SBL Annual Meeting Papers — November 2007

WORKING DRAFT: Please do not cite without permission of the author

Barbara M. Leung Lai
Tyndale Seminary, Toronto, Canada

Fostering a Whole-Brained Scholastic Experience
in Classroom Teaching

Adobe Acrobat Version

Opening Remarks/Preamble :

1. Essential to this presentation is the distinction between the so-called left and right-brained mode of thinking. I have adopted the various aspects of their distinctiveness as they are most commonly perceived. In that, left-brained scholastic subjects focus on logical thinking, analysis, objectivity and accuracy. Right-brained subjects, on the other hand, focus on aesthetics, feeling, subjectivity, and creativity. However, the focus here is not so much on their distinction but on the ways that a holistic “whole-brained” approach can better enhance the learning process —to the extent that it should be adopted as a pedagogical necessity.
2. On the surface, this is the most non-technical paper of my past presentations at SBL/ISBL. Yet, it represents an accumulation of the fruits of my many years self-engaging and interest-driven research and writing, classroom teaching, the practice of empirical and heuristic approaches, and in some cases, the living out of the premises held.

A. Personally Speaking…

1. Text and Experience: My Whole “Text-Person”1

In Text and Experience,2 the contributors have innovatively coined the term “text” as humanity’s flesh and blood lived experience under the sun. Thus, text and experience are inseparable—“Text” embodies one’s collective “life-experience” and “life experience” is the cumulative sum of lived reality that makes up one’s “text.” The postmodern coloring of the term provides much drive and vitality. If the author of a book or the artist of a painting engages himself/herself in its production, then the monograph or portrait represents a “text”—a slice of the lived reality of the producer.3 Blumenthal further articulates the idea of “text-person” as referring to one’s conscious self-engagement in one’s lived experience in shaping the “Text-of-life” that is unique to one’s personhood.4 In this presentation, I intend to place my whole text-person on the foreground of discussion.

As a seminary professor who has journeyed through the difficult passage from modernity to post-modernity, this presentation is an I-discourse, an appropriated personal journey. Speaking from my own experience of stepping outside of my comfortable methodological locations (exclusively historical-critical) and venturing into a foreign land (e.g., the interface of psychology and biblical studies) sometime ago, I seek to spell out the different stages of this arduous yet enriching experience, and the ways in which it transforms my classroom teaching.

Two doctoral programs in Biblical Studies—one in North America in the 70s (with a modernist, the late R.K. Harrison) and the second in England in the early 90s (under a postmodernist David J. A. Clines) has thoroughly grounded me in historical-critical methods (that focus solely on logical thinking, analytical strength and objectivity). It has also oriented me to postmodern interpretive tools and initiatives (that encourage self-engagement, emotive response, integrated approaches, innovation and creativity). Yet to translate the last decade of my life as a scholar-saint into practical terms, it has been a long period of re-orientation. Unleashing my previously suppressed (yet powerful) feelings, I have begun to consciously activate my right-brained mode of operation and to approach the Bible from different angles of perception. Embracing tensions that result from shifting methodological grounds seems to be the norm. It is a daunting but invigorating necessity. Terry Engleton’s analogy articulates this dynamic nicely: “To be inside and outside of a position at the same time—to occupy a territory while loitering skeptically on the boundary—is often where the most intensively creative ideas stem from.”5 This postmodern path plays a significant role in shaping my “text-of-life.” In my immediate context, it has profound impact on me as a classroom teacher and it is also the point of departure of this reflective I-discourse.

2. Classroom Context6

Teaching “Biblical Interpretation” and “Introduction to Old Testament Theology and History” in the postmodern graduate classroom allows me the privilege of shaping students in the pursuit of biblical knowledge during the formative years of their seminary studies. With the average age of the student body being 37, my teaching is geared towards mature adult students. Statistics show us that 65% of the adult population favors the left-brained mode of thinking/learning style.  As one reaches adulthood, his/her learning style is fairly determined.7 In essence, if a “whole-brained” approach to learning is a scholastic necessity, it will be quite a challenge as I seek to re-orient my students and to encourage them to liberate their right-brained modes of thinking. As a matter of fact, standard assessments that honor right-brained talents and skills are still very much in demand.

