Textbook Fatigue

This post is also available at the Amazing Catechists website.

 

Kids get textbook fatigue...I get textbook fatigue, too. Information presented in a textbook lacks the authenticity of the same information found elsewhere. If something is in a textbook it's because the people who write textbooks think it matters, which is fine with me, but it's not an especially compelling endorsement for 6th-graders. Even something as simple as a map of France has more credibility and impact when it's in a travel magazine or a book about wine & cheese instead of a geography textbook. It's why German in Der Spiegel has more vitality than German in the speech lab. In school, knowledge is managed & packaged for the kiddies- they're aware of that by 6th grade; but out in the world- it's raw and real!

That's one reason I prefer for the kids to read the textbook at home, and then in class learn the material from other sources, usually the Bible or the Catechism. They are good sources, but they're both On the Reservation, so to speak. For kids they're just one step removed from the textbook.

So it's always a pleasure to find a secular discussion of a moral/ religious/ Catholic topic that not only shows the relevance of what we do in class, but can be a source for actually learning the material. I prefer newspapers or serious periodicals, because the children know that unlike their textbooks, newspapers aren't kidstuff. Newspapers, those symbols of maturity, set the standard for grownup, adult reading. I can't say for younger kids, but 6th graders are definitely interested in the maturing process, and in being treated as more than mere "children." So they know that when I use the paper in class I have respect for them.

Recently we covered the 8th Commandment, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, which in 6th grade means don't lie. But the textbook wisely expands the commandment beyond mere lying into sins such as slander, detraction, and gossip. By coincidence, this article about gossip appeared in the Wall Street Journal on the same day as our class.

Killing Gossip With Kindness - WSJ.com

That evening, when we got to the topic of gossip, I displayed the paper and said we'd learn about gossip from today's news.  The article's opening sentence was a perfect attention-getter: "Wendy Fandl sees a lot of children growing up without a lot of guidance. They say harsh and hurtful things about each other, and the words come too easily. Encouraged by the snarkiness in pop culture today, they seem more sarcastic than past generations."

From there we went on to discuss gossip. I'd read/ paraphrase the following excerpts, and the kids would make comments and observations.

 "...before they say something to or about someone else, they should ask themselves: "Is it kind? Is it true? Is it necessary?"

"It's emotionally lethal. It's leading to suicides......If you stop gossip in your own life and bring it to the attention of your community, then people will follow your leadership."

"It's always around fifth grade when students start calling each other names...."
Young people especially are at greater risk today of being damaged by gossip, given the growth of Web sites where students leave cruel, anonymous postings about their peers.
 
Years ago, people who were picked on or gossiped about in high school could graduate, move away and start fresh. "These days, the gossip follows them. It's online forever...."
 
The article closed with a great little story, which ends: 
 
"Treat everyone the way your mother would want everyone to treat you."
 
And after we were done with the article, I closed our discussion of gossip by telling this ancient fable (from this scene in the movie "Doubt' ):
 
"A woman was gossiping with a friend about a man she hardly knew - I know none of you have ever done this - that night she had a dream. A great hand appeared over her and pointed down at her. She was immediately seized with an overwhelming sense of guilt. The next day she went to confession. She got the old parish priest, Father O’Rourke, and she told him the whole thing.

‘Is gossiping a sin?’ she asked the old man. ‘Was that the hand of God Almighty pointing a finger at me? Should I be asking your absolution? Father, tell me, have I done something wrong?’

‘Yes!’ Father O’Rourke answered her. ‘Yes, you ignorant, badly broughtup female! You have borne false witness against your neighbor, you have played fast and loose with his reputation, and you should be heartily ashamed!’

So the woman said she was sorry and asked for forgiveness.

‘Not so fast!’ says O’Rourke. ‘I want you to go home, take a pillow up on your roof, cut it open with a knife, and return here to me!’

So the woman went home, took a pillow off her bed, a knife from the drawer, went up the fire escape to the roof, and stabbed the pillow. Then she went back to the old parish priest as instructed.

‘Did you gut the pillow with the knife?’ he says.

‘Yes, Father.’

‘And what was the result?’

‘Feathers,’ she said.

‘Feathers?’ he repeated.

‘Feathers everywhere, Father!’

‘Now I want you to go back and gather up every last feather that flew out on the wind!’

