IST3031-1OL-FA13 - Integrative Colloq. Anglican Studies

Instructor: Vaughan McTernan
E-mail: mcternav@gmail.com

Course Description

This course proposes that Anglican approaches to theology entail a distinct methodology and form.  In addition this course makes the case that those approaches are particularly viable and significant in contemporary society.  Anglican, and concurrently Episcopalian, thought  integrates rational inquiry, ethics, spirituality and worship in a continual process of reforming, developing, and enriching our faith.  Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, argues that Anglican faith is always engaged in self-assessment and attention to contemporary discoveries and issues (in other words reason), at the same time that it uses tradition and scripture as reflective lenses.  In this class, early voices such as Augustine of Hippo and more recent philosophers such as Whitehead inform this integrative process.

Throughout the class the constant question about what you read and what you learn through lecture and discussion is : How might this inform and enrich Anglican thought.

Because there is sometimes confusion about the terms “Anglican” and “Episcopal,” I want to make it clear that in this course I am using the terms interchangeably.  Many times what we discuss will encompass the wider Anglican Communion, but at the least it will refer to the Episcopal Church USA.

Course Goals:

• To identify and develop aspects of an Anglican theological method.
• To engage scientific, philosophic, cultural, and ethical issues in theological discourse and to see in what ways they are formative of Anglican thought.
• To read and analyze both primary and secondary texts as a way of creatively engaging Anglican theological development.

Texts

John F. Haught, God After Darwin (Westview Press 2000) ISBN 0-8133-3878-6.

John MacQuarrie, In Search of Deity  (Crossroad Publishing 1984 or it might be that Crossroads didn’t publish it until 1987).  ISBN 0-8245-0850-5 (Whatever edition of this is available is fine).

Sallie McFague,  Life Abundant  (Augsberg Fortress Press 2001). ISBN 0-8006-3269-9.

Wesley Wildman, Religious Philosophy as Multidisciplinary Comparative Inquiry:   Envisioning a Future for the Philosophy of Religion  (SUNY Press,  2010).  ISBN: 978-1-4384-3236-6.

Rowan Williams, On Christian Theology  (Blackwell Publishing, 2000).  ISBN  978-0-631-21440-3.

David Kelsey Eccentric Existence: A Theological Anthropology Vol. 1 p. 159-175; Chapter 3A p.120-131.

Alfred North Whitehead,  Adventures of Ideas  Chapter 19 “Adventure.”

Available On-Line

Augustine – The Essential Augustine -  (page numbers refer to this book/collection of writings)

• From Confessions  “The Soul’s Ascent to God” 10.16 p. 127; 11.17 p.128;  13.9 p. 129;  15.21 p. 129-130.
• From City of God,   chapter 8, 4. Pages 136-137.
• From On the Trinity “How to think About God” chapter 5, 1.2 and 2.3   Pages 138-139. 
• From On the Trinity, chapter 7, 4.7-9  “the Problem of Speaking About God”  pgs. 139 – 143.
• From On Psalm 121, 3.5 “God is the Selfsame” pgs. 143
• FromSoliloquies 1 , 2-6 “A Divine Invocation” p.144
• From Enchiridion, Paragraphs or Chapters( check which) 10, 11, 12 “Evil: the Privation of The Good”. Pgs. 65-66

Dionysius the Areopagite or Pseudo-Dionysus  dates: c. 650-725

Divine Names and the Mystical Theology   Chapters II and IV

Evaluation

Your grade for this course will be based on substantial engagement in online discussions, four papers, and four peer reviews. Your peer review of a colleague's paper will be a part of your grade for each paper. Your papers will compose 60% of your grade and you can see the point breakdown in the rubric attached to each paper assignment. Discussions will be assessed on a 10 point scale and they will compose 40% of your grade. See the Discussion Guidelines for more details on how discussions will be evaluated.

Course Expectations

Incompletes:  If incompletes are allowed in this course, see the Master's Student Handbook for Policies and Procedures.

Pass/Fail:  Masters students wishing to take the class pass/fail should discuss this with the instructor by the second class session.

