Spring Semester
Already decided upon classes (almost certain):
Compassionate Care of the Dying: Buddhist Training and Techniques - the class i'm most likely to cry in, very practical, touch-feely
Buddhist Texts and Their Critical Interpretation - professor is interesting but scarily intense, crazy amount of work with posting to online forum
Interreligious Dialogue: The Hindu-Christian Context - nice professor, reading is not heavy, but looks interesting, but with weekly reflections
Meaning Making - my biweekly class that goes along with my field ed, very little work, nice people, good time to do reflections
Still deciding between:
Spirituality for a Contemporary World - uber-touchy-feely class taught at EDS, interesting readings, focus on practice, ritual, relationships
Comparative Religious Ethics - huge undergrad class, but with good professor, light reading, and some of it novels!
So would anyone like to weigh in on my undecided slot? On the one hand, I like touchy-feely practice based classes, on the other hand, the ethics class would fulfill one of my requirements for graduation. On one hand, the spirituality class is on a tuesday, thus creating the possibility for no monday or friday classes, on the other hand, the ethics class might be less work.
On a completely different note, I have been greatly enjoying the author Kathleen Norris, who is a writer, poet, and Benedictine oblate (despite being Protestant). I loved Dakota, and am now into The Cloister Walk, which is all about her discoveries in living a semi-monastic life. One of the passages that stood out to me was this one on calling. A year ago I would have said that I don't feel called at all to ordination, now, I'm not so sure. I'm wrestling over the question of whether ordination is necessary for becoming a chaplain, and I would say that I feel a call of sorts, to chaplaincy. To me this passage points to our hesitancy to talk about call, more in the outside world than in Div school, and how awkward and unsettling the topic of call is.
"Walter Brueggeman, in a book on the prophets entitled Hopeful Imagination, suggests that, 'a sense of call in our time is profoundly countercultural,' and notes that 'the ideology of our time is that we can live an uncalled life, one not referred to any purpose beyond one's self.' I suspect that this idol of the autonomous, uncalled life has a shadow side that demands we resist the notion that another might be different, might indeed experience a call. Our idol of the autonomous individual is a sham; the truth is we expect everyone to be the same, and dismiss as elitist those who are working through a call to any genuine vocation....
I think this explains our mania for credentials, which allow us a measure of objectivity in assessing differences. Credentials measure what is quantifiable; they represent results. A call, on the other hand, is pure process; it cannot be measured, quantified, or controlled by institutions. People who are called tend to violate the rules in annoying ways. Young professors clinging to tenure track do not like to hear that Denise Levertov has taught at Stanford, despite having little formal education. It offended several of my Institute colleagues that a university had invited me for a weeklong residency as a 'poet and theologian.' My last formal course on the Bible was in eighth grade. How could I be a theologian? What good are the rules, the boundaries of our precious categories--'theologian,' 'scholar'--if poets can violate them at will?" (Kathleen Norris, The Cloister Walk, 41-42).
I guess what I'm interested in is if people other than those in Div school spend time thinking about "calling" or "vocation." As we are all busily obsessing about getting this degree or that, or fulfilling requirements and more requirements, can we take a moment to reflect on our wider, long-term, dare I say, ultimate, reasons for doing what we do?
Compassionate Care of the Dying: Buddhist Training and Techniques - the class i'm most likely to cry in, very practical, touch-feely
Buddhist Texts and Their Critical Interpretation - professor is interesting but scarily intense, crazy amount of work with posting to online forum
Interreligious Dialogue: The Hindu-Christian Context - nice professor, reading is not heavy, but looks interesting, but with weekly reflections
Meaning Making - my biweekly class that goes along with my field ed, very little work, nice people, good time to do reflections
Still deciding between:
Spirituality for a Contemporary World - uber-touchy-feely class taught at EDS, interesting readings, focus on practice, ritual, relationships
Comparative Religious Ethics - huge undergrad class, but with good professor, light reading, and some of it novels!
So would anyone like to weigh in on my undecided slot? On the one hand, I like touchy-feely practice based classes, on the other hand, the ethics class would fulfill one of my requirements for graduation. On one hand, the spirituality class is on a tuesday, thus creating the possibility for no monday or friday classes, on the other hand, the ethics class might be less work.
On a completely different note, I have been greatly enjoying the author Kathleen Norris, who is a writer, poet, and Benedictine oblate (despite being Protestant). I loved Dakota, and am now into The Cloister Walk, which is all about her discoveries in living a semi-monastic life. One of the passages that stood out to me was this one on calling. A year ago I would have said that I don't feel called at all to ordination, now, I'm not so sure. I'm wrestling over the question of whether ordination is necessary for becoming a chaplain, and I would say that I feel a call of sorts, to chaplaincy. To me this passage points to our hesitancy to talk about call, more in the outside world than in Div school, and how awkward and unsettling the topic of call is.
"Walter Brueggeman, in a book on the prophets entitled Hopeful Imagination, suggests that, 'a sense of call in our time is profoundly countercultural,' and notes that 'the ideology of our time is that we can live an uncalled life, one not referred to any purpose beyond one's self.' I suspect that this idol of the autonomous, uncalled life has a shadow side that demands we resist the notion that another might be different, might indeed experience a call. Our idol of the autonomous individual is a sham; the truth is we expect everyone to be the same, and dismiss as elitist those who are working through a call to any genuine vocation....
I think this explains our mania for credentials, which allow us a measure of objectivity in assessing differences. Credentials measure what is quantifiable; they represent results. A call, on the other hand, is pure process; it cannot be measured, quantified, or controlled by institutions. People who are called tend to violate the rules in annoying ways. Young professors clinging to tenure track do not like to hear that Denise Levertov has taught at Stanford, despite having little formal education. It offended several of my Institute colleagues that a university had invited me for a weeklong residency as a 'poet and theologian.' My last formal course on the Bible was in eighth grade. How could I be a theologian? What good are the rules, the boundaries of our precious categories--'theologian,' 'scholar'--if poets can violate them at will?" (Kathleen Norris, The Cloister Walk, 41-42).
I guess what I'm interested in is if people other than those in Div school spend time thinking about "calling" or "vocation." As we are all busily obsessing about getting this degree or that, or fulfilling requirements and more requirements, can we take a moment to reflect on our wider, long-term, dare I say, ultimate, reasons for doing what we do?