This is just getting uglier by the minute, and I’m not entirely sure I understand why it’s even occurring. For those who don’t know what I’m talking about . . . It all started with the threat of University of Sheffield shutting down their biblical studies department. After much international backlash, the school decided to backpedal on that decision. Then, Christianity Today covered the events in this article. Ben Witherington was quoted in that article:

Evangelically minded faculty, including Andrew Lincoln and Loveday Alexander, were not replaced with scholars who held similar views. Other faculty were “bent on the deconstruction of the Bible, and indeed of their students’ faith,” according to Ben Witherington, a New Testament scholar at Asbury Theological Seminary.

When challenged on this (see comments [Update: the comments have since been deleted]), Witherington has not stated that he was misquoted (though he did say something about contacting the author at CT). He also stated that he doubts there will be any public apology for the remarks, presumably either from the reporter or from Witherington himself. In these comments, he says past scholars in the department “at least nurtured people in their Christian faith” (implying the present ones do not). He reaffirms his quoted comments in the article and takes a stance on the hiring procedures at Sheffield, which goes about, he says, “deliberately avoiding hiring people of faith, and further the issue is deliberately trying to deconstruct someone else’s faith.”

To be honest, I’m not certain why Witherington would have been consulted for such opinions in this article in the first place. Why did the CT author, Collin Hansen, consider Witherington an expert on the faculty at Sheffield? True, BW3 earned his Ph.D. at Durham, another UK institution. But this was close to 30 years ago and, more importantly, it wasn’t Sheffield. Okay, so, Witherington has heard things from former Sheffield students. Still, he is not a proper primary source for the situation.

When pressed further by Stephanie Fisher, Witherington directed Steph to Ralph Martin (who is incidentally emeritus faculty with my own seminary alma mater). It seems as though Witherington has heard some things from Martin and is sharing those thoughts. He also refers to “those Sheffield students over many years who found the denials of historical substance in the Bible, among other things, not merely disturbing but problematic.”

In Sheffield dept. chair James Crossley’s most recent reply to Witherington, James explains why Witherington’s comments are unjustified. Do read his comments on the topic. An earlier post pointed out that it is actually illegal for the school to hire on the basis of religion.

This should be a warning to us all, I think. When approached for comment by a news organization, on some subject upon which we are not directly experts, proceed with caution. Perhaps we should just say, “I’m sorry I don’t have enough information about that for you.” Particularly if our comments could be perceived as hurtful to those directly involved with the issue.

Update: I just noticed this comment from Witherington:

Going forward one of the questions that ought to be seriously discussed is the issue of sensitivity to and tolerance of theological differences in the students and a thoughtful addressing of issues when students feel that pejorative comments about the Bible or about their faith are at the least not fair, and hardly value neutral.

Now, I might be comfortable with a bit more challenge to students than Ben seems to be, but as a larger issue, I do think he has a point. There is a delicate balancing act when talking about biblical literature, between doing necessary historical work and–in Witherington’s words–avoiding perceived “pejorative comments about the Bible or about their faith.” The key unknown here, however, is the matter of student perception. It’s not always something that an educator can control.

I’m looking into the whole “Paul and empire” banquet of goodies these days, trying to categorize the scholarship. In my last post, I asked for scholars who might fall into the category of seeing the empire as a bad thing and Paul as complicit in that empire in some way — especially with the undisputed letters. Some scholars make the case that Paul himself in the undisputed letters is a revolutionary and is “domesticated” (so to speak) one step in Colossians/Ephesians (household codes) and still further in the Pastorals (1 Tim 2 and whatnot).

I’d like to ask a related but different question in this post. Namely, what are the specific passages that scholars typically use (or might use) to argue for Paul’s complicity with empire? [I'm not asking whether or not they are correct in their interpretations of these texts.] We can take this topically. I’ll start it off and add more as you all suggest more. Perhaps later we can fill in the specific scholars associated with the complicity argument with these texts.