Academic Integrity and Community Covenant:  All students are expected to abide by Iliff’s statement on Academic Integrity, as published in the Masters Student Handbook, or the Joint PhD Statement on Academic Honesty, as published in the Joint PhD Student Handbook, as appropriate.  All participants in this class are expected to be familiar with Iliff’s Community Covenant.

Accommodations:  Iliff engages in a collaborative effort with students with disabilities to reasonably accommodate student needs.   Students are encouraged to contact their assigned advisor to initiate the process of requesting accommodations.  The advising center can be contacted at advising@iliff.edu or by phone at 303-765-1146. 

Writing Lab:  Grammar and organization are important for all written assignments.  Additional help is available from the Iliff Writing Lab, which is available for students of any level who need help beginning an assignment, organizing thoughts, or reviewing a final draft. 

Inclusive Language:  It is expected that all course participants will use inclusive language in speaking and writing, and will use terms that do not create barriers to classroom community. 

Guidelines for Online Discussion

Throughout the quarter, we will have several discussions which will compose a large part of our engagement with each other in this online learning space. For these discussions to be meaningful conversation spaces, we all need to take responsibility for consistent and substantial participation. Instead of grading discussions based on number of words posted or on frequency, we will assess discussions based on the degree to which you substantially engage in the conversation each week. Over the course of a conversation, substantial engagement means:

1. Extend the conversation - creatively and critically push the conversation forward, do not just regurgitate what has already been said. If 1 or 2 other students have already responded directly to instructor provided prompts for the week, do not simply write another response to the prompts unless it adds something new to the conversation. You need to extend the conversation by adding an additional or different insight from the course materials, by asking a new question that stems from one of the posts already offered, by offering a related and contextualized example of the issue being discussed from your own experience, or by creatively integrating your own perspective with what has already been posted. 
2. Ask contextualized questions - situate your questions within the discussion by referencing the course materials and other parts of the conversation thread that inform your inquiry. Give us a little background as to why this question matters to you and how it relates to the course.
3. Engage others in the course - thoughtful engagement with other students in the course and with the instructional team. 
4. Engage the course materials - thoughtful engagement with readings, lectures, student presentations, and any other materials related to the course. Referencing and citing course materials in your posts where appropriate is encouraged. 

Each post need not do all of these things, but your overall participation in each conversation should demonstrate all of these components. You might have several short posts and a handful of longer posts in a week or you might have only a few strategic substantial posts. Either way, your overall participation in each conversation will be evaluated for substantial engagement. The goal of this discussion design is to encourage and reward interchange, so post often and engage each other with meaningful questions that open to other questions.

RUBRICS FOR INSTRUCTOR’S EVALUATION OF EXEGETICAL (ANALYSIS) PAPERS

Excellent

• The paper provided evidence that the author had read and carefully attempted to understand the primary document under consideration;
• The paper responded fully to the analytical questions posed by the instructor;
• The paper referred to or quoted directly passages in the primary text to support claims and/or to develop its argument;
• The paper offered insightful comments and/or raised probing questions that demonstrated genuine engagement with and mastery of the major ideas of the course unit;
• The paper was clearly organized, well-written and free grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors.
• “High pass”

Good --> Above Average

• The paper provided evidence that the author had read and mostly grasped the content of the primary document under consideration;
• The paper attempted to respond to all of the analytical questions posed by the instructor, with some responses more fully developed that others;
• The paper’s reference to or quotation of passages in the primary text to support its claims and/or to develop its argument was uneven;
• The paper demonstrated genuine engagement with and passing mastery of the major ideas of the course unit, but insightful comments and/or probing questions were limited;
• The paper’s organization was mostly clear and the writing relatively good, with only a few grammatical infelicities, or errors in punctuation and spelling;
• A "passing" effort with some gaps

Below Average

• The paper suggested that the author had problems understanding the important parts of the primary document under consideration;
• The paper failed to address one or more of the analytical questions posed by the instructor;
• The paper rarely referred to or quoted passages from the primary text to support claims and/or to develop the argument;
• The paper was more or less wide of the mark in linking the assignment to the major ideas of the course unit;
• The paper lacked organizational clarity, or was poorly-written, and/or rife with grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors;
• Borderline “passing” effort

Insufficient

• The paper revealed that the author did not understand the primary document under consideration;
• The paper mostly ignored the analytical questions posed by the instructor;
• The paper did not refer to or quote passages from the primary text to support its claims and/or to develop an argument;
• The paper failed to make any connections between the assignment and the major ideas of the course unit;
• The paper failed to meet the writing standards of graduate theological education;
• A “failing” effort.

