoxy, see Jeff Sharlet, “Theologians Seek to Reclaim World with God and Postmodernism,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 23 June 2000, A20; David S. Cunningham, “The New Orthodoxy?” Christian Century, 17–24 November 1999, 1127; John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory (London: Blackwell, 1993). On post-liberalism, see George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1984). 16. For overviews of these controversies, see Charlotte Allen, “Is Nothing Sacred? Casting Out the Gods from Religious Studies,” Lingua Franca, November 1996, 30–40; Donald Wiebe, The Politics of Religious Studies: The Continuing Conflict with Theology in the Academy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999); the Cherry quotation comes from Hurrying toward Zion, 117. 17. Rebecca Chopp, “Beyond the Founding Fratricidal Conflict: A Tale of Three Cities,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 70:3(2002): 461–474. 18. The 2000 AAR panel “Coming Out as a Buddhist and Hindu in the Academy” is discussed in Jose Ignacio Cabezon, “The Discipline and Its Other: The 238 John Schmalzbauer and Kathleen Mahoney Dialectic of Alterity in the Study of Religion,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 74:1(2006): 21–38. For more discussions of insiders’ approaches to Hinduism, see “Who Speaks for Hinduism?” in the December 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 19. Quotations and statistics are taken from Quentin Smith, “The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism,” available at www.philoonline.org/library/smith_4_2.htm. 20. The estimate that Society of Christian Philosophers members make up 12 percent of the American philosophical profession is derived from Kelly James Clark’s 1993 report, which states that the Society had more than 1,000 members, and the American Philosophical Association’s “Selected Demographic Information on Philosophy Ph.D.’s, 1995,” which reported 8,300 philosophy Ph.D.’s. The latter is available at http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/profession/selected.html. Of course, not all the members of the Society of Christian Philosophers hold a Ph.D. in philosophy. 21. Alex Byrne, “God: Philosophers Weigh In,” Boston Review, January–February 2009, available at http://bostonreview.net/BR34.1/byrne.php. 22. See John A. McClure, “Postmodern/Post-Secular: Contemporary Fiction and Spirituality,” Modern Fiction Studies 41:1(1995): 141–163. 23. Edward Said, The World, the Text, and the Critic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), 291. For a discussion of Said’s views on religion, see McClure, “PostSecular Culture,” 334–335. 24. 25. McClure, “Post-Secular Culture,” 334. See the webpage of the Conference on Christianity and Literature (CCL) at http:// www.pepperdine.edu/sponsored/ccl/. The CCL membership figure of 1,300 was taken from www.hope.edu/academic/english/huttar/conference.html. For an analysis of the situation of evangelicals and other Christians in contemporary literary studies, see Harold K. Bush, “The Outrageous Idea of a Christian Literary Studies: Prospects for the Future and a Meditation on Hope,” Christianity and Literature, 51:1(2001): 79–103. 26. Robert B. Townsend, “Changing Patterns of Faculty Specialization since 1975,” Perspectives, January 2007, available at www.historians.org/Perspectives/ issues/2007/0701/0701new1.cfm; Robert B. Townsend, “AHA Membership Grows Modestly, as History of Religion Surpasses Culture,” AHA Today, 30 June 2009, available at http://blog.historians.org/news/823/aha-membership-grows-modestlyas-history-of-religion-surpasses-culture. The account of this period is drawn from Stout and Taylor, “Studies of Religion in American Society,” 15, 21; Henry May, “The Recovery of American Religious History,” American Historical Review 70:1(1964): 79–92. Religion and Knowledge in the Post-secular Academy 239 27. For a list of centers and institutes focused on North American religion, see Centers and Institutes Project  (Indianapolis, IN: Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture, 2006); this list is available at http://www.iupui.edu/~raac/CIP. html. On philanthropy and American religious history, see Michael S. Hamilton and Johanna G. Yngvason, “Patrons of the Evangelical Mind,” Christianity Today, 8 July 2002, available at www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/008/3.42.html. See also Stout and Taylor, “Studies of Religion in American Society,” 15, 22. 28. George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of TwentiethCentury Evangelicalism, – (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981); Nathan Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989). The phrase “new evangelical historiography”was coined by Leonard Sweet in “Wise as Serpents, Innocent as Doves: The New Evangelical Historiography,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 56:3(1988): 397–416. 