A course like theory/method is a course about the field as it is, but also as it can or even should be. Or so I hope.

Part of why I'm asking around is because this also comes at a time when it's clear that we need to be thinking pretty hard about what the humanities in general and RS in particular are for (now and for the future), and helping our students think through that with us and for themselves.

On the history of the field angle: when I taught this before, I tried to make it about how major questions were posed/thought about across time, with older+recent examples. I'd be happy to share about my experience last time, and to learn from others. 2 /

The full CFP is available here. papers.aarweb.org/sites/defaul...

And if you’re looking for a chair or respondent, I’m happy to help out!

Feel free to reach out (I just joined the steering committee this year) if you want to talk through any ideas.

The steering committee also set up this doc as a space for sharing ideas and making connections w others. docs.google.com/spreadsheets...

Sending condolences to you and the Calvin community, Kristin.

I put this over on discord, too late for this recording, but hoping you all can enlighten us sometime: What is the actual process that would lead to a change with PGMOL, or create some other structure? We hear all the time that PGMOL is crap and not good enough. But can it actually change? How?

This weekend a friend nominated Lady Gaga’s “Born This Way.” I mean, incarnation theology is in the title! Can’t stop imagining this as the highlight of a church Xmas pageant. “Don’t be a drag; just be a king!”

Basically, the process I went with: pick a dozen or so topics or themes you think are cool/generative/important, select work you're excited for students to think with, and then maybe (depending on level/time/etc) show them how that connects to older work.

For grad students (and maybe even more for undergrads!): while some people prioritize "the classics," I prefer focusing on newer work with bits of classics as supplementary material, so students can see how scholars past+present are still dealing with particular issues/problems.

For grad students or undergrads? I've taught this for grad students; for undergrads, I offer a lot of theory, but in service of particular topics.

For anyone who cares: I’ll be on panels about @janinegiordano.bsky.social’s excellent book (Gospel of Church) and on one about Matt Sutton’s AAR article about “evangelicalism” and how it’s not a concept that names the thing it is now (and never really was).