Abstract
“It is widely assumed … that scholars of religion, especially historians and sociologists, should by some magic immunity stand aloof from the heady disputes that are splitting ministers into churchmen and non-churchmen and dividing the theologians into theists and dead-theists … But neither sociology nor history has yet developed a device that enables scholars to be at once deeply interested in their subject and perfectly disinterested with respect to the issues involved in it.”
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.