IST3045-1OL-FA14 - English Reformations

Instructor: Gregory Allen Robbins, Ph.D.

Director, The Anglican Studies Program, Iliff School of Theology/Diocese of Colorado

Chairman, Department of Religious Studies, University of Denver

Associate Professor, History of Christianity and its Scriptures, University of Denver

Canon Theologian, Saint John’s Cathedral/Diocese of Colorado

E-mail: grobbins@du.edu

Office Hours: By appointment; office phone: 303.871.2751; cell phone (for weekend communication): 303.330.3634

Course Synopsis

This course argues that English Christianity has always been in the process of reformation.  The Venerable Bede, in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People , documents this tendency in the early Middle Ages. Henry VIII's reforming turn, the reforms sought by John Wesley and by John Henry Newman continued the process. Current upheavals in the post-colonial era constitute a new chapter in a reformation still underway.

Books for the Course

Required:

1.  Alec Ryrie, The Age of Reformation : The Tudor and Stewart Realms 1485-1603 (Pearson Education Limited, 2009).  ISBN:  978-4058-3557-2 (paper).

2. Richard P. Heizenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists (Abingdon, 1995).  ISBN:  10-0687443113 (paper).

3. C. Brad Faught, The Oxford Movement:  A Thematic History of the Tractarians and their Times (Penn State University Press, 2003).  ISBN:  0-271-02394-5.

4. L. William Countryman, Calling on the Spirit in Unsettling Times : Anglican Present and Future , Canterbury Studies in Anglicanism (Morehouse Publishing, 2012). ISBN: 10: 0819227706

Required (available on-line) :

Venerable Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People

John Wesley, Works

John Henry Newman, et al, Tracts for the Times

The Anglican Communion site on "Continuing Indaba" ( Link )

Highly recommended for reference and purchase consideration:

Paul Avis, Anglicanism and the Christian Church : Theological Resources in Historical Perspective, revised and expanded edition (T&T Clark, Ltd., 2002).

Owen Chadwick, The Spirit of the Oxford Movement:  Tractarian Essays (Cambridge University Press, 1990, 1995)

Michael Chandler, An Introduction to the Oxford Movement (Church Publishing, 2003).

A.G. Dickens, The English Reformation , second edition (Pennsylvania State University Press, 1989).

Ian T. Douglas and Kwok Pui-Lan, Beyond Colonial Anglicanism:  The Anglican Communion in the Twenty-First Century (Church Publishing, 2001).

Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars:  Traditional Religion in England 1400-1580 (Yale University Press, 1992).

Sheridan Gilley, W. J. Sheils, eds., A History of Religion in Britain:  Practice & Belief from Pre-Roman Times to the Present (Cambridge, MA:  Blackwell, 1994).

Ian Hazlett, The Reformation in Britain and Ireland:  An Introduction (T&T Clark, Ltd., 2003).

Felicity Heal, Reformation in Britain and Ireland (Oxford History of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press, 2004).

Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer:  A Life (Yale University Press, 1996).

***Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation:  A History (New York:  Penguin Group, 2003). I will certainly recommend supplemental assignments from this outstanding work.

Diarmaid MacCulloch, A History of Christianity:  The First Three Thousand Years (Viking, 2010).

JHR Moorman, A History of the Church in England , 3 ^rd Edition (Morehouse Publishing, 1980).

Arthur Pollard, ed., Richard Hooker Ecclesiastical Polity (Carcanet Press, 1990).

Paul F. M. Zahl, Five Women of the English Reformation (William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001).

See Taylor Library's list of online book sellers for purchasing options.

GOALS OF THE COURSE

• To recognize that English Christianity has always been in the process of reformation, even today.
• To read and analyze critically both primary and secondary texts;
• To engage recent historiographical debates about the history of English Christianity, the English Reformation and its aftermath;
• To contemplate the future of Anglicanism (and Methodism) in a post-colonial world.

COURSE OUTCOMES

Students who complete the requirements of English Reformations will:

• Produce an annotated time line tracing

1. The beginnings of Christianity in the British Isles;
2. The English Reformation in Britain (England, Scotland; Wales) and Ireland;
3. Methodist reforms and their consequences
4. The Oxford Movement and its impact;
5. Early, signal events in the post-colonial era.

