The following is an excerpt from the class syllabus and relates to the blog:
In addition to a final paper (see below) you will have a choice between two assignments focused on engaging non-academic audiences. Those who opt for the former will write (and ideally give) a sermon on an ethics-related theme. Those who opt for the latter will write an original essay for the class blog.
In addition, everyone (irrespective of their choice of assignments) will also be expected to (a) read all of the other blog entries posted each week; and (b) to reply to at least 10 of these.
Those who wish to write a sermon should consult with me on guidelines. Instructions for blogging are as follows:
Your original entry (if you select option 2) should be no fewer than 500 and no greater than 1000 words in length. Response postings can be as long or as short as you desire. I would suggest composing each entry in Word (or a similar program), then cutting and pasting onto the blog. Be sure to save copies in Word for yourself, in case technical problems arise when posting. These are minimum requirements that all students are expected to satisfy. However, you are permitted – and indeed encouraged – to participate more frequently. This will help raise your grade for this part of the course.
Your job is to offer intelligent, informed analysis of a current issue in well crafted prose. A good model (and source of interesting religion analysis) is the website "http://religiondispatches.org". These postings will be graded and should be well researched, organized, edited, and proofread. If (in my judgment) a posting needs editing or rethinking, or if it is offensive, I will take it down and ask you to revise it. Only students registered for the course and I will be able to post entries, but the blog will be accessible to everyone online, and anyone is free to respond to what we have posted.
A good entry will involve your own viewpoint, without simply stating an undefended opinion. A good reply will engage with an earlier entry, without simply repeating what was said already: remember that a genuine conversation develops over time. Keep in mind that although it is fine to disagree with what someone else has said, it is important to do so in a way that is polite and constructive. If someone says something that makes you angry, pause and take a breath before firing off a reply! Remember that once you post an entry, it will no longer be editable and will be visible to everyone.
Although the blog can be accessed virtually anywhere, it is worth remembering that computer labs are available at CST. For technical assistance, contact CST Information Technology at computersupport@cst.edu or IThelp@cst.edu.
Enjoy!
Posts
This is an example of a comment, as referenced in the above quote. The easiest way to leave a comment is to click the link at the top of the blog posting (The title, 'Welcome' for this post). This will give you a text entry box at the bottom of the page with the title 'Post a Comment'. Then simply hit the 'Preview' button, review what you have posted, and then hit 'Post Comment' if you are satisfied. If not, hit the 'X' at the top right of the preview pane and you will be returned to the original text entry screen.
ReplyDeleteGo ahead and practice by leaving a comment to this post; of course, this won't count as one of your 10 required comments!
Best of Luck!
Thanks, Chris, for this helpful tutorial! I might add that if this were a real blog entry you would want to list your full name under the title. For some good examples, please see the following:
ReplyDeletehttp://cstreligionandpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/09/problem-with-american-who-are-we-when.html
http://cstreligionandpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/10/political-rhetoric-and-american.html
I'm ready and excited to do this. Will await the first posts.
ReplyDeleteChris,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your help. This is a test post.
Janis Brown
Test post! Yippee! This looks like and works like what I expected. All that practice playing on MySpace hasn't been for naught. Of course, I won't post any poetry here. My poor MySpace friends can deal with that - and the essays from class that I assault them with from time to time.
ReplyDeleteThank you SO MUCH, Chris!
~Suzanne Jacobson
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Chris. This seems somewhat similar to something I did for an online course with Boston College, but even easier. I'm probably going to go for the sermon (AKA homily for those of us with Catholic heritage)option. So, I'll wait for someone to actually blog before I write anything else. However, if some type of ethical quandry catches my eye, I'll probably post :)
ReplyDeleteAs for ethics, I went to a training this morning on non-profits using "storytelling" to get their messages across rather than relying on organizational mission and capability statements. The training included a piece on the ethics related to using storytelling--for example, gaining a person's permission to use his/her story and never using another's story as one's own. Interesting . . . ethics = everywhere!!
Thank you Chris!
ReplyDeleteI was waiting for this..
Thank you, bro. God bless you!
ReplyDeleteI am just doing a test post to see how this comes out.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
Am trying my test post again.
ReplyDeleteHey it worked this time! Thanks for setting things up, Chris.
ReplyDeleteThis is my test of the blog...Jody
ReplyDeleteI have never posted to a blog and don’t normally even read blogs. But what I do read is the weekly magazine “Christian Century.” In the Jan. 27, 2009 issue, there is an article by Barbara Brown Taylor who is wrestling with questions of theology and ethics. You might want to go on line to read the text in full; there’s good fodder there for a sermon.
