I recently received news of your decision to pursue an endowed chair in Islamic studies. As a Christian campus minister, I must say that this is welcomed news. Given our current political-social-religious milieu, to have students thoughtfully engage with this strong and long-standing faith tradition is a welcome addition to the UNC palate of ideas, exchange, and dialogue.
My one concern is this: it seems that one of the pre-requisites for professors in the New Testament and/or studies of Christianity is that they are not "biased" by a personal commitment to the Christian faith. From what I know (and I confess that I do not know all the teachers employed by the University who teach on these subjects), there is no tenured professor teaching on the history, development, or texts of the Christian faith who is actively and personally engaged with the Christian faith.
If the University wishes to be consistent in continuing to pursue this practice, it might make for an interesting hiring process in looking for a chair of Islamic studies. I'm sure that there might be any number of people who would be qualified to teach on Islam who have absolutely no personal investment in or engagement with Islam.
However, prudence might suggest that this practice be abandoned altogether. It would be of enormous profit to the students and faculty if professors who were authentically and thoughtfully engaged in the practice of their faith were actually a vibrant part of the intellectual life and religious discussion of UNC-Chapel Hill.
Of course, this is unlikely to happen. To hire a faculty to teach on Islam who practices Islam would be a coup; to hire a faculty to teach on Christianity who practices Christianity would be...somehow inappropriate.
Of course, much of this stems from the secular, pluralistic, humanistic worldview that so dominates the University landscape. This faith tradition is in its adolescence in terms of development and has its roots in Christianity--and like an overly-grumpy adolescent it has a tendency to over-react to the parent.
Giving the University every benefit of the doubt, perhaps a part of this glaring omission in the hiring process is the assumption that students in the U.S, particularly in the South, already have some exposure to the Christian faith tradition. That may have been true twenty years ago. It certainly is not true today.
For many students, to have a thoughtful, nuanced, well-versed professor teaching on subjects related to Christianity who actually practiced Christianity would be just as new and powerful as having a thoughtful, nuanced, and well-versed professor of Islam who practiced Islam.
Best to you as you pursue this hire and as the religious studies department continues to evolve and reflect the ever-changing social and religious landscape of our world and our culture. I hope and indeed pray that the UNC religious studies department may one day actually reflect the full array of faith commitments--not the full array, minus one. Such a move would only benefit the students, the faculty, and the intellectual, moral, and indeed spiritual climate on campus.
Sincerely,
Alex Kirk
InterVarsity Christian Fellowship
9 comments:
If you had two professors both teaching Intro to New Testament and one doesn't believe (Ehrman being the wonderful example for this time period), and one who does, who do you think Christian students would prefer to learn from? For what reasons? Would they pull their faith into the history?
Ehrman claims to have been a practicing Christian when he first started at UNC. I wonder the difference between the way he taught then and the way he does now. He goes on theological rants that dissuade people from their faith at times. Would a practicing Christian encourage people to pursue Christianity? Would one practicing Islam encourage people to pursue Islam?
For those who follow other religions and simply want to learn the history wouldn't appreciate the implications from a practicing [insert religion] that their religion is wrong when they're in, primarily, a class that is made to be scholarly and not theologically based. As for those who have no religion...I can attest to how horrible it can be to have it thrown at you.
Perhaps having your faith questioned is an important aspect of religion. Some people go through life not questioning anything that they're brought up on. Some people want to learn the theology behind it, but a classroom (at UNC at least) doesn't sound like the appropriate place for that. If there was, we wouldn't need organizations like IV, which kinda puts you out of a job.
I've gone on my own rant, I suppose. Sorry.
Jordan,
thanks for your comment!
In no way do I mean to imply that the UNC Religious Studies department needs to turn Christian studies into a Sunday School class.
What I want to point out in this post is that there is a discrepancy in terms of how the positions in various departments are hired.
Were a Christian faculty to be hired to teach Intro to New Testament, I would say that their job is to most certainly "play by the rules." It would not be a platform to preach. It would be a place to do rigorous academic teaching. Where personal experience might augment the course of academic study, of course the professor would be free to share their experience, just like in any other class.
As you point out with the Ehrman example, your faith commitments definitely color your teaching. Ehrman preaches and does better evangelism better than many preachers I know. He is not "neutral."
