Time Enough for Visions and Revisions

Or Why “Theory” Matters in the Study of Religion


  • Matthew Day Florida State University




Stephen Prothero, Russell McCutcheon, Ninian Smart


This essay argues that by ignoring the past decade or so of theoretical self-reflection regarding how one best studies "religion,"Stephen Prothero's *God Is Not One* takes us right back to the same ecumenical vista where true religion is by definition never nasty or brutish.


Day, Matthew. 2001. “Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Meta: High Theory and Low Blows in the Study of Religion.” Religious Studies Review 27: 331-9.

———. 2010. “The Sacred Contagion: John Trenchard, Natural History, and the Effluvial Politics of Religion.” History of Religions 50: 144-61.

Fitzgerald, Timothy. 2000. The Ideology of Religious Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.

Foucault, Michel. 1985. The Use of Pleasure. New York: Pantheon.

Harrington, James. 1992 [1656]. Commonwealth of Oceania. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McCutcheon, Russell. 1997. Manufacturing Religion. New York: Oxford University Press.

———. 2003. Discipline of Religion. New York: Routledge.

———. 2005. Religion & the Domestication of Dissent. London: Equinox.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. 2005. The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, and Twilight of the Idols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prothero, Stephen. 2010. God Is Not One. New York: HarperOne.

Smart, Ninian. 2009 [1959]. Ninian Smart on World Religions, Volume One. Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate.

Smith, Jonathan Z. 1990. Drudgery Divine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G.E.M. Anscombe. New York: MacMillan.



How to Cite

Day, M. (2011). Time Enough for Visions and Revisions: Or Why “Theory” Matters in the Study of Religion. Bulletin for the Study of Religion, 40(2), 26–29. https://doi.org/10.1558/bsor.v40i2.005