The great church historian, Henry Chadwick (1920-2008), died this week. I always appreciated his very lucid translations of ancient works. I think the first work of his I ever read was his translation of Augustine's Confessions. For a very nice reminiscence, see Mark Goodacre at NTGateway.
Requiescat in pace
Friday, June 20, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
Trivial Pursuit after Trivial Pursuit
This past Saturday my significant other and I decided we would like to play Trivial Pursuit. But neither of us actually had a copy of the game. So, we decided to go to Toys R Us in Times Square, but they only had Trivial Pursuit for Kids and they had the Disney version. We went to several bookstores, such as Borders (which has few games by the way) and Barnes & Nobles, but, again, to no avail.
So, we hopped in the car and headed to Queens. There we went to Target and another Toys R Us--again, neither had a regular Trivial Pursuit or a Trivial Pursuit for adults. We also went to a mall with some non-chain toy stores, again to no avail.
So basically, we spent all day looking for Trivial Pursuit, but ended up empty. I guess you just cannot get Trivial Pursuit in New York City. By the way, there are about 30 versions of Scrabble--Scrabble is very popular in NYC--and about 50 versions of Monopoly. One version of Monopoly that I did not see, however, was Socialist Monopoly... ;)
So, we hopped in the car and headed to Queens. There we went to Target and another Toys R Us--again, neither had a regular Trivial Pursuit or a Trivial Pursuit for adults. We also went to a mall with some non-chain toy stores, again to no avail.
So basically, we spent all day looking for Trivial Pursuit, but ended up empty. I guess you just cannot get Trivial Pursuit in New York City. By the way, there are about 30 versions of Scrabble--Scrabble is very popular in NYC--and about 50 versions of Monopoly. One version of Monopoly that I did not see, however, was Socialist Monopoly... ;)
Friday, June 13, 2008
Quote of the Day: Job 14:4
Last night a friend of mine asked me to translate the Hebrew version of Job 14:4 for her friends. Her Greek and Latin are excellent, having been largely trained in Classics and Ancient History, but her Hebrew was a bit rusty. Since I was reading it, I thought I would make it the quote of the day in Hebrew (Masoretic), Greek, and Latin (Vulgate):
Hebrew:
"Mi-yiten tahor mitame' lo' echad"
"Who can make a clean (thing) from an unclean (thing)? No one!"
Greek:
"tis gar katharos estai apo hrupou; all' outheis."
"For who will be clean from unclean? But no one!"
Latin:
"Quis potest facere mundum de immundo conceptum semine? nonne tu qui
solus es?"
"Who can make clean from an unclean seed? Is it not only you?"
Interestingly, the Latin is closest to the Hebrew for the first part, since both maintain the transitive sense of "making" something else clean, whereas the Greek takes cleanness/uncleanness as the status reflecting back upon the "who." By the way, the "can" in the Hebrew is just understood and is not found their literally, but the Latin makes this explicit. Concerning the second part, the Greek is closest to the Hebrew, both saying "no one," whereas the Latin turns to "is it not only you" (supposedly God).
I have to admit, this is hardly a verse that has ever stopped me in my tracks before. I only read it and thought of it because it stopped someone else in her tracks and she needed more information about it. But it does illustrate quite nicely how text traditions develop and change form translation to translation--and Job famously varies quite a bit in general from the Hebrew to the Greek. I have not done enough work in the Vulgate to see how this works out in Latin, but, if this verse is any indication, sometimes it will be closer to the Hebrew than the Greek and sometimes it will be further.
We should also note that the variances of translation are acts of interpretation, adapting texts to new contexts or drawing out possible latent meanings within the text, which, in turn, allows for the development of new meanings--demonstrating, luckily for me, that the act of interpretation is ongoing and neverending. Indeed, taking a second look at the larger passage, this line comes in the context of one of Job's "despondent" prayers to God, this one being about the inevitability of death and, interestingly enough, the impossibility of a new life (as can be found in nature). In a later period, where belief in life after death (outside of the shadowy world of Sheol--Job 14:13) would be more widespread and Job would be accepted as authoritative (among those same people), how these despondent lines of Job would be understood would also change. Perhaps 14:12 allowed some room for reinterpretation: "so mortals lie down and do not rise again; until the heavens are no more, they will not awake or be roused out of their sleep." Job probably understood this in terms of "never," but after the development of the apocalyptic tradition, where there were many predictions of the earth and heavens being destroyed and replaced, this could have appeared as a sentiment promoting resurrection: resurrection when the present heavens and earth are removed.
I will be teaching Job this fall, and I am looking forward to delving into this rich text a little more deeply than I have before!
Hebrew:
"Mi-yiten tahor mitame' lo' echad"
"Who can make a clean (thing) from an unclean (thing)? No one!"
Greek:
"tis gar katharos estai apo hrupou; all' outheis."
"For who will be clean from unclean? But no one!"
Latin:
"Quis potest facere mundum de immundo conceptum semine? nonne tu qui
solus es?"
"Who can make clean from an unclean seed? Is it not only you?"
Interestingly, the Latin is closest to the Hebrew for the first part, since both maintain the transitive sense of "making" something else clean, whereas the Greek takes cleanness/uncleanness as the status reflecting back upon the "who." By the way, the "can" in the Hebrew is just understood and is not found their literally, but the Latin makes this explicit. Concerning the second part, the Greek is closest to the Hebrew, both saying "no one," whereas the Latin turns to "is it not only you" (supposedly God).
I have to admit, this is hardly a verse that has ever stopped me in my tracks before. I only read it and thought of it because it stopped someone else in her tracks and she needed more information about it. But it does illustrate quite nicely how text traditions develop and change form translation to translation--and Job famously varies quite a bit in general from the Hebrew to the Greek. I have not done enough work in the Vulgate to see how this works out in Latin, but, if this verse is any indication, sometimes it will be closer to the Hebrew than the Greek and sometimes it will be further.
We should also note that the variances of translation are acts of interpretation, adapting texts to new contexts or drawing out possible latent meanings within the text, which, in turn, allows for the development of new meanings--demonstrating, luckily for me, that the act of interpretation is ongoing and neverending. Indeed, taking a second look at the larger passage, this line comes in the context of one of Job's "despondent" prayers to God, this one being about the inevitability of death and, interestingly enough, the impossibility of a new life (as can be found in nature). In a later period, where belief in life after death (outside of the shadowy world of Sheol--Job 14:13) would be more widespread and Job would be accepted as authoritative (among those same people), how these despondent lines of Job would be understood would also change. Perhaps 14:12 allowed some room for reinterpretation: "so mortals lie down and do not rise again; until the heavens are no more, they will not awake or be roused out of their sleep." Job probably understood this in terms of "never," but after the development of the apocalyptic tradition, where there were many predictions of the earth and heavens being destroyed and replaced, this could have appeared as a sentiment promoting resurrection: resurrection when the present heavens and earth are removed.
