I have never taught a Bible course that I have been really satisfied with. Much of it is my difficulty in getting feedback back. But there is also a real sense in which I am conflicted about what the goals of such courses are. I have generally taught these courses at Christian institutions whose primary goal is to equip future or present ministers. Or survey courses are usually meant to in some way largely to fortify the spirituality of future laypeople.
Yet from my perspective, those who set the curriculum usually have a bit of a misconception of how biblical meaning works. For example, those who put survey courses into the general education curriculum of Christian colleges usually operate under the assumption that learning the Bible's content is the same thing as learning how to live or think. And it is often assumed that learning this content automatically equates to a deeper spirituality.
Sometimes these goals are accomplished if the course is taught by a non-biblical specialist or someone with a pre-modern understanding of the Bible, usually adjuncts. The text is used to mirror the spiritual values, beliefs, and ethics of the Christian culture in which the text is taught.
Yet there is also a strange irony that the biblical specialists who usually teach such courses have been trained to know the original meaning. They've been trained to deconstruct the "what you see is what you get" Sunday School approach. They teach about genres and ancient culture. The student learns that Jeremiah 29:11 was not written about them but that the "thoughts I have toward you" were thoughts about Israelites who had been taken as prisoners to Babylon in 586BC.
What's even worse is that evangelical colleges sometimes restrict their Bible courses to those who have passed through the fires of an "inductive Bible study" (IBS) course to teach them how to read the Bible in context. Indeed, the scandal of Bible teaching at Indiana Wesleyan University is that the overwhelming majority of its students will never be able to take a Bible elective because they have to take the IBS course first! It's absolutely outrageous, if you think about it.
Well, I've gotten off topic. For now I'm teaching future ministers of one sort or another, and I agree that ministers need to study the Bible on a different level than laypeople need to. So what are the skills that I should incorporate into my "upper level Bible," "for future minister" classes? Here's my shot as I finish my syllabi for the Spring.
1. They should know the content of the biblical books in question.
2. They should know the major themes of those books and have integrated the themes in those books with the rest of the Bible.
3. They should have located those themes and that content in relation to the commonly held beliefs and ethics of the universal church and their "local" church (including their denomination, if they have one).
4. They should have appropriated this integrated content into their personal and corporate lives, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
5. They should be equipped to teach and proclaim this integrated content both to Christian and non-Christian as appropriate.
These seem to me to be the most essential outcomes of an upper level Bible course. But there are others of lesser priorities that I think are also completely appropriate for a minister. Indeed, some of the following are skills that help one achieve those that precede.
6. They should rehearse and extend their skills at observing the biblical text both in survey and detail.
7. They should rehearse and extend their skills of interpreting the biblical text in the light of its original context.
8. They should know the major critical issues that relate to the biblical texts in question.
The difference between undergraduate and graduate level courses lies in scope and depth.
To the extent that my ponderings might affect future curriculum wherever, any thoughts, suggestions, or critique?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
If a facilitator was serious about achieiving #3 (locating themes of the text within the christian tradition), would it be wise to require a supplemental commentary from the tradition. Possibly giving a list of classic commentaries and/or sermons from which to choose (Chrysostom, Augusitne, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc). Why start from scratch when one can learn from the masters? Unless the idea is to integrate the "true" meaning of the text from contemporary research and then put this in conversation with general creedal Christianity. Although that would be a good practice, it is questionably whether students have such a grasp of the whole tradition. Perhaps a more zeroed-in-on-particular-texts approach which includes the history of interpretation will bring the voice of the church into the conversation better than as an add-on after the "real" exegesis.
just a thought
You raise two big issues for me. One is whether to take a "key passages" approach to Bible courses. Should I not worry about getting through all of Romans and focus in on some very key passages.
The second is more significant, and that is the general lack of knowledge someone like me would have of which texts in history to have the students read. PhD programs in biblical studies train us to be antiquarians, not theologians. Maybe you could put together a "church history" and "theological" bibliography that goes book by book?!
Dr. Schenck,
I like John's idea a lot . . . require that we buy and read some of the Ancient Commentary on Scripture series.
I know that I read a homily by Chrysostom last night on the last passage in the fifth chapter of Matthew's gospel. It was very enlightening, and he had enough insight into the text's original flavor to make his interpretation stellar.
I think I would want to use specific writings/works of church related authors rather than the Ancient Commentary series. For one thing, it would not have things by Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc... in it. For another, it gives short excerpts that I have not found particularly enriching myself with what little I've used it.
I will say that the Ancient Commentary on Romans was one of the many commentaries I brought to class for "problem days" last semester.
It sounds like the three of us in this discussion have our bibliographical work cut out for us . . . as far as making patristic commentary available to the average student in an easily accessible format.
Ken,
You raise a great point about creating an environment in which the accumulated head knowledge begins to stir heart knowledge. I know those are cliched terms, but there is much truth in there.
Academicians are great at the intellectual pursuit. However, the Bible is necessarily a text that requires it to be read and then taken in faith. This separates it from the myriad other texts that a collegian absorbs. Create a nurturing spiritual envirnoment without compromising the intellectual and you will be on to something in my book.
- on the bibliography issue, I believe that it would be beneficial to mix the works of the doctors with some "newer" works in order to gain a historical perspective on the change - or lack thereof - of Biblical interpretation.
Post a Comment