On the other hand, across ATS schools, a good majority of second-career students and boomers come to seminary in response to the vocational call to ministry. They are highly motivated learners with a wealth of professional and life experience. Approaching theological education with a view that learning is an act of membership in “communities of practice”8 may shed new lights here. If the pursuit of knowledge is integrated in the life of the community that shares values, beliefs, languages, and ways of learning/doing things, it would be quite strategic if we can identify the basic elements of this so called “communities of practice” for second-career/boomer learners. I shall return to this theory in a later section on “how to foster.”

B. Toward A ‘Whole-Brained” Scholastic Experience

1. My Thesis

Not only is a “whole-brained” approach to the pursuit of biblical knowledge a preferred mode of teaching/learning, it is a necessity. I have come to the experiential understanding of this mandate through my own teaching, scholarship, and lived experience.

2. Three Areas of Consideration

This premise can be substantiated with the following three areas of consideration:

a. Biblical Interpretation is both a “science” and an “art”

As advocated and affirmed by standard texts on Biblical Interpretation written after the mid-90s,9 it is now a commonly accepted view that biblical interpretation is neither a “science” nor an “art,” it is both a “science” and an “art.”10 As an art, the task of interpretation goes over and beyond the principles of analyzing. It takes the reader’s perspective seriously and calls for putting our world in front of the text11 self-engagingly in the meaning-making process. The ultimate goal for biblical interpretation is no longer digging out the author’s original intent but that one is encouraged to walk through the three-fold interpretive framework, from “what it meant” to the two dimensions of “what it means” (i.e. to the Christian Church at large and to each interpreter as a member of the faith community). It entails a literary competence which includes the engagement of the mind, will, emotion and imagination.12

To be able to exercise imagination in biblical interpretation, one has to approach the text with the whole-brain. Unique to Perdue’s Wisdom theology, is the way that he sees Israel’s sages made their way in the world by using common imagination to form, classify, organize, combine and synthesize the images indirectly derived from their lived experience.13 Drawing on the same dynamics, Perdue has innovatively constructed the theology of Wisdom literature based on the power of imagination.14 This new approach further brings about the paradigm shift in Wisdom research—from overwhelmingly theocentric (theodicy) to radically anthropocentric (anthropodicy). This shift lays the ground for the development in the current state of inquiry in Wisdom research—affirming the dialectic of anthropology and cosmology as the best approach in expressing the theology of wisdom literature.15

As to the role of emotion in biblical interpretation, adopting the “emotional theory” of reading Hebrew poetry has long been established as a sound interpretive strategy.16 As demonstrated examples, I have employed the same in my publication and SBL presentation —“Hearing God’s Bitter Cries (Hosea 11:1-9): Reading, Emotive-Experiencing, Appropriation,” HBT 26 (2004): 24-49; and “Immersing Ourselves in the Visionary Experience of Daniel: Reading, Emotive-Experiencing, Appropriation,” Paper presented at the Psychology and Biblical Studies Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, Nov. 200417).   

