MATL -Worlds of Readers and Sunscreen.

 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.  

MATL - My Relationship with the Bible

Prompt:  When were you first introduced to the Bible? If it was as a child, how did your understanding of the Bible evolve throughout your life? Were there any points where your understanding was severely challenged, and what did you do about it? How do you approach the Bible? Does your approach differ according to the context? What are your biggest questions about the Bible? What parts of the Bible are the most difficult for you?

My parents read to us, and told us bedtime stories, since we were infants. I assume my earliest exposure to biblical stories came from these traditions with my parents- some assortment of Little Golden Books and personal narrative. My first clear recollection of a Bible comes from The Children's Bible in 365 Stories.  In addition to containing beautiful illustrations, the book neatly and fairly accurately summarizes the major points of the Bible in a child-friendly format. I used to read the book, cover to cover, like a novel. I remember being particularly enamored by the Old Testament stories…I suspect because that was where the women were.  This became a bigger issue for me later in life, but early on I was just interested in reading stories about people who might be like me. I was fascinated by the drawings of Delilah, Bathsheba, and Jezebel because of their beautiful costumes, but my teachers encouraged me to think about Sarah, Rachel, Leah, and Ruth. I was quite a bit older before I realized why.

My mother, who converted to Catholicism as an adult and after her marriage and first two children, insisted that all of her children understand, accept, and indeed, actually request to participate in the sacraments and refused to march us through according to the standardized guidelines. As such, I was a bit older than many other Catholics when I first received the sacrament of Eucharist and thus my memories of the event and the process are very clear.  My maternal grandparents (a Christian Scientist and a Baptist) presented me with my first Bible- a New American Bible edition emblazoned with "First Communion Bible."   In part due to my mother's diligence,  I realized that the interior looked different from the Bible we used in Religious Education and this was the first time I realized that the Word of God was, possibly, subjective.  We were not raised or educated to believe the Bible was a source of infallible doctrine for literal interpretation, so this realization of subjectivity did not cause a theological crisis, but because it occurred to me as a child it remained an enduring belief into adulthood, which later caused conflict with more conservative Christian perspectives.

Drawing  back to these roots- I encounter the Bible primarily as a human effort to document divine revelation, and I believe it is incomplete, and should absolutely be considered with an acceptance of historical context. I am most comfortable with the Bible as a historical narrative subjected to heavy and judicious editing and censorship. I do not take the Bible literally, although I generally accept the overall importance of the stories. I am not educated enough in Biblical scholarship to know which stories are allegorical and which (if any) are historical, but I would like to find out.  

My interest in reading and studying the Bible in a more disciplined sense renewed about the same time I started at Gonzaga, I encountered an art/journaling form called Illustrated Faith. As a scrapbooker, it appealed to my artistic side, and I thought it would help me embrace a more diligent Bible study method.  The Bibles used for this work are specially made with thicker paper and large margins. I wanted a Catholic version of this journaling Bible so I could follow along with the weekly readings. Everywhere I went, including Catholic book stores, I was met with confusion. "Catholics don't read the Bible like that," was the answer I heard again and again. I finally settled on an NIV with the Apocrypha at the end. I felt frustrated and discouraged that my efforts to expand on and grow my faith were being stymied. Why don't Catholics read the scripture?

I struggle the most with the New Testament excepting the Gospels. I particularly dislike Revelations because it reads like bad science fiction. The epistles are examples of why readers of the Bible must consider authorial intent and historical content to glean the best and truest meaning from the Word - the letters and testimonies are so specially and specifically written and targeted that they cannot retain context and true applicability for the modern reader without translation and interpretation. I enjoy the Old Testament as a passive listener because it is more interesting, and more lyrical so it makes for better music. I particularly love to sing songs drawn from Bible stories…the hymn "Here I am, Lord" reminds me of Samuel, sleeping in the temple and suddenly awakened by a call int he night.