I will be teaching Job this fall, and I am looking forward to delving into this rich text a little more deeply than I have before!
Thursday, June 12, 2008
What is going on at Harvard Divinity School?
In the Chronicle, the following job posting is listed for Harvard Divinity school:
Applicants must hold a doctoral degree by the time of assuming the position in the fall of 2009, be familiar with forms of analysis that address race, gender, and social location, and be able to teach and advise at the doctoral and master's levels, including the M.Div. program. In addition to students in the Divinity School, successful candidates will teach undergraduates and graduate students in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
So, my question is, why does Harvard Divinity School need/want two junior appointments? TWO!!! Are they expanding their NT/Early Christianity field? Is someone retiring? Elizabeth Schlussler Fiorenza is probably nearing retirement age.... If you have some info, let me know (and if you don't feel comfortable displaying this info publicly, email me--jcc2102@columbia.edu).
Of course, I personally think I fit the latter descriptor (early Christianity and Jewish Apocalyptic with some work in the Dead Sea Scrolls--and oddly enough, some work in the Nag Hammadi Codices).
Harvard Divinity School
Junior Positions in New Testament and Early Christianity
Applicants must hold a doctoral degree by the time of assuming the position in the fall of 2009, be familiar with forms of analysis that address race, gender, and social location, and be able to teach and advise at the doctoral and master's levels, including the M.Div. program. In addition to students in the Divinity School, successful candidates will teach undergraduates and graduate students in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
So, my question is, why does Harvard Divinity School need/want two junior appointments? TWO!!! Are they expanding their NT/Early Christianity field? Is someone retiring? Elizabeth Schlussler Fiorenza is probably nearing retirement age.... If you have some info, let me know (and if you don't feel comfortable displaying this info publicly, email me--jcc2102@columbia.edu).
Of course, I personally think I fit the latter descriptor (early Christianity and Jewish Apocalyptic with some work in the Dead Sea Scrolls--and oddly enough, some work in the Nag Hammadi Codices).
Quote of the Day: Montaigne (again)
Both of the following quotes are from Michel de Montaigne's essay, Judgment's on God's ordinances must be embarked upon with prudence. The first quote contains the opening lines and the second the closing lines of the essay.
"The real field and subject of deception are things unknown: firstly because their very strangeness lends them credence; second, because they cannot be exposed to our usual order of argument, so stripping us of the means of fighting them. Plato says that this explains why it is easier to satisfy people when talking of the nature of the gods than of the nature of men: the ignorance of the hearers provides such hidden matters with a firm broad course for them to canter along in freedom. And so it turns out that nothing is so firmly believed as whatever we know least about, and that no persons are more sure of themselves than those who tell us tall stories, such as alchemists and those who make prognostications: judicial astrologers, chiromancers, doctors and 'id genus omne.' To which I would add if I dared that crowd of everyday chronicles and interpreters of God's purposes who claim to discover the causes of everything that occurs and to read the unknowable purposes of God by scanning the secrets of his will..."
Thus:
"We must be content with the light which the Sun vouchsafes to shed on us by its rays: were a man to lift up his eyes to seek a greater light in the Sun itself, let him not find it strange if he is blinded as a penalty for his presumption. 'Quis hominum potest scire consilium dei? aut quis poterit cogitare quid velit dominus?' [For what man can know the counsel of God: or who shall conceive what the Lord willeth? (Wisdom of Solomon 9:13)].
"The real field and subject of deception are things unknown: firstly because their very strangeness lends them credence; second, because they cannot be exposed to our usual order of argument, so stripping us of the means of fighting them. Plato says that this explains why it is easier to satisfy people when talking of the nature of the gods than of the nature of men: the ignorance of the hearers provides such hidden matters with a firm broad course for them to canter along in freedom. And so it turns out that nothing is so firmly believed as whatever we know least about, and that no persons are more sure of themselves than those who tell us tall stories, such as alchemists and those who make prognostications: judicial astrologers, chiromancers, doctors and 'id genus omne.' To which I would add if I dared that crowd of everyday chronicles and interpreters of God's purposes who claim to discover the causes of everything that occurs and to read the unknowable purposes of God by scanning the secrets of his will..."
Thus:
"We must be content with the light which the Sun vouchsafes to shed on us by its rays: were a man to lift up his eyes to seek a greater light in the Sun itself, let him not find it strange if he is blinded as a penalty for his presumption. 'Quis hominum potest scire consilium dei? aut quis poterit cogitare quid velit dominus?' [For what man can know the counsel of God: or who shall conceive what the Lord willeth? (Wisdom of Solomon 9:13)].
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Laptops in the Classroom
In the Chronicle today there is an article about a Law professor who has banned laptops from his classroom. The article notes that in this day and age, doing so is a very bold move by a professor. Some students claim that they can't receive a good education without their laptops. While some students need to take notes on a computer due to some learning difficulty, most students in my experience just surf the net, play games, do some online shopping, and IM their friends (who also may be in the class). When I TA, I often now sit up front so that I don't have to see the sea of computers with everything on their screen except their note sheet. Is banning them the solution? One could argue that, with laptops or not, students will be distracted. They will just stare listlessly out the window, or, uh, do what I did when I was bored in class--doodle.
But doodling is NOT as much a temptation as whatever games you have on your computer, checking your email, and IMing your friends. After a few minutes of doodling, you get bored with that too, so you might as well listen to the lecture. With the laptops a greater number of students seem to be distracted than without them. The biggest problem here is the internet. With more and more campuses going wireless, laptop distraction is much worse than when having a laptop meant the only distractions would be minesweeper.
Proponents of keeping laptops in classrooms claim, however, that they can enrich the discussion. I have seen this happen perhaps once or twice in the past few years...the professor forgot something very specific like a date or the result of a particular court ruling and a student found it within seconds on the internet and we could discuss a document that was on the internet easily because it was on everyone's screen.
This law professor says that by banning the laptops, there was a marked increase in class participation.
In a discussion-based classroom, the laptop, I think, should be banned. 1) In a discussion-based class, you probably aren't taking very many notes to begin with, because you are supposed to be engaged with your classmates and the discussion leader. 2) laptops, in addition to the distractions on the internet, create psychological distance between the speaker and everyone else--in discussion, we need to see your face and the laptop creates a barrier. A discussion-based class has a different advantage, however...I have heard of professors who walk around during discussions, and, by doing so, they can monitor students' screens.
For a lecture-based class, I am not sure... On the one hand, students will probably be taking LOTS of notes, and therefore the laptop seems to be the way to go. But those classes are also more likely to use tests (midterm and final) more than a discussion-based class, and oftentimes students who are now used to typing on their laptops get pretty bad hand cramps when writing out their in-class finals. Although I never used a laptop in college and I still got hand cramps on final exams. During my orientation for teaching Lit Hum next year, we were told that it might be a good idea to give some in-class writing assignments throughout the semester just so that we can get the students used to writing out a lot to prepare them for the handwritten final.
