Amanda Sladek
Responding to Evangelical Rhetoric in Student Writing: An Annotated Bibliography
Religious rhetoric can present a problem for many teachers of writing. In terms of spirituality and religion (just like everything else), each student comes from a unique background and has a unique perspective. Some will likely be heavily invested in a particular religious tradition, while others may be skeptical of or hostile to religion. So, is there a place for religious rhetoric in the classroom? Even teachers who try to avoid the issue sometimes find they can’t. How should a teacher respond to an evangelical student who wants to write a paper in favor of creationism, citing the Bible as a source? What happens if a student objects to studying a text by a Muslim author, or a civil rights-era text that draws heavily on Christianity? Could there actually be some value in allowing a student to draw from his or her religious background in a writing activity (analyzing religious texts rhetorically, for example)? Most importantly, if one of our goals as teachers of writing is to encourage students to analyze and question the larger world around them, how do we encourage our students to approach their own religious background (or lack thereof) with a critical eye? Is it our duty to try to force them to keep an open mind (and is that even possible)? It is sometimes difficult to find a balance between respecting your students’ backgrounds and opinions while still instilling the values of critical thinking and academic rigor. Religious rhetoric can actually be a fertile ground for analysis if approached objectively.
Anonby, John A. “A Christian Perspective on English Literature.” Christian Worldview and the
Academic Disciplines. Ed. Deane E. D. Downey and Stanley A. Porter. Eugene, OR:
Pickwick Publications, 2009. 233-247. Print.
This book chapter presents an interesting contrast to most others published on the subject of religious rhetoric in the classroom. Anonby argues in favor of a Christian perspective in the teaching of literature and writing. He argues that all creative capacity comes from God and that it is our duty to use our divinely granted capacity for spoken language to spread his message. He goes on to examine various ways of interpreting literature, using both purely literary and interdisciplinary approaches, and reexamines them through a Christian lens. He cites T. S. Eliot in support of his argument that Christian scholars should critique secular and even blatantly anti-Christian texts from a religious perspective (242). Anonby concludes that, because written texts shape society and human experience, a Christian perspective on writing is necessary. This contradicts the vast majority of composition scholarship, but provides a well-articulated defense of the point of view many evangelical writing students probably hold. It allows composition scholars to see this point of view framed in professional academic language.
Carter, Shannon. “Living inside the Bible (Belt).” College English 69.6 (2007): 572-575.
JSTOR. Web. 24 Oct 2012.
In this article, Carter presents her own philosophy for responding to fundamentalist rhetoric in her students’ writing. Though she sees fundamentalism as running counter to her pedagogical goals of teaching students to examine and celebrate difference, she has come to see the benefit of using students’ religious experiences as examples of literacy. She extols the benefits of teaching what she calls “rhetorical dexterity” as a way to teach students that all literacy (even religious literacy) is people-oriented and contextual. By investigating their own religious communities, for example, Carter hopes that students will be able to apply their understanding of this type of literacy as they encounter new literacies in the academy and beyond. Whereas some of the scholarship on classroom religious rhetoric focuses on finding common ground on which to engage evangelical students in a philosophical dialogue (Goodburn, Rand), this approach offers a more practical way of responding to evangelical students. A writing teacher could easily formulate an assignment from the principles presented in this article; Carter even provides examples of questions designed to promote rhetorical dexterity in students.
DePalma, Michael-John. “Re-envisioning Religious Discourses as Rhetorical Resources in
Composition Teaching: A Pragmatic Response to the Challenge of Belief.” College
Composition and Communication 63.2 (2011): 219-243. Print.