Political: Romans 13

Slavery: 1 Cor 7:21

Women: 1 Cor 11 & 14

Violence: 2 Cor 10:1-6

“Anti-Judaism”: 1 Thess 2

I am presently thinking about the different categories of scholars who deal with Paul and the empire. There seem to be two broad categories of those who see the empire as a bad thing and those who say, “What’s the big deal about empire?” Within those who see the empire as evil, there seems to be a spectrum between “Paul as anti-empire” and “Paul as an imperialist.” There are throngs of authors who claim Paul as their herald of anti-imperialism in various ways, of course, but I’m having trouble finding as many scholars who belong to “Empire is bad + Paul is imperialist” category (in other words, a “Paul is complicit in imperial rhetoric and ideology” category). Who all comes to your mind in this category? I am speaking especially of Paul as represented in the undisputed letters.

If anyone wants to challenge my initial typology, I’m quite open to that!

Even if he saddened James of the West (who appears to admit his feelings are childish: “When I was a kid . . .” ) by posting it a day late, I think Kevin has done a wonderful job of highlighting the work of the past month in Carnival 47. Of course, he forgot to share one of my three posts from the past month, but I suppose that can be forgiven. For those of you who don’t know, it was actually Kevin’s birthday yesterday. He’s done us a fine service and on his birthday to boot. So, happy birthday again, Kevin, and good job!

I was impressed by Kevin’s categories this month. I have also been excited about the wonderful audio resources coming out — I was just listening to the NT Pod (by that “golden tongued Brit”) on my commute this morning. Maybe someday I’ll find the time to start a podcast . . .

Teaching the Bible at a Christian college is one thing. And teaching the Bible at a non-confessional (“secular”) university is, of course, something else. But teaching the Bible for one class session during a ten-week course on the foundational history of Western civilization is another thing entirely. That’s what I’m doing this week.

I am responsible for teaching/facilitating two discussion sections (20 undergraduates each) of the aforementioned Western civ. course. Unlike the lecture, which is taught by the professor on record and covers the historical data, the discussions focus on the primary sources. Last week we looked at Gilgamesh and Hammurabi, and this week we covered three texts: portions from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Genesis (12-17), and Exodus (12-14 & 19-24).

The theme of our weekly investigation is to find out how we “do history” with our primary sources. What do these texts tell us about the social situation of the people in this society? We were able to do that kind of thing with Gilgamesh, Hammurabi, and the Book of the Dead fabulously. These kids have some amazing insights! But when it came to analyzing these biblical texts which are so embedded in our own cultural knowledge, even for the those who aren’t devoutly religious, we hit some stumbling blocks.

The class had a hard time asking the same sort of questions and coming to the same sort of conclusions. Like, assessing the text as a human interpretation of divine action in history. Instead, many people talked about maybe God did such and such because God wanted to [fill in the blank]. I certainly could learn better how to assist the discussion, but it’s much bigger than any questions I could ask in this one session on the biblical texts, of course. This sort of “doing history” with biblical texts (and not just “historicity” per se) is the kind of mental exercise that could take up an entire quarter, were I teaching a class on biblical texts at UCLA.

It is my hope that maybe I can aim to take the same route as my esteemed colleague, Kevin Scull, who has TA’ed so many classes at UCLA that they have allowed him to design and teach his own courses. If I do reach that level, perhaps I will design a course on “doing history with the Bible” or “doing history with the New Testament” in order to take on these issues of hermeneutics and historiography with the students in a more in depth way.

For now, we march on to Homer and the Greeks for next week. Though I do have one more session on the biblical topics this week if you have any suggestions for hit-and-run biblical interpretation issues at a state school.

I just received this email from the Coordinator of the Anabaptist-Mennonite Scholars Network:

Please note that there will be no Mennonite Scholars and Friends Forum or Reception at this year’s AAR and  SBL meetings, because we were unable to make the necessary arrangements for hosting and sponsorship. The intent is to resume annual meetings in 2010.

The Mennonite Scholars and Friends Forum and Reception are often the highlight of the conference for me, or at least in the top five highlights. I’m bummed to get this news, but I will look forward to next year!

Update: We got a correction that the reception will go on! Good, I look forward to some Menno-schmoozing.