One final problem here is pedagogy: most college professors have terrible pedagogy. They have not been taught how to teach and, although this is changing at the moment, usually professors are rewarded far more for research than for their teaching abilities--so, guess where they spend most of their time? Because so many professors lack pedagogical training, they can be dreadfully boring in class. In such cases, people will be doodling or surfing the net.
Overall, with the advance of technology, there always seem to be drawbacks!
But doodling is NOT as much a temptation as whatever games you have on your computer, checking your email, and IMing your friends. After a few minutes of doodling, you get bored with that too, so you might as well listen to the lecture. With the laptops a greater number of students seem to be distracted than without them. The biggest problem here is the internet. With more and more campuses going wireless, laptop distraction is much worse than when having a laptop meant the only distractions would be minesweeper.
Proponents of keeping laptops in classrooms claim, however, that they can enrich the discussion. I have seen this happen perhaps once or twice in the past few years...the professor forgot something very specific like a date or the result of a particular court ruling and a student found it within seconds on the internet and we could discuss a document that was on the internet easily because it was on everyone's screen.
This law professor says that by banning the laptops, there was a marked increase in class participation.
In a discussion-based classroom, the laptop, I think, should be banned. 1) In a discussion-based class, you probably aren't taking very many notes to begin with, because you are supposed to be engaged with your classmates and the discussion leader. 2) laptops, in addition to the distractions on the internet, create psychological distance between the speaker and everyone else--in discussion, we need to see your face and the laptop creates a barrier. A discussion-based class has a different advantage, however...I have heard of professors who walk around during discussions, and, by doing so, they can monitor students' screens.
For a lecture-based class, I am not sure... On the one hand, students will probably be taking LOTS of notes, and therefore the laptop seems to be the way to go. But those classes are also more likely to use tests (midterm and final) more than a discussion-based class, and oftentimes students who are now used to typing on their laptops get pretty bad hand cramps when writing out their in-class finals. Although I never used a laptop in college and I still got hand cramps on final exams. During my orientation for teaching Lit Hum next year, we were told that it might be a good idea to give some in-class writing assignments throughout the semester just so that we can get the students used to writing out a lot to prepare them for the handwritten final.
One final problem here is pedagogy: most college professors have terrible pedagogy. They have not been taught how to teach and, although this is changing at the moment, usually professors are rewarded far more for research than for their teaching abilities--so, guess where they spend most of their time? Because so many professors lack pedagogical training, they can be dreadfully boring in class. In such cases, people will be doodling or surfing the net.
Overall, with the advance of technology, there always seem to be drawbacks!
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Quote of the Day: More Montaigne
So, it is obvious now that I have been perusing some of Michel de Montaigne's collected essays--I have to teach them next year. His essays, by the way, are a series of exercises in intense self-reflection that perhaps exceeds Augustine Confessions. In a post-reformation world, Montaigne remained a devoted adherent of the Latin rite (the earlier name of what was later called the Roman Catholic Church), while also partaking of the ongoing humanist movement. Thus, although he was French, his father set up that his primary mother-tongue would be classical Latin (literally, his entire family and everyone around him only addressed him in Latin when he was a young child). With this in mind, I read the following in his essay, That it is madness to judge the true and the false:
"We ought to judge the infinite power of Nature with more reverence and a greater recognition of our own ignorance and weakness. How many improbable things there are which have been testified to by people worthy of our trust: if we cannot be convinced we should at least remain in suspense. To condemn them as impossible is to be rashly presumptuous, boasting that we know the limits of the possible. If we understood the difference between what is impossible and what is unusual, or between what is against the order of the course of Nature and what is against the common opinion of mankind, then the way to observe that rule laid down by Chilo, Nothing to excess, would be, Not to believe too rashly: not to disbelieve too easily."
Commentary: This seems to be a respectable position: one is not to be too impressionable either way--both believing and disbelieving too easily are to be too impressionable. The things that appear, at first glance, to be completely unbelievable, may not exceed the limits of the possible, and, therefore, one should in such situations "remain in suspense" between belief and disbelief. For to declare something unbelievable is to claim to know the limits of the knowable, something "rashly presumptuous." I particular like the phrasing in the end about trying to discern between what is unusual and what is impossible (for some things that seem impossible, are just unusual possibilities) and between what is against nature and what is against common opinion (perhaps common opinion what what is against Nature, but which may not, in later reflection--perhaps even generations later when knowledge has changed--actually be against Nature). While Nature (with a capital N) became a surrogate religion, a surrogate god, in Enlightenment thought, one must remember that Montaigne was a devout Catholic. When he is speaking about "Nature," he is speaking about the Nature that God put into order. In fact, when one places all of this back into context, it becomes a defense of miracles. But not just any miracle, but those that have been declared such by a reputable authority--perhaps Plutarch, whom Montaigne clearly adores, but mainly the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, this piece that exhorts one to remain thoughtful and not jump to conclusions too rashly seems to give up the effort of thought itself, since, in the end, he declares that one should totally submit to the judgment of the "ecclesiastical polity." Such a reputable authority, in fact, can declare what is against the order of Nature (i.e. "the ordered Nature determined by God") and what is not (namely, the miracles and mysteries of the Church).
In fact, at this point, the reflections on maintaining critical thought that is not jumping to conclusions or being "rashly presumptuous" sounds frighteningly similar to the positions staked by rather conservative evangelical creationists in recent public school science curriculum debates. As Wade has been posting on Evolution of the Mystery, most supporters of "scientific creationism" and "intelligent design" try to get their views of creation to be taught in science classes side-by-side with evolution through the language of demonstrating the strengths of weaknesses of scientific theories (i.e. evolution--as Wade points out, they are probably not going to be discussing the strengths and weakness of atomic theory). They too are relying upon their "reputable authority" (i.e. their interpretation of Gen. 1:1-2:3) to determine the possible and are questioning the scientific community position of evolution (which is not at all controversial in scientific circles) as being "rashly presumptuous" and claiming to know what is knowable and what is not knowable. Again, the end result is again remaining in "suspense"--at the very best, not knowing anything. Not being too impressionable, neither believing nor disbelieving, leaves one without a position at all, allowing another to decide the position for you. The result of all of this thoughtfulness seems to be thoughtlessness, allowing the reputable authority to do your thinking for you. The problem is, who defines "reputable" and how did that "authority" become an "authority" and how did it become "reputable"?
