Posts

Posted on

Job: a cosmic drama (table reading)

Yesterday, I taught my last bit of fresh content for the semester. In my ‘Old Testament’ class, I end with the Book of Job. In fact, this last week I’ve used the Books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job to summarize our discussions because as I’ve written in other posts, rather than building the course around the canon of the Tanakh/Old Testament simply because it’s canon, I’ve chosen to build it around the traumas that I believe inspired the writing, editing, and collecting of many of these texts that would eventually be canonized: the Babylonian Exile and the subsequent occupations by the Persians, Ptolemies, and Seleucids.

Job stands in contrast with not only the Book of Proverbs, but also the Book of Deuteronomy, and many of the other texts that argue for a kind of karmic, cause-and-effect view of reality, where the righteous who do good will be blessed and the wicked who do evil will be cursed. I end with this to exhibit how the texts we have read aren’t all in unison all the time. Instead, they create a dynamic conversation about God, our origins, our purpose, or teleology, and more. And while there’s some key agreement—most notably the superiority of Israel’s God—there’s also a whole lot of diversity. Job itself seems like a inter-canon critique of other parts of the canon. Or, as I framed it for my students, Job is the dissenting voice in the roundtable conversation we call the Bible.

But since I can’t expect my students to read Job in its entirety (though we did read key excerpts), I needed a way to get them the gist of the book. So, I turned Job into a script for a drama and I had my students do a ‘table read’. This was one of the most enjoyable exercises of the semester. My students really owned it and at times there was a lot of laughter as certain personalities played their roles. If you’re interested, I’ve uploaded a PDF version of the script. Remember, I’m not script writer but it got the job done:

Job_ a cosmic dramaDownload

Posted on

Multi-Generational Reading Project summary report: part 3: why trust those sources?

As I’ve stated in a few post already, over the Thanksgiving Break I gave my students an extra credit opportunity where they’d read Micah 6.1-8, have a trusted/known adult (parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, etc.) read the same passage, and then both would send me an email answering a series of questions about this text, about their pre-knowledge of the Book of Micah in general, and about their approach to learning more about something about which they know little. In the last post, I shared the answer of both my students and their chosen adults regarding how they’d go about learning more about something they unfamiliar to them. In this post, I shared the reasoning behind their answers. In a future post, I’ll give some insights into the commonalities and differences of the interpretations of Micah 6.1-8 that I read but this will be the last post of this particular series since my main concern here is how they ‘go about’ reading the Bible, in general.

The third question I asked was this: Why would you choose these sources/people? Why do you find them trustworthy? This is a summary of the answers:

The students tended to answer these questions with justifications for their use of Internet resources. While five of them mentioned clergy as a source, only two said anything about why. It boiled down to the fact that clergy seem more devoted to studying these things; therefore, clergy are more learned about these things. The one who mentioned ‘church’, without specifics as to ‘who’ in the church, said that the church is who they trust because that’s where the Bible is most often discussed/found. 

When parents or teachers were cited as an authority, it was for reasons like their ‘trust’ in their parents, that their parent has ‘read the Bible for years’, that a parent ‘has attended church for a long time’, and that the teacher (me) is more knowledgeable and has been studying these subjects.

As to digital resources, the common logic was this: use the Internet but make sure to check multiple sources. If the same point is made across several websites, it’s probably true. If a website has been used successfully in the past, it’s probably trustworthy. One did say that some sort of ‘check’ should be done to test reliability but mentioned no criteria. Another looked for the word ‘Bible’ in the URL.

The adults spoke about clergy a lot more in response to this question. The seven who said they’d go to clergy gave three shared main reasons: (1) clergy are devoted to studying the Bible; therefore, clergy are learned in the Bible; (2) clergy are trained professionals; (3) clergy are trustworthy (or should be as one said). One person claimed that whenever they asked their clergy member a question, and then later researched the answer themselves, the clergy were always proven correct. A similar remark was made by the one person who mentioned ‘perish educators’. It was argued that they can be ‘trusted’. It seems that past experiences, if good, equal trustworthiness (unsurprisingly). 

