Union Theological Seminary : 2007 Seminar
Narrative
LEARNING TO SPEAK WITH RESPECT AND PASSION
UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
Scene 1—Students gather in a seminar room with their tutor, having just heard a presentation by a representative of an African-American church in the New York area. The seminar is intended to discuss students’ experiences of visiting churches of other denominations, readings, and the lecture that has just been delivered. “Last week we explored how the AME, AMEZ and CME traditions departed from their Methodist roots after American independence,” began the tutor. “Has anyone any insights about—say—how those different heritages affect how people worship today in those traditions?” Henry, an older white student, replied, “I wonder if heritage plays less of a role today than the ethical issues that really get people riled up on one side or the other?” The tutor had a vision of the class plan flying out the window, and asked “do you want to enlarge on that a bit?” Henry continued, “Last week we concluded that some of these churches’ creeds and faith documents weren’t playing a big role in the life of the churches today. If you ask someone in the pew what really defines their church, it’s usually some ethical question that has to do with war, social justice, economic inequalities, or human sexuality.” “I see your point,” the tutor replied.
Roberta, a GLBT student added, “It’s hard for some of us who have been through a lot with our own traditions because of our sexuality to have to take part in a discussion that seems a bit anemic, as though nothing very much is at stake here.” Tutor reassured her, “I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we shouldn’t bring our concerns and perspectives to the table. We’re all committed to inclusivity and to listening to each other.” “But just now,” she continued, “the big issue in many churches is whether to accept Gay and Lesbian people as human beings, never mind good Christians. So it was hard to hear that visiting speaker give us all kinds of reasons why he thinks that Gay people don’t belong in his community.”
“Was he actually speaking for himself there?” Tutor asked. “As I recall, he was answering a question from one of us about what his Church thinks on the subject.” “That’s right,” Henry agreed, “We needed to know his polity’s position. We all know that the world is sometimes intolerant of people who are different from the old-fashioned norms. It is only by confronting that reality for what it is, that we can begin to speak to it and work for change.” Joshua, a black student, joined the dialogue. “I think it’s important to understand that a lot of us in the black church believe in sexual justice as a part of liberation, but see it as part of a bigger struggle against discrimination, all prejudice, and historic inequalities.” Roberta responded, “But what if those leaders who are doing really great work to challenge racism turn around and reinforce, in the area of heterosexism, the kinds of patriarchal oppression that they and their communities suffered from before?” The discussion continued. And continued.
Scene 2—Students are talking, without the tutor present, in the “Pit” (the area at Union where coffee and sodas are served). Henry began, “That was intense yesterday! Our discussion session after the guest lecture got taken over by the sexuality question.” “I dunno,” Marcus, a gay male student, reflected, “Sometimes I think we set ourselves up for these really stressful sessions. Maybe the mistake was being so upfront in asking the question of a guest speaker who hadn’t the time to think his answer through.” Joshua joined them, “I disagree. The problem with Union is that we are too polite! We’ve forgotten how to ask the really tough questions. Talking about justice is not supposed to be comfortable!”
“But there’s a difference between shirking the issues and hitting the minefield,” Marcus continued. “The speaker said: ‘With so many young black males in the military, and so many in jail, a lot of people don’t feel that homosexuality is to be encouraged as it threatens the demographic future of the community.’ I felt sorry for the guy feeling that he had to say this stuff, even if he was replicating what is said in his church.” Joshua shook his head. “Compared to what gets said in all sorts of churches, of all communities, that was actually pretty mild.” Henry stepped in, “What Marcus is getting at is this assumption that being gay is a lifestyle choice, rather than something fundamental to a person’s identity. That upset some people.” Deniece, a young African-American woman, joined the conversation at this point. “What gets me is that everyone is giving the Reverend a hard time because his church is seen as anti-gay. When did this become just an issue for the black churches? All the churches are in trouble over gay people in the ministry!”