"We ought to judge the infinite power of Nature with more reverence and a greater recognition of our own ignorance and weakness. How many improbable things there are which have been testified to by people worthy of our trust: if we cannot be convinced we should at least remain in suspense. To condemn them as impossible is to be rashly presumptuous, boasting that we know the limits of the possible. If we understood the difference between what is impossible and what is unusual, or between what is against the order of the course of Nature and what is against the common opinion of mankind, then the way to observe that rule laid down by Chilo, Nothing to excess, would be, Not to believe too rashly: not to disbelieve too easily."
Commentary: This seems to be a respectable position: one is not to be too impressionable either way--both believing and disbelieving too easily are to be too impressionable. The things that appear, at first glance, to be completely unbelievable, may not exceed the limits of the possible, and, therefore, one should in such situations "remain in suspense" between belief and disbelief. For to declare something unbelievable is to claim to know the limits of the knowable, something "rashly presumptuous." I particular like the phrasing in the end about trying to discern between what is unusual and what is impossible (for some things that seem impossible, are just unusual possibilities) and between what is against nature and what is against common opinion (perhaps common opinion what what is against Nature, but which may not, in later reflection--perhaps even generations later when knowledge has changed--actually be against Nature). While Nature (with a capital N) became a surrogate religion, a surrogate god, in Enlightenment thought, one must remember that Montaigne was a devout Catholic. When he is speaking about "Nature," he is speaking about the Nature that God put into order. In fact, when one places all of this back into context, it becomes a defense of miracles. But not just any miracle, but those that have been declared such by a reputable authority--perhaps Plutarch, whom Montaigne clearly adores, but mainly the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, this piece that exhorts one to remain thoughtful and not jump to conclusions too rashly seems to give up the effort of thought itself, since, in the end, he declares that one should totally submit to the judgment of the "ecclesiastical polity." Such a reputable authority, in fact, can declare what is against the order of Nature (i.e. "the ordered Nature determined by God") and what is not (namely, the miracles and mysteries of the Church).
In fact, at this point, the reflections on maintaining critical thought that is not jumping to conclusions or being "rashly presumptuous" sounds frighteningly similar to the positions staked by rather conservative evangelical creationists in recent public school science curriculum debates. As Wade has been posting on Evolution of the Mystery, most supporters of "scientific creationism" and "intelligent design" try to get their views of creation to be taught in science classes side-by-side with evolution through the language of demonstrating the strengths of weaknesses of scientific theories (i.e. evolution--as Wade points out, they are probably not going to be discussing the strengths and weakness of atomic theory). They too are relying upon their "reputable authority" (i.e. their interpretation of Gen. 1:1-2:3) to determine the possible and are questioning the scientific community position of evolution (which is not at all controversial in scientific circles) as being "rashly presumptuous" and claiming to know what is knowable and what is not knowable. Again, the end result is again remaining in "suspense"--at the very best, not knowing anything. Not being too impressionable, neither believing nor disbelieving, leaves one without a position at all, allowing another to decide the position for you. The result of all of this thoughtfulness seems to be thoughtlessness, allowing the reputable authority to do your thinking for you. The problem is, who defines "reputable" and how did that "authority" become an "authority" and how did it become "reputable"?
Harry Potter and Politics
In what I take to be a good case of religion and politics and in keeping with my previous post, I must relate what I saw...perhaps you have seen the same thing.
As I was walking my dog, Daphne, today, I saw the following slogan on a bumper sticker just outside my building:
"Republicans for Voldemort"
Who is Voldemort, the dark lord who must not be named? Is it Bush? Is it McCain? Or just any Republican presidential candidate?
This reminds me of a friend of mine, who asked, "Is it wrong to fancy Voldemort?" (spoken with an English accent)
As I was walking my dog, Daphne, today, I saw the following slogan on a bumper sticker just outside my building:
"Republicans for Voldemort"
Who is Voldemort, the dark lord who must not be named? Is it Bush? Is it McCain? Or just any Republican presidential candidate?
This reminds me of a friend of mine, who asked, "Is it wrong to fancy Voldemort?" (spoken with an English accent)
Quietly Courting: McCain and Evangelicals
I have been posting a series on religion and politics in this campaign season. And, considering that evangelicals were about one quarter of the voting block in 2004, their relationship with the different candidates has been and will probably continue to be a consistent topic in the news. As such, NYTimes has an article on McCain courting evangelicals.
So, evidently McCain has a balancing act to perform. He cannot just come out and make faith-based statements as G.W. Bush did in 2000 and especially 2004. 1) Most Evangelicals don't believe him when he makes any faith-like statement. McCain was raised an Episcopalian. He started going to a Baptist Church (American Baptist or Southern Baptist, I don't know, although it makes a HUGE difference) when he married his most recent wife, although, according to the article, he has never been baptized into the new congregation. Finally, when he campaigned for President in 2000, he called the Bush-supporting Evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell and Co. "agents of intolerance." In February, when McCain was about to clinch the nomination as the presumptive Republican candidate, James Dobson of the Evangelical radio show, "Focus on the Family," said that he would stay home and just not vote (evidently he has now retracted and said that he would vote, but remain highly critical of McCain). 2) In addition to the conservative base finding McCain's faith lacking (and, by the way, they do NOT find Bush's faith lacking, although they are now flagging in their previously more enthusiastic support of Bush), McCain has to maintain the middle--yes, even in such seemingly polarized environments as the past couple elections, there is a middle portion to the electorate that will go back and forth between Republican and Democrat. The middle, though, are the most disenchanted with the Republican party and the Bush regime. These middlers, who often vote Republican, but are not particularly devoted to the party, often find the more hard-core conservative and Evangelical Republicans and their positions repulsive. Thus, if McCain reaches out too much and too publicly to Evangelical voters, he may lose the middle...and, according to the article, if he loses the middle, he loses the election. Thus, McCain has been sending substitutes and staffers to send emails and visit Evangelical leaders, he has been appearing at events without much media hype--basically, he is reaching out, but under the radar. To them, he is emphasizing his opposition to the newest same-sex marriage rulings (for the actual performance of the marriage in California, and the recognition of such California marriages in other states, like my own New York), his opposition to abortion, but, at the same time, playing down his support for stem cell research (a position of his that actually may help him maintain the centrists).
At the same time, Barack Obama is more openly courting Evangelical voters. He has openly spoken of his faith in public throughout the campaign. The now famous remarks of his pastor, however, have made this a bit more difficult for him, but with that controversy probably largely in the past, one can probably expect a bit more faith-speak from Obama--especially since he does it more convincingly than McCain does. Evidently, too, Obama has hired a full-time staffer whose sole job is to reach out to Evangelical voters. As is true overall for Obama, though, if he is able to appeal to Evangelical voters, he will probably generate more support among younger voters than the older ones.
The big question is: will disenchantment with the Republican party (because of the policies of Bush--ranging from domestic issues like education to foreign policy like lack of diplomatic skill and waging an extraordinarily unpopular and costly war), the evangelical dislike and distrust of McCain personally, and Obama's charismatic appeal lead to a reconfiguration of the electorate? Or, will these factors chip into the Republican base just barely enough for Obama to emerge victorious in November? Or will McCain be able to balance the evangelical base (which at the very best will just vote for him reluctantly) and the centrists?