ReplyDeleteTaylor quotes Duke ethicist Stanley Hauerwas who says, “most Christians are too spiritual in the practice of their faith. Christianity ‘is not a set of beliefs or doctrines one believes in order to be a good Christian but rather Christianity is to have one’s body shaped, one’s habits determined, in such a way that the worship of God is unavoidable.’” Taylor’s point is that doctrines must “take on flesh.” She believes that faith has to include our daily life, our sensual activities, and our ordinariness to be true. She asserts that Hauerwas is asking us if “whether there is anything besides the body that can be sanctified.” And don’t you think that’s why the Bible focuses so much on daily activities—in the kitchen, the garden, the street, among the people, at the threshing floor, on the road? We don’t read about God holding a board meeting or Jesus consulting with CEOs. We read about real life, real people, and real situations.
Whew! Taylor brings it down to brass tacks when she quotes Daniel Berrigan (and for sure I’m going to use this quote in a sermon one day) who says, “It all comes down to this: Whose flesh are you touching and why? Whose flesh are you recoiling from and why? Whose flesh are you burning and why?”
Doesn’t this embody the questions we’ve been asked to think about in our first few classes….who’s benefiting, who’s losing, and where are you coming from on this argument? I think Berrigan’s comments are a good litmus test for ethics. Taylor and Hauerwas give us a good grounding for theology—the spiritual is not enough, the real must be included. God is at the molecular level in our lives; our theology has to go to our very cells to be true (or as Hauerwas says, so that the worship of God is unavoidable.” Selah.
Judy Green-Davis, Phoenix
Thanks to Chris and Jody, I'm now able to access and post comments. I don't yet know blog etiquette and am not sure about posting two comments in a row, but I'm behind on posting so here goes.
ReplyDeleteHere's an ethical question(s) for you. At my church, when we were going through the educational process to become open and affirming (totally inclusive), we made a videotape in which church members who were gay, parents of gay children, and straight members talked about their lives and faith.
Unfortunately, this video (which was very well done and has been used in many local UCC churches) caused the dissolution of a family. One woman came out to the congregation as gay in the video. Her parents (who knew she was a lesbian) were humiliated because now everyone knew she was a lesbian. They left the church and now are distant from their daughter.
So here is a complicated ethical issue. First, the church was working to become open and inclusive. Being open and affirming became a normative belief (although at the time, it was not so; it was a relative belief). Her decision to be open about her life and her faith badly hurt other people. It was a normative belief for her but, obviously not for her parents who have never welcomed one of her partners into their home. For the congregation, the separation was a great sadness and people disagreed about how all of this should have been handled within the family.
What should a pastor do in such a situation? Is there a role for the pastor of the church in the family problems—potentially uninvited and unwelcomed? How should pastors deal with an ethical issue such as this?
Come on, you guys, I’m getting lonely out here. We’ve got a requirement to post to this blog….where are all of you? With or without you, I’m moving forward—although it would be nice to get some push back.
ReplyDeleteI regularly read Disciples World, the monthly publication of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the sister denomination to mine, United Church of Christ. In the November issue, the cover articles are about the Jonestown Massacres. For those of you too young to remember, thirty years ago, Rev. James Jones, an ordained minister of the Disciples, led a congregation of about 1,000 people into a jungle outpost in Guyana, South America. There, what began as a utopia of a diverse, interracial congregation dedicated to serving the poor, homeless, and those in need of medical care became a nightmare in which over 900 people died in a “revolutionary suicide” to use Jones’ term by purposely (and some against their will) ingesting poisoned Kool-Aid.
There have been many ethical questions that have faced the denomination in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy. And those of us who are old enough to remember the awful incident will probably never be able to rid our retinas of the photos of the dead lying together, holding each other.
Like my denomination, the Disciples have no hierarchy, no bishop, or pope to oversee individual congregations. Jesus is the head of the church. A local church can call anyone to be their pastor and the Disciples have no authority to remove such a pastor…even one not ordained by the Disciples.
The Jonestown situation was very complex. There were prominent politicians involved, there was the actual substantial service to the poor by the congregation, and there were reports of increasing bizarre behavior by Rev. Jim Jones. But the denomination was unable to confront Jones with the issues because he was in South America. The denomination’s rules require a pastor to review the charges against him/her prior to being held in discussion about the issues. Jones was not coming back to the California/Nevada regional conference. Therefore, no charges were ever discussed.
