As Tapper (1995) points out, the three major approaches of Western social theory are each "flawed by their commitment to positivism, objectivity, and scientific detachment," (p. 186). Some may wonder how it could be possible to study religion with scientific detachment, since scientific detachment is partly defined by the absence of religious sentiment. If a historian is too detached, he or she cannot come to terms with the language best used to understand any given tradition: for example the "body" of Muhammad and the Prophet's tribe. Denying relevance of mystical experiences, subversive or minority views, or even non-linear representations of history would be doing a disservice to the history of religion. A scholar doesn't necessarily have to spend time in a monastery to understand Zen but it wouldn't hurt. Encounters with terms and ideologies add the missing semantic value that can make a history of religion whole and truly meaningful. If scholastic inquiry aims to present an unbiased and thorough understanding it may be essential to temporarily adopt alternative frames of reference. At the same time, the scholarly history of religion depends on the presentation of historical material and artifacts without placing any value judgment upon those artifacts and texts. One of the problems Tapper (1995) found in the attempted construction of an Islamic anthropology was a hypocritical bias: in critiquing Western social science for its narrow-mindedness, Islamic anthropologists were themselves creating even less tenable methodologies. Any ideological approach to the social sciences can be problematic, but as Tapper (1995) shows, ideology can offer interesting and valid alternative points-of-view. Without Marxist or feminist ideologies, academic would be bereft of a thorough understanding of history and likewise, an Islamic ideology is welcome as an integral part of the history of religion.

Finding a common lexicon and agreeing upon terms remains one of the fundamental challenges...

Religious terms take on whole other meanings when used by insiders: keepers of the faith. Believers, practitioners, and even those members of a society who do not ascribe to the theological reality of a religion but still acknowledge its social function: all ascribe different semantic values to religious terms too. The social function of religion is indeed important, whether or not a practitioner acknowledges any mundane function of religion. Religion is an especially problematic area of research because it intertwines elements of the sacred with the mundane. Varisco's "sacred history" offers a bridge between sacred and profane realities: ways to understand religion from a multitude of perspectives and remain as unbiased as possible.
Assumptions and researcher bias will continue to plague social scientists in any field. Because its practitioners are human, historians of religion are not exempt from researcher bias. Minimizing bias therefore remains a core challenge for the historian of religion. To minimize bias, historians of religion can engage in responsible scholarship by clearly defining terms at the outset of the research, adopting a lexicon and semantic framework relevant for the study, and by acknowledging and expressing the ideological standpoint from which the research is conducted. Finally, the responsible historian of religion clarifies goals and aims of the research. The evolution of theological thought, changes in the social function of one or more religions, comparison of various religions in terms of theology, individual-level or community-wide impact are a few of many possible discourses.