next »

[flustered]

    I'm in a quandary over the way to change cover letters for positions in biblical studies or more specific disciplines within that field as I apply to private schools that are explicit about wanting applicants who are in agreement with a school's statement of faith or applicants who can integrate and faith and academics or something like this versus private or public schools that offer a few courses in biblical studies in a Religion or Religious Studies or Religion and Philosophy department where there is no religious identity or affiliation of the school (as well as schools that say, e.g., "we are affiliated with the abc Church in America" or such like but it does not appear that this fact has any real significance.  Often the schools with no specific religious affiliation also want training in religious studies generally, which I do not have, and therefore wonder if I should skip those openings. 

  There are so many different perspectives here that I'm unsure how to approach writing cover letters across these.  Obviously a letter needs to be customized to a school but it's much easier for me to speak to a school that is explicitly Christian in some way than to know what to say in a letter for a job teaching biblical studies in a school that simply has this as part of its curriculum (because my own education was in a more explicitly Christian environment--except my Ph.D. program). 

   Should I have a basic letter but add an extra one for schools that are more explicitly Christian or treat them all the same?  Part of the issue for me is the paragraph about teaching because the goal for teaching biblical studies in an explicitly Christian context is gong to be more than "broadening a student's perspective," while I assume that teaching biblical studies in a department where all worldviews are equal would have the goal of "giving students an appreciation of the origins and dimensions of biblical texts in order to help them understand modern culture better" only, but I don't know.  So that's why I'm asking. 

[systeme_d_]

At a state university like my own, when we hire in Early Christianity/NT or in Judaism/Hebrew Scriptures, we don't care about your own religious convictions or affiliations.  (Unless you have a conviction that one cannot use the historical-critical method -- and/or other critical methods -- to analyze sacred texts.)

We hire folks who convince us they are dedicated to teaching our students about the particular sociohistorical contexts in which these texts were composed.  We also look for folks who were trained in the discipline of Religion, and who thus have facility and comfort with theory and method in the study of religion.  (If you're a philologist, with no theory and method background, your application is not going to rise to the top of our pile.)

My advice about your cover letter?  Show us how you've taught such classes in the past.  Invoke some theorists you've found influential upon your scholarship.  Demonstrate how these theories/methods have influenced the way you have taught classes on NT or HS in the past.

Frankly, though, it doesn't sound like you'd be a very good fit for secular schools. 

[whimsical]

A piece of advice, read the first sentence of your post, OP. I hope you don't write a cover letter with such long sentences!

[hegemony]

It's a little hard to answer your question because you don't say what perspective you're coming from.  For instance, if you're a liberal Lutheran with historical training, your approach is going to be a lot different then if you're a conservative Catholic with a degree in the correct interpretation of canon law.  Everything's going to depend on how much your personal beliefs influence the kind of job you want.  If you're flexible, certainly secular universities are going to want you to show that you have an academic rather than faith-based approach to the field (though you may have faith as well, as long as your research agenda is academic).  Religious places probably could use a sentence or so about how you'd be delighted to join a faith-based community, etc. etc., tailored to the degree of religious intensity at the particular college.

[flustered]

It's a little hard to answer your question because you don't say what perspective you're coming from.  For instance, if you're a liberal Lutheran with historical training, your approach is going to be a lot different then if you're a conservative Catholic with a degree in the correct interpretation of canon law.  Everything's going to depend on how much your personal beliefs influence the kind of job you want.  If you're flexible, certainly secular universities are going to want you to show that you have an academic rather than faith-based approach to the field (though you may have faith as well, as long as your research agenda is academic).  Religious places probably could use a sentence or so about how you'd be delighted to join a faith-based community, etc. etc., tailored to the degree of religious intensity at the particular college.

I think what I'm trying to ask is what to say in a cover letter to some place that doesn't want me to have any perspective in the classroom except a "classic" historical-critical one. What would a state university or a private, secular college want a candidate in biblical studies to say about teaching goals?  I've never taught in such a context.  Would it be sufficient/worthwhile to say that my approach focuses on having students learn about the historical and cultural contexts in which various biblical documents arose?  Or do I need to be more specific?  When I see statements about a religion department that say things to the effect that "the study of religion can broaden your perspective on the world," while that's true, I've no idea how to put that into a cover letter in a meaningful form to show that I conform to what the school would want. 

[flustered]

At a state university like my own, when we hire in Early Christianity/NT or in Judaism/Hebrew Scriptures, we don't care about your own religious convictions or affiliations.  (Unless you have a conviction that one cannot use the historical-critical method -- and/or other critical methods -- to analyze sacred texts.)

