This essay introduces a collection of short essays solicited from authors around the globe who teach religion courses at the college level (not for professional religious training). The central question uniting this collection is whether religious studies is a unified and global pedagogical field, and this introduction teases out salient continuities and discontinuities driven by broad cultural and political contexts. These essays are published together with this introduction in Teaching Theology and Religion 18:3 (July 2015). The authors were asked to provide a brief overview of the curriculum, student learning goals, and pedagogical techniques employed in their courses.Context matters in teaching religion. Any classroom is a context within a broader set of contexts, so it should not be surprising that religion is studied in different ways around the world. But what can a teacher gain by looking beyond geographical and cultural borders? What can one learn stepping into classrooms led by others who must also wrestle with the "what" and the "how" of teaching religion? Readers of this journal are used to venturing beyond their own local contexts but less often get the chance to go on a more expansive pedagogical journey. The nine essays collected here provide a modest first glimpse into answering one central question: is religious studies a pedagogically united field? More specifically, are there ways of teaching and learning that are common to the study of religion in undergraduate education regardless of cultural or linguistic context? Are there notable differences? These essays show us that two interrelated factors influence religious studies curricula and pedagogy: broad cultural and political structures which influence the early experiences of children in school, and then the anticipated career paths of graduates. Broad pedagogical choices seem to flow from those two baseline realities, but there is little that is global or unique the study of religion.In cultural contexts where there is no set career goal connected to the study of religion, religion is more likely to be conceived as a global study incorporating theory and method. In contexts where students are being trained specifically to be instructors of religious education, religion is more likely to be conceived as a study of one primary tradition with other perspectives considered in passing. In those cases, "theories of religion" are often overlooked in favor of courses focusing on ethics or "character education." The explicitly secular curriculum serves students pursuing a liberal education whose career goals are more amorphous, while the more denominational curriculum serves those who will be teachers or practitioners themselves. These general correlations are not surprising. The question is whether the explicitly cross-cultural, secular curriculum and the denominational, more theological curriculum prompt similar pedagogical choices. It is difficult to know anything for certain from nine essays, but this inquiry can IN OTHER CLASSROOMS