So, evidently McCain has a balancing act to perform. He cannot just come out and make faith-based statements as G.W. Bush did in 2000 and especially 2004. 1) Most Evangelicals don't believe him when he makes any faith-like statement. McCain was raised an Episcopalian. He started going to a Baptist Church (American Baptist or Southern Baptist, I don't know, although it makes a HUGE difference) when he married his most recent wife, although, according to the article, he has never been baptized into the new congregation. Finally, when he campaigned for President in 2000, he called the Bush-supporting Evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell and Co. "agents of intolerance." In February, when McCain was about to clinch the nomination as the presumptive Republican candidate, James Dobson of the Evangelical radio show, "Focus on the Family," said that he would stay home and just not vote (evidently he has now retracted and said that he would vote, but remain highly critical of McCain). 2) In addition to the conservative base finding McCain's faith lacking (and, by the way, they do NOT find Bush's faith lacking, although they are now flagging in their previously more enthusiastic support of Bush), McCain has to maintain the middle--yes, even in such seemingly polarized environments as the past couple elections, there is a middle portion to the electorate that will go back and forth between Republican and Democrat. The middle, though, are the most disenchanted with the Republican party and the Bush regime. These middlers, who often vote Republican, but are not particularly devoted to the party, often find the more hard-core conservative and Evangelical Republicans and their positions repulsive. Thus, if McCain reaches out too much and too publicly to Evangelical voters, he may lose the middle...and, according to the article, if he loses the middle, he loses the election. Thus, McCain has been sending substitutes and staffers to send emails and visit Evangelical leaders, he has been appearing at events without much media hype--basically, he is reaching out, but under the radar. To them, he is emphasizing his opposition to the newest same-sex marriage rulings (for the actual performance of the marriage in California, and the recognition of such California marriages in other states, like my own New York), his opposition to abortion, but, at the same time, playing down his support for stem cell research (a position of his that actually may help him maintain the centrists).
At the same time, Barack Obama is more openly courting Evangelical voters. He has openly spoken of his faith in public throughout the campaign. The now famous remarks of his pastor, however, have made this a bit more difficult for him, but with that controversy probably largely in the past, one can probably expect a bit more faith-speak from Obama--especially since he does it more convincingly than McCain does. Evidently, too, Obama has hired a full-time staffer whose sole job is to reach out to Evangelical voters. As is true overall for Obama, though, if he is able to appeal to Evangelical voters, he will probably generate more support among younger voters than the older ones.
The big question is: will disenchantment with the Republican party (because of the policies of Bush--ranging from domestic issues like education to foreign policy like lack of diplomatic skill and waging an extraordinarily unpopular and costly war), the evangelical dislike and distrust of McCain personally, and Obama's charismatic appeal lead to a reconfiguration of the electorate? Or, will these factors chip into the Republican base just barely enough for Obama to emerge victorious in November? Or will McCain be able to balance the evangelical base (which at the very best will just vote for him reluctantly) and the centrists?
Monday, June 9, 2008
Quote/s of the Day
April DeConick at Forbidden Gospels has a practice of posting "Apocryphotes" or quotes from Christian "apocrypha" (ancient Christian writings that were not including in the later orthodox canon/s). I thought I would post some quotes from time to time (not nearly as regularly as she does) from the much more random sources of lines here and there that strike me as interesting (thus, not nearly as coherent of a group of sources that she is drawing from).
So...here we go:
"Only fools have made up their minds and are certain."
"If you want it to be so, history can be a waste of time: it can also be, if you want it to be so, a study bearing fruit beyond price...."
Michel de Montaigne, On Educating Children
For a follow-up on that first quote:
"For doubting pleases me as much as knowing."
Dante, Inferno 11.93
So...here we go:
"Only fools have made up their minds and are certain."
"If you want it to be so, history can be a waste of time: it can also be, if you want it to be so, a study bearing fruit beyond price...."
Michel de Montaigne, On Educating Children
For a follow-up on that first quote:
"For doubting pleases me as much as knowing."
Dante, Inferno 11.93
Friday, June 6, 2008
The Naughty Bible
The following was in USA Today (and I found out about it from Paleojudaica):
By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
"Examine Bible stories top to bottom — particularly the "bottoms" — and you will find a blue vein of sexual and scatological humor not-so-hidden in the verses, say two scholars of Hebrew Scriptures and an evangelical satire writer.
"Their new book, The Uncensored Bible: The Bawdy and Naughty Bits of the Good Book, in stores Monday, raises such questions as "Which 'bone' was Eve made from?"
"Or whether, in the Book of Judges, a king's assassin escapes through a latrine in a tale laden with euphemisms for feces."
That last bit is the story of Ehud, the left-handed judge (Judges 3:12-30). It is not a story you hear in church or synagogue very often, but, if you read carefully, it is funny. And, uh, the key to the Genesis story is that the "bone" may be something other than Adam's "rib."
How might this be, though? The Bible clearly states that Eve was made from one of Adam's "ribs" (Tsela'). Perhaps the next verse, "Bone (etzem) of my bones," is the relevant portion here... If you point Tsela' with a patakh instead of a kametz, however, it can mean "limping" (or "stumbling"). I hope for Adam's sake, the authors of this new book are referring to the "bone of my bones" verse, rather than Eve being made out of Adam's "limp thing."
The Bible truly is such a bawdy book! (shock to many of you, to be sure, but others, not so much)
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Vatican Statement on Women Priests
The following article was in the NY Times and can be found in most newspapers (through the AP). The Vatican has reaffirmed the ban on women becoming priests to the point of excommunicating any woman who undergoes ordination and any clergy who ordain women. Part of the reason given is that Jesus only had male apostles. This conveniently ignores ancient traditions that calls Mary Magdalene the Apostle to the Apostles and in Orthodox tradition as "equal to the apostles" (see the comments by Shades of Gray and Black). Although Orthodox traditions, too, do not ordain women. This also ignores the prominent role women played in the early Christian movement, being leaders in the community, especially in association with and evidenced by Paul (figures such as Priscilla, Lydia, Euodia, Syntyche, Phoebe, who was a deacon, etc.), before their leadership roles were curtailed in later centuries.