Other forms of trust in humans included trust in librarians, something no student mentioned. Similarly, a couple mentioned the necessity for ‘peer-reviewed’ sources. Again, no student mentioned this need for one qualified human to check another’s work. 

When it comes to the Internet, adults shared a common logic with the students: multiple searches should be done in order to find common themes across a variety of websites. A couple mentioned the need to vet websites to see if they are credible but didn’t explain ‘how’ they’d do it. A couple explained their use of Wikipedia with one saying it contains extensive information and the other pointing to the value of the endnotes/external links that allow you to see where they got their information. Two adults affirmed what most of the students seemed to imply: online searches are valuable because, frankly, they’re quicker!

There were other rationales ranging from trusting a practitioner of Judaism since Micah is in the Tanakh (my language) to trusting a daughter who was a religion major and another a boyfriend who knows a lot about the Bible/religion. Very few seemed confident in their own reading of the Bible. Only one mentioned this as a trustworthy way of knowing about the Bible. Another trusted the study Bible they had because they trusted the person who recommended it. One person mentioned the popular pastor, Charles Stanley, as their guide.

Posted on

Multi-Generational Reading Project summary report: rart 2: how they’d find more information

Yesterday I began sharing my summary of the responses I received from the extra credit opportunity I offered my students: the ‘Multi-Generational Reading Project’. Since I used Micah 6.1-8 as passage I wanted students do discuss with an adult (parent, grandparent, sibling, etc.), I began by showing what pre-knowledge was had about this passage by both students and the adults with which they paired. Today, I turn to the second question I asked:

Question 2: If you wanted to know more—like who Micah was, or who his audience was, or what his message was—where would you go (to what sources or people) to find that information? How would you get access to these sources/people?

Here are their answers:

Most student respondents said they’d begin by searching online. Seven made reference to ‘the Internet’ while seven others were more specific, mentioning Google. A few of those who said they’d search the Internet said they’d do so using multiple online sources. This is an exercise that Sam Wineburg refers to as horizontal reading where you check the information about a website not by digging deeper into that particular website but by checking it against other websites. It’s a valid activity but the reasoning behind this approach wasn’t always sound. For example, one student suggested that if multiple websites report something, and there’s no evidence that the writers/creators are collaborating, then it is likely to be true. This is questionable, to say the least. Only one student cared about the specific URL ending saying they would look for a .org or something other than just a .com. One student said they’d search specifically for an ‘article’, which seems to indicate they wanted something more ‘official’ than a blog post, tweet, etc.

Other search engines mentioned include Bing and Baidu. Notably, Wikipedia received only a single mention, which is surprising, and differed from the adults a little bit.

There were some who wanted ‘Bible’ to be in the URL, including BibleGateway.com. Others said they’d look for Bible-centered websites. One said they’d trust the videos created by The Bible Project out of Portland, OR. (I use their videos even though they have a strong evangelical bent at times and risk being supersessionist when discussing topics related to the Hebrew Bible…I just have to complicate those messages when I show the videos.) Only four students stated specifically that they’d go straight to the primary source itself: the Bible (whether physical or digital).

Back to adults: three of my students said they’d go directly to me, their teacher, while three said they’d go to their parents, and five said they’d trust a member of the clergy (priests and pastors mentioned). One said they’d ‘go to Church’ but didn’t say who’d they talk to once they arrived.

Only one student mentioned their phone as their go-to source. I don’t think this means that most use computers rather than their phones. I think it means most assume that their phones are their primary hardware for these searches.

The adult respondents said they’d go online as well. Five of them mentioned the Internet with three providing the caveat that they’d look for ‘reputable sources’. Five mentioned Google specifically. Three mentioned Wikipedia specifically, which I found this surprising because in this group the adults seem more comfortable with Wikipedia than the students (3-to-1…so not much comfort in general).