To change the example, I think that having a Jewish Rabbi teaching on the Torah is a tremendous gift to students. They are not only taught the academic side of things but also get first-hand knowledge as to how this text shapes the life of the religious community that it was written for.
Apparently, UNC seems to think so too, because they have practicing Jews teaching on Jewish issues. But somehow Christianity gets put in a different box. I'm just asking for equal treatment.
I agree that having students of all faith backgrounds wrestling with their faith during college is a good thing. That's why I do what I do! I love the secular university.
But in this case, there's something of an injustice being perpetuated, and it's time that the religious studies department owned up to that.
You're actually kind of asking for more unequal treatment in my opinion, because you're still not getting the christian side of it in the classroom (not that I don't see your point. I saw it the first time through...). I just don't think that's right. Personal belief shouldn't be in the classrooms. It's one of the reasons I tone Ehrman out when he goes on his rants because I want the academic view to decide for myself. When he starts yelling about how the Gospels are bogus (just an example from today's lecture) I ignore what he says until he offers something of value to support it instead of just his personal rants. I pursued the theological view OUTSIDE of the class (clearly).
I'm not saying that getting it first hand from a Jewish Rabbi isn't a good thing. I'm saying that it's something that should be optional, not required, in a classroom setting. If something interests you so much, you'll want to pursue it outside of the classroom, and there are a lot of ways to do that with every religion, although some are definitely easier than others.
The problem with a class like New Testament is that there is only one teacher, so it's always going to be one sided there. You've been here... a long time, so I'm quite sure you know the inner working of the religious studies department more than I do, but most subjects seem to only have one professor. Should they hire more people to give the option for students to get the first hand personal experience that most people will incorporate into the class? I'll agree they should. I just don't think it's right to have one professor for one class, and you do a lot of the time in the religious studies department. If I look at English or math or physics, there are a ton of different teachers for the same classes.
I'm just an option person, sadly. Opting out of taking a religion class just because the professor brings his/her own views into it is a sad reason for students not to learn the academics of it all, and you know that some people will not take New Testament simply because Ehrman brings in his own harsh views.
It seems strange to me to want to study a faith without the first-hand insights of people who practice it.
It's like preferring to hear a man give a lecture on what it means to be a woman.
jordan, good thoughts here. i guess my one question is this: is there such a thing as a neutral place from which to teach on any subject?
when you go to your science classes, there are a ton of "faith commitments" and agreed upon understandings about how the world works--some of those are held uniquely in the West and would not be the same in other parts of the world. some of those seem very certain and then are undermined by fresh discoveries--and sometimes those discoveries are disputed by other scientists who attempt to explain their findings through a different lens.
so in the religious studies department, a purely secular, academic "historical" look at the gospels, for example, has its' own biases. one bias that reigned for most of the 20th century in the west is that miracles could not possibly happen. with the waning of modernity as the prevailing world view in the west, we're actually finding a good many people who aren't believers of any faith tradition who are open to miracles...and we're finding that most of the rest of the world never bought that crap anyway. the joke's on us.
in the end, i like your idea of hiring different prof's to teach the same class, that certainly has some advantages. i just think they're going to want to ask you to help them fund it! go for it, jordan! once you figure out cold fusion maybe you can set up your endowment for the hiring of multiple religious studies profs for each subject and we'll all be forever in your debt!
Nothing is ever going to happen the way it SHOULD...that's a fact of life...like I just lost another cell phone (to a body of water that you don't want to lose much to) and am perhaps just going to give up the act of communication all-together. That seems best fit for my personality anyway. :)
I really loved having David Halperin when he was still teaching. He explained things saying "this is what secular scholars say, this is what observant Jews believe, this is what I think." His biases were in view and he was respectful of the whole spectrum of beliefs about a topic. The three piece suit, top hat and carnation were just icing on the cake.
Alex, well said. I'm a friend of your brother Daniel and have more experience in religious studies than most human beings should! Surely, nobody is neutral, and Bart E is one example among many. But a professor with a practioner's perspective, who can first lay his/her biases on the table in plain view and then mitigate their influence as much as is possible is a real gift to their students.
Jordan,
B. Ehrman said the gospels are bogus?
Wonder if he would confirm that with a microphone or videocamera around.
Post a Comment