‘Well,’ she said, ‘it can’t be done. I don’t know where they went. The wind took them all over.’

‘And that,’ said Father O’Rourke, ‘is GOSSIP!’


 And the article is now in my lesson plan for next year.

Off the Reservation

This post is also available at the Amazing Catechists website.

The general attitude in the Postmodern West is that Christianity is ok (well, tolerable) as long as you keep it private and out of the Public Square, as the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus would say. Stay on the reservation and there won't be any trouble. One way for the kids to learn otherwise is by seeing Christian morality presented in secular media such as newspapers and magazines.

Last Wednesday night the subject was the Mass: specifically the first half, the Liturgy of the Word. As part of the discussion of the Psalms, I mentioned King David, and the Psalms I like best, including Psalm 51 (excerpt): "Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me."

This reflects David's inescapable burden of guilt due to his affair with Bathsheba, and the wider woe that it caused; as the introduction to the Psalm says, "A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came to him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba." I spent a couple of minutes on David & Bathsheba to remind the kids that Psalms weren't written out of thin air, but were reflections on what was going on in David's life; and we moved on to the Epistles.

Then in Thursday's newspaper, editorialist Cal Thomas referred to David and Bathsheba in his article about Tiger Woods (http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2842). I saved the paper, and began tonight's class like this:

Sons & Daughters, remember last week we were talking about the Psalms...who wrote 'em? David. Yes, King David. I like Psalm 51 about David's guilt when he says "my sin is before me always" because that's how I feel until I drag myself into Confession. Tell me, what particular sin was bugging David? He had an affair with Bathsheba. Yes. Who's the famous golfer who had a bunch of affairs and now the whole world knows about it? Oh Tiger Woods! Yes. There was an article in the paper last Thursday about Tiger (I'll pull out the newspaper & show the article), and it compares Tiger to King David like so (I paraphrased from the following excerpt):

"King David understood repentance when he wrote Psalm 51. After committing adultery with Bathsheba and getting her pregnant, David ordered her husband, Uriah the Hittite, home from the battlefield, hoping he would sleep with Bathsheba so David might deny paternity. When Uriah refused for the sake of his troops, David ordered he be placed in the front lines where he was killed. Nathan the Prophet exposed David. King David repents (“against thee and thee only have I sinned” he tells God) and while God forgives him, he still takes the life of David’s son born from the adulterous affair.

It is a startling account many learn in Sunday School, and the lesson is that God does not regard sin lightly, as modern culture does."

Class, my point isn't to beat up on Tiger Woods, but just to show ya, lotsa people out there in the public world outside of church and Wednesday Sunday School speak up for what God says is right and wrong, and you should too.

If anybody wants to have the article, ask me after class.

(At the top, is that a reservation? Nope, it's a pic of Area 51 because there are no good images of Psalm 51.)

Two-Minute Cadre

This post is also available at the Amazing Catechists website.

We use the Bible more than the textbook in 6th grade catechism. The textbook shows what the kids should learn, but the learning itself is Bible-sourced. For that to work, the kids need some idea of what the Bible is. Asking Google "what is the Bible?" produces answers such as these:

The Bible is the account of the work of God in history bringing to fruition His prophetic declarations concerning Jesus.

The Bible is the account of God's action in the world and his purpose with all creation.

The Bible is the source of truth, the standard for meaningful life, the revelation of Jesus Christ, the key to true freedom and liberty, and true food for man's soul.

The Bible is a collection of individual books that together tell the story of a group of people bound by a common faith in God.

The Bible is a collection of writings which the Church has solemnly recognized as inspired.

Zzzzzz.....snorrrrg......snorrrrg.......braaack! Oh, 'scuze me, I just nodded off for a second there.

Nothing wrong with these definitions, but they won't do for 6th grade. They're too erudite, too abstract, too dry for kids...maybe even for me. Besides, the kids need more than a definition. They need a 6th-grade level concept of the Bible so that the stuff we learn in class isn't forgotten, doesn't float off into the ether. They need what the French call a cadre, a framework/ skeleton/ plan/ design. But 6th grade isn't about the Bible, per se, and time is tight on the lesson plans, so they gotta get a Bible cadre quick.

Quick means 2 minutes or so....here we go.