Scene 3—A faculty discussion of the curriculum. The Dean began, “The next item relates to our urban ministry and traditions course. This course was intended to be a rotating responsibility, but lately, some of us have been a little reluctant to take this one on.” Sophia jumped in, “I think there is a strong commitment among some of us to do this course, but we are not all on the same page. Is the course about denominations, New York City, religious sociology, or what?” Reinhold agreed. “The faculty never completely resolved this question. One hope was that it would provide an opportunity for students to reflect on where they found themselves, at the start of their seminary careers, on the spectrum of possible Christianities. Has this been happening?” “Yes,” Sophia replied, “and that is the problem! We intended that the course help students find their feet and calibrate their position in the religious world of New York. We can’t object if that is exactly what they do with it, in their own way.”
Paulus added his concern. “What’s troubling is the impact on other courses. A significant section of my seminar discussion this morning was derailed by students talking about the presentation. A certain amount of trauma and angst needed to be processed. Couldn’t this have happened within the class time of the course?” “We did devote considerable class time to the issues raised in the presentation,” countered Sophia, “And I must say that I did not detect any ‘trauma and angst.’” Reinhold said thoughtfully, “Students experience difficulty talking about issues of diversity and identity in a way that reflects their strength of feeling. They worry about being too confrontational or too polite. It may be that students don’t know how to deal with these questions in class, so all the tension overflows into other classes or into discussions in the Pit.”
The Dean tried to clarify, “Are you saying that we have another curricular need: to teach students how to speak explicitly and respectfully to each other about issues of identity and diversity, alongside everything else we want them to learn in their first year?” “Such a process of formation might benefit many of our courses,” said Reinhold. “But who would teach this?” Sophia protested. “We are already stretched as it is! And we’ve just heard criticisms that the course is too diffuse. Adding this would be quite specialized and demanding.” “We’ve detected a real need here,” admitted Paulus, “But it’s not clear (a) that this is something that should be done in one course rather than another or (b) whether it should be a part of the formal curriculum or not. Some of the things that we’ve discussed here fall outside what any faculty can be expected to control or guide. They are to do with the culture of the school.” The Dean asked the group, “Do we need to set up a working party to think some more about this?”
LEARNING TO SPEAK WITH RESPECT AND PASSION
UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
Scene 1—Students gather in a seminar room with their tutor, having just heard a presentation by a representative of an African-American church in the New York area. The seminar is intended to discuss students’ experiences of visiting churches of other denominations, readings, and the lecture that has just been delivered. “Last week we explored how the AME, AMEZ and CME traditions departed from their Methodist roots after American independence,” began the tutor. “Has anyone any insights about—say—how those different heritages affect how people worship today in those traditions?” Henry, an older white student, replied, “I wonder if heritage plays less of a role today than the ethical issues that really get people riled up on one side or the other?” The tutor had a vision of the class plan flying out the window, and asked “do you want to enlarge on that a bit?” Henry continued, “Last week we concluded that some of these churches’ creeds and faith documents weren’t playing a big role in the life of the churches today. If you ask someone in the pew what really defines their church, it’s usually some ethical question that has to do with war, social justice, economic inequalities, or human sexuality.” “I see your point,” the tutor replied.
Roberta, a GLBT student added, “It’s hard for some of us who have been through a lot with our own traditions because of our sexuality to have to take part in a discussion that seems a bit anemic, as though nothing very much is at stake here.” Tutor reassured her, “I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we shouldn’t bring our concerns and perspectives to the table. We’re all committed to inclusivity and to listening to each other.” “But just now,” she continued, “the big issue in many churches is whether to accept Gay and Lesbian people as human beings, never mind good Christians. So it was hard to hear that visiting speaker give us all kinds of reasons why he thinks that Gay people don’t belong in his community.”
