The "What is...?" Talk
The first week of classes is when professors give the "What is...?" lecture.
Several of my recent Substack posts have been sermons. Some readers might wonder if my classroom lectures are sermons as well. They’re not. Part of the reason I have this Substack is as an outlet for an occasional sermon or opinion piece that would not be appropriate for me to deliver in class. It’s not my job as a teacher to preach. A classroom lecture is not a sermon. College is not Sunday school.
Some of my first-time students come to my classes with the expectation (or the fear) that my classes will be like Sunday school. This is understandable. Most of those students have not taken a religion class in college before. Why wouldn’t they expect a college religion class to be similar to whatever religious education they are familiar with, which for many would be Sunday school?
For that matter, how are students supposed to know what to expect in any college class in any topic if they haven’t taken one before? This is why we college professors have what historian John Fea calls a “What is…?” unit—a designated time to explain to students what it is they just signed up to learn, whether it is religion, history, or chemistry. The “What is…?” talk usually happens during the first week of classes, which for me is right now. Welcome back, Kotter, hope you had a good summer.1
During the “What is…?” week, I, like many other religion professors, teach the students the difference between a “normative” and a “descriptive” discipline. The difference is that a normative discipline makes value judgments, a descriptive discipline does not.
Theology is a normative approach to the study of religion. A theologian attempts to answer value-laden questions, like “What should I believe about God, and how should that affect how I act in the world?”
A descriptive approach to religion is called “religious studies.” Religious studies describes, compares, and contrasts religions, but refrains from making value judgments. Religious studies tries to answer questions like “How do the members of various religions conceive divinity, and how does that belief affect how they behave?”
In my introductory course, “Five Big Religions, Five Big Questions,” I explain to my students that for the most part we will be taking a descriptive “religious studies” approach. This approach is especially helpful when students are learning about the “Five Big Religions,” which will be (in at least four out of five cases) different from their own. (As a refresher, the five major world religions are Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).
For me, and I hope for the students too, the religious studies approach has been liberating. It frees the teacher and the students from the burden of attacking or defending a religious tradition or practice that is new to them. All we are trying to do at first is understand.
With these advantages, why do we take a descriptive, religious studies approach “for the most part” in this class? Why not take the religious studies approach all the time?
Partly, it’s to meet the students’ expectations. On the first day, I ask students why they chose to take the class. Most of them answer that they are interested in learning about what other religions, other cultures, other people have to say about life, the universe, and everything.2 When pressed, many of them will acknowledge that they are also trying to figure out life, the universe, and everything for themselves.
All of my students are majoring in something other than religion. With a religion department of one over-stretched professor (who also teaches history), Marietta College can only offer a minor. Most of my students will only be able to fit one religion class into their schedule. They won’t have the opportunity to take one class that takes a descriptive approach and another that takes a normative approach: one focused on the beliefs of others and another focused on figuring out things for themselves.
So, I designed “Five Big Religions, Five Big Questions” as a two-for-one. We take a descriptive approach to understanding the five major world religions. We take a normative approach when dealing with the “Five Big Questions.”
The big questions are those that are asked in a theology or a philosophy of religion classroom. Does God exist (more specifically, can God’s existence be proven rationally)? If God is all powerful and perfectly loving, why is there evil in the world (the classic problem of evil)? Can two very different religions be equally true (the problem of religious pluralism)? There are also ethical questions related to war and peace, violence and nonviolence. I actually manage to sneak in more than five.
It’s still not Sunday school (or rather, not the stereotype we have of Sunday school).3 The big questions don’t come with ready-made answers. Students are challenged to learn how other thoughtful people have tried to answer those questions, to evaluate those answers critically, and to have a go at answering them for themselves.
In addition to meeting students’ expectations, there is a more basic reason I take a normative as well as a descriptive approach in my “Five Bigs” class. It’s that taking a purely descriptive, judgment-free approach to any topic is impossible. We can temporarily mute our value judgments. “Bracket” is the term we scholars use. We can hold off on passing judgment on something in order to first understand it. But ultimately, we can’t separate ourselves from what we consider to be most important, our values.
Whether or not we are explicitly religious, we have basic normative beliefs that shape not only how we act in the world but even how we take in information. Even the choice to refrain from value judgments—to take a descriptive approach and maintain an open mind while learning about different religions—is a kind of value judgment. The choice to take a religion class in college, the choice to go to college in the first place for that matter, are both value judgments.
Human beings, including those who are students in my classroom, ultimately can’t keep from making value judgments. So, they might as well practice making thoughtful, informed value judgments.
My friend Andy, who also goes by the name Sankirtana, is a longtime member of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, popularly known as the Hare Krishnas. Andy tells me that the founder of the movement, Swami Prabhupada, who came from India to the United States in 1965, did not intend to start a new religion.4 Prabhupada hoped to “make Hindus better Hindus, Christians better Christians, Muslims better Muslims, and Jews better Jews.”
I kind of want to do the same thing. Maybe not Prabhupada’s way, by traveling around the world teaching the Hare Krishna chant (though if you’re curious, it’s in the footnote),5 but by offering students the opportunity to think about serious topics.
I don’t expect my students to all arrive at the same conclusions to normative questions, but I hope that they learn—in my class and in their lives—to consider serious questions in light of what they believe to be important, true, and just. I invite students to look at their own values critically, with the hope that they may better understand, articulate, and even live consistently according to those values.
But, one might well ask, do they have to be religious values? Am I really open to my students arriving at their own conclusions if I frame my hopes the way Prabhupada did? Is it enough to say that I want my Christian students to be better Christians, Jewish students to be better Jews, and so forth?
Do I want my atheist students to be better atheists?
The answer is yes, absolutely, but not in the way you might expect.
But that will be the subject of another post.
Actually, the first week of classes was last week. This post, originally intended for last week, was preempted by an emergency post on school shootings.
Don’t panic.
Which, I should add, is an unfair stereotype. A lot of inquisitive learning happens in Sunday school classrooms.
Andy is a story teller and educator and offers a presentation on Prabhupada coming to America. Following this link to learn more.
Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare.
I wish I could take your class, David. :)