(I hold up the Bible with my finger separating the Testaments.) Hey y'all, what's this book? The Bible. Yes, it has two sections. The first is the Old Testament, which was written before Jesus was born. If the first section is the....?  Old Testament, yes, then what's the next one? The New Testament. Yes. If the Old Testament was written before Jesus was born then the New was written....? After Jesus was born.  Yes. Testament comes from the verb testify. When people testify in court, what do they do? They say what they saw somebody do. Yes, what happened; and they swear to tell only....? the truth. So the Testaments do what? They say what people did. Yes, what happened. God inspired the writers to write only the truth... like in court.

(Now I hold up the Bible divided into 3 parts with my fingers.) The Bible tells the history, the story of God and us; the story has 3 basic parts. The little part in front, Genesis, tells about when Adam & Eve physically lived in perfect friendship with God in Eden until they sinned. This last little bit is Revelations, which reveals to us that in the future we will once again physically live in perfect friendship with God as Adam and Eve once did. All the 1,500 pages in the middle is the story of us getting back to where we were in the first place. We're living in the middle part right now.

Now, quick review:  Two sections, the Old and...the New! The New Banana? No, the New Testament! Which was written when? After Jesus was born! Yes, and the first part of the story is about...Adam & Eve before they sinned. And the end? When we are with God again. And the middle? When we try to be in heaven. Umm, yeah, that explains it pretty well. Good children, y'all learn fast.

Ok, maybe 3 minutes.


Digression: During the Olympics, have you seen the Windows 7 commercial with the French guy? His French is the best, it's a real pleasure to hear him speak.

Ολυμπία

As is usual every two years, my wife and I hooked up the rabbit ears last Friday night so we could watch the Olympics....especially the part of the Opening Ceremony when all the athletes process into the stadium (much of the Opening Ceremonies bores me, or annoys me....digressing already, I see). I'm always struck by the confidence of youth that's on display during that parade of optimism. All the smiles, laughter, cutting up, taking pictures, the energy, the self-wonder, the physical expression of being the best in world (or at least in the company of the best in the world). I notice this Titanic confidence most of all in the athletes who have won before, and are back for more medals: confidence piled on confidence, masters of all they survey at such a young age. I see them competing, being interviewed: Usain Bolt, Phelps, Shaun White, Ohno. They reign supreme, exude an air of omnipotence. They're the best, and they know it, can't hide it, and don't try: the Conquerors. It's not in the nature of youth to soft-pedal, and I appreciate not having to endure bleats of false modesty.

Anyway, for the last couple of Olympics, this youthful barrage of virtuosity kept reminding me of something, or someone. I dimly recalled a definitive display of the boundless confidence of youth: watch me, I'm the greatest; I'm incredible, nobody else can do this as well; I'm in awe of myself, aren't you; I don't mean to brag, but I am the best in the world, it's just a fact; I love being the best and you can love it, too.

What was that definitive, physical expression of Omnipotent Youth? Some sports event? Something military? Political? A movie scene? No, no...all examples of barking up the wrong trees. And it wasn't Mr. Olympia, Arnold Schwarzenegger, either (why would you think that?); it was Van Cliburn playing the piano. Van who?

When I was a kid in the 1900s, Van Cliburn was a big, big deal. Wikipedia says:

"The first International Tchaikovsky Competition in 1958 was an event designed to demonstrate Soviet cultural superiority during the Cold War, on the heels of their technological victory with the Sputnik launch in October 1957. Cliburn's performance at the competition finale of Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1 and Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 3 earned him a standing ovation lasting eight minutes. When it was time to announce a winner, the judges were obliged to ask permission of the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to give first prize to an American. "Is he the best?" Khrushchev asked. "Then give him the prize!" Cliburn returned home to a ticker-tape parade in New York City, the only time the honor has been accorded a classical musician. His cover story in Time proclaimed him "The Texan Who Conquered Russia."

America was crazy for Cliburn. My parents & grandparents, who played classical music around the house, made him a dinnertable topic. He was on TV. He was on the hi-fi. He was practically a kid.  He beat the Russians at their own game. He exposed me to Tchaiko and Rachmaninoff at an impressionable age. And he was gloriously full of his own potential. Just watch this world class performance:
 
YouTube - (Cliburn)Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No.1 Mvt III
 
Could any Olympian revel in his victories more than this giant-killer?