We hire folks who convince us they are dedicated to teaching our students about the particular sociohistorical contexts in which these texts were composed.  We also look for folks who were trained in the discipline of Religion, and who thus have facility and comfort with theory and method in the study of religion.  (If you're a philologist, with no theory and method background, your application is not going to rise to the top of our pile.)

My advice about your cover letter?  Show us how you've taught such classes in the past.  Invoke some theorists you've found influential upon your scholarship.  Demonstrate how these theories/methods have influenced the way you have taught classes on NT or HS in the past.

Frankly, though, it doesn't sound like you'd be a very good fit for secular schools. 

I have two questions about your response. 
1. If a school says that it wants both biblical studies and knowledge of the theory of religious studies generally, are there enough such folks that if I lack the second, I should not bother applying? 
2.  I'm sure a state university won't "care about your own religious convictions or affiliations."  That's why I'm trying to figure out how to market myself to such a place.  How would I convince a school in a cover letter that I am "dedicated to teaching our students about the particular sociohistorical contexts in which these texts were composed"?

  Why not a good fit?  If I need to teach from a "neutral" academic perspective, taking no position whatsoever on anything, why would I not be a good fit?  I can do that.  It's not different than writing a journal article or presenting at a conference.  I keep all my comments within the normal boundaries of the guild.  Or would a state school prefer someone hostile to the biblical texts like an Ehrman?

[systeme_d_]

1. If you don't have training in theory and method / Religion as a discipline, you are unlikely to be hired when the job ad specifies such parameters.  However, jobs in your area are sparse enough that I cannot in good conscience tell you not to apply.  Frankly, I'd advise you to apply for everything.

2. Your mention of "specific sociohistorical contexts" is a great start.  From there, give us an example or illustration of how you'd teach that.

My observation that you sound like you might not fit in a state (or otherwise secular) school might be confirmed by your description of Ehrman as hostile.

I sincerely wish you every success.

[msparticularity]

  Why not a good fit?  If I need to teach from a "neutral" academic perspective, taking no position whatsoever on anything, why would I not be a good fit?  I can do that.  It's not different than writing a journal article or presenting at a conference.  I keep all my comments within the normal boundaries of the guild.  Or would a state school prefer someone hostile to the biblical texts like an Ehrman?

First, the caveat--I am NOT in your field. However, I worked in a cross-disciplinary program that incorporated religious studies at a state school, and was on the sidelines for a couple of searches. Also, a member of my family is a NT scholar.

Our SC would have looked to your publication and presentation record to consider your approach to the scholarship, and would have expected your cover letter to frame that and consider it in relation to your teaching expertise. Taken alone, a teaching career in an evangelical institution might have raised some questions. The record of publication and conference presentations was used to determine whether an individual could truly move back and forth between a purely religious stance and a secular scholarly perspective--or whether the attempt to teach at a state institution would be an entirely new approach for the individual.

[john_proctor]

It's hard to be too cut and dried, but generally, there is a continuum.  On one end, you have approaches to Biblical Studies as a discipline in service to the life of faith or to a confessional community of some type.  On the other pole is Biblical Studies qua Biblical Studies - with no real concern for any potential application or use for what is discovered via the inquiry beyond any generic study of a significant (and interesting, and complex) body of literature from antiquity yet still affecting the modern world.

In other words, one group is reading the Bible to get insight into living as a member of a faith community.  The other is not.  As you might imagine, the latter is more the rule at secular institutions.

Such institutions would hardly consider Ehrman a "radical" or an "extremist."

Applicants need to sort out where a given school lies on the continuum and pitch appropriately to be best considered. 

Adds will often have clues.  For example, if they express that they want someone who focuses on historical or literary approaches, they're often looking for Biblical Studies qua Biblical Studies.  If they indicate in their add that they want someone "aware of the x tradition" or self-describe as a partisan (often something like "ABC College is an active member of the XYZ tradition of churches and seeks to foster critical engagement with the modern world in an atmosphere supporting Christian growth and Character blahblahblah").  LACs (S or other wise) that may have been founded as a denominationally affiliated school but which are now just largely LACs may have such information on their website under "history," but won't have a mission statement, etc.

Some programs require applicants to discuss or affirm a doctrinal or a mission statement.  That's a clear sign.  If you can't, in absolute candor, affirm the statement, forego the application.  Your best case scenario in such cases is that you'll be rejected (getting that job will turn into something even more toxic).