DePalma applies William James’s theory of pragmatism to religious rhetoric in student writing. DePalma argues that religious expression should be acceptable in the academy. He criticizes scholars (including Downs) who draw a distinction between religious and academic discourse, saying religious discourse can be an effective resource for certain students to draw upon in classroom writing. His approach is to treat religious discourse just as he would any other form of discourse—he would try to teach the student to express his or her ideas more effectively, regardless of whether or not he agreed with them. DePalma’s article is useful in its attempt to unite religious and academic discourse, though it can be criticized for ignoring the blind allegiance to authority and lack of academic reasoning that sometimes accompany students’ religiously-based writing. Though religious traditions are certainly a valid and important resource for an autobiographical paper (the only genre which DePalma treats with any depth), what happens when a student wants to write a paper in favor of creationism, citing the Bible as a source? What about Downs’s student who ignored every piece of evidence he found when writing a paper against gay adoption? DePalma’s approach may have been successful with his case study student, who was clearly intelligent and not afraid to think critically. However, pragmatism has its limitations in the area of religious rhetoric.
Dively, Ronda Leathers. “Beyond dualism: Writing and responding to religious rhetoric in the
freshman composition classroom.” Diss. Illinois State University, 1994. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses. Web. 17 Oct 2012.
This dissertation explores a pedagogical approach that teaches students to write about religion academically in a manner consistent with William Perry’s model of undergraduate ethical and intellectual development, without succumbing to dualistic or narrow-minded ways of religious thinking. The author examines the writings of 120 students—two papers from each on the topic of religion, one written before the implementation of her new pedagogy and one written after. The goal of her pedagogy is to encourage students to approach religious issues with a mindset of “committed relativism”—the students should take a stand, but be aware that their point of view can be challenged. Dively’s pedagogy, which focuses on critical audience and forum analysis, post-structuralist theories of subjectivity, and centripetal and centrifugal forces of language, had a positive impact on students’ writing. Dively emphasizes that not all students approach religion dualistically, but argues that her pedagogy is still beneficial to these students’ critical thinking and revision processes. For those who do initially approach religious subjects dualistically, her pedagogy helps them assess their positions from a more dialectical perspective.
Downs, Douglas. “True Believers, Real Scholars, and Real True Believing Scholars: Discourses
of Inquiry and Affirmation in the Composition Classroom.” Negotiating Religious Faith
in the Composition Classroom. Ed. Elizabeth Vander Lei and bonnie lenore kyburz.
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 2005. 39-55. Print.
In this book chapter, Downs itemizes several features of evangelical discourse, including a resistance to change and new knowledge, a belief in a culture-free interpretation of Truth, and a resistance to questioning authority. He draws a distinction between “Discourses of inquiry” (valued by the academic community) and “Discourses of affirmation” (valued by fundamentalist religious communities). He asserts that the reason writing teachers sometimes have such negative visceral reactions to fundamentalist student writing is because the two Discourses are in fundamental and violent opposition to each other. The goal of the teacher, he argues, should be to ease the student toward adopting an approach of inquiry without completely eradicating his or her Discourse of affirmation. He suggests several ways of doing so, based on his experience responding to a poorly reasoned paper against gay adoption. This chapter presents a detailed and fair portrait of fundamentalist student writing and gives workable strategies for how to respond to it.
Finding You. If Anyone is Thirsty. Print.
I apologize for the lack of citation information, but there is no author, city, or date located anywhere on this pamphlet or on the website it references. This is the pamphlet that was given to KU students on Halloween by Michael Woroniecki, a nondenominational fundamentalist minister who evangelizes at college campuses across the country. The overarching theme of this pamphlet is that modern society is a soul-draining conspiracy set up by Satan and that the world offers no true happiness. The authors of this pamphlet do not seem to self-identify as “Christian,” but they offer Jesus and the New Testament as the only means to salvage our empty, meaningless lives. The pamphlet urges readers not to “go with the flow of the status quo” in focusing on work and human relationships. This is a great illustration of how fundamentalist discourse can be related to critical pedagogy—both see themselves as opposition to the status quo. Though this pamphlet certainly does not speak for all evangelists, it provides an interesting firsthand account of the beliefs of a certain branch of evangelical Christians (though they may object to this label, I identify them as “Christian” based on their belief in spreading the word of Jesus and the New Testament).
Goodburn, Amy. “It’s a Question of Faith: Discourses of Fundamentalism and Critical
Pedagogy in the Writing Classroom.” JAC 18.2 (1998): 333-353. University of North
Texas Digital Library. Web. 27 Oct 2012.