Eikonografia

This article was also posted at the Amazing Catechists website.

One of my enduring images of Jesus is in a stained-glass window in St. Francis de Sales Church (now a co-cathedral) in Houma, Louisiana.  Jesus, during his 40 days in the desert, vigorously rebukes Satan, who gestures dramatically toward all the earthly goodies he tempts Jesus with.  Before I mastered the written word, I learned this, and many other stories, through my ears and eyes.  More than learned it...it's imprinted.

In the West we don't refer to stained-glass images as icons. No reason we should, they don't function as icons anyway. Their job is to teach: stained-glass windows catechize. But when I observe that stained-glass images are a terrific teaching tool, I think of the Greek word εικονογραφία (iconography).
 
I'm not an iconographer in any formal sense, but I like to draw as part of catechism class. Do I draw well? I do not. But guess what...it doesn't matter. As the Chicagoan Martin Luther might say, draw boldly, badly, and often in your class, it makes learning easier. Let's look at the whiteboard from my last class to see what I mean, and how even bad drawings help the kids learn.

The Mass draws from earlier ideas & events that have been the main subjects for the last two periods, including the Last Supper, the Passover, Memorial, Sacrifice, Substitution. We'll spend about 7 classes on the Mass; these first two lessons should provide the students with a basic framework on which they can hang more knowledge later. Let me digress a bit: I don't believe anything should be learned in isolation; the teacher should relate all new knowledge to what the children already know. Even something as self-contained as memorizing the Hail Mary should include learning about the Annuciation and the Visitation, maybe a little John da Baptis', some Sarah'n'Isaac, right? Enough digressing already, on to the whiteboard:

I have numbered the images 1 through 9 in the order that I drew them, which reflects the flow of the class. (If you can't see all the items 1-9, right-click the image and open it in another window.) Notice that the sketches aren't drawn in order, but in a way that puts #5 in the middle of the board. I planned that ahead of time with my, you know, lesson plan. I don't usually have quite this sweep of illustration, but it's a rare class that I don't draw something.

OK then, here's a synopsis focusing on the drawings, more than the actual lesson itself. I'm stripping out most of the speaking and reading that goes with the pictures.

1.  God doesn't require the sacrifice of Abraham's son, but does require a substitute sacrifice, the ram.

"Hey ya'll, what's this class about? Well c'mon, for the love of God, did anyone read the chapter? I did! Yeah, did you retain any information? What's it about? The Mass. Yes, particularly the sacrifice part of the Mass. Let's see.....if we're gonna talk about sacrifice, we gotta talk about Abraham 'n' Sarah...they were sad...why was that? Cause they didn't have any children! Yes, and remind me please, what does love want to do? Create! Yes, and married people's love wants to create...? Children! Yes. So they were sad but then what happened? God gave them Isaac! And Isaac is Hebrew for...? Laughing! Yes, why? Because they were so happy to have a baby. Yes, happy, happy!" (Note: this is all review for the kids, they learned it during the Marriage and Sex class. Review is constant because old information supports the new.)

"But then God told Abraham what? He had to sacrifice Isaac. Yeeess...(I start to draw Abraham) here's Abraham...what's this? The knife. Yep, and this is...Isaac (badly drawn, but we all know who it is). Yes, and what's this he's on? An altar. Yes." You can see where this is heading without hearing the whole discussion, and can see the fairy-winged angel that was added as part of the process. Also notice the really bad ram. I had a tough time with the curved horns. When a picture is coming out extra bad like the ram, I joke about it and the kids will make fun, too. I'll say "Hey now, do you know how much I get paid to do this? Nothing. So don't complain about my drawings!"

2.  The Passover Lamb, like Abraham's ram, is a substitutionary sacrifice in lieu of a household's firstborn. Plus the Lamb has to be eaten as well as killed, for the 'passing over' to work. Sometimes I'll take a red marker and cut the lamb's throat as a prelude to the bloody doorpost, but didn't this time.

We review what they already know about the Passover, as we did with Abraham and Isaac.