“Was he actually speaking for himself there?” Tutor asked. “As I recall, he was answering a question from one of us about what his Church thinks on the subject.” “That’s right,” Henry agreed, “We needed to know his polity’s position. We all know that the world is sometimes intolerant of people who are different from the old-fashioned norms. It is only by confronting that reality for what it is, that we can begin to speak to it and work for change.” Joshua, a black student, joined the dialogue. “I think it’s important to understand that a lot of us in the black church believe in sexual justice as a part of liberation, but see it as part of a bigger struggle against discrimination, all prejudice, and historic inequalities.” Roberta responded, “But what if those leaders who are doing really great work to challenge racism turn around and reinforce, in the area of heterosexism, the kinds of patriarchal oppression that they and their communities suffered from before?” The discussion continued. And continued.
Scene 2—Students are talking, without the tutor present, in the “Pit” (the area at Union where coffee and sodas are served). Henry began, “That was intense yesterday! Our discussion session after the guest lecture got taken over by the sexuality question.” “I dunno,” Marcus, a gay male student, reflected, “Sometimes I think we set ourselves up for these really stressful sessions. Maybe the mistake was being so upfront in asking the question of a guest speaker who hadn’t the time to think his answer through.” Joshua joined them, “I disagree. The problem with Union is that we are too polite! We’ve forgotten how to ask the really tough questions. Talking about justice is not supposed to be comfortable!”
“But there’s a difference between shirking the issues and hitting the minefield,” Marcus continued. “The speaker said: ‘With so many young black males in the military, and so many in jail, a lot of people don’t feel that homosexuality is to be encouraged as it threatens the demographic future of the community.’ I felt sorry for the guy feeling that he had to say this stuff, even if he was replicating what is said in his church.” Joshua shook his head. “Compared to what gets said in all sorts of churches, of all communities, that was actually pretty mild.” Henry stepped in, “What Marcus is getting at is this assumption that being gay is a lifestyle choice, rather than something fundamental to a person’s identity. That upset some people.” Deniece, a young African-American woman, joined the conversation at this point. “What gets me is that everyone is giving the Reverend a hard time because his church is seen as anti-gay. When did this become just an issue for the black churches? All the churches are in trouble over gay people in the ministry!”
Scene 3—A faculty discussion of the curriculum. The Dean began, “The next item relates to our urban ministry and traditions course. This course was intended to be a rotating responsibility, but lately, some of us have been a little reluctant to take this one on.” Sophia jumped in, “I think there is a strong commitment among some of us to do this course, but we are not all on the same page. Is the course about denominations, New York City, religious sociology, or what?” Reinhold agreed. “The faculty never completely resolved this question. One hope was that it would provide an opportunity for students to reflect on where they found themselves, at the start of their seminary careers, on the spectrum of possible Christianities. Has this been happening?” “Yes,” Sophia replied, “and that is the problem! We intended that the course help students find their feet and calibrate their position in the religious world of New York. We can’t object if that is exactly what they do with it, in their own way.”
Paulus added his concern. “What’s troubling is the impact on other courses. A significant section of my seminar discussion this morning was derailed by students talking about the presentation. A certain amount of trauma and angst needed to be processed. Couldn’t this have happened within the class time of the course?” “We did devote considerable class time to the issues raised in the presentation,” countered Sophia, “And I must say that I did not detect any ‘trauma and angst.’” Reinhold said thoughtfully, “Students experience difficulty talking about issues of diversity and identity in a way that reflects their strength of feeling. They worry about being too confrontational or too polite. It may be that students don’t know how to deal with these questions in class, so all the tension overflows into other classes or into discussions in the Pit.”
The Dean tried to clarify, “Are you saying that we have another curricular need: to teach students how to speak explicitly and respectfully to each other about issues of identity and diversity, alongside everything else we want them to learn in their first year?” “Such a process of formation might benefit many of our courses,” said Reinhold. “But who would teach this?” Sophia protested. “We are already stretched as it is! And we’ve just heard criticisms that the course is too diffuse. Adding this would be quite specialized and demanding.” “We’ve detected a real need here,” admitted Paulus, “But it’s not clear (a) that this is something that should be done in one course rather than another or (b) whether it should be a part of the formal curriculum or not. Some of the things that we’ve discussed here fall outside what any faculty can be expected to control or guide. They are to do with the culture of the school.” The Dean asked the group, “Do we need to set up a working party to think some more about this?”