The Mennonite Scholars and Friends Reception will occur at SBL in New Orleans, hosted by Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary / Institute of Mennonite Studies:

Friday, November 20, 7:00-8:30 pm

Gallier A, Sheraton New Orleans

The rankings are up for the September round of the Biblioblog Top 50 and this blog hit #22 on the list! This number is fitting, as there are 22 chapters in the book of Revelation and 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. My place in the list is clearly ordained by God. Hitting a real stride this past month, I posted more in a single month than I ever have–36 posts (still only a fraction of what some other folks do). I also beat my total views for the month by about a thousand over my next best month (July, which included my carnival).

On either side of me in the rankings, perhaps appropriately for the past month, are female bibliobloggers: Suzanne at #21 and Rachel (for whom I advocated in the past month ) at #23.

My new blogging friend and fellow Celt, Daniel McClellan, is apparently cheating as he has skyrocketed into the top ten after two months of blogging.

Also, Daniel and Tonya have the new carnival up. I was so distracted by the beginning of the quarter that I forgot to send posts in this month. Sorry! Be on the look out at the blog of my colleague and partner in crime, Kevin Scull, as he hosts the carnival next month!

To follow up on what not to name a church centre (from Dr. Jim) . . . how about what not to name a Christian blog? On a sidebar, the author offers one definition of a glory hole (a furnace used to make glass), but is perhaps unaware of another meaning. If you too are unaware of this other meaning, try spending a moment at the Urban Dictionary, your source for what the kids are calling things these days. In light of this, the first six words of the biblical quote following the blog’s title are particularly unfortunate.

Update (11/10/09): Just noticed that they changed the name. Probably a wise idea. I guess that answers the question of whether it was intentional.

Today was my first teaching experience at UCLA. I have taught in a variety of contexts before, but being a TA at UCLA is a different beast. This is the first time I actually created my own syllabus for a course. When I told the other TA’s that mine was six pages, they gasped. The students didn’t seem to mind, though. At least they didn’t express it. I let them know the reason my syllabus was longer was because I wanted to give them more specific guidance with the assignments, not because I’m requiring more of them.

So, here are my two main learning experiences from the first day.

1. As it was my first syllabus creation, it was also my first time going over a syllabus in class. Lesson: man, going over the syllabus is boring. One student put her head down on the desk and apparently slept through it. It has me wondering whether it really is the best way to begin a class. I did start out with introductions (students interviewed one another and introduced their partners to the class) and it seemed to really get some good discussion going. Then, the syllabus. Totally different tone. It’s hard to have fun with it, especially on those times when I have to “lay down the law”. I really wanted to start the class off with a feeling of jovial camaraderie, but the syllabus is such a downer. Part of the problem is I just hate hearing myself talk for so long.
2. Second lesson: UCLA students are smart. The second half of the class session, we read together a portion from The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas (chapter ten — the vision in the arena “suddenly I was a man!”). They broke into pairs to discuss the text together and then reported to the rest of the class. The discussion flew! I was astounded at the insights that the students brought up about gender roles, the redefinition of victory, symbolism in the text, social expectations, etc. Things I hadn’t thought of. A few students banded together with some information from Greek mythology to answer another student’s question about the branch of golden apples (I didn’t have an answer ready). Saying that I look forward to learning from them is no mere token! I really do!

I might change a few things about my approach on Friday, but I’m not sure I’ll be able to get around the syllabus then either. I could do the Perpetua discussion first, but then we end the class (and the week!) with a reading of the syllabus and a monologue from me about the rules of the course. Blah, blah, blah . . . have an exciting weekend! Probably best to get it out of the way. Maybe we could put on some background music. Since we’re getting down to “business,” would it be completely inappropriate to play “Business Time” by Flight of the Conchords? Probably. Oh yeah. That’s right, baby. It’s business time . . .

Do you have any advice about making syllabus review more fun in a way that isn’t inappropriate?

Harvey Cox, the Hollis Research Professor of Divinity at Harvard, will be stopping by my academic home next month. The Center for the Study of Religion at UCLA will be hosting a lecture of his entitled “The Future of Faith” as its Dr. Marvin Fieman Lecture on the Future of Religion.

I’m not sure I’ll be able to be there, as it cuts into baby bedtime, but I felt I should get the word out. The lecture happens on Tuesday, 13 October 2009,
7:30PM – 9:30PM and is located in the Humanities Building A-level 51.

Just to whet your appetite, here is a video of Harvey Cox at UCSB last November:

Should be a great evening!