3.  This is a standard drawing in our class of a Body and Soul. It's always badly drawn because the kids recognize it as fast as I draw it. It's an inside joke. It depicts a person as a unique creation comprising a unity of Body and a Soul (as opposed to being, say, a soul stuck in a body). Because of this unity, there's often a physical component to spiritual things. In the case of Passover, for the Angel of Death to pass over, physical actions had to be performed: get a lamb, kill it, and splatter the blood on the door. The Hebrews then had to eat the lamb, make it a part of themselves, just as we still do at Communion. The Bodynsoul Pic shows up every time we discuss a Sacrament, since they all involve the physical and the spiritual. I'll refer to it more than once in this class period.

4.  This is of course the Last Supper. I draw it to the far right to leave room in the middle for the Mass. The arrow from the Passover Lamb to the Last Supper reminds us that it was the Passover meal for Jesus and the Apostles. I'll usually read or tell a bit from Luke 22: 7-15 to emphasize the Passover-ness of the Last Supper. "Let's see, who's this in the middle? Jesus. And these other monkeys? The apostles! So how many people are there? 12!....No, 13! Ha! Trick question, ya gotta pay attention!"

5.  "Here's the sacrifice part of the Mass. We see the priest offer the sacrifice just as Jesus did at the Last Supper. The arrow from the Lamb reminds us there's a sacrifice presented at Mass, so what's that thing the priest stands at? An altar? Yes, and the arrow from the Last Supper means that Mass is also a...meal? Yes, so what else is that thing the priest stands at? Umm, a table? Yes. Y'all tell me please, where was the Lamb at the Last Supper? It's Jesus. Yes, did he offer himself?  Umm, yes? Yes he did: remember He said, "this is my body which will be given up for you"....then did he sacrifice himself? Huh? No! So when did he get sacrificed? Oh, when he was crucified!"  Yes, so now I draw...

6. ...the Crucified Christ above the altar just like at Mass. As with the Passover Lamb, I will sometimes add blood to this sketch with a red marker. "Who killed Jesus? Roman soldiers. What did Jesus say about them? Well? C'mon, "Father forgive them...they don't know what they're doing!  Yes, they sacrificed the Lamb, Jesus, and had no idea. And how many times was Jesus crucified? Once? Of course once. But even though Jesus was sacrificed only once, He is offered all the time at every Mass. By the way, the priest is standing in for someone at our memorial Last Supper, who's that? Judas? Ha, no, Jesus!" Yes, the priest stands in for Jesus, and Jesus works through the priest, as we see by this....

7. .......red line from the crucifix which radiates out from the priest. "Y'all know when y'all are paying attention and learning and being good honorary sons and daughters, I see God's goodness bursting out of you. That's sort of like how Jesus works through the priest at Mass to make that bread and wine miracle happen....boom! bursts right out!

When you're at Mass and you get bored, recall Abraham, Isaac and the ram; the Passover Lamb; the Last Supper, and Jesus the new Lamb, who was sacrificed on Calvary; and how Mass pulls all these things together for us. That's it for tonight. Oh my, we still have a few minutes of classtime, so tell me: why do we have these two statues at the front of the church?" I draw....

8. ....these two red blobs. "Well, who are they? Tarzan and Jane? Ha! That's silly, it's Mary and Joseph! Yes. They remind us that at Mass, they and all the saints are there with us. If you get bored, look around you and imagine all of them there at Mass with us. I bet they are glad to see you."

9.  "Since we still have some time, the Hebrew word for Passover is Pesach. Quien aqui habla Español? Yes, how do you say Easter in Spanish? Pascua. Yes, Pascua comes from the Hebrew word Pesach. In Italian they say Pasqua; in French Pâques; in Denmark or in Iceland or somewhere like that it's Paask. Many languages say something about Passover when they say 'Easter.' We miss out on that in English; but we do call Jesus the Paschal Lamb, which means what? The Passover Lamb? Yes! Look, we ran 30 seconds over! See you next week...for the love of God, read chapter 19!"

And in all its ineptitude, isn't that big picture a great learning opportunity?

Bibliophilia

I posted this article earlier this month at the Amazing Catechists website.

Look at this pic of the Jordan River. Wouldn't you like to jump in that muddy thing?

When I remember my best teachers, Kindergarten through graduate school, I notice they all had something in common: none of them used the textbook during class. Some of my best teachers taught so well I barely needed to look at the book myself. Their classes were so interesting that to simply pay attention was to learn. I don't know if they even had a copy of the book; I never saw them bring more than notes to class. Now, just because those teachers didn't teach from the textbook, and I don't teach from the textbook, doesn't mean I don't use a book in class. I do. I use the Bible.