29. Jon Butler, “Born-Again America? A Critique of the New ‘Evangelical Thesis’ in Recent American Historiography,” unpublished paper, Organization of American Historians, Spring 1991. Cited in Stout and Taylor, “Studies of Religion in American Society,” 19. 30. See the profiles of the evangelical historians interviewed for John Schmalzbauer, People of Faith: Religious Conviction in American Journalism and Higher Education (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003). 31. The $14 million figure comes from Michael Paulson, “Evangelicals Find Place at Mainstream Colleges,” Boston Globe, 20 February 2000, A1. On philanthropy and American religious history, see Michael S. Hamilton and Johanna G. Yngvason, “Patrons of the Evangelical Mind,” Christianity Today, 8 July 2002, available at www. christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/008/3.42.html. See also Stout and Taylor, “Studies of Religion in American Society,” 15, 22. 32. Daniel Bell, “The Return of the Sacred? The Argument on the Future of Religion,” in The Winding Passage: Essays and Sociological Journeys (New York: Basic Books, 1980), 324–354. See also Fran Schumer, “A Return to Religion,” New York Times Magazine, 15 April 1984, SM90. 33. Rodney Stark, “Secularization, R.I.P.,” Sociology of Religion 60:3(1999): 249; Peter Berger, ed., The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999). Ebaugh, “Return of the Sacred,” 385–395; Nancy T. Ammerman, “Sociology and the Study of Religion,” in Religion, Scholarship, and Higher Education: Perspectives, Models, and Future Prospects, ed. Andrea Sterk (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), 76–88; R. Stephen Warner, “Work in Progress toward a New Paradigm for the Sociological Study of Religion in the United States,” American Journal of Sociology 98:5(1993): 1044–1093. See also Teresa 240 John Schmalzbauer and Kathleen Mahoney Watanabe, “The New Gospel of Academia,” Los Angeles Times, 18 October 2000. The Spring–Summer 2006 issue of The Hedgehog Review was titled “After Secularism.” 34. The membership counts of the American Sociological Association’s sections can be found at www.asanet.org/sections/CountsLastFiveYears.cfm. 35. The Wald quotation comes from Wald, Silverman, and Fridy, “Making Sense of Religion in Political Life,” 121. See also David Leege and Lyman Kellstedt, eds., Rediscovering the Religious Factor in American Politics (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1993). The October 2010 membership counts for the APSA’s sections can be found at http://www.apsanet.org/sectioncounts.cfm . For more on the Religion and Democracy in the United States task force, see http://www.apsanet.org/section_684.cfm. 36. Robert A. Emmons and Raymond E. Paloutzian, “The Psychology of Religion,” 37. The 2000 membership of Division 36 was retrieved from http://research.apa. Annual Review of Psychology 54 (2003): 378–379. org/2000membershipt5.pdf. 38. For the mission and 2001 membership data for the North American Association of Christians in Social Work, see www.nacsw.org/index.shtml and www.nacsw.org/ StrategicPlan.htm. On the number of programs with religion courses, see Miller, “Programs in Social Work Embrace the Teaching of Spirituality,” A12. On the Society for Spirituality and Social Work, see http://ssw.asu.edu/spirituality/sssw/. 39. On the increase in the number of medical schools with religion-oriented courses, see David G. Myers, “Stress and Health,” in Psychology (New York: Worth Publishers, 2006). Myers reports that 105 out of 135 medical schools offer courses on spirituality or religion, available at http://www.davidmyers.org/Brix?pageID=52. Information on federal funding for research on alternative medicine (including spirituality and healing) can be found at the webpage of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at http://nccam.nih.gov/. 40. Huston Smith, Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 72, 73. See the webpage of the Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion at http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/index. shtml. On the Science and Religion Course Program, see the webpage of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences at http://www.ctns.org/news_090102. html 41. Dennis Cheek, “Interdisciplinary Dialogue and Issues in Religion,” Metanexus Online, 22 June 2004, retrieved at http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/ show_article2.asp?id=8917. 