The other reason that is often offered is that God is male and, therefore, can only be represented by men. There are many ways to discuss this in the tradition. Firstly, there is now evidence that in the pre-exilic period, the Israelites worshiped YHWH and the Queen of Heaven, or the goddess, Asherah, who was considered YHWH's consort. The opposition to and repression of this tradition was by those few men who controlled and tried to centralize the cult to YHWH to only Jerusalem (prominently the Deuteronomic School and its successors and the prophet Jeremiah)--this is now very clear. Secondly, the books that became the Bible (and that excised many of these earlier traditions or polemicized against them) were written by men and reflect a male-centric worldview. These men made God in their own image. Yet, evcen so, God as "father" is probably meant to be as literal as God as a "shepherd" or whatever. Thirdly, even the canonical texts use feminine imagery with God, such as God's "compassion" which is cognate with "womb"--it is literally God's "womb love" (see Jer. 49:15). For other feminine imagery applied to God, see Deut. 32:11, Ps. 17:8, 22:9-10, 36:7, 91:4, Hos. 13:8. Especially prominent here is the imagery of God as a mother hen who gathers her chicks under her wings. Interestingly enough, Jesus also uses this imagery to regard himself as a mother hen and the children of Jerusalem as the chicks (Luke 13:34-5). In the books of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon, especially the latter (which, one might emphasize, the Catholic Church takes as canonical, whereas Protestants do not), portray a feminine aspect of God; namely, God's Wisdom (Sophia). In Jewish traditions, moreover, the "presence" of God is the feminine Shekhinah.
Similarly, one argument is that Jesus was male and, therefore, only a male can handle the Eucharist and effect the transformation (transubstantiation) of wine and bread into the blood and flesh of Christ--although, it does not seem that based upon Jesus' interactions with women or even Paul's that they thought so (see first paragraph above). This argument seems like a stretch. One could just as easily argue that since Jesus had brown hair (or likely had brown or black hair) that no blond haired person should be allowed to perform the Eucharist--for how could a blond priest possibly represent a dark-haired Jesus? Or perhaps that since Jesus was Jewish, only a Jew can effect transubstantiation (that will definitely make things difficult indeed). I personally do not know any ancient traditions that actually exclude women in this way for this reason. This explicit reasoning seems to be a much more recent innovation, a post-facto rationalization of previous practice mixed with suppression of the earlier traditions mentioned above (both canonical and non-canonical).
Vatican Asserts Rule That Bars Female Priests
ROME — The Vatican on Friday reaffirmed a ban on ordaining women as priests, warning that the consequences of any such ordination would be the automatic excommunication of anyone involved.
The decree was a reaction to specific episodes of “so-called ordinations in various parts of the world,” according to Msgr. Angelo Amato, the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which issued the decree. In recent years, dozens of women have been ordained by individuals acting outside of the church’s authority.
The document was also drafted to give bishops uniform guidelines on an increasingly contentious matter, as a growing number of Catholics contest the church’s position that only men can be ordained as priests.
In an interview for Vatican Radio, Monsignor Amato reiterated that the church did “not feel authorized to change the will of its founder, Jesus Christ.” The Vatican, he added, felt “in good company” because the Orthodox and ancient Eastern churches have also preserved what he said was a 2,000-year-old tradition.
The decree went into effect on Thursday, after it was published in the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano.
Last March, the archbishop of St. Louis, Raymond L. Burke, excommunicated two women in his diocese and another living in Germany after they were ordained as priests as part of the Roman Catholic Womenpriests organization.
In the past six years, the organization says it has ordained more than 50 women and some men as priests and deacons in North America and Europe. In 2002, the Vatican excommunicated the first seven women shortly after the organization designated them priests.
On Friday, Bridget Mary Meehan, a spokeswoman for the group, said the excommunication, which extends to both the women and the bishops ordaining them, was a positive sign “that the Vatican is taking us seriously.”
Excommunicated Catholics cannot participate in the sacraments or public ceremonies or hold any ecclesiastical position.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Polymorphic or Polydoxic Christianity? Perhaps Neither.
April DeConick, in the comments of her posts, has expressed some concerns with the term "polymorphic." Firstly, she notes that she had considered it before coming up with "polydoxy," and her reasons for rejecting it are:
1. Primarily, it is the same problem with "Christianities"--it just denotes varieties, but does not give any hints pertaining how these groups interact with one another or how they understand themselves. Although, I should note, "polymorphic" is not as grammatically jarring as "Christianities" or "Judaisms."
2. There is nothing particularly Christian about polymorphic--something I consider in its favor, but if one is trying to capture the interactions exclusively between Christians rather than Christians and other groups or just all groups in antiquity, then something with a more Christian ring, with "doxy" or "praxy" would be preferable.
I consider the first point the real potential problem with "polymorphic," and I would be willing to relinquish it for that purpose--its lack of teeth.
In contrast, "polydoxy" indicates a particular character of these groups--they are all claiming to be Christian and the "correct" Christianity against other forms. In this sense, if I have read April's blog entries correctly, this term denotes the specific interaction of jostling for primacy or the polemics of various groups claiming to have the correct understanding of rites and beliefs against the others. "Christianities" and "polymorphic," therefore, appear too benign to capture such polemical interactions, ranging from subtle to intense.
My question as a novice in this field to a seasoned scholar such as April would be this: does "polydoxy" conceal as much as it reveals? Meaning, is the Hobbesian "all against all" or polemical jostling various orthodoxies the only type of interaction that the sources reveal? Or does it capture just a portion of 2nd and 3rd century forms of Christian interactions?
But if this IS the case, perhaps the term "polyorthic" more correctly captures the interactions--it does not impose a false division between belief and practice, and it focuses on various groups claiming they're "right." And it is odd enough to catch people's attention!
It is an interesting topic to brainstorm.
1. Primarily, it is the same problem with "Christianities"--it just denotes varieties, but does not give any hints pertaining how these groups interact with one another or how they understand themselves. Although, I should note, "polymorphic" is not as grammatically jarring as "Christianities" or "Judaisms."
2. There is nothing particularly Christian about polymorphic--something I consider in its favor, but if one is trying to capture the interactions exclusively between Christians rather than Christians and other groups or just all groups in antiquity, then something with a more Christian ring, with "doxy" or "praxy" would be preferable.
I consider the first point the real potential problem with "polymorphic," and I would be willing to relinquish it for that purpose--its lack of teeth.
In contrast, "polydoxy" indicates a particular character of these groups--they are all claiming to be Christian and the "correct" Christianity against other forms. In this sense, if I have read April's blog entries correctly, this term denotes the specific interaction of jostling for primacy or the polemics of various groups claiming to have the correct understanding of rites and beliefs against the others. "Christianities" and "polymorphic," therefore, appear too benign to capture such polemical interactions, ranging from subtle to intense.
My question as a novice in this field to a seasoned scholar such as April would be this: does "polydoxy" conceal as much as it reveals? Meaning, is the Hobbesian "all against all" or polemical jostling various orthodoxies the only type of interaction that the sources reveal? Or does it capture just a portion of 2nd and 3rd century forms of Christian interactions?
But if this IS the case, perhaps the term "polyorthic" more correctly captures the interactions--it does not impose a false division between belief and practice, and it focuses on various groups claiming they're "right." And it is odd enough to catch people's attention!