Haven't you all heard "use da Bible in ya class?" Of course you have. And you'd like to, but it's not easy: read more than two lines out loud and eyes start glazing over. And it's big & dense & disorganized & hard to know what the point is half of the time; isn't there a shallow end to this pool? Can't I just use the textbook and the Catechism? They're sensibly organized, with an index & logical table of contents, written in regular English, y'know? They're comfortable. They're like other books I've read....normal books. They have the information I need. Just gimme the data.

But Fellow Catechists, if ya ain't usin' da Bible, ya missin' da fun, and the kids miss out on seeing Catholicism spring from Scripture. Of course, getting started on the fun can be tough. Discussing how to use the Bible in the classroom will take more than one article, but for now let's try a toe-dip in the shallow end.

Earlier this year we spent one class period on Baptism (it wasn't enough time...must edit further). I treat the subject with a series of Bible stories & passages, so the kids can understand the Bible iceberg under the water that supports the Sacrament that we see poking up. One of the stories is the Cure of Naaman (I imagine most teacher's manuals would reference it). I always forget where it is in the Old Testament, and I hate flipping pages. Here's how I find it, and almost anything else I can't find on my own.

1. I go here: http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/ It's a keyword search of the 66-book Protestant Bible. It can be optioned to include the 73 books of the Catholic Bible, but there's not a Catholic Bible version at the site.

2. I enter my phrase: Naaman. I pick my Bible version: King James Version.

3. In Options, I pick Limit Search to Old Testament, and click Search.

4. I get 14 hits. I see the story is in 2Kings 5. Now I go here http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml and here http://jmom.honlam.org/rsvce/ to see the chapter in two Catholic Bibles: the NAB, which is the American Bishops' 'official' Bible; and the RSV-CE, a more stately translation. I also find 2Kings 5 in my paper NAB Bible, and selectively highlight the story. (Note: If I know where to find what I'm looking for, I just skip the keyword search and go straight to the Catholic Bibles.)

5. I decide to print an edited version of 2Kings 5. It's better if the kids see me teach from the Bible itself, but the Baptism class has 11 passages, and that's too much page-flipping while kids fidget. Here's the edited version:

2 Kings 5: Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a mighty man, but he was a leper. But Naaman's wife had a slavegirl from Israel, who said the prophet Elisha could cure Naaman's leprosy. So Naaman came with his horses and with his chariot, and stood at the door of the house of Elisha. Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in the Jordan river seven times, and you will be clean. Naaman was angry, saying, "I thought that he would surely come out to me, and wave his hand over the place, and cure me. The rivers of Damascus are better than all the waters of Israel. Could I not wash in them, and be clean?" So he turned and went away in a rage. But his servants said, "My father, if the prophet had told you to do something extraordinary, would you not have done it? All the more now, since he said to you, 'Wash and be clean,' you should do as he said." So Naaman went down and plunged into the Jordan seven times. His flesh became again like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.

And I add this concluding note to myself: Washing in water effects miraculous physical healing.

Cutting the text down this much does two things: it prevents me from reading the whole story aloud which doesn't suit the kids (not the story, it's great; too much reading aloud bores them), and many details aren't relevant to Baptism. But it gives me enough text that I can read out loud a little. (You may want to look at 2Kings 5 just to see how much was cut.)

Here's how this edited passage works in class:

"Hey, do y'all know what leprosy is? It's a disease that eats up your body. Yes, your nose dies and falls off, your fingers & toes fall off, eventually you die. The Bible's full of lepers that no-one wants to be around. Everyone was scared to death of touching a leper. But our subject isn't leprosy...what's the subject? Baptism. Yes. So this next Old Testament story about a leper is also about....? Baptism? Yes. The story starts off like this: "Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was...a mighty man, but he was a leper." Naaman is a general in Syria, a country that still exists next to Israel. He's got money, power, camels, iPods. But he's caught leprosy, his lips and ears are falling off, and his wife won't kiss him anymore.