42. Alexander Astin and Helen Astin, Meaning and Spirituality in the Lives of College Faculty: A Study of Values, Authenticity, and Stress (Los Angeles: Higher Education Religion and Knowledge in the Post-secular Academy 241 Research Institute, 1999), 1, retrieved from www.fetzer.org/Resources/HERI%20 Fetzer%20Rpt%20w_color.pdf. 43. Kathleen A. Mahoney, John Schmalzbauer, and James Youniss, “Revitalizing Religion in the Academy: Summary of the Evaluation of Lilly Endowment’s Initiative on Religion & Higher Education” (Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College, 2000), 10. The report is available at http://www.resourcingchristianity.org/Essay. aspx?ESYID=33904ac8-644a-4139-926c-64fd9f4708d8. 44. See Centers and Institutes Project , from the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture, Indiana University/Purdue University-Indianapolis, available at http://www.iupui.edu/~raac/CIP.html. 45. For a list of the Pew Centers of Excellence, see http://web.archive.org/web 46. In many cases, Lilly Endowment and the John Templeton Foundation have provided /20060220231717/http://www.pewtrusts.org/ideas/index.cfm?issue=17&misc_idea=2. philanthropic support, illustrating the multiple funding streams available to religious initiatives. 47. Stephen Prothero, Religious Literacy: What Every American Should Know and Doesn’t (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007). Prothero’s 2007 appearance on the Daily Show is available at http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index. jhtml?videoId=83952. A text of the Wingspread Declaration on Religion and Public Life (including a list of signatories) is available at www.svhe.org/files/Declaration%20 on%20Religion%20and%20Public%20Life.pdf. 48. For an overview of these discussions, see Hent de Vries, ed., Religion: Beyond a Concept (New York: Fordham University Press, 2008). See also Talal Asad, Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993). Information on the Journal of the American Academy of Religion’s call for papers was issued via the AAR’s February 2009 E-Bulletin, sent to all members of the organization. For more information on the 2007 Syracuse University conference, see the event’s webpage at http://pcr.syr. edu/2007/index.htm. 49. For examples of such confessional scholarship, see the individuals profiled in Schmalzbauer, People of Faith. 50. Marsden, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); Alvin Plantinga, God and Other Minds; Nicholas Wolterstorff, Reason within the Bounds of Religion (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984). 51. For the mission and membership of the Lilly Seminar, see http://www.nd.edu /~lillysem/. Alan Wolfe, “The Opening of the Evangelical Mind,” Atlantic Monthly, October 2000, 55–76; Wolfe, “A Welcome Revival of Religion in the Academy,” B4. 242 John Schmalzbauer and Kathleen Mahoney 52. “Who’s Who: Higher Education’s Senior Leadership,” Change, January–February 1998. The New York Times quotation comes from the blurb on the back of Parker Palmer’s To Know as We Are Known: Education as Spiritual Journey (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993). 53. Parker Palmer’s To Know as We Are Known conceives of education as a form of “spiritual journey” and “spiritual formation.” See also Palmer, The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997); Palmer, A Hidden Wholeness: The Journey toward an Undivided Life (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004). 54. Richard Hughes, How Christian Faith Can Sustain the Life of the Mind (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001). 55. The figure of eight hundred attendees comes from the Education as Transformation Project webpage at http://www.wellesley.edu/RelLife/transformation/edu-ngoverview.html. See the webpage of the “Going Public with Spirituality in Work and Higher Education” conference at www.umass.edu/spiritual_conf/. 56. Diana Chapman Walsh, quoted in Peter Laurence, “Can Religion and Spirituality Find a Place in Higher Education?” About Campus, November–December 1999, available at http://www.wellesley.edu/RelLife/transformation/CanReligionandSpirit.doc; Peter Laurence, “Education as Transformation: History of a Movement,” Spirituality in Higher Education Newsletter, April 2004, 1, available at http://www. spirituality.ucla.edu/docs/newsletters/1/Laurence_Final.pdf. 57. Scott quoted Ali Crolius, “Unsequestered Spirits,” UMass Magazine Online, Winter 2000, available at www.umass.edu/umassmag/archives/2000/winter2000/hl_spirits.html; Eric Goldscheider, “Religion Journal; Seeking a Role for Religion on Campus,” New York Times, 2 February 2002, B6. See also the collection of essays at David Scott’s webpage, http://www.umass.edu/pastchancellors/scott/papers/papers.html. 58. The Fall 2001 issue of Liberal Education focused on religion and higher education. It is available at www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-fa01/le-fa01contents.cfm. The January–February 2006 issue of Academe on religion can be found at http://www. aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2006/JF/. See also the March–April 2006 issue of Change, “Religion in the Academy.” 