For confessional schools, be prepared to discuss (and focus on in the c.l.) how you would see Biblical Studies in the role of faith construction, living, or the life of a confessional community.  For more secular programs, in general, concentrate on the substance of your critical approach.  This isn't to say that secular programs will not hire people of faith.  Indeed, many (most) do.  (be aware: confessional programs, however, will absolutely not hire an open agnostic or openly secular person).  It's just that they would regard your confessional allegiances as irrelevant.

[songsofexperience]

Wow, I just read the "hostile" Ehrman comment. Honestly, no offense to you, OP, there are enough of us in RS (EC/NT) with training in theory and method who are attempting a redescription of Christian origins that for a department interested in the 'Academic' study of religion, you would be unlikely to make the cut. If I were you, I'd apply for those positions that those of us who do theory and method won't apply for - like those that require a faith commitment etc. Remember, the study of religion, even if it is Christianity/Judaism/NT/HB is NOT theology.

If you do choose to apply to such schools, be prepared to discuss the ways in which theories and methods inform your research and the ways in which you teach. You'll need more than the "socio-historical" approach.

That said, I agree that there's no reason you cannot teach from a neutral POV although McCutcheon would argue otherwise. For a secular school, there is no need to mention your own faith at all - just stick to discussing your work and your teaching.

Good luck.

[inquirer]

Wow, I just read the "hostile" Ehrman comment. Honestly, no offense to you, OP, there are enough of us in RS (EC/NT) with training in theory and method who are attempting a redescription of Christian origins that for a department interested in the 'Academic' study of religion, you would be unlikely to make the cut. If I were you, I'd apply for those positions that those of us who do theory and method won't apply for - like those that require a faith commitment etc. Remember, the study of religion, even if it is Christianity/Judaism/NT/HB is NOT theology.

If you do choose to apply to such schools, be prepared to discuss the ways in which theories and methods inform your research and the ways in which you teach. You'll need more than the "socio-historical" approach.

Could you elaborate on this last sentence?  I describe to students various approaches, e.g., historical, rhetorical, social-scientific, etc.  I also talk at length about the impact of social location on the process of interpretation and about the process of creating and receiving texts.  I would assume that everyone pretty much does that, so I'm not sure that saying this is what I do is that meaningful.  Also, I require students to do assignments that force them to read the text for themselves and talk about their own observations.  Is that what you have in mind?  I don't talk about Deconstruction or reader-response very much, because those don't suit what I'm trying to accomplish in class.  Is that a problem.  Do I need to focus on how I use Foucault in order for my CV to stay in the "possible pile"?

[systeme_d_]

Wow, I just read the "hostile" Ehrman comment. Honestly, no offense to you, OP, there are enough of us in RS (EC/NT) with training in theory and method who are attempting a redescription of Christian origins that for a department interested in the 'Academic' study of religion, you would be unlikely to make the cut. If I were you, I'd apply for those positions that those of us who do theory and method won't apply for - like those that require a faith commitment etc. Remember, the study of religion, even if it is Christianity/Judaism/NT/HB is NOT theology.

If you do choose to apply to such schools, be prepared to discuss the ways in which theories and methods inform your research and the ways in which you teach. You'll need more than the "socio-historical" approach.

Could you elaborate on this last sentence?  I describe to students various approaches, e.g., historical, rhetorical, social-scientific, etc.  I also talk at length about the impact of social location on the process of interpretation and about the process of creating and receiving texts.  I would assume that everyone pretty much does that, so I'm not sure that saying this is what I do is that meaningful.  Also, I require students to do assignments that force them to read the text for themselves and talk about their own observations.  Is that what you have in mind?  I don't talk about Deconstruction or reader-response very much, because those don't suit what I'm trying to accomplish in class.  Is that a problem.  Do I need to focus on how I use Foucault in order for my CV to stay in the "possible pile"?

If Foucault has been influential upon your research, absolutely include that, but in the research portion of your cover letter, not the teaching portion.

[songsofexperience]

Inquirer,
You'd be surprised by how many people do not do what you describe. I would say as long as you are giving your students the tools they need to be able to work with what you throw at them (and of course, this would be different for a basic intro class and an upper level course) you're doing what you should. I still think, however, that if theory informs your research you should make it clear in your cover letter when addressing your research. Most folks will figure that this carries over into your teaching in an appropriate fashion. This is something you can discuss in more detail during an interview. If, however, you don't touch on the subject of pertinent methods and theories in any way in your cover letter you may simply be thrown away. Of course, this is less of an issue for departments who are not particularly interested in method and theory.