Last year's editorial, ''How can mainstream approaches become more critical?'' (Goldstein, Boer, King and Boyarin, 2015) provoked some strong responses. Initially, these occurred in social media-a place which one might think unlikely for intellectual discussion but in some ways has become its vanguard. There a debate ensued (mostly between Russell McCutcheon, Craig Martin, and CRR Editor Warren S. Goldstein), which was published subsequently in Religion Bulletin under the title ''On the Nature and Ends of Critique in the Study of Religion.'' 2 After that, we received two submissions, one by Craig Martin and the other by Timothy Fitzgerald, which were largely responses to the editorial. Both were published in the December 2015 issue of CRR (see Fitzgerald, 2015 andMartin, 2015). They focused on a line of inquiry we had neglected in our editorial, centering on the problems with the category of religion, which Fitzgerald has coined ''critical religion.'' Here, we want to engage critical religion as articulated by McCutcheon, Fitzgerald, and Martin, recognizing that they do not stand as a cohesive unit and that there may be as much disagreement between them as there is agreement. While we appreciate the many insights that critical religion has contributed to our understanding of religion as a category, we also find limitations in the debate over the category and the ensuing assumptions concerning the methods of scholarly analysis of religion. In juxtaposition to critical religion, we shall offer a critical theory of religion more narrowly defined (a position with which we closely identify).In the Facebook exchange, McCutcheon's and Martin's objections centered on our value laden approach-which is an aspect that we share with religious traditions. 1 We argued that in order to engage in critique, one must select values as a ground for evaluation. McCutcheon pointed out that values are socially located, and we agree. Nevertheless, we see his attempt to gain a historical, institutional understanding as similarly value laden

Since our launch, we have received a number of submissions that follow what we consider to be ''mainstream'' approaches in the study of religion. We think that all of these approaches have the potential to be critical, but in many cases, those who employ them do not take the additional steps necessary to make their scholarship a critical contribution. This suggests that a discussion of pathways between (to borrow Max Horkheimer's terms) traditional and critical approaches may be helpful to both readers and potential contributors. Some of the comments below reiterate and expand on our inaugural editorial.We will begin our discussion with religious studies, where to a considerable extent, critical approaches have in fact become normative. While there is much work to be done, the inherently interdisciplinary nature of religious studies makes it a useful guide to the study of religion from particular disciplinary perspectives. Our discussion will continue with theology, biblical criticism, and the relationship between the two. In the sociology of religion, which has much to learn from religious studies and biblical criticism, we would characterize mainstream approaches as those belonging to the other major paradigms including interpretive sociology, comparative-historical sociology, positivism, functionalism, social constructionism (phenomenology) or rational choice. While some of the work within some of these paradigms has been critical, too much of it has not. The fields on which we concentrate in this editorial are intended as models for a more comprehensive discussion. In this editorial, we will make suggestions as to how the scholarship in each of these fields can become

No abstract

No abstract

Over the last decade, the discipline of religious studies has promoted religious literacy as both an invaluable contribution to curriculum and an indispensable social good. While much has been written on the importance of the study of religion for the development of religious literacy, little attention has been given to the identification of the disciplinary skills and content knowledge (or what we refer to as religious studies competencies) a student develops through extended study of religion. In this essay, we present an example of how to integrate a religious studies competency-based model into program design and implementation. We argue that the transition to a competency-based religious studies program has two potential benefits. First, competency program design provides an opportunity to redesign and update religious studies programs in a more responsible manner that aligns with our students, institution, discipline, and profession. Second, competency program design facilitates the conditions where we can better avoid duplicating the much criticized world religions paradigm. KEYWORDS alignment, competency-based education, program design, religious literacy, world religions paradigm