While only four students said they’d go to the primary source itself, three adults said they’d do the same, but others four others mentioned Bibles that had study aids: a ‘reference’ Bible, a couple ‘study’ Bibles, and even an ‘Adventure’ Bible (which apparently has a lot of good maps and other visual aids). 

The biggest difference is that while not a single students said they’d look at a physical book about the Bible—not a single one—four adults said they’d look at things like a ‘Bible reference book’ or a ‘textbook on Bible history’ or even ‘Bible commentaries’. One mentioned their university library and using a digital database to find ‘book lists’.

Eleven students mentioned another person who they’d ask about the Bible, whether a parent, teacher, or member of the clergy. Twelve adults said the same thing, with seven mentioning clergy (compared to five students), one mentioning the ‘Bible teacher’ at Church, one mentioning parish educators, one mentioning a former college professor, and only two citing familial relationships: one a boyfriend and another a daughter (though one did say they wish their mother-in-law was alive still for this sort of thing). Interestingly, even though Micah is part of the Tanakh, only one adult said they might talk to someone who practices Judaism. Notably, most of our student body and their families are associated with Christianity.

In the next post I’ll tell you why my respondents trusted these resources.

Posted on

Multi-Generational Reading Project summary report: part 1: pre-knowledge of the Book of Micah

Prior to the Thanksgiving Break I offered my students an extra credit opportunity. I titled it the ‘Multi-Generational Reading Project’ and I asked them to pair with an adult in their life who would read Micah 6.1-8, answer a few questions for me via email, and then they’d discuss the passage together (for the full context, read ‘Reading the Bible from the perspective of different generations’). Seventeen students participated (eleven boys/six girls) which means seventeen adults joined them. This included eight mothers, five fathers, a grandmother, a grandfather, and older brother, and an aunt. The criteria was that these adults must be over thirty years of age, though I didn’t ask the adult participants to confirm their age.

While this isn’t a scientific study by any stretch of the imagination, the responses did result a small but interesting data set. I’ll discuss my observations in a series of blog posts. Tonight I begin with my participants pre-knowledge of the Book of Micah.

I should state at the outset that I chose Micah because it’s obscure to most, even life-long Bible readers, and people who attend Synagogue or Church. I did this on purpose. I wanted to see what knowledge was ‘in the air’ that would suggest it was based mostly on high-levels on biblical literacy rather than say movies, film, the news, etc.

The first question I asked was this one: What do you know about the Book of Micah without researching it? Here are my summary observations based on the responses I received:

There were fifteen students who said they knew nothing about the Book of Micah, though this isn’t quite true. A couple stated, correctly, that it’s in the Bible and in the Old Testament in particular. Most assumed that this wasn’t a legitimate answer to the question I was asking. It must’ve seemed like a given. I know that most of the others know it’s a book in the Old Testament because that’s what we’ve been studying this semester.

Those who knew something (two students, total) knew that the main figure, Micah, was a prophet. Also, surmising from the context of 6.1-8, it was stated that it seemed to be a book about the punishment of the Israelites and the forgiveness that was available to them. One student thought it had to do something with leadership.

There were seven adults who said they knew nothing about the book and one who said ‘not much’. Seven knew that Micah was a ‘lesser’ or ‘minor’ prophet. Two others knew he was a prophet, in general. One said it must contain the sayings of Micah. Another thought it contained his writings. And another thought it was about his life (a biography?). 

There were some who offered more educated statements (whether they learned in Church or in a college setting) about the book including that it was written in Hebrew and eventually translated into Greek and Latin;  that it was located at the end of the Old Testament, specifically; and that the audience was ‘Israelites’. Few knew much about the historical data related to the book but there were comments from a handful about things like Micah being from Judah in the south; prophesying during the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah; being a contemporary of Isaiah; predicting the fall of Samaria/Israel; prophesying when Israel fell; preaching against Judah’s wickedness; and focusing on judgment. One suggested that Micah focused on resurrection. Another thought the book was influenced in some way by Roman Imperialism (though it was written too early for that…unless this comment had something to do with the canonization process?).

