Review: The End of College

The End of College, Robert Wilson-Black. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2021.

Summary: A history of the creation and development of religion departments between 1930 and 1960 as a shift occurred from church affiliated colleges to research universities on the German model, with different aims serving a wider constituency.

Others, including George Marsden and Julie A. Reuben have chronicled the history of the modern university, including the shift from religiously based colleges to the modern secularized, research-oriented university. What makes this work by Robert Wilson-Black distinct is its account of how institutions that had their roots in the college model handled this shift with its decentering of religion, and in particular, Christianity from its role in university life. In particular, a solution resorted to was the creation of religion or religious studies departments. And yet these lived in a tension between encouraging the religious life and offering an academically rigorous program of study.

This shift represented an effort to preserve something of the college model in a much-changed environment. The college model existed to form mostly Protestants of an upper- or upper-middle class origin in the outlooks and moral character that would prepare them for useful participation in both the church and civil society. Both in terms of chapels and curricular content, religious ideas permeated the curriculum. The shift in higher education from colleges to universities represented a broadening of the constituency served to a much more diverse body in terms of class, gender, race, and religious background–a shift from college for the elite to university for the masses, especially after World War 2. Also the shift was from subjective belief and moral formation to scientific “objectivity.”

Wilson-Black’s treatment focuses on the Ivy League schools like Princeton, Columbia, Yale, Harvard, and the U of Pennsylvania as well as other nationally recognized education leaders from Oberlin to University of Chicago to Stanford dealt with these changes. Each chapter focuses in on a particular school and key figure during a particular period in the thirty years or so covered by this work.

He explores the variety of challenges that were faced. These included the relation between departments and any kind of chaplaincy that remained. A tension that arose in this relationship was advocacy versus instruction. While religion departments certainly affirmed the importance of religious faith in life, they steadily moved away from advocacy, even where their curriculum was still heavily shaped by Christian subjects and themes. There was also the pressure to develop religious studies into an intellectually respectable discipline, “objectively” dealing with the phenomena and role of religion in life. The formation of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) reflected this trend.

The question arose of whether one must be religious, or alternatively not religious to teach this subject well. With the increasing diversity of religious backgrounds of students as well as students who would self describe as humanist or atheist, religious studies began to morph into comparative religion. Some places, like University of Chicago affirmed the exploration of ultimate questions, but did not wish to confine this to a single department. Also, many of these schools offered divinity school programs at the graduate level, and questions arose about how religion departments, that may also develop graduate programs but served undergraduate educational aims would relate to the divinity schools.

The approach of focusing on particular developments at a particular school which reflected broader issues and trends helped make this book very concrete and up close in its history, while also reflected the ways the teaching of religion were differentiated in various contexts and time periods. The work also helps me understand my encounters with religious studies as a fervent young Christian at a state university in the 1970’s. In retrospect, I see it reflected instruction in mainstream scholarship, whether it be the histories of major religious bodies in the U.S. or the critical theories about authorship and composition of the New Testament of the time (I don’t recall that we ever actually were assigned to read the New Testament). At the time I found it disappointing and found far more encouragement to my faith from my campus Christian community and publications of college-oriented Christian publishers like InterVarsity Press and Christianity Today, which had intellectual heft to many of its articles.

Now I understand it better, recognizing both the remnants of the idea that religious understanding is important in one’s education and the effort to be academically rigorous rather than advocating for a faith. There is a critical value of both understanding one’s own faith well (a matter often sadly neglected by our churches in the catechesis of younger members) and understanding and respecting other faiths. Sadly, in many places religious studies seemed to be taken over by the skeptics or even cynics, where advocacy for a belief system or even the encouragement of the formation of one’s own beliefs was replaced by deconstruction of belief systems. I suspect many programs consequently dug their own graves with this approach.

These reflections suggest to me that a good follow up project for this work is what has happened with regard to the teaching of religion as an academic subject in universities in the time since the 1960’s. I note that one of those who endorses this work is Eboo Patel whose work in fostering interfaith understanding and collaboration through the Interfaith Youth Core reflects a continuing interest in religious belief, both the clarifying of one’s own beliefs and the building of mutual understanding and respect with those of others. I like how this author has approached the telling of this story and would love to see it carried forward.


Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher through Edelweiss in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

Review: The Idea of the Holy

The Idea of the Holy
The Idea of the Holy by Rudolf Otto
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Rudolf Otto’s book deserves pride of place for his articulation of “the idea of the holy” and his usage of the term “numinous” to describe “the otherness of God.” Otto particularly develops the idea of the non-rational element in our encounter with God. He elaborates various aspects of these encounters, “creature feeling”, “awefulness”, “overpoweringness”, and “energy” or “urgency”. One of the things I appreciated in this work is that Otto distinguishes “non-rational” from irrational and sees a place for rationality and non-rationality to complement each other in religious life.

Rudolf Otto (Public Domain)

Rudolf Otto (Public Domain)

The book also includes examples of the numinous in scripture, and in the writings of those as diverse as Luther and Chrysostom, and in appendices, in Robertson, Watts, Blake, Ruskin, and others. Because of his familiarity with world religions, Otto includes examples from other religions, both eastern and western, as well as the more “primitive”.

The appendices of this work are quite interesting as well. I’ve already mentioned some of the material covered in these. One had to do with “numinous sounds”, those responses made in different languages when confronted with the “awefulness” or “holiness” of God. Another was on silent worship, and the numinous–something to be considered in the culture of “noisy” extroverted worship in many of our churches.

There were two serious places where I found myself parting company with Otto. One is his evolutionary understanding of the development of religion which he incorporates into his development of the numinous from primitive responses of terror in face of the “daemonic” to what he sees as the supreme expression in Christianity. Not only may this be patronizing to other religions, but it also runs counter to another idea that is worthy of consideration: that the knowledge of there being one supreme God may be prior to the worship of many gods or animistic religion. Otto acknowledges the idea of God above the gods in passing but in the main is committed to this evolutionary schema. This work was first published in 1923 when scientists in a variety of disciplines were proposing evolutionary schema under the influence of Darwin, most notably social-Darwinism, and so this approach, which was widespread in the study of world religions, is understandable.

The other place where I part company is his relegation to the “non-rational” the accounts of the resurrection and other miraculous elements. What is troubling, even where Otto might allow for something objective occurring, is to say that all events of these kind are mystical, non-rational, and subjective. One can still say they are “real” in the sense that they were real to the observers, but because they cannot be rationally explained, they are not “real” in an objective sense.

This is a demanding book to read. The translator mentions that some commented that the translation is better than Otto’s German! I would not discourage reading the book either for this reason or my objections. Otto reminds us that a truly infinite God is beyond our ability to explain God, even as theologians are committed to the task of articulating what may be known and worshiped of this God.

View all my reviews