Two recent works in New Testament Studies also pioneer the field: Paul and Pathos18 and Faithful Feeling: Rethinking Emotion in the New Testament.19 While the scope of inquiry differs, both publications affirm the use of emotional appeals or persuasions in the New Testament (especially by Paul) and call for the need to reorient our thinking about emotion. The reviewers also acknowledge that this is a prominent yet much-neglected subject in New Testament studies.20 A proper understanding of the New Testament texts therefore goes over and beyond logical argumentation or analytical endeavors. With the recognition of the reality of emotion that is communicated through the Old and the New Testament, interpreting the Bible thus demands for more than cognition and rational thinking, but an engagement with the faithful feelings of all readers. Emotion, what was formerly perceived as something to be subdued, as expression of the passionate, irrational sinful nature—is now to be placed in the forefront of operation—as one among the other components of literary competence.

b. Narrative as a way of doing Old Testament Theology

As an emerging view, John Goldingay’s two volumes (the third is yet to come) Old Testament Theology21 breaks new grounds in advocating that “narrative is a way of doing Old Testament theology.” Utterly postmodern, Goldingay affirms that reality (biblical truth) is complex. Scriptural narrative makes it possible to do more justice to the complexity of reality; laying before us the stories of who God is and who we are is the theological significance of Old Testament (grand) narrative. “It enables Scripture to make the variety of statements that need to be made about deep and complex questions. It conveys depth, complexity and ambiguity, as direct statement cannot.”22 While our postmodern setting tends to discredit metanarratives, and encourage replacing the metanarrative with legitimate “little narratives” of humanity, Goldingay’s narrative approach in doing Old Testament theology exerts an inviting force to its readers. We are invited to anchor our own “little narratives” (that are valid and legitimate) in the grand narrative of the Old Testament and appropriate them to the short narratives about Ruth, Esther, Jonah, and Daniel and his friends.23

The strength of Goldingay’s narrative approach is primarily empowering and legitimizing each individual’s lived experience under sun. This “narrative way of doing Old Testament theology” takes humanity seriously. It invites the engagement of the “self” in appropriating the Old Testament truth—one that is deep, complex, and ambiguous. Because of this very nature of the Old Testament truth, it requires a “whole-brained” operational mode—to analyze, critique, reflect, and embrace—the depth, complexity, and ambiguity of the variations of this grand narrative.  
While in Perdue’s Wisdom theology, the power of imagination is put on the forefront of theological inquiry, Goldingay has empowered humanity with the legitimacy, validity, vigor and drive in this course of appropriation.

c. Appropriation and Relevance Theory

The demand for Appropriation and Relevance theory is evident across many disciplines and fields of knowledge.24 Speaking of theory after Terry Engleton’s monograph After Theory is at odds with the current heuristic trend of inquiry. However, the rationale behind this presentation is the need to develop theory to shape our practice and to working out practice to enforce our theory. My objective is to look at the intersection between the two interrelated theory of “appropriation” and “relevance” and propose to apply them in biblical studies, embracing both the cognitive and non-cognitive subjects of inquiry (i.e. a more or less, “whole-brained” approach).  

I will first turn to “appropriation.” As a biblical department, my school is developing an “appropriation theory” to facilitate our teaching of the Bible.25 “All content is subject to context.”26 Meaning is context-bound, but context is boundless. There is little dispute as to the validity of these sayings. As a pioneer attempt in shaping the practice of appropriation, D. Andrew Kille states that “appropriation involves not only an analysis of various aspects of the text, it requires a re-expression of those elements in a way that the reader can grasp.”27 Employing a psychological lens, he further explicates that the act of appropriation as something that takes place in the imaginative space between the reader’s own world and the possible world projected by the text. It is controlled neither by the objectivity of the text alone, nor by the subjectivity of the reader. Appropriation occurs at the intersection between text and reader.28

The idea of “intersecting” between reader and text is prominent even with this more sophisticated psycho-imaginative approach. However, “intersecting” is a huge step away from the emphasis of “integration,” especially exemplified in all “contextual biblical interpretation.” Kille’s re-expression is more or less for the sake of illustration whereas the affect and deep level of engagement (with the subject matter) behind the “I”-discourse is evident in contextual biblical interpretation.