Clearly, most adults knew a lot more about Micah without doing any research. In fact, some had impressive amounts of knowledge. To clarify, my students didn’t study Micah this semester, which is why I chose the book. How the adults knew more can be credited to longer lives, of course, but as I’ll share in the next section, there seems to be more to it.

Posted on

Wisdom Literature and Theodicy

This is the last week that I’ll be introducing new content to my students of the Hebrew Bible. I end with the Wisdom Literature because it puts a nice, not-so-tidy bow on the semester. As I wrote in my short series of blog posts, ‘Canon and Metanarrative’ (see Part 1, 2, and 3), I center the Tanakh around ‘the traumatic events that inspired the composition, editing, and collecting of many of the texts that eventually became canon‘ meaning that for ‘the Hebrew Bible , my focus is two-fold: (1) the Babylonian Exile, which many scholars see as the period when earlier texts were being collected and edited, and new ones were being created, in order to help the Jews establish their identity vis-`a-vis the Babylonians, and (2) the occupation of successive empires such as the Persians, the Ptolemaic Greeks, and the Seleucid Greeks.’ By ending the semester with the Wisdom Literature I’m able to bring it back around to these events and reinforce the underlying theme of the semester that the Bible is variegated and multivalent. I’m able to show that these Scriptures don’t answer the same questions with the same answers.

Let’s take the question of why Israel’s Covenant God would allow the suffering of exile and occupations. The Book of Proverbs sides with the Deuteronomistic understanding of the universe: there’s a cause-and-effect to living wisely—to living in ‘the Fear of Yahweh’—where, generally speaking, obeying ‘Wisdom’ leads to the good life. The Book of Ecclesiastes complicates this message a bit by focusing on our shared ending: death. Ultimately, what brings together every Jew, Babylonian, Persian, and Greek who walks this earth? Death. The narrator may try to bring the hearer comfort at the end of the book but the fact of the matter is this: Qoheleth, even as he advocates for wise-living over foolish-living, can’t assure his hearer that one path has a better outcome than the other. Finally, the Book of Job, which throws a wrench in the whole discussion. The hearer, seeing the world through Job’s eyes, is confronted with this message: Why ask about suffering and evil in the world? Even if you could speak to the Creator directly the answer would be overwhelming and unsatisfactory. The best answer is this: you’ll never understand all that goes into making this world function including the evil you experience.

And with that, students will end a semester of thinking about our lives in our world through the lens of the Tanakh. Not tidy. Not comforting. Instead, like life, it ends with a conversation where there are multiple viewpoints, none which seem to easily win the day.

Posted on

Chinese Religions Podcast Project

Last November our librarian, Lynn Lada, forwarded us teachers a link to the ‘NPR Student Podcast Challenge’. While I wasn’t quite ready to jump into this challenge, I did like the idea of having my students create a podcast. Additionally, the creation of a podcast had the potential to solve two problems I was facing. First, since the ‘World Religion’ course I teach is only a semester long, I was pressed to find time to cover Confucianism and Daoism adequately. Second, I needed something toward the end of the semester to break up our approach a bit. We had done some lectures, some videos, some short readings, some group discussions, but at that point I lacked good projects. So, inspired by the NPR contest, I created the Chinese Religions Podcast Project. How does it work? Below I’ll share the instructions that I’ll be giving to my students tomorrow and if you have any questions leave a comment!

Instructions:

Step 1 – In your cohorts, choose one person who will play the role of the podcast host/radio show interviewer. This person’s job is to compile the script, working with the others in their cohort to create the outline of their podcast episode.

Step 2 – The remaining members of the cohort should be divided into (1) experts on Confucian though and (2) experts on Daoist thought. 

Step 3 – Using the Patheos Library of World Religions, as well as the chapters on Confucianism and Daoism found in Prothero’s God Is Not One, create questions for the interviewer to ask and answers to be given by the interviewees. 

