Prompt A: Discuss 2 or 3 challenging or new things you
learned from the readings (remember to use direct reference and citation,
etc.). In what way is this different from, or an expansion on, your prior
knowledge? Be very explicit and detailed.
When tasked with reading critically, students are
instructed to "recognize what a text says, what a text does, and what a
text means," according to Dan Kurland. I thought I was a critical
reader of the Bible. The concept of 'behind the text, in the text, and in
front of the text' as illustrated by Martha Stortz provides a useful focus to
better apply the critical reading components taught by Kurland. Determining
what the Bible does and means without using the Stortz methods yields
incomplete analysis. Stortz outlines the risks of those readers who
remain just behind, in, or in front of the Bible and writes only with the
blending of the three worlds will "a familiar text (the Bible) 'ring
true." (p 4.) My past efforts at Biblical interpretation are
primarily stuck in the world 'behind the text.' I am much more
comfortable confronting the Bible in the historical, redaction, textual, or
source criticism methodologies (as detailed in the Slide Share by Sr. Auria
Avabit) than examining the effects of the readings 'in front of' the
Bible. In particular, I enjoyed employing the redaction critical method,
which I considered to be good critical reading. During Mass, I engage the Bible
within its world, focusing more on identifying and contemplating the literary
styles and techniques of the reading, while leaving the work of assimilating
those words to the Father's homily. In my last entry I mentioned reading
the Children's Bible like a story book. That was the intent of that particular
publication, but somehow that transferred into my adult relationship with
Scripture. I considered myself a 'scholarly' reader, when in fact I was
unaware of the framework for critical study of the Bible offered by Stortz and
lacked the specificity to define my approach to the world behind the text
without Ababit's presentation. Reflecting on these scholarly methods and
tools helped me identify my own failings and prejudices when studying the
Bible. They offer a challenge for further study, and tools to help guide
my progress and effort.
I was also unaware that the Second Vatican Council placed
equal emphasis on the Scripture and the Eucharist, as outlined by Fr. Moloney
when he quotes that "(t)he community is nourished by the table of the Word
as the table of the Eucharist." Though the Ten Achievements
List by Berard Doerger listed "(p)lacing greater emphasis on sacred
Scripture" second, I did not understand the gravitas of the achievement
until I also listened to Fr. Moloney's lecture. I reflected on Fr.
Moloney's observation that, unfortunately, the Church recently returned to the
'defensive' postures before Vatican II. I always considered myself to be
a very liberal Catholic, but Fr. Moloney has me wondering if I am actually the
product of a "defensive" Catholic Church, despite the best efforts of
the Second Vatican. I define myself as a Catholic by embracing the
rituals of Mass, the Sacraments, and (to some extent) the authorities of the
hierarchy. Scripture means very little to me and it was only in the past
year or so that I felt a desire to explore Scripture more deeply. Even now I
shy away from invitations to Christian Life Community (CLC) groups focused on
Bible Study. The Bible in my home sits on a bookshelf surrounded by my fiction
collection-it is not even stored on the bookshelf containing the hundred titles
(or so) retrained from formal education efforts. It certainly does not occupy
the place of honor of the nightstand. A stranger touring my home would not
assume any particular devotion or devoutness of the occupant…and to my shame, I
realize…that stranger would not be wrong.
Prompt B: What is your initial reaction to hearing about a
scientific or academic breakthrough that goes against your prior understanding?
How do you deal with that? Give some concrete examples of when this has
happened in your life.
I honestly cannot think of a time when some new scientific
or academic knowledge challenged my understanding of faith. I was raised
that science and faith coexist- that nothing science identifies can contradict
or undermine faith because science is also a product of God. As a child
functioning on trust of my parents, I never had a moment at school where that
trust felt betrayed. As an adult, I conscientiously accept the two ideas
without reservation. For me, science and faith are necessary and complimentary
aspects of the same journey. Science explains how the world works, but
faith explains how we are expected to live in the world.
In the (somewhat less distressing) world where new
discoveries and challenges come to supplant old theories and ideas, I typically
react curiosity, attempting to verify the material in my own mind before
assimilating the new information if I am interested in the topic, or with
accepting indifference if I am not. For example, when I learned that
Laura Ingalls Wilder may not have written the final manuscripts (and perhaps
not even the major drafts) of her beloved fiction books, I immediately set out
to learn what evidence was available for the argument. I expanded my reading of
her work into her non-fiction work, and started looking up archived articles
published by her daughter. I read the interviews published by the adopted
grandson and reviewed primary source and secondary materials collected at the
different museums. Ultimately, I came to understand the stories were still
hers, and the truth of the authorship was an interesting question but not a
particularly important one.
When I disagree with an assessment, I look for supporting
evidence and facts to construct a logical counter-argument based on reasoning
rather than emotion. For example, the internet is full of lies and myths, and
social media provides a gateway for their propagation. I encountered a
suggestion to use plain coconut oil as sunscreen the other day. I thought- that
is different than my current understanding of how sunscreen works, and promptly
spent six hours reading about sun blocking chemicals, different wavelengths of
rays that burn skin, what kinds of materials are most effective at stopping A
and B rays, how zinc oxide and similar blocking products cannot be finely
distributed through home-rendered products due to the size of their molecules,
and the overall effects of oil on skin when combined with sunshine. I came up
with a well-rationed and reasonable argument, including sources, that coconut
oil alone, in fact, is not a reliable form of sunscreen. In this case, it
mattered little because the internet is also full of irrational people who do
not like to hear they are misinformed (or are, perhaps, embarrassed for
believing some ridiculous things…) so the conversation puttered out after some
angry emojis, but it serves to illustrate my typical response to information
that challenges my knowledge in negative ways.
I studied history in earlier educational endeavors, and we
were taught to embrace that history is subjective to those that survive, and
new evidence should always be welcomed and carefully examined.
While training to be an intelligence analyst, I learned the importance of
following the evidence, without speculation or personal judgement, as far as
possible. I believe these habits and skills help me encounter potentially
monumental or distressing shifts in science or academia with a sense of
willingness.
No comments:
Post a Comment