Interpreting Religion The Phenomenological Approaches of Pierre Daniel Chantepie de la Saussaye, W. Brede Kristensen, and Gerardus van der Leeuw George Alfred James AQUILINE BOOKS I UNT An Imprint of the University of North Texas Libraries Denton Published in 2017 by University of North Texas Libraries 1155 Union Circle #305190 Denton, TX 76203-5017 Copyright 1995 George Alfred James. Some rights reserved. Except where otherwise noted, this work is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12794/sps.religion-james INTERPRETING RELIGION George Alfred James INTERPRETING RELIGION The Phenomenological Approaches of Pierre Daniel Chantepie de la Saussaye, W. Brede Kristensen, and Gerardus van der Leeuw The Catholic University of America Press Washington, D.C. Copyright 1995 The Catholic University of America Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standards for Information Science-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. 00 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data James, George Alfred, 1946- Interpreting religion : The phenomenological approaches of Pierre Daniel Chantepie, W. Brede Kristensen, and Gerardus van der Leeuw / by George Alfred James p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Religion-Study and teaching-History-19th century. 2. Religion-Study and teaching-History-2oth century. 3. Phenomenology. 4. Chantepie de la Saussaye, P. D. (Pierre Daniel), 1848-1920. 5. Kristensen, W. Brede (William Brede), 1867-1953. 6. Leeuw, G. van der (Gerardus), 189o-195o. i. Title. BL4I.J28 1995 200'. 72-dc2o 95-4114 ISBN o-8I32-o831-9 (alk. paper) To Ileana Marculesco, teacher and friend Contents Preface xi Introduction I Prolegomenon A. The Problem II B. The Archeology of the Term 22 c. Familial Traits of Phenomenological Approaches to Religion 47 PART I. The Phenomenology of Religion of Pierre Daniel Chantepie de la Saussaye I. The A-Historical Trait in the Phenomenology of Pierre Daniel Chantepie de la Saussaye 63 The Phenomenology of Chantepie as a Systematic Study of Religion / 63 The Phenomenology of Chantepie as a Non- Developmental Study of Religion / 73 The Phenomenology of Chantepie as an Anti-Historicist Study of Religion / 8z 2. The A-Theological Trait in the Phenomenology of Pierre Daniel Chantepie de la Saussaye 86 Theology in Holland at the Advent of the Phenomenology of Religion / 86 The Object of Theology as a Science and the Object of the Science of Religion / 92 The Theological Attitude and the Attitude of the Science of Religion / 99 The Theological Perspective and the Perspective of the Phenomenology of Religion / 102 The Phenomenological Perspective through the Evasion of the Theological / zo6 vii viii Contents 3. The Anti-Reductive Trait in the Phenomenology of Pierre Daniel Chantepie de la Saussaye 113 Reductionism and the Science of Religion / 113 The Measure of the Object of Chantepie's Inquiry I 119 The Distinctive Quality of the Object of Chantepie's Inquiry / 123 Phenomenology and "Scientific" Studies of Religion / 126 PART II. The Phenomenological Approach to Religion of W. Brede Kristensen 4. The A-Historical Trait in the Phenomenology of W. Brede Kristensen 141 The Phenomenology of Kristensen as a Systematic Study / 144 The Phenomenology of Kristensen as a Non-Developmental Study / 148 The Phenomenology of Kristensen as an Anti- Historicist Study / 152 5. The A-Theological Trait in the Phenomenology of W. Brede Kristensen 156 The Object of Kristensen's Phenomenology and the Science of Theology / 157 The A-Theological Attitude and the Phenomenological Task / 162 The A-Theological Perspective and the Method of Surrender!/166 6. The Anti-Reductive Trait in the Phenomenology of W. Brede Kristensen 175 Reductionism and the Mystical Background of Existence / 175 Reductionism and the Nature of Rational Theoretical Explanation / 180 Kristensen's View of the Sui Generis Nature of Religion / 191 PART III. The Phenomenology of Religion of Gerardus van der Leeuw 7. The A-Historical Trait in the Phenomenology of Gerardus van der Leeuw 203 The Phenomenology of van der Leeuw as a Systematic Study / 205 The Phenomenology of van der Leeuw as a Non-Developmental Study / 210 The Phenomenology of van der Leeuw as an Anti-Historicist Study / 214 Contents ix 8. The A-Theological Trait in the Phenomenology of Gerardus van der Leeuw 217 The Object of Theology and the Study of What Appears / 218 The Theological Attitude and the Attitude of Self-Surrendering Love / 224 Religious Phenomena in the Perspective of the Epoche / 230 9. The Anti-Reductive Trait in the Phenomenology of Gerardus van der Leeuw 240 The Comprehension of Alien Types of Religion / 241 Explanation in the Service of Understanding/ 249 The Irreducible in the Phenomenology of van der Leeuw / 254 Conclusion 267 Bibliography 279 Index 295 Preface In recent decades there has been confusion surrounding the term phenomenology of religion. The present work attempts to clarify