Step 4 – Together, work on and finalize your script. The order should look something like this:

Example Outline of Script:

Host:

Confucian #1:

Confucian #2:

Daoist #1:

Confucian #2:

Daoist #2:

You can go off-script. You can add commercials. Have fun! 

Step 5 – Do a sample run. Make sure you get a feel for how you’ll perform the interview. Try to keep the podcast at 8-10 minutes. You can do up to 2 minutes of commercials but must have no less than 6 minutes of actual content.

Step 6 – Record your podcast! 

Step 7 – Email/share the file with me. We’ll listen to them in class.

Posted on

Why do people leave their childhood religions?

According to the Pew Forum’s analysis in 2016:

Among those who say they were raised exclusively by Protestants, roughly eight-in-ten now identify with Protestantism, including 80% of those raised by two Protestant parents and 75% of those raised by a single parent who was Protestant. Most who were raised exclusively by Protestants but who no longer identify as such are now religious “nones,” with smaller numbers now identifying with Catholicism or other religions.

‘One-in-Five Adults Were Raised in Interfaith Homes’

What does this tell us? Well, it indicates that at least among Protestants the greatest indicator of your potential religiosity is the religion of your parents. Other researchers have confirmed this theory.

In Religious Parenting: Transmitting Faith and Values in Contemporary America, Christian Smith, Bridget Ritz, and Michael Rotolo make this observation on pages 6-7: ‘The best general predictor of what any American is like religiously, after comparing all of the other possible variables and factors, is what their parents were like religiously when they were raising their children…when viewing Americans as a whole, the influence of parents on religiousness trumps every other influence, however much parents and children may assume otherwise.’

This raises an important question: What about the rise of the ‘Nones’, i.e. those with no religious affiliation? Surely, most of their parents weren’t Nones! Andrew Henry’s recent episode of Religion for Breakfast attempts to tackle this related question, ‘Why Do People Leave Their Childhood Religion?’ Since this the first question that arose in my mind when I read that most people follow the religion of their parents, I was excited to see this video being released at this moment. Watch it!

Posted on

AAR/SBL 2019: Days 3 & 4

Sunday was Day 3 of AAR/SBL 2019. I began my day at the ‘Comparative Studies in Religion Unit’ where the question was being asked whether ‘comparative studies’ was still a good approach to teaching religion. Many continue to say yes. Some advocate for teaching ‘worldview’ which would focus more on various lived experiences found in varieties of religion: myth, ritual, community, etc. Others seem committed to the ‘Great Traditions’ (Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and other -isms) for heuristic purposes. Mixed into this discussion were questions regarding whether the best focus would be cultivating empathy, or creating global citizens, and how these foci might alter the shape of a course.

The most interesting thing I learned during this first session was that games like ‘Defining a Nation: India on the Eve of Independence (1945)’ and ‘Constantine and the Council of Nicaea: Defining Orthodoxy and Heresy in Christianity, 325 CE’ exist.

My second unit on Sunday was ‘Hinduism Unit and Teaching Unit’ where they discussed ‘Teaching Religion in Translation’. Being that I don’t know Sanskrit, Pali, or other relevant languages, I hoped to just hear the expert’s advice on choosing a good translation. Some preferred translations were given and the general feeling was that more translations are better than one. Not sure this benefits me much since I cover so much territory I can’t spend a lot of time on the Upanishads or Dhammapada, so I don’t see myself doing a lot of side-by-side translation comparisons. Maybe someday our school will lengthen and divide our current ‘World Religion’ offering and then that might be more feasible.

Yesterday I socialized, bought books, and attended one Biblical Studies session: The Synoptic Gospels/New Testament Textual Criticism group was discussing Matthew Larsen’s Gospels Before the Book. I’m about half-way through it, so it was good to hear some soft push-back on his thesis before I got to the end. It gives me some things to consider.

AAR/SBL 2019 purchases!

AAR/SBL 2019 comes to an end this morning. I won’t be attending any more sessions. It’s time for some vacation before school begins again next week.