It is an interesting topic to brainstorm.
Plurodoxy, Polydoxy, Polypraxy...
April DeConick, on Forbidden Gospels, has opened up an issue of how to refer to primarily 2nd and 3rd century Christianity, saying that we need a new term. She writes, and I quote at length:
"Orthodoxy did not exist as a totalitarian entity, although each type of Christianity may have thought of itself as orthodox while everyone else were heretics. So the discussion of heresiology is important to maintain, as long as one understands that the heretic is so only from the point of view of one party. An orthodox Christianity doesn't emerge until the fourth century. Even then, it struggles through council after council, swinging from Arian to anti-Arian for over fifty years. Not until the fifth century are the major lines put into place that will determine the shape of "orthodox" Christianity for the centuries to come.
"Heterodoxy is not any better because it describes religions that deviate from the orthodox. Since we don't have orthodoxy yet, we can't have heterodoxy either.
"Sectarian and cult language don't work either, because sectarian requires that there is some parental tradition that is being deviated from. Cult also suggests deviance along with innovation.
"So what do we have? Multiple forms of Christianity, although this isn't quite right either, because many of these forms are competing with each other and some forms of Christianity are stronger and more dominant in certain geographical locales. So what we have is plurodoxy. That is multiple forms of Christianity that are competing for the orthodox position and/or that consider themselves to be the orthodox position. From this vantage point I think we can better narrative Christian origins and the standardization of Christianity that eventually comes to dominate as orthodoxy in the fourth and fifth centuries."
Basically, as DeConick points out, 2nd and 3rd century Christianity is very messy. To study it, one has to navigate a variety of beliefs, practices, and groups who combine them and interpret them in ever-changing ways. And, as she also points out, the groups are of different size, strength, and shift across the geography and time. She offers the term "plurodoxy," although right now, on her blog, "polydoxy" is winning out, it seems, since plurodoxy combines the Latin (plural) and Greek (doxa), whereas polydoxy is all Greek. I tentatively suggested the inclusion of "polypraxy" alongside of this term, since "polydoxy" tends to privilege doctrine and beliefs, even if it does not necessarily exclude practice. But I fear that the focus on "doxy" and "praxy" imposes a false division between them that did not exist in antiquity, since, for example, our earliest Christian creeds derive from the ritual of Baptism, and DeConick notes that the Christological debates are as much about the Eucharist as anything.
Although she claims that "multiple forms" is not quite right (and I do not see why "multiple forms" cannot capture issues that she refers to, such as different power bases and geographical dispersions), I prefer the term "polymorphic." It does not have the specific religious reference that "doxy" and "praxy" has, but it does get across the "many forms" that Christianity takes in this period, and what is more, since "morph" has accrued a sense of change, it potentially connotes the fluidity of groups as they interact, change through their interactions, as they write their polemics, and jostle against one another, some emerging stronger in some areas and others coming out on top in others, but it is a process.
Moreover, the generic aspect of "polymorphic" has the benefit of being applicable not only to polymorphic Christianity, but also can capture the interactive developments within 2nd temple Judaism and beyond. If, indeed, one can speak of a Mediterranean religiosity or perhaps some larger patterns that find various expressions in Christian, Jewish, Egyptian, Syrian, Greek, and Roman religious "forms" as they interact, imprint themselves on one another, jostle, and reformulate each other (which is how I have been increasingly seeing things as of late), it could be more beneficial that doxy and praxy.
But that is just my two cents.
"Orthodoxy did not exist as a totalitarian entity, although each type of Christianity may have thought of itself as orthodox while everyone else were heretics. So the discussion of heresiology is important to maintain, as long as one understands that the heretic is so only from the point of view of one party. An orthodox Christianity doesn't emerge until the fourth century. Even then, it struggles through council after council, swinging from Arian to anti-Arian for over fifty years. Not until the fifth century are the major lines put into place that will determine the shape of "orthodox" Christianity for the centuries to come.
"Heterodoxy is not any better because it describes religions that deviate from the orthodox. Since we don't have orthodoxy yet, we can't have heterodoxy either.
"Sectarian and cult language don't work either, because sectarian requires that there is some parental tradition that is being deviated from. Cult also suggests deviance along with innovation.
"So what do we have? Multiple forms of Christianity, although this isn't quite right either, because many of these forms are competing with each other and some forms of Christianity are stronger and more dominant in certain geographical locales. So what we have is plurodoxy. That is multiple forms of Christianity that are competing for the orthodox position and/or that consider themselves to be the orthodox position. From this vantage point I think we can better narrative Christian origins and the standardization of Christianity that eventually comes to dominate as orthodoxy in the fourth and fifth centuries."
Basically, as DeConick points out, 2nd and 3rd century Christianity is very messy. To study it, one has to navigate a variety of beliefs, practices, and groups who combine them and interpret them in ever-changing ways. And, as she also points out, the groups are of different size, strength, and shift across the geography and time. She offers the term "plurodoxy," although right now, on her blog, "polydoxy" is winning out, it seems, since plurodoxy combines the Latin (plural) and Greek (doxa), whereas polydoxy is all Greek. I tentatively suggested the inclusion of "polypraxy" alongside of this term, since "polydoxy" tends to privilege doctrine and beliefs, even if it does not necessarily exclude practice. But I fear that the focus on "doxy" and "praxy" imposes a false division between them that did not exist in antiquity, since, for example, our earliest Christian creeds derive from the ritual of Baptism, and DeConick notes that the Christological debates are as much about the Eucharist as anything.
Although she claims that "multiple forms" is not quite right (and I do not see why "multiple forms" cannot capture issues that she refers to, such as different power bases and geographical dispersions), I prefer the term "polymorphic." It does not have the specific religious reference that "doxy" and "praxy" has, but it does get across the "many forms" that Christianity takes in this period, and what is more, since "morph" has accrued a sense of change, it potentially connotes the fluidity of groups as they interact, change through their interactions, as they write their polemics, and jostle against one another, some emerging stronger in some areas and others coming out on top in others, but it is a process.
Moreover, the generic aspect of "polymorphic" has the benefit of being applicable not only to polymorphic Christianity, but also can capture the interactive developments within 2nd temple Judaism and beyond. If, indeed, one can speak of a Mediterranean religiosity or perhaps some larger patterns that find various expressions in Christian, Jewish, Egyptian, Syrian, Greek, and Roman religious "forms" as they interact, imprint themselves on one another, jostle, and reformulate each other (which is how I have been increasingly seeing things as of late), it could be more beneficial that doxy and praxy.
But that is just my two cents.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Catholics and Evangelics for McCain
In the previous post, I noted the disenchantment of many evangelical voters with the GOP, many leaving to become Democrats and others Independents. In this post, one sees the persistence of GOP loyalty among both conservative Evangelicals and conservative Catholics.