I think the outcome of this whole dreadful story is interesting. In this issue, the Disciples recognize that their ideal of congregational freedom was at the root of the tragedy. Yet, they met afterward and decided not to change their policies. They still have no way to police ministers that go over the edge. And the same is true in my own denomination. The Disciples acknowledge in this issue of Disciples World that the same thing could happen again. I suppose it could in my own denomination.
So the ethical issue becomes, when does a nominative belief (congregational liberty) become potentially hurtful? Does the denomination curtail a nominative belief in order to prevent an outlaw relational belief by a rogue pastor? How does a denomination (which is always diverse) make a decision about a normative belief that is so potentially risky and that has proven to be disastrous?
Readers of the issue will assuredly register their ethic opinions in the December issue. What is your opinion?
Thank you Judy for all the different ideas to ponder, I'll only comment on the first. The idea of a living out ones ethics each day catches my eye. I just came back from seeing Mom - my Sunday evening thing and while visiting a dementia patient is pretty real life - it holds in it those ideas of what are my priorities and why do I say the homework, blogging, papers, reading etc have to wait for a while - Mom who only knows me now as "one of her relations" needs to know that she is loved and she needs to know it today and she senses when I haven't been there in a while and I need to see her today. So tonight I did a Kant action - acted as a daughter out of duty and a Mill action - it gave us both a great happiness! She cried at the thought that she was loved and someone brought her flowers - that makes me cry now and be happy. I guess it was even an Aristotle thing - it made a better life for both of us - for me this is ethics live. Joyce Schneider
ReplyDeleteJudy, regarding your first post, I agree that it’s easy to be too spiritual, too theoretical, in our practice of our faith. It is such beautiful theory, and like so many theories it seems to look better on the page than it does in practice. (Love my neighbor? Love MY neighbor? Love my NEIGHBOR? Yes, LOVE my neighbor.) So much easier said than done when love requires patience, forbearance, self-denial or any of the other “yins” to the “yang” of love’s positives.
ReplyDeleteI think it comes down to relational behavior too, but it also comes down to trust. We have to trust God’s precepts more than we trust our own inclinations, preferences, backgrounds and so forth. So easy to say and sometimes so hard to do. I believe this “love my neighbor” command truly; yet it is a conscious more than an automatic response, and not one I make unerringly! But “not in my strength but thine,” right?
And thank you, Joyce, for tying our ethical reading together with an example that made it all clear and concrete!
Judy, regarding the filmmaking issue: I wish you asked easier questions!! However, here goes:
ReplyDeleteI’m assuming that when the film was made, the makers were unaware that this public “coming out” was not anticipated/supported by these parents.
For the pastor’s role, I think a letter to the parents apologizing for causing pain and embarrassment, even inadvertently, would be a good idea. I suggest a letter because it’s less intrusive and allows more time for considered response, but would follow up with a phone call after a week or so. (All this after prayerful consideration of what to say and how!) I think the pastor would need to show empathy for the parents’ feelings (as they deal with this very public announcement of what they apparently thought was a private family matter), without being unsupportive of their daughter’s sexual identity. Where this would lead would depend on how the parents received the pastor’s outreach. There seem to be issues of family dynamics here that might best be handled by parties unconnected to the church, but perhaps the pastor could suggest one or more support groups for all involved. Some things to consider: how is daughter feeling about how this played out? Should her part in film continue to be included since it is a source of ongoing family difficulty? Are there parishioners willing to support the parents/daughter and help them through this, and maybe eventually reconcile with the church and each other? (Do you have a Stephen Ministry program, which might help the parents if not the daughter?) How will this affect the making of such filmed resources in the future?
If the parents refuse the pastor’s call, then I guess I’d suggest ongoing prayer re: acceptance and reconciliation for all involved.
regarding blog on Jonesville 2/12/09 I think this issue strikes at the very heart of the dangers inherent in the democratic process when that process is practiced in its purest form, that is the absolutist ideal of majority rule. This purism can lead to the supression of rights and the denial of civil liberies when the majority feels threatened by some marginal or unconventional minority. In the secular world we have courts and legislatures to protect these groups. In the church we rely on the hiearchy or some other governing agency to provide that protection. Of course, in a hierarchical structure the question rarely arises. Control and pronouncements are inherent to the structure. The danger in this type of approach is that in the worst case it can lead to dictatorship and the destruction of freedom. So it would seem the best way to deal with this system is through a type of governance where congregations are left to control their own destinies unless they move beyond the boundries of the faith. Then some outside force would be required to rein in the outlaw congregation. The trick is, of course, to exercise this responsibility judiciously and with no attempts to interfere with congregations that are merely practicing creative teology.
ReplyDelete