this subject through an exploration of the self-understanding of three of its key exponents. We begin with a survey of the ways the term has been understood in recent literature in the field, and following this survey, we attempt to reconstruct the development of the term from its first occurrence in the history of ideas. Much of the confusion has arisen from the fact that the term has had different meanings within two different philosophical traditions, one in Britain, the other on the continent, and when the term first appeared in the study of re- ligion, its meaning was closer to the British than the continental use of the term. Owing to the gradual obsolescence of the term with its original meaning in English, misunderstandings arose. In response to these misunderstandings, more complex developments followed. One of the difficulties in understanding the phenomenology of religion is the absence of any foundational creed to which all ex- ponents were willing to adhere. The earliest exponents of the phe- nomenology of religion differed widely from one another on many critical issues. Nevertheless there is no difficulty in identifying those who self-consciously employed the term, and it is evident that its earliest, self-avowed advocates used the term to distinguish their ap- proach from other known approaches. Thus even if we are unable to define the phenomenology of religion in terms of positive char- acteristics, it need not follow that we are unable to find it. Granting the differences among the various exponents, it is appropriate to ac- knowledge the phenomenology of religion not as one but as a group of approaches. But acknowledging the common disavowal of other available approaches, it is appropriate to recognize their kinship. Ac- xi xii Preface knowledging both their affinities and their differences, we propose to discuss one group of phenomenologies of religion as a family of approaches in which we may discern certain common resemblances or traits while still recognizing the integrity of the particular ap- proach of each individual member. Selection of representatives of this family to discuss raises a variety of issues. We chose to include Pierre Daniel Chantepie de la Saus- saye, the first to use the term phenomenology in the title of a study of religion; W. Brede Kristensen, one of the most influential early exponents of a phenomenology of religion; and Gerardus van der Leeuw, perhaps one of the best known representatives of a phe- nomenological approach. The selection of representatives was also based upon the criterion that discussion of each exponent should illuminate the characteristic traits of the family as a whole. In the following study, we consider the manner in which, and the degree to which, these representatives see their own efforts as at once a- historical, a-theological, and anti-reductive. In the successive contri- butions of each of these exponents, these traits become more de- veloped, more explicit, and more replete with methodological self- awareness. Widespread confusion about the nature of phenomeno- logical approaches to religion has unfortunately obscured the im- portance of this family of approaches in which there is a wealth of insight that has much to contribute to the academic study of religion today. My hope is that the present study will contribute to a recon- sideration of the possibilities inherent in phenomenological ap- proaches to religion. The number of people who have contributed to my efforts to understand the phenomenology of religion are too numerous to men- tion. Professor J. A. Martin, Jr. (retired), of Columbia University was the first to acknowledge the possible contribution of a work of this nature and provided many helpful suggestions when the proj- ect was still only a thought in my mind. Professors Joseph Blau, Rob- ert C. Cumming, and Wayne Proudfoot provided me with helpful and exacting comments. I wish to thank Professor Kenneth L. Schmitz of Trinity College, The University of Toronto, and Professor Preface xiii Louis Dupr6 of Yale University for examining the entire manuscript in an earlier form and for their many helpful suggestions. I thank Dr. David J. McGonagle of The Catholic University of America Press for his interest in the manuscript and for his encouragement during the period of preparation for press. INTERPRETING RELIGION Introduction The significance of what has been called phenomenology for such areas of study as psychology, sociology, history, law, political science, art, etc. is far from established.' Yet among scholars within each of these disciplines, there is agreement that the phenomenological analysis has a bearing upon their work and that its significance is to be found through ever more rigorous reflection upon the works and method of Edmund Husserl, his followers, and their critics as the ideas and materials traditional to these domains of discourse are re- examined in light of the insight they have to offer.