Religious Studies, Theology & the Scholar-Practitioner

From Issue #0 – "On the Scholar-Practitioner"

This article is taken from the Tarka Journal Volume 0 ‘On The Scholar-Practitioner.’ Tarka Volume 9, ‘On Power,’ will be released early 2026.
Written by Tarka Journal Editor, Stephanie Corigliano

The voice of the scholar-practitioner emerges from a confluence of well-established disciplines, both inside and outside the academy. The scholarly study of religion and spirituality in the West is formally located in the fields of Theology and Religious Studies; practitioners draw from these and also (or alternatively) from monasteries, ashrams, contemporary yoga studios, secular meditation centers, and more. The natural process of combining scholarship and practice is central to the formation of spiritual leaders, as demonstrated by centuries of seminary and monastic institutions around the world. Yet, in the modern academy, where the emphasis is more often religious literacy and critical thinking, practice and subjective experience are regarded by many scholars of religion as less serious and overly biased.¹ Still, an increasing number of respected scholars have begun to talk about how their practice informs their scholarship, and vice-versa. This is an important transition because the scholar-practitioner of today is distinct from earlier Christian theologians and/or missionaries and yet the process of integrating historical and traditional knowledge with the contemporary experience of faith or practice remains essential, especially for the formation of spiritual leaders and teachers and for the possibility of dialogue and peacemaking efforts between newer and established religious communities. The scholar-practitioner offers an emic, or insider’s perspective, that draws from contemplative practice, combined with a rigorous desire for knowledge grounded in traditional sources, emerging research, and new ideas.

Throughout this issue of Tarka, a number of authors have argued for the value of combining practice with textual learning. In particular, contemplative practice may actually shift how the brain functions, thereby allowing for a different mode of perception and understanding than might otherwise be available. The denial of this shift and omission of the centrality of practice within the study of the Dharmic traditions is part of what Rita Sherma refers to as “epistemic violence.”² It carries over a colonial impulse that prioritizes European methodologies for study over and above the methods offered by the Dharmic traditions.

---

---

Two additional factors underscore the need for the scholar-practitioner. First, many scholar-practitioners within contemplative studies do not fit neatly into the standard category of religion, yet their practices or texts do. For example, the entry point for many individuals who were not born into a Dharmic tradition is a practice, such as meditation, which then might inspire intellectual curiosity towards the texts and wider tradition. This may or may not be followed by an official conversion, ordination, or initiation. “Belonging” to a spiritual community, in this case, is more defined by a shared set of values and practices versus having a religious identity. Since there isn’t a neat category within the academy for meditators or yoga practitioners, they most often fall under the umbrella of Hinduism and Buddhism, and yet this is not quite accurate either. Still, their questions, concerns, and research agendas do fall somewhere between the established fields of Religious Studies and Theology. The need to define and address the particularity of “scholar-practitioner” is further demonstrated by relatively new fields such as Yoga Studies and Contemplation education that are also emerging with MA degrees available from Loyola Marymount University, Naropa University, and Graduate Theological Union, to name a few pioneering institutions.