<http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28622/m1/169/?q=Goodburn>.
Goodburn presents a case study of a self-described “conservative Christian” student enrolled in a required course on writing about difference in the United States. She presents samples of his writing, in-class verbal responses, and interview responses, all of which betray an animosity toward learning about diversity and any viewpoints that contradict his own. Goodburn takes the reader through her responses to Luke’s work, which mostly consisted of questions designed to call his narrow viewpoints into question. Goodburn concludes that her resistance to Luke’s worldview was just as narrow-minded and intolerant as the discourse Luke produced. She goes on to draw parallels between fundamentalist rhetoric and critical pedagogy, notably, a desire to subvert the status quo and win “converts” (348). This text is important because it provides a bridge between fundamentalist rhetoric and what many educators feel should be the goals of writing classes. If the two viewpoints can meet on some common ground, a true dialogue can begin.
Perkins, Priscilla. “A Radical Conversion of the Mind: Fundamentalism, Hermeneutics, and the
Metanoic Classroom.” College English 63.5 (2001): 585-611. JSTOR. Web. 28 Oct 2012.
This article critically analyzes the work of several important educational and religious scholars. Perkins’s central idea is that writing teachers must find common language with which to communicate with evangelical Christian students. She advocates for the teacher using his or her religious background as a starting point, citing Paulo Freire’s Catholic-inspired pedagogical philosophy. She also analyzes the work of several prominent conservative Christian scholars in order to find the “common language” of Christian fundamentalism. Perkins encourages teachers of writing to help evangelical students see their reading of the Bible as an inherently interpretive act, and to use those interpretive skills on outside texts and the world at large. The Bible is to be used as a tool for, but not the entire framework of, analysis. Perkins’s discussion of both pedagogical theory and conservative religious theory allows for writing teachers to consider multiple perspectives when dealing with fundamentalist religious students and helps these teachers relate to their evangelical students more effectively.
Rand, Lizabeth A. “Enacting Faith: Evangelical Discourse and the Discipline of Composition
Studies.” College Composition and Communication 52.3 (2001): 349-367. Print.
Rand contends that, in postmodernist, perspectivist academic culture, religious expression is mistrusted. In an extensive literature review, she analyzes composition scholarship for evidence of anti-religious bias even in articles that supposedly promote religious expression in the classroom. She concludes that most composition scholarship portrays student religious rhetoric as “naïve or rhetorically unsophisticated” (361). Rand argues that, in order to effectively respond to religiously-based student writing, we must recognize it as anti-authoritarian and admire it for its potential to promote critical thought and self-examination, values that are very much in line with the academic community. This piece, along with the Goodburn text, presents a way for the composition teacher to connect with the evangelical student on an academic level, without reducing him or her to a stereotype.
Smart, Juanita M. “‘Frankenstein or Jesus Christ?’ When the Voice of Faith Creates a Monster
for the Composition Teacher.” Negotiating Religious Faith in the Composition
Classroom. Ed. Elizabeth Vander Lei and bonnie lenore kyburz. Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook, 2005. 11-23. Print.
In this book chapter, Smart presents a personal narrative of her emotional reaction to reading a student’s religiously-inspired response to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In his essay, the student draws parallels between the monster and Jesus (both were forsaken by their creators and suffered at the hands of society) and turns the assignment into an opportunity to preach the gospel. He proselytizes against societal evils such as abortion. As a lesbian who was raised in an evangelical community, Smart finds that her emotional reactions prevent her from responding intellectually to this paper. She incorporates significant composition scholarship (most notably Rand), but does not provide a clear-cut solution to the “problem” of evangelical discourse in student writing. Instead, she offers an engaging personal account of her own struggles with the issue. For composition teachers whose own backgrounds may prevent them from fairly analyzing religious rhetoric in student writing, this chapter offers the perspective of a teacher who has overcome the same problem. It reads as advice from a seasoned teacher, which, if someone is experiencing an emotional reaction to a student paper, may actually be more comforting and helpful than the purely academic sources.