"But Naaman's wife had a slavegirl from Israel, who said the prophet Elisha could cure Naaman's leprosy." So Naaman took a pile of money with him and traveled to Israel. "So Naaman came with his horses and with his chariot, and stood at the door of the house of Elisha." Hey, old man in the shack, get out here! Don't make me wait! But "Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, Go and wash in the Jordan river seven times.....and you will be clean." Naaman has a fit! He says,"I thought that he would surely come out to me, and wave his hand over the place, and cure me." Naaman wants some respect! Elisha should come out of his little hut and take care of business instead of handing out instructions to a general! Seven times!? And Naaman objects to having to bathe in that murky water: "The rivers of Damascus are better than all the waters of Israel. Could I not wash in them, and be clean?" So he turned and went away in a rage." This trip isn't working out....who does this Elisha think he is? Naaman's puffed up like a frog, he ain't doin' nuthin' stupid! I guess he'd rather be a leper. "But his servants said, "My father, if the prophet had told you to do something extraordinary, wouldn't you do it? All the more now, since he said to you, 'Wash and be clean,' you should do as he said." Alright! Alright already! "So Naaman went down and immersed himself (in Greek: baptized) into the Jordan seven times."

"So what do you think happened? He wasn't a leper anymore! That's right! "His flesh became again like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean." So Naaman got himself some humility, did as he was told (everyone hates to do as they're told) and his disease was miraculously washed away by the water. So what does this have to do with Baptism? It was a miracle with water! Yes, it foreshadows Baptism.

Trick question #1: Suppose Naaman decided the water was just a symbol, and instead of getting in the muddy water, he just stood beside the river and went through the motions of washing (act it out), would that have worked? Ha! No! Why not? He had to use the water. Yes. The water was part of the miracle. The water wasn't just a symbol. God worked through the water.

Trick question #2: Naaman's leprosy was washed away; were Naaman's sins washed away? Ummm, no? No, they weren't. Jesus hadn't been born yet, so there were no Sacraments. No spiritual cleansing for Naaman. By the way, what river did Naaman immerse (or baptize) himself in? The Jordan. Yeah. Remember the guy named John who baptized people, what's he called? Ha, John the Baptist! Yes, what river did he baptize in? The same one, the Jordan! Yes...imagine that. We'll get to John in a few minutes, but first, Ezekiel has something prophetic to say about Baptism (and we proceed to Ezekiel).

That wasn't too bad, was it? Some reading, some telling, some acting, some questions, some answers.

And maybe some fun, and some learning.


Please post any comments here: Bibliophilia » Amazing Catechists

Image-ination

This WSJ article prompted me to organize some disparate thoughts about imagination: Children's Imagination Important for Cognitive Development - WSJ.com

Between my blog and catechism class, I frequently look for images to amplify Bible stories. I'm surprised at how long I sometimes have to search to find an online image that sheds light on what I think the point of the story is. Sometimes I find an image that's better than what I imagine, one that actually deepens the meaning, and those are the best. But to do so I have to cull through lots of well-done pictures that lack compelling content. It matters because the kids use the pictures to refine and expand their imagination and understanding of faith. God necessarily exceeds human imagination; but the bigger the imagination, the more God can be understood, the closer he can be approached. Let's look at a couple of examples.

Two of my favorite classroom stories are the Healing of the Paralytic, and the Prodigal Son. Because the perfect picture is worth at least a thousand words, I seek....The Perfect Picture; in the first case, the Perfect Paralytic Picture. I've looked at a hundred images or more, seeking not an illustration of a paralyzed man being made to walk, but the mystery, the miracle, the hushed wonder of a sin-wracked body and soul being healed together. Here are two Paralytic pix that are fine paintings, but neither of them wins my prize:

This is a lovely one:

Got it? Me too. And this next one as well. It's by James Tissot, who made 350 watercolors in the late 19th century of the Life of Christ; this is one of them. Wiki says: "The merits of Tissot's Bible illustrations lay rather in the care with which he studied the details of scenery than in any quality of religious emotion. He seemed to aim, above all, at accuracy, and, in his figures, at a vivid realism, which was far removed from the conventional treatment of sacred types."

Great composition, realistic...uh-huh...uh-huh...got it. Thanks.
And now, the pearl of great price by John Armstrong:

Got it? Umm...ehhh...I gotta think about it for a while. Even now, at the hundredth viewing, this one is about more than the first two. It's not all that concerned with the event, per se, but rather the meaning of the event, the truth beyond the facts. As a question I heard in a Sola Scriptura debate put it, what's more important: the text, or the message? Yeah, ok, so in this picture that I love, what's the message?