59. See the webpage for the “Spirituality and Learning: Redefining Meaning, Values, and Inclusion, in Higher Education” conference held 18–20 April 2002 in San Francisco at http://www.aacu.org/meetings/pdfs/S&LProgram.pdf. 60. “A Position Statement from The Initiative for Authenticity and Spirituality in Higher Education,” Character Clearinghouse, 23 August 2002, retrieved from http://www.collegevalues.org/spirit.cfm?id=982&a=1. Religion and Knowledge in the Post-secular Academy 243 61. See The Spiritual Life of College Students: A National Study of College Students’ Search for Meaning and Purpose (Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA, 2004). Information on the National Institute on Spirituality in Higher Education retrieved from www.spirituality.ucla.edu/national_institute/index.html. 62. This tripartite division of American religion can be found in Catherine L. Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit: A Cultural History of American Metaphysical Religion (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007), 4. 63. See “Biography: Sir John Templeton,” posted on the webpage of the Templeton Press at http://www.templetonpress.org/SirJohn/biography.asp. 64. See also the webpage of the NASPA-affiliated Journal of College and Character at http://journals.naspa.org/jcc/ and the Institute on College Student Values at http:// www.collegevalues.org/Institute.cfm. See also Arthur Schwartz, “It’s Not Too Late to Teach College Students about Values,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 9 June 2000, A68. The Templeton Guide: Colleges That Encourage Character Development is available at http://www.collegeandcharacter.org/. 65. For a discussion of the “moral revival,” see Alan Wolfe, “Moral Inquiry in Social Science,” in The Nature of Moral Inquiry in the Social Sciences: Occasional Papers of the Erasmus Institute (Notre Dame, IN: Erasmus Institute, 1999), 1–20; Wolfe, “The Revival of Moral Inquiry in the Social Sciences,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 3 September 1999, B4. 66. Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989); Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984); Robert Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1985). 67. Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000); Robert Putnam and David Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Unites and Divides Us (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010). For a list of participants in the Saguaro Seminar, see http://www.hks.harvard.edu/ saguaro/participants.htm. 68. Robert McClory, “Campus Compact Urges Student Service,” National Catholic Reporter, 6 October 1995, 13. For the Campus Compact mission and statistics, see www.compact.org; Jennifer Warren, “Students Venturing beyond Ivy Walls for Real Education,” Houston Chronicle, 4 April 1993, A9. 69. Statistics on Catholic colleges from McClory, “Campus Compact Urges Student Service,” 13; Gustav Niebuhr, “Colleges Setting Moral Compasses,” New York Times, 4 August 1996, EL31. 244 John Schmalzbauer and Kathleen Mahoney 70. 71. Julie Reuben, “The University and Its Discontents,” Hedgehog Review 2:(3)2000: 90. Anne Colby et al., Educating Citizens: Preparing America’s Undergraduates for Lives of Moral and Civic Responsibility (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003). The quote is from Anne Colby and Tom Ehrlich with Elizabeth Beaumont and Jason Stephens, “Undergraduate Education and the Development of Moral and Civic Responsibility,” on the webpage of the Communitarian Network at http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/ Colby.html; Helen S. Astin and Anthony Lising Antonio, “The Impact of College on Character Devleopment,” New Directions for Institutional Research, Summer 2004, 55–64. 72. Rebecca Chopp, “Living Lives of Integrity and Truth,” Journal of College and Character 7:6(2006): 5. 73. On the appointment of Rashid I. Khalidi as Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia, see Chris Hedges, “Public Lives: Casting Mideast Violence in Another Light,” New York Times, 20 April 2004. On the establishment of an Israel Studies professorship at Columbia, see Liel Lebovitz, “Battle of the Chairs,” Moment Magazine, February 2006. For more on the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies, see http:// www.iijs.columbia.edu/. 