Several years ago there was considerable discussion of the value and rationale for three separate professional associations dealing with the scientific study of religion. At the end of that discussion, the decision was made that there is reason for a separate existence of the Religious Research Association, that it has a function which would not be served by merging with the SSSR and/or the ASR. I think it appropriate to see the activities of the past year as a continuation of the process of articulating and consolidating the unique function of this organizations.

As you will recall, last year one of the primary subjects of discussion was the statement of editorial policy for the Review of Religious Research, which set out a general approach aimed at combining the interests of academic scholars with those whose research was based within religious organizations. Our editor has not only made this statement a part of the publication itself; as you may see by his report he has also sent information on the Review and its editorial policy through professional channels that may attract both new contributors and new subscribers. He has also expanded his editorial board to reflect this, and is clearly continuing to be busy in the process of developing a wider constituency for the Review. The board in its spring meeting responded to his expansive report by approving a 36-page-per-year enlargement of the Review. Clearly, he has moved us toward a goal of independent growth, and we commend him for his vigor and foresight.

Clarification of the policy and development of a wider constituency for the Review, of course, is only a part of the overall task of development necessary for the Association to maintain a viable existence. This year we have also embarked on a second thrust, related to membership and organizational development. At the spring board meeting, a special committee was appointed to review administrative needs and development possibilities, with Bernard Quinn as chairperson, Ed Rauff and Constant Jacquet completing the membership. there is no way to describe the enthusiasm, efficiency, and good will with this committee has taken on this task and led us to the point evident in their report to this meeting. I stand in awe of their accomplishments, and the organizational ability they evidence.

They have, however, led us to a point of decision ,and one worthy of considerable thought. We cannot provide the central organization and management necessary to accomplish the developmental task of this association without spending more money than we are currently taking in. We have sufficient surplus to do this for a time, but it is obviously bad business for such a state to continue too long. In essence, we are being asked to gamble on our future: if we can be successful in the developmental task of expanding our membership, that investment will soon be paying for itself. If we cannot, we shall be in trouble -- deeper trouble than can probably be dealt with by an increase in dues and subscriptions. If we find we cannot increase membership and involvement, we were probably wrong in our insistence that the Religious Research Association has reason to continue its independent existence. In that case, we might as well fade away. However, I am confident that we will indeed grow and develop into a stronger and larger organization if we commit ourselves to it. That commitment, though, must have a broad base, and I urge your support of it. In the meantime, my hearty thanks to Bernie, Ed, and Connie for their sterling efforts.

Other things I might report will, like these, be part of the reports of specific officers or committees. The work of this organization goes on much more in its sub-units than at its head, for which I am most thankful. There is no need for me to elaborate further on all these activities; they have their own integrity, as will be evident here.

As to specific actions of my own, I will not burden you with the details of my blundering pursuit of this end, but I am happy to announce that Mary Douglas is indeed our H. Paul Douglass Lecturer for this year. In addition, in accordance with the board's decision last spring to have a bit more lead time on the lecture henceforth, I have enlisted Jeffrey Hadden for next year's lecturer. Discussions on regional meetings with SSSR and ASR, also assigned to me, have not yet become a reality, but we are pursuing the possibility of getting together this weekend.

In all, this has been an exciting year to preside over this association, and I thank you all for contributing to it.

Sincerely,

Barbara Hargrove