No Credit

• No paper was submitted;
• No credit awarded.

RUBRICS FOR THE INSTRUCTOR'S EVALUATION OF PEER REVIEWS

Peer Review points will be included in your exegetical paper grade as the last criteria in the rubric.

Excellent

• The reviewer’s comments reflected a careful, thoughtful, and generous reading of the peer’s work;
• The reviewer highlighted and praised in some detail the insightful or probing elements of the peer’s paper;
• When appropriate, the reviewer noted insufficient analysis of and/or misunderstanding of the primary text;
• When appropriate, the reviewer directed her/his peer to passages in the primary text that deserved greater attention;
• The reviewer posed trenchant questions for the peer’s consideration;
• The reviewer commented on the paper’s organization, clarity and writing proficiency;
• Overall, the reviewer’s comments were constructive, with differences of opinion expressed in a respectful manner.

Good --> Above Average

• The reviewer’s comments reflected a mostly careful, thoughtful, and generous reading of the peer’s work;
• The reviewer attempted to highlight and praise insightful or probing elements of the peer’s paper, but only superficially;
• The reviewer took issue with some of elements of the paper, but did not push the criticism toward a more careful analysis of the text;
• The reviewer commented briefly on the paper’s organization, clarity and writing proficiency;
• Overall, the reviewer’s comments were constructive, with differences of opinion expressed in a respectful manner.

Below Average

• The reviewer’s comments reflected a somewhat unfocused reading of the peer’s work;
• The reviewer lacked a critical perspective on the peer’s paper; the reviewer found it difficult to identify specific strengths or weaknesses;
• The reviewer’s criticisms or questions were too general or lacked focus; they were grounded neither in the specific passages from the primary text under consideration nor in specific examples drawn from the peer’s analysis;
• The reviewer hardly commented the paper’s organization, clarity and writing proficiency;
• Overall, the reviewer’s comments attempted to be constructive, with differences of opinion expressed in a respectful manner.

Insufficient

• The reviewer’s comments reflected a cursory reading of the peer’s work;
• The reviewer’s comments about the peer’s paper were mostly impressionistic and vague;
• The reviewer posed no specific questions to the peer;
• The reviewer mostly ignored the paper’s organization, clarity and writing proficiency;
• While respectful, the reviewer’s response to the peer’s paper was too superficial to be of much help to the peer or the class.

No Credit

• No peer review was submitted, disappointing both the assigned peer and class as a whole. 

THINGS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN WRITING A PEER REVIEW

• Have I made every effort to understand my peer’s paper on its own terms? Have I been able to distance myself enough from my paper to give this paper its due:  a careful, thoughtful, and generous read?
• If I’ve been able to do that…then ask:  Has my peer realized the goals of the assignment? 
• What’s really good about this paper?  Where do I find myself saying, “I wish I had thought of that”?  Or, “Wow, that’s really perceptive!”
• Where do I find myself being a “resisting” reader?  And why?  Has my peer not grappled with all of the issues at stake?  Has the paper taken an unexpected turn?  Do I disagree with something I’ve read?  Does the analysis miss the mark? 
• How do I frame my dis-ease?  Do I refer back to the instructor’s guidelines?  Do I pose some questions?  Do I point to a passage?  
• If the paper has turned my head around, made me think about the assignment differently, how would I like to continue the conversation?  Extend the investigation?
• Overall, did this paper make a compelling case for itself by the way it was organized and by the clarity/precision of its writing?