74. John S. Hawley, “Hinduism Here,” in “Spotlight on Teaching,” ed. Cynthia Humes, Religious Studies News, October 2006, iii, vii. See also the webpage for Hawley’s Barnard course “Hinduism Here,” which includes “challenges to the course” from the Infinity Foundation, available at http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/religion/hinduismhere/challenges.html. 75. Information on the programs was retrieved from www.fordfound.org/news/more/ dialogues/index.cfm. The quotation is taken from the 31 March 2005 letter, retrieved at www.fordfound.org/news/more/dialogues/difficult_dialogues_letter.pdf. The current webpage of the Difficult Dialogues Program is http://www.difficultdialogues.org/. 76. See Matthew L. Kaplan, “Getting Religion in the Public Research University,” Academe, July–August 2006, available at www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2006/ JA/feat/Kapl.htm. See also Janet R. Jakobsen, “Campus Religious Conflict Should Go Public,” Academe, July–August 2006. 77. Spirituality and the Professoriate: A National Study of Faculty Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values (Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA, 2006), 1. Available at http://www.spirituality.ucla.edu/docs/results/faculty/spirit_professoriate.pdf. 78. 79. Ammerman, “Sociology and the Study of Religion,” 79. Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, “How Religious Are America’s College and University Professors?” Social Science Research Council web forum “The Religious Religion and Knowledge in the Post-secular Academy 245 Engagements of American Undergraduates,” posted 6 February 2007, available at http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Gross_Simmons/; Spirituality and the Professoriate, 3, available at http://www.spirituality.ucla.edu/docs/results/faculty/spirit_professoriate.pdf. Data from the Ecklund study was reported in Elaine Howard Ecklund, “Religious Differences between Natural and Social Scientists: Preliminary Results from a Study of ‘Religion among Academic Scientists (RAAS),’” paper presented at the Association for the Sociology of Religion annual meeting, August 2005. See also Elaine Howard Ecklund, Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). 80. David Hollinger, “Enough Already: Universities Do Not Need More Christianity,” in Religion, Scholarship, and Higher Education: Perspectives, Models, and Future Prospects, ed. Andrea Sterk (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), 41, 49. 81. For a discussion of the need for Christian scholars to respect the “rules of the academic game,” see George Marsden, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, 44–58. See Thomas Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), for more on how religion relates to the culturally constructed boundary between science and nonscience. 82. William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 121. 83. Ecklund, Science vs. Religion. 84. Lawrence Krauss, “An Article of Faith: Science and Religion Don’t Mix,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 26 November 1999, A88. 85. Richard Sloan’s comments were reported in George Johnson, “A Free-for-All on Science and Religion,” New York Times, 21 November 2006. See also Richard Sloan, Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2006). On page 60, Sloan notes that “No single organization has been more responsible for the rising interest in religion and medicine than the John Templeton Foundation,” noting that the “problem arises when the research supported by foundations is substandard.” 86. Johnson, “A Free-for-All on Science and Religion.” For more on the “Beyond Belief ” conference, see the event’s webpage at www.beyondbelief2006.org. 87. Marilynne Robinson, “Hysterical Scientism: The Ecstasy of Richard Dawkins,” Harper’s, November 2006, 86. 88. Terry Eagleton, “Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching,” London Review of Books, 19 October 2006, available at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html. 89. David Van Biema, “God vs. Science,” Time, 5 November 2006, available at http:// www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html. See also Francis 246 John Schmalzbauer and Kathleen Mahoney Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006). 90. Ecklund, Science vs. Religion. On the appointment of Collins to lead the National Institutes of Health, see Gardiner Harris, “Pick to Lead Agency Draws Praise and Some Concern,” New York Times, 8 July 2009, available at www.nytimes. com/2009/07/09/health/policy/09nih.html?scp=3&sq=NIH%20Collins&st=cse. 91. Robert Orsi, “Is the Study of Lived Religion Irrelevant to the World We Live in? Special Presidential Plenary Address, Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Salt Lake City, November 2, 2002,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42:2(2003): 174. For a different view, see Stephen Prothero, “Belief Unbracketed: A Case for the Religion Scholar to Reveal More of Where She Is Coming From,” Harvard Divinity Bulletin, 32:2(2004): 10–11, available at www.hds.harvard.edu/news/ bulletin/articles/prothero.html. 92. Ray Hart, “Religious and Theological Studies in American Higher Education: A Pilot Study,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 59:4(1991): 715–827. 