The dominant impression from today’s classes was that everyone was groggy and out of it. The weather was miserable: muggy, wet, and way hotter than necessary. Once again, my first World Religions class went unspectacularly (I’m starting to really think that the windowless basement room — originally a computer lab — where we’ve been having class is at least partially to blame for the general low energy level); this time, though, the second one didn’t go all that much better. Low energy, poor focus (on my part, and the students’), lack of planning and preparation, — and not quite enough enthusiasm to make up for those shortfalls. For me, at least, the second class (i.e. the afternoon one) was more interesting mainly because some genuine discussion developed, even though it was not discussion on anything I had planned on spending time on. One student, who has previously (and without any noticeable awkwardness) identified himself to me and to the class as a Muslim, asked, apropos of nothing, basically how the hell Christians could call themselves monotheists while also believing in the Trinity. I made a few comments, but the main (and most interesting) result was that four or five other students (one of whom, incidentally, basically never talks) raised their hands and tried to tackle the question. No real controversy developed, which was O.K. by me, though I think the potential was there.

Today and Monday, I think, what I’m getting from both the morning and the afternoon classes is that we’re experiencing the aftermath of a kind of sluggish start to the semester. The first couple of class meetings were interesting; they always are, for that class, for some reason I haven’t really figured out. Students seem to get a kick out of the process of delving into their own and their peers’ conceptions of religion and taking them apart, and the whole “interview” thing seems to really grab their attention. And they like Deep River. But now that we’re dealing with the textbook, things have slowed down considerably.

So what did we talk about today? Basically, two things, in both classes:

1. The whole “fundamentalism”-versus-”modernism” way of characterizing contemporary Christianity, specifically, as well as contemporary religion globally; and
2. The figure of Jesus as, more or less, the foundational element of Christianity’s core story.

I feel like I must have given them something to think about before Friday’s class, but frankly I can’t remember what it was. I also decided that there was going to be no quiz. I hate quizzes. I put them on the syllabus so that I can give them if I want to, but I would much prefer not to.

Anyhow, I’m dissatisfied with today’s classes. I’ll have to put some real time into prepping for Friday. I feel like I am still able to come out with interesting things for the students to talk and think about, but the class felt confused, rambling, and pointless (to me).

The Reformation class went quite well, which I am sort of starting to get accustomed to and hope will continue until December. The class is very engaged. We spent the entire meeting talking about Erasmus’s Encomium Moriae (”Praise of Folly”). One of my intrepid veterans had signed up to “present” a selection from the text on Monday and didn’t finish what he wanted to get through, so I allowed him to more or less take over the class today too. What useful observations can I make here? Well, I think there are several:

1. First, I notice that students actually talked to each other about the material. Somehow, the way the reading assignments are organized make this possible (though I’m not kidding myself; luck probably has just as much if not more to do with it). But it was striking to me that people actually seemed interested in figuring out what Erasmus of Rotterdam, 1466-1536, actually meant in his critiques of the church, were willing to share their views with one another, and most startlingly, actually listened to one another and changed their minds about things after hearing what their peers had to say.
2. Second, I was even more willing than I normally am to talk about what for me are significant open questions. By the end of the class I moved them into a discussion of something that seems to play a big role in Erasmus’s thinking, namely the idea of hypocrisy. Mainly, I pushed them to think clearly and intently about the idea of hypocrisy itself, what it really means, what kind of view of the self it implies, and so forth.
3. Finally, and this is something with implications that extend beyond just this class, I feel I am gradually learning some generalizable lessons about managing discussions. I am getting better at introducing a complex idea, talking about it very briefly in such a way as to arouse discussants’ interest, then turning it over to the class; once people begin to make contributions, I try to make my comments frequent but brief, getting them to see how the ideas and themes connect. (This is something I may want to consider tempering somewhat; I still think I probably talk too much in the classroom, but then again, of course, it usually gets reasonably positive results. I’m a little bit addicted to that look of fascination on those fresh young faces, I suppose, blah blah blah, whatever.) Then I step in again and tie the themes together more completely, give my own reactions (which can be very freeform sometimes) and then move on to the next point.

I feel like there is considerably more to say here but I’m beat, and it’s past bedtime for me.