Responding to Evangelical Rhetoric in Student Writing: An Annotated Bibliography
Religious rhetoric can present a problem for many teachers of writing. In terms of spirituality and religion (just like everything else), each student comes from a unique background and has a unique perspective. Some will likely be heavily invested in a particular religious tradition, while others may be skeptical of or hostile to religion. So, is there a place for religious rhetoric in the classroom? Even teachers who try to avoid the issue sometimes find they can’t. How should a teacher respond to an evangelical student who wants to write a paper in favor of creationism, citing the Bible as a source? What happens if a student objects to studying a text by a Muslim author, or a civil rights-era text that draws heavily on Christianity? Could there actually be some value in allowing a student to draw from his or her religious background in a writing activity (analyzing religious texts rhetorically, for example)? Most importantly, if one of our goals as teachers of writing is to encourage students to analyze and question the larger world around them, how do we encourage our students to approach their own religious background (or lack thereof) with a critical eye? Is it our duty to try to force them to keep an open mind (and is that even possible)? It is sometimes difficult to find a balance between respecting your students’ backgrounds and opinions while still instilling the values of critical thinking and academic rigor. Religious rhetoric can actually be a fertile ground for analysis if approached objectively.
Anonby, John A. “A Christian Perspective on English Literature.” Christian Worldview and the
Academic Disciplines. Ed. Deane E. D. Downey and Stanley A. Porter. Eugene, OR:
Pickwick Publications, 2009. 233-247. Print.
This book chapter presents an interesting contrast to most others published on the subject of religious rhetoric in the classroom. Anonby argues in favor of a Christian perspective in the teaching of literature and writing. He argues that all creative capacity comes from God and that it is our duty to use our divinely granted capacity for spoken language to spread his message. He goes on to examine various ways of interpreting literature, using both purely literary and interdisciplinary approaches, and reexamines them through a Christian lens. He cites T. S. Eliot in support of his argument that Christian scholars should critique secular and even blatantly anti-Christian texts from a religious perspective (242). Anonby concludes that, because written texts shape society and human experience, a Christian perspective on writing is necessary. This contradicts the vast majority of composition scholarship, but provides a well-articulated defense of the point of view many evangelical writing students probably hold. It allows composition scholars to see this point of view framed in professional academic language.
Carter, Shannon. “Living inside the Bible (Belt).” College English 69.6 (2007): 572-575.
JSTOR. Web. 24 Oct 2012.
In this article, Carter presents her own philosophy for responding to fundamentalist rhetoric in her students’ writing. Though she sees fundamentalism as running counter to her pedagogical goals of teaching students to examine and celebrate difference, she has come to see the benefit of using students’ religious experiences as examples of literacy. She extols the benefits of teaching what she calls “rhetorical dexterity” as a way to teach students that all literacy (even religious literacy) is people-oriented and contextual. By investigating their own religious communities, for example, Carter hopes that students will be able to apply their understanding of this type of literacy as they encounter new literacies in the academy and beyond. Whereas some of the scholarship on classroom religious rhetoric focuses on finding common ground on which to engage evangelical students in a philosophical dialogue (Goodburn, Rand), this approach offers a more practical way of responding to evangelical students. A writing teacher could easily formulate an assignment from the principles presented in this article; Carter even provides examples of questions designed to promote rhetorical dexterity in students.
DePalma, Michael-John. “Re-envisioning Religious Discourses as Rhetorical Resources in
Composition Teaching: A Pragmatic Response to the Challenge of Belief.” College
Composition and Communication 63.2 (2011): 219-243. Print.
