Surely the gods are laughing, for they must enjoy ironies—especially concerning man's study of his religions. In a word, the design for development of this field, so carefully planned during the last decade, now seems faintly anachronistic, even quaint, even while it comes to fruition (as in this present publication). The times appear to pass us by, and that on two separate levels: (1) Established disciplines within the arts and sciences no longer seem such secure, self-evidently appropriate models for developing religion programs or departments, and (2) Many among the abler students no longer appear to value critical study of religious materials. How shall we comprehend these matters? What is the force of each?

During the 1960s great attention was devoted to the definition of religion study to facilitate its development within the context of the arts and sciences. That context appeared secure. Departments, based upon conjunction of subject matter and appropriate method(s), constituted the unquestioned university firmament. The study of religion was to be secured within that setting. Thus some greater objectivity, less special pleading, would qualify it for a place beside the established approaches to cognate materials.

That context currently appears problematic, for the fixed firmament of disciplines seems now in disarray: Scientific procedures—the acknowledged model? Objectivity—the goal? What field, however long established, is not now wracked with the self-doubt of its sensitive younger practitioners (men and women)—in and with whom, inevitably, the future lies?