The absence of the first person singular “I” was a sign of objectivity in the scholarly writings of the modern period. With the post-modern consciousness of the self, autobiography has occupied a prominent place in discourse on the idea of the self (and self-understanding/dialogue) and has been strategically applied to biblical interpretation.29 The collection of papers in Kitzberger’s Autobiographical Criticism: between Text and Self30 collectively incarnates autobiographical criticism in its theoretical-hermeneutical and practical aspects. The same is demanded for the act of “appropriation.” They entail an “outspoken” engagement of the self with the subject matter of the self’s “interpretive choices” framed by one’s life-context.31 In essence, one cannot really be self-engaging without becoming autobiographical (or to put it more explicitly, self reads text and vice versa).

Relevance Theory (RT) has proven to be a fruitful tool in many aspects of the interpretive process. Employed primarily in lexical pragmatics as a means of providing a methodological connection between background material and the biblical text, Relevance Theory offers promising results in demonstrating that usage in a specific context may influence usage in a seemingly unconnected context. Potentially, Relevance Theory can be used to account for “context/relevance selection” in biblical interpretation. In essence, Relevance Theory is a relevance-driven but purely “cognitive” approach.

Appropriation intersects with Relevance Theory on two grounds. They both explicate an interpretive process that is “relevance-driven” and both concern “context selection.” While Relevance Theory operates primarily in the cognitive realm on the what-it-meant level of the hermeneutical framework (or between the world behind and the world of the text), the act of appropriation would seek to integrate three worlds: the world behind the text, the world of the text, and the world in front of the text through “self-engagement.”

I have explicated the operational dynamics of the act of appropriation and relevance-selection. A deep level of self-engagement out of one’s life-context and situatedness is required and expected in appropriating the message of the biblical text to one’s life-context. It entails the participation of the whole being to analyze, to select, to bridge the gap between the then and now, and be driven to imagine and to experience the text emotively.

As a demonstrated example of my own relevance/context selection, I am a prime-timer with a life and ministry among similarly-situated peers—well-educated, middle-class, professional, white and non-white, Chinese and non-Chinese boomers. Among the social, geographical, and economical similarities of my peers, there is still one context that persistently disturbs the community of boomers. Our collective Canadian culture, our professions, and our social and economic status cannot adequately provide directives to our inquiry into the magnitude and intensity of suffering in humanity’s collective lived experience under the sun. All attempts to make some sense out of it are futile. With a deep level of “relevance driven-ness,” I engage my whole being in developing a text-centered and reader-oriented “theology of protest and lament” from the Psalms. The sentiments expressed here are evident in my two recent publications: “‘Surely, all are in vain!’—Psalm 73 and Humanity Reaching out to God,” Text and Community: Essays in Memory of Bruce M. Metzger [vol. 2], ed. J. Harold Ellens [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007]; and “Psalm 44 and the Function of Lament and Protest,” Old Testament Essay 20/2 (2007).  Out of my own life-context, the driven-ness behind my relevance-selection and the yearning for appropriation demand the engagement of my whole being towards the meaning-significance of Psalms 73 and 44. Employing a pathos-filled psychological lens, new angles of vision are made available to me (mainly from the perspective of “cognitive behavioral practice”).

As an appropriated personal journey, not only is a “whole-brained” approach to the search for relevance-significance a necessity, I am calling for the engagement of the whole “being.” In my context, my whole “text-person/text-of-life” is my world in front of the text.

C. Fostering A Whole-Brained Scholastic Experience

As expressed in the very beginning, this is only my appropriated personal journey. There is a wealth of research and empirical studies done in this area of inquiry.32 Here, I intend to share some observations and provide a few directives. My ultimate goal could be best represented by the Chinese saying, “pāo zhuān yĭn yù” (What I can offer is only “brick,” but I seek to generate further opinions that are “jade.”)