93. The study was conducted by Barbara Walvoord of the University of Notre Dame. The results were reported in Scott Jaschik, “The ‘Great Divide’ in Religious Studies,” InsideHigherEd, 20 November 2006, available at http://www.insidehighered.com/ news/2006/11/20/religion. 94. Conrad Cherry, Betty A. DeBerg, and Amanda Porterfield, Religion on Campus (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2001). 95. Spirituality and the Professoriate, 9, available at http://www.spirituality.ucla.edu/docs/ results/faculty/spirit_professoriate.pdf. 96. Peter Berger, “Ethics and the Present Class Struggle,” Worldview 21(1978): 6–11; B. Bruce-Briggs, ed., The New Class? (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1979); Warner, “Work in Progress toward a New Paradigm for the Sociological Study of Religion in the United States,” 1054; James Spickard, “What’s Happening to Religion? Six Sociological Narratives,” 2, available at http://www.ku.dk/satsning/religion/indhold/publikationer/working_papers/what_is_happened.pdf, and Spickard, “What Is Happening to Religion? Six Sociological Narratives,” Nordic Journal of Religion and Society 19:1(2006): 13–29. 97. Diane Winston, “Campuses Are a Bellwether for Society’s Religious Revival,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 16 January 1998, A60; José Casanova, Public Religions in the Modern World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 5. 98. Charles L. Harper and Bryan F. LeBeau, “Social Change and Religion in America: Thinking Beyond Secularization,” in The American Religious Experience, http://are. as.wvu.edu/sochange.htm. Religion and Knowledge in the Post-secular Academy 247 99. Michael Lindsay, Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007); Schmalzbauer, People of Faith. 100. Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, “How Religious Are America’s College and University Professors?” unpublished study retrieved at www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/ gross/religions.pdf. 101. John Schmalzbauer, “Campus Ministry: A Statistical Portrait,” SSRC Web Forum, available at http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Schmalzbauer.pdf. Data on Campus Crusade is available at http://campuscrusadeforchrist.com/about-us/facts-and-statistics. See also Jeremy Uecker, Mark Regnerus, and Margaret Vaaler, “Losing My Religion: The Social Sources of Religious Decline in Early Adulthood,”Social Forces 85:4(2007): 1667–1692; Spirituality and the Professoriate, available at http://www.spirituality.ucla.edu/docs/results/faculty/spirit_professoriate.pdf. 102. Spirituality and the Professoriate, available at http://www.spirituality.ucla.edu/docs/ results/faculty/spirit_professoriate.pdf. 103. Hollinger, “Enough Already,” 49; Peggy Levitt, Courtney Bender, Wendy Cadge, and David Smilde, “Toward a New Sociology of Religion,” The Immanent Frame, 2010, available at http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2010/02/15/new-sociology-of-religion/. David Hollinger’s remarks appeared on The Immanent Frame’s forum “Religion and the Historical Profession,” available at http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2009/12/30/religionand-the-historical-profession/. See also Barbara Ehrenreich, Bright-Sided: How Positive Thinking Is Undermining America (New York: Picador, 2009); Wendy Kaminer, The Rise of Irrationalism and Perils of Piety (New York: Pantheon Books, 1999). 104. Bill Bishop, The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded Americans Is Tearing Us Apart (New York: Mariner Books, 2009); Mark Brewer and Jeffrey Stonecash, Split: Class and Cultural Divides in American Politics (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2007). 105. Laurie Goodstein, “Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey,” New York Times, 31 August 2005, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/ national/31religion.html; Ecklund, Science vs. Religion, 46. 106. Magali Sarfatti Larson, The Rise of Professionalism: Sociological Analysis (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1977), 74. The findings of the Pew Religious Knowledge Survey can be found at http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/US-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx. Derek Bok, Our Underachieving Colleges (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), 181. 248 John Schmalzbauer and Kathleen Mahoney

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Religion and Knowledge in the Post-Secular Academy

Religion and Knowledge in the Post-Secular Academy

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS