It's aQuestion ofFaith: Discourses of Fundamentalism ... - JAC Online

It's a Question of Faith: 

Discourses of Fundamentalism and 

Critical Pedagogy in the Writing Classroom 

AMYGOODBURN 

In the pastdecade,the discoursesofcriticalpedagogy(Giroux,Kincheloe,McLaren, 

Simon)haveshapedthe arenaofcompositionstudies(Berlin& Vivion,Bizzell,Fox, 

Hurlbert & Blitz,Knoblauch& Brannon,Shor).Ascompositioniststurn to writing 

pedagogicsthat explorehowissuesofdifferenceshapepeople'slives,manyhavebegun 

to examinehow socialconstructsofrace,class,gender,sexualorientation, andsoon 

accountforthewaysthat studentsreadandwrite abouttexts.Whiletheseconstructs 

areclearlyimportant for students to examinein terms oftheir personal and social 

identities, there is another differencethat usually remains invisible: the role of 

religiousidentity. Giventhe important rolethat religionplayswithin U.s.culture 

(withthe majority ofU .5.citizensdescribingthemselvesasreligiousinsomeway), 

it's surprisingthat sofewcriticaleducatorshavedealtwith the implicationsfor how 

students' religiousidentitiesoftenconflictwith the assumptionsupon which critical 

pedagogyispremised. Although criticaleducatorscallfor pedagogicsthat privilege 

andproblematizestudentexperience,theemphasison issuesofrace,classandgender 

oftentimes doesnot nameor accountfor religion,aconstruct which intersectsand 

envelopsthesecategoriesinmany students' lives.AsscholarssuchasAnn Berthoff, 

BethDaniels,andJamesMoffett havenoted, this lackofdiscussionabout religious 

identityiscertainlyironicgiventheimportanceoffaithandspiritualityinearlycritical 

educators' work (such asPaulo Freire). Even worse, when students' religious 

identitiesarediscussedwithin theliteratureofcriticalpedagogy,itisusuallydescribed 

negatively,oftentimesasanimpedimentto beovercome(Kincheloe). 

I believethisabsenceofdiscussionabouttheroleofreligiousidentitywith respect 

to critical writing pedagogics has left teachers who espouse critical principles 

unprepared to addressstudent resistancerooted inreligiousbelief.One ofmy most 

painfulexperiencesasacriticalteacheroccurredwhen I found myselfconstantly in 

conflictwith astudent namedLuke inan intermediate-levelcollegewriting course 

focusedon issuesof differencein U .5.culture. 1 In this essayI examineone type of 

religiousidentity-that ofChristianFundamentalism-and profileLuke's oraland 

written responses as a means of illustrating how his reliance on fundamentalist 

discourseplayedakeyroleinproducinghisresistanceto assignedtexts,to thecourse's

334JAC 

statedgoals,andto my authority astheteacher.Itwasonlythrough examiningLuke's 

responses in terms of fundamentalistdiscourse that I began to understand and 

appreciatehispositioninmy classroomand,further,waschallengedtoquestionsome 

ofthe assumptions undergirding the discoursesofcriticalpedagogyinwhich I had 

placed so much faith. Basedon my experiences,I suggestthat Luke's responses 

foreground two problems with the absenceof discussion regarding the role of 

fundamentalistdiscoursewith respectto criticalwritingpedagogics.First,ithasleft 

teachersrelativelyunpreparedforstudentswho resistreadingandwritingaboutissues 

ofdifferencedueto fundamentalistbeliefs.Teacherswho areunawareofthepossible 

influencesoffundamentalistbeliefson studentwritingandreadingcanoftenmisread 

their students' responses. Secondly,it hasallowedcriticaleducatorsto overlook a 

common threadbetweenthediscoursesofcriticalpedagogyandfundamentalism:the 

languageof socialcritique. By ignoring the similar roles of socialcritique in the 

discoursesofboth fundamentalistsandcriticaleducators,criticaleducatorsoftenmiss 

opportunitiesto findareasofcommongroundwith fundamentaliststudentsandleave 

their own assumptions about the methods and goals of critical pedagogy 

uninterrogated- indecidedlyuncriticalways. 

Myinterestinexploringtheconnectionsbetweendiscoursesoffundamentalism 

andcriticalpedagogycameabout quiteby accident,whileIwasconductingresearch 

for my dissertation at alargestate university in three sections of English 300-an 

intermediatecollegelevelwritingclassfocusedaroundissuesofdifferencewithinU.S. 

culture.' InitiallyIsoughtto examinehow studentsandteachersnegotiateauthority 

within writing coursesfocusedon issuesofdifference.Although Iwasateacherwho 

supported criticalwritingpedagogies,Icameto this projectbelievingthat students' 

voiceswereabsentfromthe literatureon criticalpedagogy,andI wantedmy research 

to focuson students' descriptions and understandings oftheir experienceswithin 

courses based around critical pedagogicalprinciples. I chose English 300: "The 

AmericanExperience"becauseitfulfilledthisuniversity'sdiversityrequirementby 

askingstudentsto readandwriteaboutnonfictiontextsintermsofrace,class,gender, 

and other socialdifferences. During the term I studied one of my own classesasa 

teacher researcher and two other English 300courses asa participant observer, 

selectingsectionstaught by teacherswho alsoespousedcriticalpedagogicalgoals.In 

addition, I hired an undergraduate, Mindy, to be a participant observer in my 

classroom and to interview my students twice throughout the term about their 

expenences. 

At the term's end, I assessedmy attempts to be a"critical"teacher asafailure. 

Evenbeforethe term began,I knewthat studentswereoftentimesresistantto taking 

English 300 because of its diversity focus. Students often describe this classas 

"politicallycorrect" and saythat they needto adopt the politicsofthe instructor in 

order to pass. Asone student told the participant observerin my class,"One of my 

friends,when hetook thisclass,hejustfakedeverythingthat hewrote about. He just 

liedabout everything" (Mindy'sJournal 1-14-93).BecauseIhad taught this course 

severaltimes,I wasprepared for students who didn't liketo discussor write about 

issuesconnectedto racismor sexismor homophobia. But nothing prepared mefor

Discoursesof Fundementalism 335 

the way that students inthis particular classresponded. Asthe term progressed, a 

block of seven students (out of 18)who identified themselves as "Conservative 

Christians" started to make their resistancevisibleandvocal:they sattogether in a 

cluster oftwo tables,they dominated classdiscussions,andsomeofthem refusedto 

readorwrite about assignedtexts. Asateacher,Iwasfrustrated by my inability to 

connect with these students, andI wasangrywith the waysthat they treated other 

students in the class. As aresearcher, though, I was intrigued by these students' 

responses to classdiscussionsand assignedreadings, particularly in terms of the 

groundsofauthority upon whichthey assertedthemselves.At semester'send,both 

Mindy andIdiscussedthewaysthat religiousdifferenceseemedto playanimportant 

part in how the students had responded to the course assignments and to me.' In 

attemptingto writeaboutthiscourseformy dissertation,then, Ibeganto explorethe 

literatureoffundamentalismandtoconsidermorefullywhy fundamentalistdiscourse 

seemed to be more powerful and attractive for many of the students than the 

discoursesof criticalpedagogythat I had initially hoped to enact.' 

My own consciousnessregardingtheterm "fundamentalist"emergedinconcert 

with the 1994politicalelectionandpublicdiscourseabout the risinginfluenceofthe 

"ReligiousRight" inAmericansociety.Popular newsmagazinessuchasNewsweek 

and Timeandtelevisionshowssuchas48Hourshaveallprofiled,invaryingdegrees, 

the riseof"fundamentalism"withinU.S.culture.Within academiccircles,MartinE. 

Marty andR. ScottAppleby's FundamentalistProject-a multi-million dollar,sixyear,six-volumestudycomparingfundamentalismsaroundtheworld 

supportedby 

the American AcademyofArts andSciences-reflects how scholarshavebegun to 

attendto fundamentalistbeliefasameansofinterpretingsocialandpoliticalbehavior. 

Whileaslateasthe 1960smostfundamentalistseschewedpoliticalactionassecondary 

to the goalsofmissionaryconversion,recentlyfundamentalistdiscourse-through 

the politicalpower ofthe ChristianCoalition andthe conservativethink tankswith 

which it isallied-has shapedthe U .5.culturalandpoliticalscene.And whileschool 

curriculum hashistoricallybeenasiteofcontest overdifferentreligiousbeliefsand 

values,increasingly,fundamentalistshavenamedschoolsasaprimarysiteforpolitical 

action. Indeed, debates about the role of religiousbeliefin public education have 

becomealmostmainstream,with proposedconstitutionalamendmentsto legitimize 

groupprayerintheclassroom,callsforvouchersto fundstudentenrollmentinprivate 

Christian schools,andcurrent lawsuitsinstatessuchasAlabamato allowChristian 

religiousactivities,suchasBiblereadingandthe postingofthe ten commandments, 

within K-12publicschools(Kaniiner).It's not surprising,then, that students' texts 

andresponsesreflectandproducethislargerculturaldiscourse.But giventhat many 

oftheseactivitiesaresupportedby Christiansandotherswho donot namethemselves 

asfundamentalist, usingthe term "fundamentalist" asameans of understanding 

behavioriscomplicated. 

In its historical sense Christian fundamentalism describes "a coalition of 

conservative, predominantly Calvinist, Protestants that emerged from within a 

broader, more ecumenicalevangelicalculture inthe latenineteenth century" based 

on the fivefundamentals of faith (Bendroth 4). Basedon the 1895Niagara Bible

336]AC 

Conference, the fivefundamentals offaith, which separatehereticsfrom believers, 

include 1)the virgin birth ofChrist, 2)substitutionary atonement (Christ's death as 

payment for human sin),3)the bodily resurrection of Christ and the supernatural 

reality of miracles,4)inerrant Scripture (without factualor scientificerror) and 5) 

dispensational premillenialism (theliteralSecondComing of Christ) (Bendroth 5). 

But this historical definition iscomplicated by the fact that the term "Christian 

fundamentalist"within U.S.culture oftenconjuresimagesofpeoplewith narrow or 

extreme attitudes. And in itscontemporary sensethe term "fundamentalist"isused 

more broadly to includegroupsofpeopleforwhom religiousbeliefconstitutesanallencompassing 

personal and socialidentity and who perceivethis identity asbeing 

threatened by secularsocialforces. AsMarty and Appleby suggest,this notion of 

perceivedthreat isessentialfor understanding fundamentalist responses: 

Feeling this identity to be at risk in the contemporary era, they [fundamentalists] fortify it by 

a selective retrieval of doctrines, beliefs, and practices from a sacred past ... to serve as a 

bulwark against the encroachment of outsiders who threaten to draw the believers into a 

syncretistic, areligious, or irreligious cultural milieu. (3) 

In defining Christian fundamentalist discourse within this essay,then, I am not 

referring to adescription of practices0 r institutio nalaffiliations,but rather to aset 

ofguidingassumptions,whatKathleenBoonedescribesinTheBibleTells1bemSo:The 

DiscourseofProtestantFundamentalismas"atendency, ahabit ofmind, rather than a 

discretemovement or phenomenon, ...abody ofdiscoursearisingfrom beliefinthe 

sole authority of an inerrant Bible" (10)and what Joseph Kincheloe names as"an 

absolutistviewofreligiousauthority, theliteralnatureoftheBibleasaninfallibletext, 

andthe centrality ofaconversionexperienceon the road to the salvationofthe soul" 

(50).In my class,the seven students who described themselves as"Conservative 

Christians"belongedto severaldifferentchurchesanddenominations,but alldefined 

themselvesasholding "true" Christian beliefsthat were more authentic than those 

ofother students and feltthat they werethe only oneswho were "saved."Regardless 

of whether students named their beliefsasfundamentalist or not, their discourses 

seemed powerfully shaped by these common tendencies or habits of mind. As 

Bendroth suggests,the discourseoffundamentalismhasbecomeincreasinglyprominent 

becauseof"[i]ts powerful languageofalienationanditscritique ofmoral laxity 

in the wider culture" (5).It isthis powerful languageofcritiquethat I wishto explore 

further by profiling the writing of Luke, the student who seemedto bethe most 

resistant in my English 300course. 

Luke: A Case Study 

A 19-year-oldsophomore majoring in English, Luke was amember of the men's 

gymnastic team and a Christian Fellowship Bible group on campus. Without 

question, one ofthe most important issueson Luke's mind washisfaith. Describing 

himself asan Episcopalian Christian in astudent survey, Luke's religiouscommitments 

surfacedin the classin many ways. During classdiscussionsabout readingson 

multicultural issues,he often pulled aNew Testament from his backpack to cite


biblical authorities whom he feltwere relevant to the topic at hand. His papers also 

reflected his interest in writing about and sharing his religious beliefs:for the first 

assignment,which askedstudentsto tracethehistoryofoneoftheirbeliefs,Lukewrote 

anarrative describinghisconversionexperienceandhissubsequentviewsoflifeafter 

death. Severalofhisinformalresponsepapersto assignedreadingssharedhisreligious 

beliefsaswell, usually in opposition to what he considered the secular and controversialissuesin 

the texts. Almost allof Luke' soral and written responses reflected 

afundamentalist discoursethat motivated hisresistanceto classassignmentsandthe 

overall goalsof the course throughout the term. 

From the firstday,Luke madeitclearthat hewasopposedto readingandwriting 

about issuesofdiversity. In addition to marking "disagree"to asurvey of statements 

such as"1believe issuesof diversity should be addressedin university courses" and 

"1enjoy classesthat deal with issues of diversity," Luke hinted at his religious 

convictions in writing about hisinitialattitude to the class:"my attitude toward this 

classis1hope the material isdiscussed in an unbiased manner and not assumed to 

be correct, such asthe theory of evolution" (Survey 1-5-93).Usingthe theory of 

evolution asanexampleofhow curricularknowledgecontradietshisreligiousbeliefs, 

Luke suggeststhat being"unbiased"meansacknowledginghisreligiousconvictions 

asequally valid in relation to other views. Given that evolution isone of the most 

contestedand highlydebatedissuesofschoolcurriculum for fundamentalists,Luke's 

comments, inretrospect, arenot that surprising. Still,asateacher,1didn't realizethat 

Luke's comment foreshadowedthe strugglesover "secular"knowledgeand religious 

beliefthat were to motivate his resistancethroughout the term. 

One ofthe most visiblesitesofLuke' sappealsto religiousauthority canbe seen 

in his response papers to assigned readings. To illustrate the ways that Luke's 

responseswere shapedby hisreligiousdiscourse,I present two ofhisresponsepapers 

which illustrate hisnegotiations with the texts and my goalsasateacher in assigning 

them. 

Biblical Authority and Revisionist Reading 

Luke's firstresponsepaper waswritten in responseto Kristine Beatty's poem "Lot's 

Wife." This poem offersarevisionist readingofthe biblicalstory of Lot's wife, who 

turned into a pillar of salt after looking back at the judgment of Sodom and 

Gomorrah.' The narrator ofthe poem describesthe dailydutiesofLot's wife-baking 

bread, raisingchildren, and tending to sickneighbors-as 0 pposed to her husband, 

who spendshis lifein contemplation with God (whileLot "struggleswith the Lord 

...shestruggleswith the housework"). The narrator suggeststhat Lot's wifedoesnot 

"regret the sacrifice" of turning into stone because her definition of sacrifice is 

dependent on relationswith her community rather than with God. Studentsreadthis 

poem in conjunction with two other essaysabout the limitingnature ofgenderroles. 

This poem seemedespeciallyappropriate forthe unit, 1thought, becauseitoffers 

arevisionistreadingofhow men andwomen' sworkhas beentraditionally valuedand 

it suggestspossibleconsequencesin making such judgments. 1envisioned students 

engaging in an intertextual conversation among the two essays and this poem,

338]AC 

critiquingor comparingthe "theories"offeredabout genderrolesinthe essayswith 

the narrative examplein the poem. Preparedfor the possibilitythat somestudents 

might not know the biblical story of Lot and therefore have no context for 

understandingthe poem, I gavethem abriefplot summarybeforehandandreferred 

them to the biblicalcitation. What I wasnot preparedfor, however,wasthe hostile 

reception that the poem receivedby studentswho werethe most familiarwith the 

story. Luke's responsepaper wasrepresentativeofthis group. Presentedhere inits 

entirety,Luke'spaperfocusessolelyonthepoem,separatefromtheothertwo assigned 

essays: 

Responseto "Lot's Wife" 

"On the breast of the hill, shechoosesto be human, and turns, in farewell-and never 

regretsthe sacrifice.U 

This poem by Kristine Batey (sic)is really kind of naive when consideredby an Old 

Testamentstandpoint. How canshesaythat Lot'swife"neverregets(sic)the sacrifice"?The 

woman wasturned into apillarofsalt. Allthrough the poem,the author makesitsound like 

God issomealoofcharaeterthatcanpronouncejudgement(sic)onsomeoneatanytime. God, 

inthe Old Testament,wasafriendto Lot's familyandto anyone who calledon hisname. It 

wasGod who sentthetwo angelsto warnLot andhisfamilyaboutthe impendingjudgement 

on SodomandGomorrah. It wasnot somealoofGod that remainedquietwhilehisdisciple 

waskilled. 

The poem takes an event that happened thousands of years ago and tries to give it 

twentieth century logicandunderstanding.Backinthistime,there wasno placeforawifeto 

questionherhusbandorto disobeyhimin anyway. Thispoemtakesastandpointthat isvery 

sympatheticto Lot's wife. The factstillremainsthat shewaswarned not to look backafter 

fleeingthe judgementof God. Shelooked backandpaid the consequencefor her action. I 

personallydonot believethat shelookedbackout ofcuriosityto seethejudgementofSodom 

andGomorrah. Shedidnot obeythecommandofGod givenbythe angelsandpaidthe cost. 

Thispoem istrying to look attheeventthrough the eyesofatwentieth century woman not a 

woman who livedthousands ofyearsago. 

Furthermore Lot's wifehad been livingwith him for years and wasfamiliarwith the 

workings ofGod. Shemay havedoneallthe thingsthe poemdescribes,shemayhavesaidall 

the goodbyes.but they aretrivialthings when comparedto the plansofGod. In the closing 

linesofthe poem,the author makesLot'swife'sactionsoutto be"good."Obviouslythey were 

not goodbecausethey went againstwhat God hadtold them to dowhichwasnot look back. 

Yau cannot justifylookingbackandthereforebreakingGod's commandby nostalgia. 

Clearly this poem triggered apowerful responseinLuke. While I had envisioned 

studentswouldcritiquethepoem,I thoughttheywoulddosoonthebasisoftheother 

two essaysandthediscussionswehadthroughout theterm. ButLuke'sreadingmakes 

no mention of other texts or discussionsabout socially-constructedgenderroles. 

Instead, Luke relieson his own authority asaBiblicalscholar to read-and resist 

reading-the poem in waysthat I had not envisioned. 

Upon first readingLuke's response,I immediately wasstruck by the way he 

differentiatesbetweenthe pastandthe present. AsMarty andAppleby note, oneof 

the tenets of fundamentalist discourseisareachingback to the past, either realor 

imagined,oforiginalconditionsandselectingor retrievingfundamentaltruths from 

that pastinorder to thwart the changingpresent (3).One ofLuke's maincriticisms 

isthat the story ofLot's wifeisbeingread"through the eyesof atwentieth century


woman not a woman who lived thousands of years ago." This emphasis on 

distinguishing between past/present isalsoreflected in the phrases "Old Testament 

stand point, ""twentieth century logicand understanding," and "Back in this time." 

Arguing that the tale can only be understood within the context it waswritten, Luke 

callsany other reading naive. 

Luke's resistance to arevisionist reading of this biblical story isunderstandable 

given how he views the authority of biblical text asthe literal and unmediated word 

of God, an authority of meaning that must remain stable and unified across time to 

ensure that all readers can accessthe same moral creeds. Rather than retrieving this 

moral from the story ofLot, Luke argues,the poem (and,by implication, the narrator) 

"takes a standpoint that isvery sympathetic to Lot's wife." It isthis standpoint-a 

situated reading from a "modern" perspective-that Luke cannot accept. Using 

phrases that reflectLuke's attempt to convey an "objective" perspective-"the fact still 

remains" and "Obviously"-Luke suggests that those who "impose" twentieth 

century logicarenaive. His statement "You cannot justify looking back and therefore 

breaking God's command by nostalgia" refersnot only to this specificpoem but also 

to Luke's overall philosophy ofhow biblicaltexts canbe read. Readingtextsthrough 

a revisionist lens is dangerous, Luke suggests, becausesuch readings are used to 

"justify" actions that conflict with God's will. If the Bible's textual authority is 

destabilized, God's authority isequally open to interpretation-and revision. 

Given Luke's perspectiveon the authority ofmeaning within biblicaltext, it's not 

surprising that he does not mention the other two articles that were assignedon this 

day. What I first attributed to possible laziness on his part (perhaps he hadn't read 

them or just didn't feel like taking the time to write about them) could also be 

attributed to the fact that, for him, the Bible is the sole source of authority for 

interpreting allother texts. Incorporating ideasfrom the articlesto interpret the poem 

would have led him to the same downfall asthe narrator of the poem, atwentieth 

century "stand point" that might have justified readings contradictory to God's 

intentions. Luke might have used biblical authority to critique the "secular" essays, 

but he chose instead to focus on the objectionable reading that the narrator offers. 

Although Luke 0 bviously does take an interpretive stance to the poem, he views 

himself ascorrecting and informing the narrator's naive and nostalgic perspective 

rather than adopting an interpretive position himself As Boone suggests,fundamentalists 

do not view texts asoffering multiple readings-there are correct or incorrect 

readings of atext and those with moral authority have the ability to discern which 

reading istrue (20). 

Luke's resistance to the author's revisionist reading might be subtly directed to 

me aswell. AsKincheloe notes, students with fundamentalist assumptions often view 

teachers asthe enemy, secularhumanists who attempt to destroy faith by undermining 

religious authority. Kincheloe saysthat ministers and parents often warn students to 

remain ever vigilant in fending off such attacks to their religious values (50).Luke's 

concluding statement, "You can not justify looking back," could be interpreted asa 

reminder to himself or asawarning to me-the one who has selected the poem to 

begin with-that he will not succumb to what he views asthe heretical reading of a

340jAC 

biblical text. The relationship between teacher and text isespeciallycritical for 

students with fundamentalist beliefsbecausetypically it isan authority figure-a 

parentor minister-who transmitstheinviolableandunmediatedword ofGod from 

theBible.Textsother than theBiblearealsochosenon thebasisofthe moralmessages 

that they convey. For ateacherto askastudentwith suchfundamentalistbeliefsto 

readatext which contradictssuchauthority isespeciallyproblematic. 

Luke's fundamentalist beliefsalsoshapethe wayshe examinesgenderissues. 

While I initially chose "Lot's Wife" as illustrative of some of the gender issues 

discussedinthe other two readings,for Luke genderisaconstruct that issubsumed 

or evenerasedunderthe largerrubricofreligioussalvation.For instance,Lukerefers 

to the wife'sdailypracticesas"trivialthingscomparedto the plansofGod." Because 

Lukeassumesthat themostsignificantrelationshipinawoman'slifeisherindividual 

relationship to God, followedby her relationshipto her husband (whom shemust 

obey), he isunableto conceiveofthe gendereddistribution andvaluingofwork as 

asignificantissue.Indeed,the only placewhereLukeevenraisesthe issueofgender 

isinhisstatement "therewasno placefor awifeto questionor to disobeyhim inany 

way." The hierarchy of God, man, and then wife affords no value to valorizing 

"women'swork" inrelationto individualsalvation.Luke'sdiscoursegivesprecedence 

to religiousidentity over gender. 

Fundamentalist discourse alsovaluesindividual salvation over community 

affiliation.GiventhatLukeviewsindividualsalvationaseveryperson'smainpriority, 

it isnot hard to seewhy hewould beunwillingto considerthewife'sresponseto the 

pagan community in positive terms. David Bleichsuggeststhat the ideologiesof 

individualismandreligiousvaluesoftenwork to promote sexism(oratleastveilthe 

ideologieswhich support it)becausesalvationrequiresindividualactsinrelationto 

God, not others. AsBleichnotes: 

Inreligiousthinking,theindividualsoulisanultimateunitthat makesthe doctrineofsalvation 

possible, There areonly two socialcategoriesinreligiousthought-the singlepersonandthe 

total human race. Salvationdependson an individualact-of confession,of contrition, of 

declarationoffaith" for example.(168) 

Luke's readingofthe wife's actionscanonly beconsiderednegativebecause,in his 

eyes,sheprivilegeshuman connection overGod's wilLWhileone couldarguethat 

the wife's actionsof caringfor her community embodiesGod's willto loveothers, 

Lukereadsher actionsthrough thebiblicalauthorityhehasbeentaught,anauthority 

which condemnsthewife.Allissuesofdifference,likegender,aretemporal andthus 

secondaryto eternalsalvation.Thus Lukeresistsreadingthe wife'sactionsasshaped 

by genderbecausehefeelsthat shehadanequalopportunity, viaher relationshipto 

Lot, to be "familiar with the workings of God." Grounded in notions of biblical 

authority, hierarchicalrelations,andindividualsalvation,Luke'sdiscourseconflicted 

with the waysthat I hadimaginedandexpectedhimto respondto "Lot'sWife."The 

complexwebofauthority relationsinwhichLuke'sreadingwaspositionedoverrode 

my rather simplisticassumptionthat studentswould readclasstextsprimarily from 

theoretical definitionsculledfrom the other two texts.


Christian Salvation and Cultural Assimilation 

Becausethe subjectof "Lot's Wife"isreligion,it iseasyto seehow Luke's religious 

discourseshapeshisreading. But hisfundamentalistbeliefsinfluencednot only his 

readingofthis poem but allofhisresponses,evenon topicsthat might seemwholly 

divorced from religion. The secondresponsepaper by Luke seemsquite different 

from that of "Lot's Wife"and, at firstreading,doesnot appearto beinfluenced by 

fundamentalist discourse at all. Yet examining the language and assumptions 

undergirding Luke's text illuminates how for Luke, alllifeissuesare interpreted 

through afundamentalistlens. 

Inthisresponsepaper,Lukewrote aboutthepoem"ParaTeresa,"whichpresents 

themes of assimilation, schooling, and identity . Written in English and Spanish 

throughout (withtranslationsin accompanyingfootnotes),the poem describesthe 

Chicananarrator'srelationshipto anotherChicanaclassmate,Teresa,who refusesto 

adopt the norms of the white culture's schools. The narrator, on the other hand, 

choosesto assimilateand adopt the valuesystemof the schools. At the end of the 

poem, the narrator sayssheunderstandsandrespectsthe rebelliouspath Teresahas 

chosen and callsher" my sister." 

Upan firstreadingLuke'sresponsepaper,Ithoughtthathehadmisreadthepoem 

becausehe describesTeresa'schoiceas"acceptingthe culture ofthe white people." 

ButasIreadit againandagain,Ibeganto seehow Luke'sfundamentalistassumptions 

influencedhow hereadthispoem. Indeed,thewayherespondsto thispoemissimilar 

to his responseto "Lot's Wife": 

Responseto "Para Teresa" 

The poem by InesHernandez isavery goodportrayal ofthe livesoftwo young minority 

children whoseviewsoflifeandhow to succeedinaprejudice(sic)world weresodifferentyet 

hadthe samegoalin mind. The poem isastory abouttwo girlswith two opposingviewsabout 

growingup. One girl[Teresa]decidedto takethe approachofacceptingthe culture ofthe white 

people. Shedyedher hair,put on make-upetc.to makeherse1fmorelikeherwhitefriends.This 

she hoped would gain her the respect andthe security of being awhite person. 

The other girl,the author ofthe poem, took the perspectiveof amore passiveresistance. 

Amore subtlerefusalto changeher own ways. Sheopposedthe prejudiceandunfairnessright 

underthe nosesofthe very peoplewho wereresponsiblefor it.This attitude, alongwith doing 

well in school, addedtogether to makethe first girllook silly,an accentuation of her foolish 

attempt at denyingthe fatethat wasinevitable. Butwhat appearedasacceptanceof defeaton 

the part ofthe secondgirl,wasreallythe bestwayto achievevictory for herselfandherpeople. 

It wasalmost asifshewasplayingthe gameofthe teachers andpeople in power. Shewas 

playingtheir gamesothat shemightbeatthem atitoneday. That washerultimate goal. Right 

now her goalwasto pleaseher family and herself. Shewas not interested in being loud and 

arrogant aswasthe firstgirl. Shedidn't quiteunderstand the attitude ofthe first girlbut their 

aims were the same. 

The secondgirlwasthe smarterofthe two. I saythis becauseshetook the paththat seemed 

impossibleto the secondgirl and yet shewassucceeding. The author wanted to use her life 

asan example ofwhat hard work and determination can do. Sheknew that ifshecould do it 

then allof her people could do it. Her choiceto take the tougher path and more subtle path 

ofresistancemadeher successevengreater. Aswith allheroesthey seemto fallunder criticism 

for the choicesthey make. But, for reasonsjust discussed,the choicesthey make areexactly 

the things that makethem heroes.

342]AC 

I first read Luke's paper as indicative of his failure to critically read and 

understand the poem. His statement that "the first girl" (Teresa)chose to wear 

makeup asameansoffittinginwith whiteculturerepresentswhatIconsideredsuch 

amisreading. BecauseI selectedthis poem asrepresentativeofthe conflictspeople 

facein assimilatingversusmaintainingculturalwaysofknowing-with the narrator 

reflectingupon the lossshefeelsandrespectingTeresa'sdecisionnotto assimilate 

Luke's readingseemed,to me,especiallyproblematic. Byfocusingon the positive 

narrative of the American dream-a minority's successwithin a "prejudice (sic) 

world" isviewedas"anexampleofwhat hardwork anddetermination cando" for 

the individual and "her people"-Luke's responseignoresplacesin the poem that 

complicate his reading, such asthe conclusion in which the narrator callsTeresa 

"sister" and the factthat the poem iswritten in both English and Spanish. In rereadingLuke's 

paperinlightofhisfirstresponsepaperandthe other textshewrote, 

however,Irealizedtheextentto whichLuke'sresponseto "ParaTeresa"wassimilarly 

shaped/ produced through hisfundamentalistinterpretiveframe. Indeed,one can 

readLuke'spaperasacommentaryon hisroleinthisparticularclass,inwhichhefeels 

he must passively(andactively)resistasareligiousbelieverto coursegoals. 

Primaryto Luke'sreadingisthenotionofhowthenarrator's"passiveresistance" 

enablesher to succeedinwaysthat Teresadoesnot. Becausethe narrator refusesto 

"changeherownways,"Lukeargues,shetakesa"moresubtlepathofresistance"that 

makesher successful.In comparison,LukereadsTeresa'sactionsofdyeingherhair 

andwearingmakeupasactively"acceptingthe cultureofthe whitepeople,"actions 

which he negatively characterizes as"denying the fatethat wasinevitable." The 

dichotomythatLukesetsupbetweenTeresaandthenarrator,bothofwhom have"the 

samegoalinmind"readslikeamoralityplay.Teresaistheloudandarrogantgirlwho 

adopts superficialappearancesto gain"the securityofbeingawhite person"while 

the narrator rejectsthe easyway out andrelieson her own initiative. Eventhough 

others viewthe narrator ashavingaccepteddefeat,Lukesuggeststhat sheismerely 

bidingher time as"the bestwayto achievevictory." Lukeneversayswhat Teresa's 

inevitablefateentails,but it's clearthat shedoesnot succeedasthe narrator does. 

Ultimatelythispassiveresistancemakesthenarrator ahero, anexampieofwhat 

"all of her people could do." The relationship between passiveresistance and 

achievingheroinestatusisespeciallyintriguinggivenLuke'sstatement,"Aswith all 

heroesthey seemto fallundercriticismforthechoicesthey make."Lukedoesnot say 

who iscriticizingthe narrator's choicesor what thesecriticismsentail,nor doeshe 

saywho considersher actionsheroic. Her family?Whiteculture? Herpeople? But 

Luke's seeminglyvaguereadingmakesperfectsensein lightof hisfundamentalist 

discourse. Within afundamentalist framework, those who resistthe easypathmaterialistandsecularinfluences-are 

ultimatelyrewardedthroughsalvation.Those 

who takethetougherpath andrefuseto changetheirbeliefsbecomeChristianheroes 

who,whileunappreciatedbythesecularworld,arerewardedwitheternalredemption. 

Thus, the narrator's choiceto take "thepath that seemedimpossible"isrewardedin 

theendandherlifebecomesaninspirationforotherstofollow.ForLuke,valueresides 

in individualsalvation,not community identification.The issueofculturalidentity


versusassimilation,whichI readasamajorthemethroughoutthepoem,isnot relevant 

to Luke becausethe narrator's identificationwith the Chicano community isonly 

important inthat shecanprovideamodelto followfor"herpeople."Likehisreading 

of "Lot's Wife," Luke's response to "Para Teresa" emphasizes the ways that an 

individualachieves-or failsto achieve-salvationby rejectingcommunity norms for 

theperceivedgreatergood-in thiscase"therespectandthe securityofbeingawhite 

person." 

TherelationshipbetweenLuke'sfundamentalistbeliefsandhisresponseto "Para 

Teresa"canalsobe seeninthe waysthat Luke ignoresthe conclusion of the poem. 

Having setup abinary betweenthe narrator asrolemodelandTeresaasapretender, 

hecouldhardlyacknowledgethatthenarratorvaluesthechoicesthat Teresahasmade 

in her life. ValidatingTeresa'suseofsuperficialmeansto become acceptedwould 

betantamount to moral relativism. To acceptTeresa'sactionsaslegitimatewould 

subvertthelegitimacyofthenarrator'sefforts.Likehisfaith,inwhicheveryindividual 

either acceptsor rejectssalvation,Luke readsthe actionsofthe narrator andTeresa 

aseither heroic or doomed to aninevitablefate-there areno gray areas. 

Luke's response can alsoagainbe read asacommentary on his position asa 

religiousbelieverwithinasecularinstitution.Lukeclearlyidentifieswith thenarrator, 

who wins the game"under the noses"ofthosein power but stillremainstrue to her 

beliefs.From the firstdaywith histheory ofevolutioncomment, Lukeshowedthat 

he viewed the curriculum asa site of struggle between university teachings and 

religiousbelief.Butratherthan viewingthisstruggleintermsofvarioussocialgroups 

vying for legitimation through representation (asI did),Luke viewsit asastruggle 

between religiousgroupsandsecularonesoverthe nature 0 fknow ledgeandbelief. 

Asabeliever,Lukeconstantlynegotiatesknowledgethat is"neutral"versusthatwhich 

is"biased."Likethe narrator in "ParaTeresa,"Lukeviewshimselfastaking asubtle 

path of resistancefor which hewilleventually be rewarded. This belief,which he 

describes in his first paper asan "unshakeable security and confidence that I am 

headingfor somethingbetter ...the doorway to eternallife,"isreflectedinvirtually 

allof his responsesto assignedtexts. 

BeyondLuke'sresponsepapers,hisfundamentalistassumptionswerealsovisible 

within his oral responses to his group members, Tyler and Margaret, and me 

concerningthe finalcourseproject:acollaborativetext on "asingleissueor conflict 

that directly impacts contemporary American life and culture." In addition to 

compilinganannotatedbibliographyofatleastthirty sourcesofvaryingperspectives 

andpositions,studentsalsoused"livedexperiences"suchasinterviews,observations, 

andsurveysto gainadditionalinsightsintothe topic. Intheir projects,studentswere 

encouraged to "present 'multiple truths' instead of just one way of seeing" by 

foregroundingdifferencesinperspectivesabout thetopic. In keepingwith the goals 

ofcriticalpedagogy,Iwantedstudentsto selecttopicsfor"real"audiencessothat their 

work could havesomevisibleimpact beyond the classroom. In the previousterm, 

forexample,onegroupproducedavideoonhomelessnessthat wasusedforresidence 

hallprogrammingwhileanother hadwritten aneditorialforthe campusnewspaper 

on student attitudestoward daterape. Butwhilethe previousclass'sevaluationsof

344]AC 

theseprojectswere overwhelminglypositive,Lukehad difficultiesthroughout the 

term with respectto the goalsand assumptionsunderlying this assignment. 

Luke's groupinitiallyhaddifficultyagreeingon atopic. Although Tyler shared 

Luke's religiousbeliefs(andwasamember ofhisBiblefellowshipgroup),Margaret 

did not, and the three disagreedovereverytopic they discussed.Every topic Luke 

andTyler proposed(usuallyignoringMargaretuntilafterthey haddecided)involved 

notions of universal morals, which they felt quite comfortable generalizing to 

everyone. For instance,Luke and Tyler firstwanted to write about familyvalues, 

positingthat the lossoffamilyvalueswasresponsiblefordecliningmoralswithin the 

United States.Margaretwashesitantbutwillingto goalongwiththem. WhenI asked 

them how they would goabout definingtermslike"family,""values,"and"rna rals," 

Luke gotdefensive,saying"You're a1waysaskingusto definewhat wemean,always 

askingquestions"(Fieldnotes2-16-93).On the followingclassday,Imetwith Luke's 

collaborativegroup againto seeifthey haddecidedon atopic. They hadchangedit 

from familyvaluesto euthanasia. When I askedwhat researchquestion they were 

interestedin pursuingabout euthanasia,Lukesaid"theethicsofit"(lournal2-19-93). 

When I askedthe typesofeuthanasiato which hewasreferring,Luke said"allofit." 

Concerned that the topic wastoo broad, I suggestedthat the ethicsof euthanasia 

couldn't bedivorcedfrom the contexts inwhich it occursandthat they might find 

it useful to focus on a narrower topic such asliving wills. Luke replied that all 

euthanasiaisunethicalbecauseonlyGod hasthepowerto takeawaylife.Atthispoint 

I realizedthat onceagainLukeandI werenot simplydisagreeingoverthetypeoftopic 

heandhisgroupmembersmightuse;wewereclashingoverassumptionsofauthority 

andvalue.For Luke,valuesandknowledgearestable,unitary,universal,andrevealed 

by God. For me,valuesandknowledgearealwayschanging,multiple,partial, and 

contingentupon variouscommunitiesinspecifichistoricalcontexts.WhileI believe 

that thetopicofethicscannotbedivorcedfromspecifictypesofeuthanasia(and,even 

more narrow Iy, eachindividualcontext),Luke believesinuniversalcodesof ethics 

which canbeappliedineverycase.What I consideredapragmaticissueofchoosing 

asmallertopicwasrepresentativeofalargerissueoverwhoseassumptions about the 

nature ofethicswould bevalued. 

Equally problematic for Luke and me were our different conceptions ofthe 

purpose ofthis collaborativeproject. WhileI wantedstudentsto exploreatopic by 

highlighting multiple perspectivesandexaminingdifferentwaysthe issuehasbeen 

contextualized for differentpurposes, Luke found it difficult,ifnot impossible,to 

embracesuchgoals.For Luke,thereareclearcutpositionsthat onecantakeon every 

issueand thus aresearchpaper isan exercisein persuasion-in this particular case 

to prove that alleuthanasiaiswrong. BecauseLukeunderstandseuthanasiawithin 

the context of strict moral codesconcerning lifeanddeath, hecouldn't conceiveof 

writing from any position except that which denounces it. To present multiple 

perspectives isto acknow ledgeand legitimize their validity, a move that he was 

unwillingto makebasedon hisbeliefsaboutthe natureandauthority ofknowledge. 

To say that I found Luke's texts challenging to respond to would be an 

understatement. WhiletheoreticallyI viewtextsassitesformultiplereadings,open


forcontestandinterrogation,Luke'sresponsessetinto sharpreliefmy investmentin 

having the texts read in the ways that I desired, and I felt especiallyvulnerable in 

responding to histexts. I didn't want to be accusedofbeingpoliticallybiasedinthe 

waysthat most ofthe students, includingLuke, feltteachersofthiscoursewere. At 

the same time, likeJody Swilky, I believethat teachers' responses should invite 

students "to analyze conflicting ideologies, sothey might begin to attain critical 

understandingofwhy they holdcertaincommitmentsandwhy they resistalternative 

waysofthinking" ("ResistingDifference"28).Thus,IwantedLuketo complicatethe 

waysthat hewasreadingthesetextsor at leastrecognizethat hisreadingsarepartial 

and situatedthrough the lensofhisfundamentalist assumptions. In respondingto 

histexts, then, most of my comments tended to be inthe form of questions, asking 

formore explicationor explanationofhisresponses.For instance,when Lukewrote 

that the writer of "Lot's Wife"wastakingatwentieth-century approach to abiblical 

story, I wrote, "Yes,I think you're right. Why do you think this writer took this 

approach?"In responseto Luke's paperon "ParaTeresa"that Teresa'sactionswere 

anattempt to deny"thefatethatwasinevitabIe,"Iwrote "Whatfateareyou describing 

asinevitable?"Next to his statement that the aimsof the two girlswere the same,I 

wrote "How wouldyou describetheseaims?"andinmy endcommentsIasked,"What 

doyou think abouttheconclusionwhen shesaysI respectyou andI callyou my sister? 

How doessheviewhersuccessinrelationto the other girl?"Ithought thesequestions 

might prove helpful to Luke asherevisedhispapersfor hisportfolio. Iwaswrong. 

Luke includedhispapersto both "ParaTeresa"and"Lot'sWife"inhisportfolio 

but hisonly revisionswerein spellingandcommausage.Surprisedthat Luke hadn't 

revised,especiallywhen he had saidin classthat hewanted an "A" in the course, I 

attributed hislackofrevisionto the other priorities in hislife.As agymnast, hehad 

aheetictournament schedule,andhewasalsoworkingon thecollaborativepaperdue 

atthe end0 ftheterm. However,Luke'sinterviewwith Mindyoffersperhapsanother 

reason why he did not reviseany of his responsepapers. In assessingthe ways that 

I respondedto histexts,Lukesaysthat my margincomments arebiasedbecausethey 

reflectmy own positions: 

She's supposed to be this unbiased grader. You present your viewpoints and the grade, not 

grade for the content of ideas, but for grammar and punctuation and development of ideas. 

That kind of thing. And, you know, I don't think she did that. She did that but she tended to 

giveyou hints and stuff in the margins that got you thinking-more alongwhat she wanted to 

hear. (3-16-93). 

Luke's viewthat textsshould beevaluatedsolelyon grammar andpunctuation and 

not on the content ofideasis,ofcourse,commonly shared.The dichotomy between 

form andcontent iswell-establishedincurrent traditionalapproachesto writing, and 

itiscertainlyaviewwithwhichmostofmy studentsagreed.Eventhough wediscussed 

the relationship between form andcontent inthe textsthat we readthroughout the 

term, Luke's prior assumptionsthat studenttextsshouldbereadandevaluatedsolely 

in terms of superficial features remained strong. But Luke's comments suggest 

another possiblereasonwhy hechosenotto revisehisresponsepapers.Luke'snotion

346]AC 

that my comments gave"hints" about what I "wantedto hear"ledhim, perhaps,to 

resistrevisingexceptfor grammarandpunctuation becauseother revisionswould 

havemeantchanginghispositionstobemorelikemine.Bynot revising,Lukeavoided 

thepossibilitythat mybeliefs-which heconsideredradicallyopposedtohis-would 

influencehistexts. While I assumedthat Luke couldelaborateon hispositions in 

responseto mycomments,hesawlittlenegotiationbetweenrevisionandappropriation. 

And, in a sense,he was correct. Although I thought I was careful not to 

foreground my readingofthe text,my questionsclearlypromoted alternativeways 

ofreadingthat he didnot value. Ifanything, my responseto Luke'stextsprobably 

reinforcedhisfeelingthatmycommentswereaformoftrickery,designedto elicitwhat 

I wanted him to think andrepresentativeofthose in power who try to subvert his 

religiousbeliefs.What atthe timeIconsideredapracticalstrategyforrespondingto 

Luke'stextssothat hecouldn't criticizeme (asbeingpoliticallycorrector biased.)in 

retrospect representsamissed"teachablemoment." Insteadofengaginginacritical 

dialoguewith Lukeabouthisreadingsoftexts,mycommentsreinforcedhisviewthat 

I wasanimpositionalauthorityand,mostimportantly,eliminatedtheopportunityfor 

Luke and me to consider possible sources of conflict between our readings. 

Evaluation,then, further complicatedthe waysthat LukeandIcouldnegotiateour 

competingassumptionsabouttexts,authority, andknowledge. 

Due to the nature ofLuke's oral andwritten responsesthroughout the term, I 

wasnot surprised to find Luke ashostile to the courseatthe end ofthe term ashe 

wasin the beginning. Basically,Lukemaintainedthe position headoptedfrom the 

start: English 300, which aimsto examineandvalueissuesofdifferencewithin the 

United States,runscounterto hisreligiousbeliefs.Becausefundamentalistdiscourse 

istheprimary interpretivelensthrough whichhereadstheworld,anyissuethat does 

not acknowledgeor contradictsbiblicalauthority isincorrect: 

To me,itallhasreligiousaspectstoit. If you want to getinto it,I'll getinto itwith you but we'd 

beherewayaftertwo o'clock. Youknow. That's whereI'm comingfrom anduntileverybody 

believes,you know, thismaysoundconceitedbut until everybodybelievesgenerallythe same 

thing Ibelieve,you know?...the stuffI'vemademy mindup on,you know, that'swhar Ibelieve 

andI believeit's the correct view. (Taped Interview 3-16-93,emphasis added) 

GivenLuke'sassumptionthat biblicalauthorityprovideshimwith correctviews,he 

isresistantto any coursewhichaimsto valuedifference.Despitethe assumptionsof 

criticaleducatorsthat criticalthinking cannot beseparatedfrom issuesofdifference 

becauseallknowledgeissituatedwithin aworldview,Lukemakescleardistinctions 

between"biased"knowledgeandthinking becausethe valuingofmultipleperspectivesisequivalent,in 

hiseyes,to moral relativism.For Luke,valuingdifferencein 

perspectivesleadsto toleratingthosewhoselifestyleshefindsirreconcilablewith his 

religiousbeliefs.To toleratedifferenceundermineshisfaiththat anindividualmust 

be savedin order to be accepted: 

This classthis university ismakingustake, itwasn't teachingushow to criticallythink. It was 

teachingustothinkaboutdiversity. It wastellingusthat everyone'sthe sameandallthisstuff. 

I will make up my own mind aswhat to think andI don't needthe university tellingme that 

I should tolerate everybody ... becausenot everybody'stolerable!(Taped Interview 3-16-93, 

emphasis added)


Luke's rejoinderthat "not everybody'stolerable,"isstronglyrooted inhis religious 

identity, onethat works to categorizepeopleinto believersandnonbelievers,saved 

andcondemned. For Luke,anydifference-in race,class,gender,sexualorientation, 

and soon-is aconstruct to betranscended for religioussalvation. Of course, the 

term "tolerance"itselfsuggestsanunexaminedpositionofprivilegefromwhichthose 

inpower canchoosewhom (andwhom not)to respect.ButLuke'sresponsessetinto 

relief my own assumptions about what constitutes "tolerable" behavior in the 

classroom.AndwhileI didnot sharethe groundsupon whichLuke'sresponseswere 

based,hisresponsesdidencouragemeto examinethewaysthat my relianceon critical 

pedagogicaldiscoursesobscured,in someways,the limitsofmy own tolerance for 

difference. 

Intersections: Discourses of Fundamentalism and Critical Pedagogy 

Those who do not embracethe fundamentalistmessagehaveoften failedto appreciatethe 

bindingpower ofthat messageoverthe heartsandmindsofBiblebelievers.In criticizingthe 

message,onecannotfailto comprehendandrespectthesituationofthemessengers-who, like 

allinterpreters, maketheir assertionsbecausetheir text tellsthem so. (Boone111) 

Luke's experiencesinthis classraisesignificantquestionsfor criticaleducators 

to considerasthey andtheir students investigatehow" difference"shapespeople's 

lives.Isit possibleto enactacriticalpedagogyin aclassroomwhere students do not 

viewknowledgeaspartial andsituated?When students' main sourcesofauthority 

are fundamentalist in nature, how can critical teachers legitimize such beliefsin 

relation to their pedagogicalgoals?And what should be the limits of ateacher's 

"tolerance" for student resistanceto courseactivitiesand assignedtexts? 

As ateacher who supports the goalsof critical pedagogy, I am troubled and 

unsettledbystudentswho viewsuchpedagogicsaschallengesto (andevendestructive 

of theirreligiousidentities.Inthesamevein,lam troubledbyteacherswho too easily 

dismisstheir students' concerns asnaive,uncritical, or resistant. For instance, in 

talkingwithcolleaguesabouthowIcouldhaveengagedmoreproductivelywith Luke, 

somesuggestedthat studentswith fundamentalistbeliefsshouldgoto fundamentalist 

schoolsifthey do not wishto beinfluencedby secularvalues.Others saidthat I was 

givenanopportunity to "enlighten"him. Andonesaidthat whenfacedwith asimilar 

student,shesimplyignoredhim. Ibelievetheseresponsesareconnectedto how issues 

of faithareneglectedwithin criticalpedagogicaldiscoursesin general.The absence 

ofdiscussionaboutstudent'sreligiousbackgroundsinconnectionwith constructsof 

gender, race,class,and soon createsadiscoursethat erasesor" others" students in 

polarizingandreductiveways. It's true that Luke'sresponsesinthisclassroomwere 

extreme,eveninthe eyesofthe other "ConservativeChristians"in the class.Butto 

saythat Lukedoesn'tbelonginapublicuniversitybecauseofhisreligiousviewsseems 

reductive,andthe notion that heneedsto be"enlightened"by meequallysmacksof 

arroganceandshort sightedness.AsStephenBatesconcludesinBattleground,which 

profilesacourt battle between fundamentalistsand educators in Tennesseeover a 

publicschoolreadingseries,thepresenceoffundamentaliststudentsinthe classroom

348]AC 

iscentral to promoting the goalsofcriticaleducators: 

Ifwe truly believethat pluralisticpublic education is an essentialfoundation of a peaceful 

multicultural society,then we should do what we can to keep fundamentalists(andother 

religiousdissidents)in the public schools. Evenskippingthe occasionalbook or class,they 

benefitfromandcontributeto thedemocraticmissionofpubliceducation...Bytheirpresence, 

fundamentalistsalsogiveotherstudentsanobjectlessonindiversity. Weshouldn'tpanicwhen 

the differentnessmanifestsitself...Embracingdiversitybut forbiddingitspublicexpression 

isacrabbed form of pluralism (316). 

I initiallybecameinterestedinstudyingLuke'sresponsesasaresearcherbecause 

I wasfrustrated by what I consideredmy inability to engagehim in the goalsof the 

class. Bythe end of the term, I viewedLuke's responsesas"other" to my own, as 

radicallydifferent from that which I expectedor hoped to seein terms of my goals 

asacriticalteacher. Yet,in learningmore aboutthe natureoffundamentalistbeliefs 

andattitudes,I beganto seemoreconnectionsthan differencesbetweenthediscourses 

offundamentalismandcriticalpedagogy.AsBatessuggests,Luke's presencewasan 

object lessonin diversityfor measateacher. Whileatthe time I thought that Luke 

wasone of the most resistantto classgoals,I now think that hewasperhaps one of 

themostengagedintermsofparticipatinginsocialcritiqueandindevelopingacritical 

consciousness about his identity position in relation to the classtexts, other class 

members,andme. Through Luke's responses,I beganto appreciatecommonalities 

betweenfundamentalistandcriticalpedagogicaldiscourses:theiroppositionalstance 

to the status quo and their critique of massculture; their assumption that school 

curriculurnisasiteofstruggleovervaluesandrepresentation-their questioningof 

the nature of authority (with fundamentalists questioning secularauthorities in 

relation to scriptureandcriticaleducatorsquestioningdominant socialdiscourses); 

their examinationofsourcesofknowledgeandbelief,andmostnotably, theirdesire 

to convert the "other," to persuadethosewhom they defineaseither "unsaved"or 

"uncritical." 