• Submit and respond to five seminar papers that “exegete” foundational texts or illuminate important methodological and theological questions;
• Understand the complex social, cultural, and theological matrix that gave rise to the various reformations in English Christianity, and recognize that there has been/is more than one way to construe the English Reformation and its consequences;

Begin to comprehend the link between the English reformations we have studied and issues that the Episcopal and United Methodist churches in America are confronting.

EVALUATION

Students will be expected to compile a portfolio of work. Required postings and discussions include attention to both historical overviews and close, textual analyses of original sources. Students will complete five, short papers in which they will “exegete” specific passages from original sources. Each student will be expected to construct an annotated chronology/timeline that documents engagement with and mastery of the subject matter of the course. The compilation will be evaluated according to the following formula:

Weekly postings                                                                  = 40%

Five seminar (“exegetical”) papers and peer reviews         = 40%

An annotated chronology                                                    = 20%

Policies and Services

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 ENGAGING IN & RUBRICS FOR EVALUATION OF WEEKLY, ON-LINE DISCUSSION

1. Students are required to post TWO substantive comments every week;
2. Each posting should be no longer than 250 words;
3. The first posting (4 points possible) should arrive by the end of the day (5 p.m.) on Monday;
4. The second posting (4 points possible), which engages other student comments and builds upon and extends your initial contribution, should arrive by the end of the day (5 p.m.) on Thursday;
5. Please participate in on-line discussions as you would in constructive, face-to-face conversations;
6. Please be professional and courteous;
7. On-line communication lacks the non-verbal cues that provide much of the meaning in face-to-face interactions. Choose your words carefully, and phrase your sentences clearly. While you will want to keep your sentences and paragraphs brief (see #2 above), a “tweet” is not your aim;
8. State the main topic of your posting in the Subject Line;
9. State the main point(s) you are going to take up at or near the beginning of your comment whenever possible; yours are not “rambles” toward an idea;
10. Proofread what you intend to post. You may want to use a word processor to draft what you intend to say and then paste your text into the message section of your posting. That way you can be more intentional in your composition, providing you an opportunity to check (and correct) spelling and grammar;
11. Please do not use all CAPITAL LETTERS. It makes it hard to read, and it comes across as if you were shouting;
12. Here’s how I intend to evaluate your weekly, on-line postings:

4 POINTS

• Participant made at least two postings to the discussion, one of which was a response to that of a classmate(s);
• Participant’s comments were responsive to the discussion prompts posted by the instructor;
• Participant referred directly to (by quotation or by citing a page number) or showed clear evidence of having read, viewed, or completed the relevant assignments;
• Participant made substantive comments or raised questions that significantly enhanced the discussion and/or stimulated further discussion;
• Participant’s comments provided evidence that s/he had read and conscientiously attempted to engage other classmates’ postings;
• Participant’s postings were constructive and differences of opinion were expressed in a respectful manner.

3 POINTS

• Participant made at least two postings to the discussion, but none was in response to that of a classmate;
• Participant’s comments were responsive to some but not all of the discussion prompts posted by the instructor;
• Participant’s comments showed some concrete evidence of having read, viewed, or completed the relevant assignments;
• Participant made comments and raised questions that moved the conversation forward;
• Participant’s comments provided evidence that s/he had read at least a few classmates’ postings;
• Participant’s postings were constructive and differences of opinion were expressed in a respectful manner.

2 POINTS

• Participant made at least one posting of a substantive nature;
• Participant’s comments were responsive to at least one of the discussion prompts posted by the instructor;
• Participant’s comments showed some evidence of having read, viewed, or completed only a portion of the relevant assignments;
• Participant’s comments and questions were limited or showed little evidence of direct engagement with the discussion;
• Participant’s comments provided evidence that s/he had read few classmates’ postings;
• Participant’s postings were constructive and differences of opinion were expressed in a respectful manner.

1 POINT

• The participant more or less signed the attendance sheet by weighing in with a “me too” comment that neither demonstrated any degree of reflection nor expanded the conversation in a useful way.

0 POINTS

• Participant offered no comments; failed to join the discussion.

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?