Failing safely: Increasing theology and religious studies students’ resilience and academic confidence via risk‐taking in formative assessment

Students increasingly appear anxious, risk‐averse, and worried about getting things “wrong.” They may appear to lack intellectual curiosity, and be unwilling to engage in independent study. This essay explores how teaching and assessment in theology and religious studies might help students learn to take intellectual risks, and increase their resilience. One approach is to encourage students to experiment and “fail safely,” to increase their confidence that they understand what is expected of them, and to help them begin to understand learning as more broadly formational, not always directed toward a grade. I suggest three strategies: more formative assessment; a stronger narrative about the purpose of formative assessment; and an appeal to values, virtue, and the cultivation of character. Via these approaches, students might be encouraged to understand assessment in less utilitarian terms and increase their resilience for a world characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, prepared both critically and dispositionally to thrive and contribute positively to society.     

“Something There is That Doesn't Love a Wall”: Queer Theologies and Reparative Readings

A set of recent conversations among scholars working in queer cultural and literary theory has focused on the trope of reparative reading. Reparative readings, usually contrasted with the “paranoid” criticism of those working in the Butlerian tradition, are often informed by the writings of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. This article explores the “reparative turn” in the context of Christian queer theologies, and suggests that it may include practices of “sociability with the dead”: both listening to and honouring the abjected past of queer ancestors, and continuing to be in conversation with the damaging and hurtful parts of the Christian tradition as a means of holding them accountable.     

Reifying Sex Difference Isn't the Answer: Gendering Processes, Risk, and Religiosity

The study of risk and religiosity is fundamentally about gender differences in religiosity. Gender scholars would be highly critical about this debate because it ignores questions about the size and universality of gender effects, there is little or no attempt to conceptualize and measure risk preference, and because it does not take into account gendering processes.     

Home and hiddenness: queer theology,domestication and institutions

ABSTRACT

This essay examines tropes of hiddenness and domestication in queer theology, particularly in light of the increasing mainstreaming of queer theologies in institutional (e.g. university, seminary, church) settings, and the inclusion of queer theologies by straight academics and teachers on their syllabi. Drawing on James C. Scott’s work on revolution as a luxury of the elite (by way of the Arab Spring, the UK riots of 2011, and the US demonstrations in 2014), and Judith Halberstam’s construction of “failure” as a strategy of queer resistance, I ask whether there will continue to be a role for “shadow queernesses” which reject institutional acceptability. However, I also suggest that the increased visibility of queer theology within mainstream institutions does not inevitably imply compromise or “toothlessness,” but may in fact testify to the pre-existing presence of queer diversity in multiple contexts and the inhabitation by queer scholars of various “homes.”