In arecentAtlanticMonthlyarticle""TheWarringVisionsoftheReligiousRight," 

Harvey Cox suggeststhat liberalandconservativetheologiansareunableto discuss 

differences because liberal Christian theologians do not know how to engage 

conservative theologians (in this particular caseat Regent, agraduate university 

founded by Pat Robertson) within the sametheologicaldiscourse: 

The problem isthat many politicallyliberalChristiantheologianshavebecomesoenchanted 

by deconstruction,postmodernism,andsecularpoliticalphilosophiesthat they findithardto 

engagepeople likethe Regentfaculty at the theologicallevelin which the argument hasto 

proceed. (69) 

Similarly,I suggesthat criticaleducatorsareunableto engageinproductivedialogue 

with fundamentalist students becausethey do not seeplaceswhere connections 

between the two discourses can be productively bridged. At present, critical 

pedagogicaldiscoursesoversimplifythe nature ofconservatives'attitudes toward 

critical practices, particularly when they are basedon religious difference. For


example,Kincheloearguesthat conservativeandcriticaleducatorscannot engagein 

productive dialogueabout the politics of education becauseconservativesdo not 

appreciatethe assumptionsupon whichcriticaleducatorsmaketheir arguments.He 

saysthat conservativeeducators, 

have trouble understanding that (our] reading and our thinking about reading (whether we are 

reading and thinking about the traditional canon or about student and teacher lives) are 

sociopolitical acts-our interpretations cannot be separated from where we are standing when 

we read and think, in other words, our location in the web of reality. (53) 

WhileKincheloeultimatelyaimsto hesensitiveto fundamentaliststudents,hisabove 

comment succumbsto thesametype ofmisreadingthat Coxsuggestspreventsliberal 

theologians from engagingwith conservativetheologians. In essence,Kincheloe 

doesn't fullyappreciatethetheoreticalortheologicallevelupon whichdebatesabout 

critical pedagogy might be productively engaged. Conservative educators (and 

conservativestudentsaswell)dounderstandthatreadingandwritingaresociopolitical 

acts. They know that interpretations cannot beseparatedfrom their webofreality. 

Butbecausethey donotviewtheirwebsintermsofthesocialmatrixesthat Kincheloe 

identifiesascentral,their interpretations areconsiderednaiveanduncritical. 

Fundamentalist students recognize the sociopolitical nature of reading and 

schoolcurriculum ingeneral;what they choosenot to recognizeisthe importance of 

theorizing theseactsinterms ofsocialdifferencessuchasrace,class,gender,and so 

on. Instead, they believethat their web of reality-one that theorizes in terms of 

secular and religious-baseddifferences-is the most useful in understanding and 

critiquing educational practices. In many ways, the responses of students with 

fundamentalistbeliefsserveasamirror (albeitsomecriticaleducatorsmight suggest 

adark one)that reflectsthe principlesofcriticalpedagogyfrom adifferentlocation. 

Rereadingthe discoursesofcriticalpedagogythrough the mirror offundamentalist 

discoursehelpsto point out uninterrogated assumptionsthat limit teachers' 

understanding oftheir students' responses. For instance,Phyllis Mentzell Ryder 

suggeststhat critical educators "need to offer students a persuasive method that 

exposesthe differencesbetweenthe professed,dominant valuesandthe actualeffects 

ofthoseideologies"(519).In describingtheviewofknowledgeunderpinning critical 

pedagogy asinherently political, Ryder callsfor a developmental approach that 

provides"spacesfor studentsto hold disparateideasuntil time andexperiencegive 

them waysto reconceptualizethose ideas"(523).In asimilarvein,Patricia Bizzell 

argues that one problem with critical pedagogy is that teachers rely upon 

antifoundationalist notions ofauthority which posit no authority existingbeyond 

one'shistoricalposition:"Weexerciseauthority overthem inaskingthem to giveup 

these foundational beliefsbut we givethem nothing to put in the placeof these 

foundationalbeliefsbecausewedenythevalidityofallauthority, including,presumably, 

our own" (Bizzell670). Instead,Bizzellsuggests,teachersmust usetheir own 

ability as rhetors to persuade students to construct a progressive authority that 

constructsandvaluesknowledge:

350JAC 

We must help our students, and our fellow citizens, to engagein arhetorical process that can 

collectively generate trustworthy knowledge and beliefsconducive to the common goodknowledge 

and beliefs to displace the repressive ideologies an unjust social order would 

inscribe in the skeptical void. (Bizzell 671) 

I agreewith BizzellandRyderthat teachersshouldnot enactaquestioningpedagogy 

merelyto question,without positingformsofbeliefto whichstudentscouldascribe. 

Butwhataboutthosestudentswho alreadyassumethattheirsourcesofauthorityserve 

acommon good? The students in my classroomwho rejectedantifoundationalist 

claimsbasedon religiousauthority didnot do soout offearoffallinginto somesort 

of skeptical void. They believein acommon good-an eternal and transcendent 

one-that otherscancollectivelyachievethrough salvation.Andthey aremorethan 

satisfiedin abiblicalauthority, oneinwhich their knowledgeandbeliefissecurely 

grounded.Andtosaythattimeandexperiencewillgivestudentswaystoreconceptualize 

their ideasalsoseemsabit arrogant,especiallywhen somefundamentaliststudents' 

experiences often are that of constantly defendingtheir beliefsfrom dominant 

discourse,eventhosethat invokeliberatory goals. 

In describing how postmodernism changes one's view of knowledge, 

Patricia Lather says, "[AJ politicized postmodernism shifts the debate to a 

questioning of what it means to know and be known, how and why discourse 

works to legitimizeand contest power, andthe limitations of totalizing systems 

and fixed boundaries" (88). Similarly, I suggest that a critical pedagogy 

challengesteachersto ask"How ismy discourseoperating within the classroom 

to legitimize and contest knowledge, fixingboundaries that students andI need 

to negotiate in an ongoing process of reflection and self-critique?" 

In reflectingupon how I might haveengagedmore productively with Luke 

and the other students who "resisted" the ways I asked them to read texts and 

view knowledge, I have considered several strategies that might have proved 

usefuLRather than askinghim to problematizethe nature of religiousauthority, 

perhaps I could have invited Luke to think more about how hisreligiousbeliefs 

shape his reading by acknow ledging the ways that I sawhisreligiousdiscourse 

shapehistexts.For instance,insteadofaskingLuketoconsiderthegoalsofthewriter's 

revisionistapproachin "Lot'sWife,"I mighthavenotedthewaysthat Lukeseemed 

angrywith thewriterandaskedhimto considermoreextensivelythe stakesinvolved 

ininterpretingthisbiblicalstorydifferently.Or perhaps,followingRichardMiller's 

suggestionsin hisessay"Fault Linesin the Contact Zone," I mighthaveaskedhim 

to outline "aplan ofaction" for addressingthe difficultiesinherent in readingtexts 

which complicateor contradict the biblicalsourcesofauthority he reliesupon to 

interpret meaning. Or for alargerproject, I might havesuggestedthat he mapout 

someofthedailyconflictshefacesintermsofpreservinghis"ConservativeChristian" 

identity from the pressuresofhispeers,hisgymnasticteammates,andhisteachers. 

StudentslikeLukeengageincounter-hegemonicpracticesdailyinclassroomswhere 

the discoursesthrough which they readthe world aredelegitimizedor challenged. 

Exarniningmorecloselyhowstudentswithfundamentalistbeliefsnegotiatetheirfaith 

inthefaceofalternativeauthoritiesmighthaveledto amorecriticaldialoguebetween


meandthe studentswithin thisclass.Usingtheir religiousbeliefsasasitefor analysis 

mighthavetappedintotheresistancethatthesestudentsunderstoodintheirown lives. 

Luke's presence taught me the danger of buying into critical pedagogical 

discoursesthat nameandpolarizestudentsasthe "Other" without fullyunderstandingorappreciatingthewebsofrealityinwhichtheyarelocated.Inlearningmoreabout 

Christian fundamentalism, I discoveredavariety of debateswithin conservative 

Christian movementsthat criticaleducatorsmight profit from understanding: for 

example,the differencebetweenpre-millennia!andpostmillennia!eschatologiesthe 

branchesoftheologyconcernedwith how historywillend-and the implications 

ofthesedifferencesforhow peopleviewtheimportanceofsocialandpoliticalaction. 

While Cox discussesthese different world viewsin terms of bridging gapswithin 

conservative Christian camps, his discussion also raises issuesfor how critical 

educatorsmightbetterunderstandfundamentaliststudents'attitudestoward critical 

pedagogicaldiscourses.For example,ifstudentsbelieveinpre-millennialeschatologytheviewthatthingswillnecessarilygetprogressivelyworseonearthuntilJesusreturns 

in the secondcoming-then there islittleincentivefor supporting pedagogicsthat 

advocatesocialor politicalchange. However, ifstudents believein postmillennial 

eschatology-the viewthat the influenceofthe faithfulwillbringrighteousnessand 

justiceto the earthinsocialandpoliticalspheresbeforeJesusreturns-then they will 

probably bemore amenableto discussingissuesofinstitutional, not just individual, 

conversion.Thus,eveninaclasscomposedentirelyoffundamentaliststudents,there 

might be awide diversity of opinion about the value of acourse basedon critical 

pedagogicalprinciples. And whileI doubt whether Luke andIwould everagreeon 

anytopic, ifI hadunderstood more clearlythe nature ofour differentworld views, 

wemight haveatleastcometo amutualunderstandingofeachothers' positions (the 

"utopian consensus"thatJohn Trimbur hopesto achieve),arespectforthe different 

discourseswhich definewho we areandhow we readothers. 