Anyone who knows anything about the past 500 years of history realizes that Catholics and Protestants haven't always gotten along very well (again, I like to understate things). But the politics of the past two and a half decades has shown a rapprochement not necessarily in terms of ecumenical understanding (which usually occurs among more liberal-leaning believers, although not exclusively so), but in terms of political expediency.
Thus, Texan Evangelical leader, John Hagee, has recently made anti-Catholic remarks and has recently endorsed John McCain. Prominent Catholic figures on the conservative side have pushed McCain to reject Hagee's endorsement. McCain, however, needing Evangelical voters (who have generally looked askance at McCain), has accepted the endorsement while noting that he does not support everything Hagee says and does.
Hagee, though, has issued a formal apology to William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, saying: "Out of a desire to advance a greater unity among Catholics and evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful." The "common good" they are promoting is, in fact, the Republican party. Donohue has accepted the apology, saying that in conversation with Hagee, he thinks Hagee "has seen the light." Thus, while tension remains between the "papists" and the "schismatics," they put aside their differences with each other and even with McCain in order to have a united political front, all the while the Democratic party is torn in two with its extended Primary season.
For more on this story, see this article from Yahoo.
Anyone who knows anything about the past 500 years of history realizes that Catholics and Protestants haven't always gotten along very well (again, I like to understate things). But the politics of the past two and a half decades has shown a rapprochement not necessarily in terms of ecumenical understanding (which usually occurs among more liberal-leaning believers, although not exclusively so), but in terms of political expediency.
Thus, Texan Evangelical leader, John Hagee, has recently made anti-Catholic remarks and has recently endorsed John McCain. Prominent Catholic figures on the conservative side have pushed McCain to reject Hagee's endorsement. McCain, however, needing Evangelical voters (who have generally looked askance at McCain), has accepted the endorsement while noting that he does not support everything Hagee says and does.
Hagee, though, has issued a formal apology to William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, saying: "Out of a desire to advance a greater unity among Catholics and evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful." The "common good" they are promoting is, in fact, the Republican party. Donohue has accepted the apology, saying that in conversation with Hagee, he thinks Hagee "has seen the light." Thus, while tension remains between the "papists" and the "schismatics," they put aside their differences with each other and even with McCain in order to have a united political front, all the while the Democratic party is torn in two with its extended Primary season.
For more on this story, see this article from Yahoo.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Evangelicals for Obama
In recent years there have been growing fissures between Evangelical Christians and the GOP, an association that has been rather strong since about 1980. These fissures are evident especially (but not exclusively) among younger Evangelicals. They still dislike abortion (understatement of the year), but they seem to balance it with other issues that are more characteristic of Democratic concerns: poverty, environment, social justice, and immigration. In addition, a growing number oppose the war in Iraq. They are also sick of people like James Dobson, founder of "Focus on the Family," supposedly being considered a representative voice.
While there are fissures and many Evangelicals are leaving the GOP, not all are joining the Democratic party. Many seem to be caught in the middle and see no party that really aligns with their mixture of concerns. Yet, come November, there may be many Evangelical votes going for Obama. Moreover, more conservative Evangelicals, like Dobson, have had a difficult relationship with the GOP nominee, McCain, and Dobson has even claimed that "if" McCain is the nominee, he's sitting this election out--thank God!
For more, see this article from the Seattle Times.
While there are fissures and many Evangelicals are leaving the GOP, not all are joining the Democratic party. Many seem to be caught in the middle and see no party that really aligns with their mixture of concerns. Yet, come November, there may be many Evangelical votes going for Obama. Moreover, more conservative Evangelicals, like Dobson, have had a difficult relationship with the GOP nominee, McCain, and Dobson has even claimed that "if" McCain is the nominee, he's sitting this election out--thank God!
For more, see this article from the Seattle Times.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Cinco de Mayo
By the way, I almost forgot, but today is the Mexican Independence Day! Happy Cinco de Mayo! As someone in my class said today, there should be a huge party on the U.S./Mexican border, perhaps around the wall on the Rio Grande! In any case, it is a good excuse for a party!
Teaching and Funding
In the previous post, I pasted my closing comments to the "Instituting Religion" conference from April 10, and my friend Jodi raised some issues in the relationship between funding (and academic advancement) and teaching, noting that as long as research is the primary means of advancement within academe that teaching will get the short end of the stick. She also raises several important issues of the relationship between pedagogy and theory (bringing theoretical savvy to teaching and practical teaching experience to theory), between research and teaching (bringing research into teaching and teaching issues into research), and speaking in general about the contingency of context for these issues (concerning the type of school, its funding structures, and so on).
Given all of these interrelationships, I thought it would be appropriate to announce to my blog-reading public my situation next year: I will be teaching Literature of the Humanities next year at Columbia, which, according to most people I have known who have taught it, is an intensive teaching load (at least for the first-year teachers in the program). Yet, this program will fund me to finish my dissertation (although the teaching load will put me behind my original research schedule). I am very excited for the opportunity to teach in Columbia's Core next year! I do hear that it is great teaching experience and a great overall experience. In fact, some of the people I have spoken to have said that the way they teach Lit Hum, forcing people to slow down and do very close readings of texts from Homer to Virginia Woolf, has forced them to reconsider their own reading practices for their dissertations--forcing them to be much more careful readers in their own fields based upon their situations in the classroom. I do hope to be able to bring insights from my own work (at least from a standpoint of reading practices or ways of organizing large blocks of texts) into conversation with the texts I'll be teaching. Since I work on the interrelationship between the Sabbath and the Sanctuary in ancient Jewish and Christian literature, I'm sure I'll be able to find a time/space bridge (via Bakhtin's Chronotope perhaps).
Given all of these interrelationships, I thought it would be appropriate to announce to my blog-reading public my situation next year: I will be teaching Literature of the Humanities next year at Columbia, which, according to most people I have known who have taught it, is an intensive teaching load (at least for the first-year teachers in the program). Yet, this program will fund me to finish my dissertation (although the teaching load will put me behind my original research schedule). I am very excited for the opportunity to teach in Columbia's Core next year! I do hear that it is great teaching experience and a great overall experience. In fact, some of the people I have spoken to have said that the way they teach Lit Hum, forcing people to slow down and do very close readings of texts from Homer to Virginia Woolf, has forced them to reconsider their own reading practices for their dissertations--forcing them to be much more careful readers in their own fields based upon their situations in the classroom. I do hope to be able to bring insights from my own work (at least from a standpoint of reading practices or ways of organizing large blocks of texts) into conversation with the texts I'll be teaching. Since I work on the interrelationship between the Sabbath and the Sanctuary in ancient Jewish and Christian literature, I'm sure I'll be able to find a time/space bridge (via Bakhtin's Chronotope perhaps).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)