I have to digress. In the summer of '08, my family took an Alaska cruise, courtesy of My Wife The Energizer Bunny. Among other stops, we visited Hubbard Glacier:

The glacier face is about 300 feet tall, 6 miles wide, and beguilingly blue. It's not the usual.

Cruise ships are alive with sound. People chat, music plays, wind blows, water splashes, tableware clinks, the ship itself hums and thrums. When the glacier first came into view from miles away, people got very excited, the sound level went right up. But over the next couple of hours as the ship carefully crept up close to that weird blue wall, all 2,000 people Just Shut Up. Hardly a sound except the clunk of ice against the hull. No-one spoke above a murmur, and briefly. Total hush at the wonder.

This is how I imagine the moment of the Healing of the Paralytic: a hush at the wonder. The hubbub "we've never seen anything like this before" would come later, as it did on the ship when it eased back out of the fjord. But at the moment when the people realized that Jesus had healed both soul and body, my God, who would have made a peep? That's the meaning I take from the Armstrong image. A sinful wretch floating on a sea of sinners, at the moment of healing. The utter, preposterous wonder of that moment. It's beyond one's grasp. Just shut up.

Speaking of images and meaning, Aristotle formulated the concept of Accidents and Substance as a way of organizing reality. Take, oh, glaciers for example: if water is frozen, we call it ice. The ice-ness is an accident; sometimes water is a liquid, other times a vapor, still other times a solid. But it's all water, regardless of the accidents. Water is the substance. This seems obvious to us, but in 19th-century subtropical India, e.g., people were confused by the product delivered by New England's ice merchants. They didn't understand it was water with a different accident than they were used to. Some referred to ice as "blocks of Yankee coldness." Even observing ice melt didn't change their perception of ice being something quite different from water. It must have taken a huge shift, not just of knowledge, but also imagination, to accept ice as just another form of water.

The influence of imagination on understanding is underestimated.

Some Catholics will be familiar at least in passing with the fact that Aquinas referred to Aristotle's accidents and substances in explaining Transubstantiation. Catholics are used to the idea that while the bread and wine are Accidents, the Substance of the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus. To put it in sacramental terms, there's Form, and there's Matter (to digress again, most Orthodox aren't comfortable with such a technical analysis, referring to the Sacraments as Mysteries).

What's this post about? Oh yeah, images. Religious images. More to the point, Bible story images. Why so many are workmanlike, yet some select few are profound, and deepen our understanding of a story. Ehhh...let's consider the second story I mentioned, the Prodigal Son.
Here's a serviceable illustration of the Prodigal Son by Murillo:


Boy howdy, it sure is scriptural: the plea for forgiveness, the ring, the robes, the fatted calf about to be axed.... and a little Fido symbolizing faithful devotion. But I know all that already. I don't need an illustration. I need a portrait.

Here we go, the one that makes the point, by Rembrandt (I saw the original at the Hermitage in St. Petersburg, Russia, during a Baltic cruise. It's big.):


My Number One work of visual art, Rembrandt's Return of the Prodigal Son doesn't even show a scene that's especially scriptural. No plot, no talking, no rings, no calf...no time. Instead there is stressless patience, love, and peace. Mmmmm....aaaaahhhh. If we repent, God will forgive us, embrace us and love us forever. Forget the rings and robes. The forgiven son floats in an eternal ocean of love before the father has mentioned baubles or dinner. At last he can rest. This is the meaning of the story. I knew the Facts. Rembrandt shows the Truth.

Aristotle might say Rembrandt has seen past the Accidents and given us the Substance, as does Armstrong in his Paralytic. He might go so far as to say both artists showed us God.

Now where ice, stuff, is concerned, we can get at the substance which lies beyond the accidents pretty easily. But it's harder to get at the substance of truth: one has to have an imagination, like Rembrandt and Armstrong. Ideally a nimble imagination, well-trained by the habits of Christian faith to see God in a man; to see water become wine. Or maybe a Catholic imagination also trained to see water wash away sin; or wine become blood; or bread become flesh.

I want my 6th graders to learn and love the Bible. To know the Substance as well as the Accidents; the Form and the Matter; the Stories and the Truth.

Their eyes can look; they need imaginations to see.