In hisfinalinterview,Lukesaidabout myteachingofEnglish300:"Ithink Amy's goingto hear 

this andthink 'I neverknewhefeltsobadlyabout me!'Idon't feelbadlyabout her ...Ijustthink 

she needsto expose herselfto the other viewpoints some more" (TapedInterview 3-16-93). 

Luke's comments, while painful, were an important reminder that I needto 

continuelearningaboutandfrommystudents'discourses,especiallywhentheydiffer 

sogreatlyfrommy own. Today,asanassistantprofessorwho teachesatanother large 

state university, I continue to think about the lessonsLuke's presencetaught me, 

especiallyasI negotiatemy university'ssecularviewsofknowledgewith the beliefs 

ofstudentsfrom alocalSeventh-DayAdventistcollegewho takemanycoursesatmy 

institution. And perhapsthat isthebestcriticalteacherscando-illuminate how their 

discoursesandthose oftheir students areengagedinconstant struggle.While I had 

imaginedworking collectivelywith my studentsinresistingoppressivediscoursesin 

society,thosesamediscoursescomprisedthewaysthat studentsandI readeachother 

inthe classroom.ThefaithI hadinthe discourseofcriticalpedagogydidnot callinto 

question my own complicity in creatingoppressiveclassroomrelations. Likemy 

students, I put my faith in adiscoursethat, while claimingto valuedifference,fails

352]AC 

to acknowledgeone ofthe most important differenceswithin students' lives.And, 

likemy students,Istruggledwith thosewho didn't acknowledgethevalueofthisfaith. 

Perhaps faith iswhat isneededmost for asuccessfulcriticalpedagogy-faith inthe 

valueofinitiatingdialogueinthefaceofconflictsoverdiscoursesandfaithinstudents' 

andteachers' abilityto valueandnegotiateeachothers' differences. 

UniversityofNebraska,Lincoln 

Lincoln,Nebraska 

Notes 

"The name "Luke" is a pseudonym chosen by the student whose work isprofiled. 

2Por further information about the larger goals and findings from this project, see Critical 

CompositionPedagogiesand theQuestionofAuthority:Scenesfrom ThreeCollege-LevelClassrooms. 

Unpublished Dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1994. 

3For this class, students wrote two individually-authored papers, a collaboratively-authored 

research paper (which included a 3D-minute oral presentation), six one to two-page response papers to 

class readings, and several in-class assignments. The first paper asked students to trace the history of 

a belief that they held while the second required an analysis of one form of advertising and the third 

focused on any controversial issuerelated to the American Experience. Assigned readings were drawn 

from anthologies, localand campus newspapers, magazines, and student writing from the previous term. 

For formal papers, students wrote several drafts to which I and other students responded via peer 

sessions, full-class workshops, and individual conferences. The six response papers served asthe basis 

for classdiscussions on assigned readings. I responded to these papers but did not initially grade them. 

At the end of the term, students selected and revised their three best responses and turned them in for 

aportfolio grade. 

41realize that reading a student's responses or actions as shaped by one overriding discourse is 

problematic because such a reading seems to decontextualize this discourse from its relationship to 

others, like race and class. Yet, asJennifer Gore suggests, naming the discourses that shape student 

response helps teachersexamine how their own discourses shape their practices: "We allhave atendency 

to refuse our own implication in relationships of power-knowledge and in particular discourses; we all 

participate in the construction and operation of regimes of truth even while working or arguing against 

domination or authoritarianism, or for empowerment, democracy, and liberation" (109). Thus, this 

essay is more a story of how my faith in the authority of critical pedagogy conflicted with Luke's faith 

in fundamentalist authority and the way these collisions enabled me to question the regimes of truth 

within my discourses as well as his. 

5Inproviding this "summary" ofthe poem, I am confronted with the problem of privileging my 

reading over Luke's. 

' 

"The binary that Luke sets up between Teresa and the narrator, who gains "the respect and the 

security of being awhite person," can alsobe fruitfully examined in terms oftheories of raceconstruction 

and the social construction of "whiteness." Sharon Stockton's "Blacks vs. Browns" and AnnLouise 

Keating's "Interrogating 'Whiteness,' (De)Constructing'Race'" both discussinterpretive frameworks 

which are useful in analyzing how Luke's response aims to essentialize and transcend race. 

Works Cited 

Bates, Stephen. Battleground.New York: Poseidon Press, 1993. 

Bendroth, Margaret Lamberts. Fundamentalism&Gender,1875 tothePresent.New Haven: Yale UP, 

1993.


Berlin,JamesandMichaelVivion.CulturalStudiesintheEnglishClassroom. Portsmouth:Boynton/Cook, 

1992. 

Berthoff, Ann, Beth Daniell,}oAnn Campbell, C.Jan Swearingen,JamesMoffett. "Interchanges: 

SpiritualSitesofComposing."CollegeCompositionandCommunication45(1994):237-63. 

Bizzell,Patricia"BeyondAnti-FoundationalisminRhetoricalAuthority:ProblemsDefining'Cultural 

Literacy;" CollegeEnglish52(1990):661-75. 

Bleich,David. "Literacy Citizenship: Resisting SocialIssues. TheRight to Literacy. Eds. Andrea 

Lunsford, Helene Moglen,andJames Slevin. New York: MLA, 1990. 163-69. 

Boone,Kathleen.TheBibleTellsThemSo.'TheDiscourseo/ProtestantFundernentalism. Albany:StateU of 

NewYorkP, 1989. 

Cox,Harvey. "TheWarringVisionsoftheReligiousRight."TheAtlanticMonthly,November1995:59+. 

Fox,Thomas. TheSocialUsesofWriting.·PoliticsandPedagogy . Norwood, NJ: Ablex,1990. 

Giroux,Henry.BorderCrossings.' CulturalWorkersandthePolitics ofEducation. NewYork:Routledge,1992. 

Gore,Jennifer.TheStruggleforPedagogies: CriticalandFeministDiscoursesasRegimes ofTrutb.NewYork: 

Routledge, 1993. 

Hernandez,Ines."ParaTeresa."RereadingAmerica.·CulturalContextsforCriticalThinkingandWriting. 

Eds.Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen,andBonnieLisle.New York:St.Martin's P, 1989.247-49. 

Hurlbert, MarkC. andMichaelBlitz.CompositionandResistance.Portsmouth: Heineman, 1991. 

Kaminer, Wendy. "AWing andaPrayer: ReligionGoesBackto School." TheNation, 15Dec.1997: 

18-20. 

Keating,AnnLouise. "Interrogating'Whiteness,'(De)Constructing'Race." CollegeEnglish57(1995): 

901-18. 

Kincheloe.]oeL. TowardaCriticalPoliticsof7heacherThinking:MappingthePostmodern.Westport,CT: 

Bergin& Garvey, 1993. 

Knoblauch,C.H. andLilBrannon.CriticalTeacbtngandthe IdeaofLiteracy.Portsmouth:Boynton/Cook, 

1993. 

Lather, Patricia. GettingSmart.'FeministResearchandPedagogywith/in thePostmodern.New York: 

Routledge, 1991. 

Marty,MartinandR.ScottAppleby.FundementalismsandSociety.·Reclaiming theSciences, theFamily,and 

Education.Chicago:U ofChicagoP, 1993. 

Mclaren,Peter.LifeinSchools.·AnIntroductiontotheCriticalPedagogy intheFoundationo/Education.New 

York: Longman, 1989. 

Moffett,James.Stormin theMountains.·ACaseStudyofCensorship, Conjlict,andConsciousness. Carbondale: 

Southern IllinoisUP, 1988. 

Ryder, Phyllis Mentzell. "I'm OK, You're (Not) OK: Teaching in aWorld of Relativism."jAC:A 

JournalofCompositionTheory15(1995):511-25. 

Shor.Ira, EmpoweringEducation:CriticalTeacbingjorSocialCbange.Chicago:U ofChicagoP, 1992. 

Simon,Roger.TeachingAgainstthe Grain.'TextsforaPedagogyofPossibility.NewYork:Bergin& Garvey, 

1992. 

Stockton, Sharon. "'Blacksvs.Browns': Questioningthe White Ground." CollegeEnglish57(1995): 

166-81. 

Swilky,Jody. "ResistingDifference:StudentResponseto MulticulturalTexts."TheWritingInstructor 

(1993): 21-33.

It's aQuestion ofFaith: Discourses of Fundamentalism ... - JAC Online

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?