DePalma applies William James’s theory of pragmatism to religious rhetoric in student writing. DePalma argues that religious expression should be acceptable in the academy. He criticizes scholars (including Downs) who draw a distinction between religious and academic discourse, saying religious discourse can be an effective resource for certain students to draw upon in classroom writing. His approach is to treat religious discourse just as he would any other form of discourse—he would try to teach the student to express his or her ideas more effectively, regardless of whether or not he agreed with them. DePalma’s article is useful in its attempt to unite religious and academic discourse, though it can be criticized for ignoring the blind allegiance to authority and lack of academic reasoning that sometimes accompany students’ religiously-based writing. Though religious traditions are certainly a valid and important resource for an autobiographical paper (the only genre which DePalma treats with any depth), what happens when a student wants to write a paper in favor of creationism, citing the Bible as a source? What about Downs’s student who ignored every piece of evidence he found when writing a paper against gay adoption? DePalma’s approach may have been successful with his case study student, who was clearly intelligent and not afraid to think critically. However, pragmatism has its limitations in the area of religious rhetoric.
Dively, Ronda Leathers. “Beyond dualism: Writing and responding to religious rhetoric in the
freshman composition classroom.” Diss. Illinois State University, 1994. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses. Web. 17 Oct 2012.
This dissertation explores a pedagogical approach that teaches students to write about religion academically in a manner consistent with William Perry’s model of undergraduate ethical and intellectual development, without succumbing to dualistic or narrow-minded ways of religious thinking. The author examines the writings of 120 students—two papers from each on the topic of religion, one written before the implementation of her new pedagogy and one written after. The goal of her pedagogy is to encourage students to approach religious issues with a mindset of “committed relativism”—the students should take a stand, but be aware that their point of view can be challenged. Dively’s pedagogy, which focuses on critical audience and forum analysis, post-structuralist theories of subjectivity, and centripetal and centrifugal forces of language, had a positive impact on students’ writing. Dively emphasizes that not all students approach religion dualistically, but argues that her pedagogy is still beneficial to these students’ critical thinking and revision processes. For those who do initially approach religious subjects dualistically, her pedagogy helps them assess their positions from a more dialectical perspective.
Downs, Douglas. “True Believers, Real Scholars, and Real True Believing Scholars: Discourses
of Inquiry and Affirmation in the Composition Classroom.” Negotiating Religious Faith
in the Composition Classroom. Ed. Elizabeth Vander Lei and bonnie lenore kyburz.
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 2005. 39-55. Print.
In this book chapter, Downs itemizes several features of evangelical discourse, including a resistance to change and new knowledge, a belief in a culture-free interpretation of Truth, and a resistance to questioning authority. He draws a distinction between “Discourses of inquiry” (valued by the academic community) and “Discourses of affirmation” (valued by fundamentalist religious communities). He asserts that the reason writing teachers sometimes have such negative visceral reactions to fundamentalist student writing is because the two Discourses are in fundamental and violent opposition to each other. The goal of the teacher, he argues, should be to ease the student toward adopting an approach of inquiry without completely eradicating his or her Discourse of affirmation. He suggests several ways of doing so, based on his experience responding to a poorly reasoned paper against gay adoption. This chapter presents a detailed and fair portrait of fundamentalist student writing and gives workable strategies for how to respond to it.
Finding You. If Anyone is Thirsty. Print.
I apologize for the lack of citation information, but there is no author, city, or date located anywhere on this pamphlet or on the website it references. This is the pamphlet that was given to KU students on Halloween by Michael Woroniecki, a nondenominational fundamentalist minister who evangelizes at college campuses across the country. The overarching theme of this pamphlet is that modern society is a soul-draining conspiracy set up by Satan and that the world offers no true happiness. The authors of this pamphlet do not seem to self-identify as “Christian,” but they offer Jesus and the New Testament as the only means to salvage our empty, meaningless lives. The pamphlet urges readers not to “go with the flow of the status quo” in focusing on work and human relationships. This is a great illustration of how fundamentalist discourse can be related to critical pedagogy—both see themselves as opposition to the status quo. Though this pamphlet certainly does not speak for all evangelists, it provides an interesting firsthand account of the beliefs of a certain branch of evangelical Christians (though they may object to this label, I identify them as “Christian” based on their belief in spreading the word of Jesus and the New Testament).
Goodburn, Amy. “It’s a Question of Faith: Discourses of Fundamentalism and Critical
Pedagogy in the Writing Classroom.” JAC 18.2 (1998): 333-353. University of North
Texas Digital Library. Web. 27 Oct 2012.