1. Intentional Course Design and Development

Teaching and learning is a two-way path. To foster a “whole-brained” scholastic environment, one has to do it intentionally. In recent years, I have designed courses and have organized class sessions with an objective towards this goal. Introductory core courses like “Biblical Interpretation” and “Old Testament Theology and History” provide ideal contexts to trying out new initiatives. Since biblical interpretation is both a science and an art and a good course design should enhance the competency in applying the principles and precepts in handling different biblical genres. Students should also be equipped to acknowledge the dynamics of the interpretive process and feel comfortable as they navigate the variables of the art of biblical interpretation.

There is a lack of standard assessments in honoring right-brain talents and skills and in turn, that imposes a challenge in seminary training. On that ground, course requirements should seek to balance students’ analytical power, logical thinking, as well as innovation and creativity. Out of the six components of the course requirement for “Biblical Interpretation,” I have designed the course with the following distribution: one understanding-based quiz; two reflective assignments; one assignment on the characterization of Hebrew personalities (students have greater opportunities to use imagination in filling in the “gaps”); one “three-world approach” assignment; and one strictly analytical paper (an occasion for employing all analytical tools learned).

In the past three years, I have also intentionally developed two new courses that require a “whole-brained” approach. “First Person Texts of the Old Testament: Uncovering the Internal Profile of Hebrew Personalities” (offered as a Bible Elective to the School of Psychology students at Fuller and offered once on the advanced level at Tyndale); and “Currents in Old Testament Studies” (a ThM course at Evangel Theological Seminary in Hong Kong). As indicated on the course evaluations, both were well received.

2. Nurturing Interdisciplinary and Integrated Inquiries

My current methodological location is interdisciplinary and my research and publications are all in the integrated terrain of social sciences and the humanities. Recently, I have been appointed as a member of the steering committee at the Psychology and Biblical Studies Section at SBL.  This new appointment has given me a great sense of affirmation towards my engaging endeavors in the recent past. I believe this is the current as well as the future. Yet the higher goal is not just to stay “current” or “thriving towards the future.” Nurturing interdisciplinary and integrated term projects or class presentations will directly/indirectly navigate students to new horizons of learning.33 Once the horizon is elevated, new angles of perception will be made available. Correspondingly, there will be a call for the engagement of the multiplicity of repertories from our whole-being (including the “whole-brain”: intellect/mind, will/determination, emotion/emotive-experiencing, imagination).

3. Understanding of our Postmodern Scholastic Context (Communities of practice)34

Promoting a “whole-brained” scholastic experience against the postmodern cultural setting is an intriguing path.  I have come to realize in recent years that in a graduate classroom of 50, we have students representing four generations: the echoes, the busters, the boomers, and the builders. At one end of the spectrum, we have a generation that was born and raised in the postmodern culture and have absolutely no experiential knowledge of the so-called “paradigm shifts” in learning. Often times, how they “feel” is more important than what they “think.” At the other end, we have a majority of boomers who are struggling in all our academic life to accommodate the new form of metanarratives. This imposes a real challenge to all teaching professionals.
     Observing and identifying the “community of practice” in each group is a priori. Knowledge is integrated in the life of communities that share values, beliefs, languages, and ways of doing things.35 Particularly, “the ways that they learn” is integral to formulating agendas in fostering a “whole-brained” approach to learning.

D. Fostering and Beyond

As with other emerging views, theories, or strategies, proposal for fostering a “whole-brained” scholastic experience calls for the coherence in framework, content, and approach. (I am referring specifically to the “point of departure” here). Since the Bible is a soul book, written to the soul and for the soul’s care and cure,36 teaching the Bible in a postmodern seminary classroom entails a point of departure that is geared towards this specific context.

In essence, walking my audience through this presentation is another appropriated personal journey. Towards the end of this path, I still hear the voice of Descartes echoing in my ears—“I think, therefore I am.” I have this urge to respond, “I feel, therefore I am.” Yet, another noble, higher call is saying, “I believe, therefore I proclaim” (2 Cor 4:13).37

NOTES

Return to Homepage

Send messages to webmaster: psybibs@worldnet.att.net
Site designed by
Last updated November 21, 2008