<http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28622/m1/169/?q=Goodburn>.
Goodburn presents a case study of a self-described “conservative Christian” student enrolled in a required course on writing about difference in the United States. She presents samples of his writing, in-class verbal responses, and interview responses, all of which betray an animosity toward learning about diversity and any viewpoints that contradict his own. Goodburn takes the reader through her responses to Luke’s work, which mostly consisted of questions designed to call his narrow viewpoints into question. Goodburn concludes that her resistance to Luke’s worldview was just as narrow-minded and intolerant as the discourse Luke produced. She goes on to draw parallels between fundamentalist rhetoric and critical pedagogy, notably, a desire to subvert the status quo and win “converts” (348). This text is important because it provides a bridge between fundamentalist rhetoric and what many educators feel should be the goals of writing classes. If the two viewpoints can meet on some common ground, a true dialogue can begin.
Perkins, Priscilla. “A Radical Conversion of the Mind: Fundamentalism, Hermeneutics, and the
Metanoic Classroom.” College English 63.5 (2001): 585-611. JSTOR. Web. 28 Oct 2012.
This article critically analyzes the work of several important educational and religious scholars. Perkins’s central idea is that writing teachers must find common language with which to communicate with evangelical Christian students. She advocates for the teacher using his or her religious background as a starting point, citing Paulo Freire’s Catholic-inspired pedagogical philosophy. She also analyzes the work of several prominent conservative Christian scholars in order to find the “common language” of Christian fundamentalism. Perkins encourages teachers of writing to help evangelical students see their reading of the Bible as an inherently interpretive act, and to use those interpretive skills on outside texts and the world at large. The Bible is to be used as a tool for, but not the entire framework of, analysis. Perkins’s discussion of both pedagogical theory and conservative religious theory allows for writing teachers to consider multiple perspectives when dealing with fundamentalist religious students and helps these teachers relate to their evangelical students more effectively.
Rand, Lizabeth A. “Enacting Faith: Evangelical Discourse and the Discipline of Composition
Studies.” College Composition and Communication 52.3 (2001): 349-367. Print.
Rand contends that, in postmodernist, perspectivist academic culture, religious expression is mistrusted. In an extensive literature review, she analyzes composition scholarship for evidence of anti-religious bias even in articles that supposedly promote religious expression in the classroom. She concludes that most composition scholarship portrays student religious rhetoric as “naïve or rhetorically unsophisticated” (361). Rand argues that, in order to effectively respond to religiously-based student writing, we must recognize it as anti-authoritarian and admire it for its potential to promote critical thought and self-examination, values that are very much in line with the academic community. This piece, along with the Goodburn text, presents a way for the composition teacher to connect with the evangelical student on an academic level, without reducing him or her to a stereotype.
Smart, Juanita M. “‘Frankenstein or Jesus Christ?’ When the Voice of Faith Creates a Monster
for the Composition Teacher.” Negotiating Religious Faith in the Composition
Classroom. Ed. Elizabeth Vander Lei and bonnie lenore kyburz. Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook, 2005. 11-23. Print.
In this book chapter, Smart presents a personal narrative of her emotional reaction to reading a student’s religiously-inspired response to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In his essay, the student draws parallels between the monster and Jesus (both were forsaken by their creators and suffered at the hands of society) and turns the assignment into an opportunity to preach the gospel. He proselytizes against societal evils such as abortion. As a lesbian who was raised in an evangelical community, Smart finds that her emotional reactions prevent her from responding intellectually to this paper. She incorporates significant composition scholarship (most notably Rand), but does not provide a clear-cut solution to the “problem” of evangelical discourse in student writing. Instead, she offers an engaging personal account of her own struggles with the issue. For composition teachers whose own backgrounds may prevent them from fairly analyzing religious rhetoric in student writing, this chapter offers the perspective of a teacher who has overcome the same problem. It reads as advice from a seasoned teacher, which, if someone is experiencing an emotional reaction to a student paper, may actually be more comforting and helpful than the purely academic sources.