In view of an “accusation” by Appasamy (I still need to find the reference) that Chenchiah basically repeats Teilhard de Chardin’s thoughts, I found myself reading more about de Chardin. I used Paul Santmire’s article in Critical Issues in Modern Religion, as an entry point. Honestly, I was biased against evolutionary theology, and yet Santmire’s comments suggested an important gap in traditional theology… and thus for the need for theologians like de Chardin (even if ultimately we may not agree with him).

Santmire points to the problem, something that struck me most (from pages 95-96):

[Today] Many Protestant and Catholic thinkers… have not attempted to attack the scientific theory of evolution… On the contrary, they have accepted the scientific theory of evolution as a fact, at least in broad outline. At the same time, they have distanced themselves… from the issue of evolution. they have followed the strategy of disengagement.

…Sophisticated theologians…, while accepting the theory of evolution as a fact… have argued that theology’s proper concern must focus on human history, not the laws of the cosmos. They have been concerned chiefly with ‘the mighty acts of God in history,’ not with any relation God may or may not have with the processes of nature. Moreover, these theologians have not been interested in human history as a story embedded in the context of the whole universe–a universe with virtually infinite expanses of space and time, including a surprisingly long expanse of evolutionary development on the little planet. They have not approached the human creature as an evolved animal, but as a creature with a spiritual calling and a moral nature. These theologians have been more or less disinterested in asking whether the scientific theory of evolution might have implications for religious thought itself. At most, they have attempted to set limits beyond which the natural sciences cannot probe; in particular, they have cordoned off the intangible moral and spiritual nature of humanity.

…Without any major exception, they have abandoned the traditional idea that the world was created in six days, as portrayed in Genesis. Nevertheless, they have almost exclusively concerned themselves with humans as spiritual and historical creatures. They have emphasized God’s interaction with human beings alone, and the role of Christ as the mediator of salvation for human beings. They have not addressed themselves systematically to the development of a theology of the cosmos. Their concerns have been largely ‘anthropocentric,’ that is, focusing on human history alone. They have either deliberately or unconsciously neglected the religious questions implicit in the scientific theory of evolution.

[yet these] questions will not go away.

Santmire thus goes on to establish the importance of de Chardin as one theologian who does not evade the question. For instance, not unlike Chenchiah after him, de Chardin links Christ as the ultimate reality. And yet, in so far as he adopts the positive eschatology of the postivism of post-enlightenment thinkers, I find myself disagreeing with de Chardin (or at least how Santmire represents him).

Nevertheless I am still struck by the need to understand the significance, especially if we are open to non-6-day-creation narratives, to questions about why it took so long for human beings (as we know them today) to appear. etc etc.

After being back at SAIACS for over-a-month, I can confess that I’ve had an intense time. Within a few weeks of getting back, I had the privilege of teaching Theological Method: Sources and Criteria to the MTh in Theology class.

I haven’t had time to put down all my reflections… though I will… probably in this post. However, I can say that I really enjoyed the experience of teaching (after studying non-stop for 8 months). But more importantly, I achieved my central goal of being more encouraging than discouraging, a lesson I directly attribute to my McGill experience.

Apart from that, I also liked the focus I was able to bring to the course… especially bringing historical issues to the fore (rather than keeping the subject only theoretical).

I did not achieve in all my goals, though. I wanted to incorporate more classroom discussion, but instead I ended up speaking more than I wanted to. Plus, some of the readings were a little more than was manageable, and while I was able to correct that mistake, still it can be a little discouraging.

My biggest failure, however, was that I wasn’t able to spend as much time with the students. I wish I was able to work with them, side-by-side, with articles and assignments. But instead, I became the teacher who leaves it up to the students to contact me. I attribute this to stress of coming back new to SAIACS (I was just getting to know the students), and even the exhaustion of having a baby. Still… that’s one aspect I really want to improve.

In all, the experience was good for the students as well, I think… though I haven’t seen the class evaluations. But from one-to-one chats. I know they left the class more aware and feeling more capable than when they entered. And that certainly was a goal.

It was finally time to say farewell to McGill University. But I had no time to stop and be nostalgic.

My final day on campus began with a rush to catch the bus (which I ended up missing and thus had to catch the metro). Then I went to Presbyterian College for my final goodbyes, and meeting the Principal. After that I went to Birks Library to check out a book and I wanted a few pages photocopied from. At the building they were having a convocation lunch for the Religious Studies graduates.  No time to say hi to the few people I knew. I did call up a friend, to see if he was there, but he wasn’t.

Then I went to the McGill main library. On the way, McGill too was having their convocation. Farewells. Farewells. I reloaded my copy-card. Did some photocopies. And then returned my books. Tried to get a refund from the copy card, only to realise that they don’t refund. Hmmm. And rushed to catch a bus (which I caught) to get home in time for some last minute packing.

Looking back. I would have loved to linger. Spend some time chatting with a few friends that I made. And even chat with a few faculty at the convocation. I would have even loved to have a final snack at the McGill *expensive* cafeteria. Browse a few books. Sit in my favourite seat at the library. Spend some quiet time at the Birks Chapel. And thank the librarians, especially at Birks and McGill, for being so helpful.

But I couldn’t. And as the bus sped past McGill. I just had the chance for one last look. And a silent good-bye.

My final academic journey in Canada culminated with the Congress for the Humanities and Social Sciences (CFHSS) at Carleton University, Ottawa. From May 23-31st 2009. The theme of the Congress, “Capital Connections: nation, terroir, territoire” didn’t really excite me, but it was a requirement (by my supervisor to attend) and was also an opportunity to attend an international conference of that scale. (This was also in lieu of the AAR conference that I was meant to attend, but couldn’t due to finances, time and fear of being rejected for US visa!)

A Congress, as I understand it, is a collection of conferences, all meeting at the same time. Ideally, it is an opportunity, not only to attend the conference of your own association but also to attend other inter-disciplinary papers.

I choose to attend the Congress for three days, Saturday to Monday, and registered for the Evangelical theological Society and the Canadian Theological Society (CTS) and the Canadian Evangelical Theological Association (CETA). According to the rules, you not only have to pay the registeration fees for the Congress, but also for each of the smaller Conferences you want to attend. Already I felt this defeated the purposes of cross polination that a Congress was supposed to generate (ie. ideally you can’t attend what you don’t pay for, though many and even I attending sessions that we didn’t pay for)

Saturday was the CTS conference and the number of participants were few and while the discussions were okay, it turned out that a few of the presenters were presenting drafts of their papers that they would present for other conferences later in the Congress!

Sunday was my opportunity to attend non-theology related seminars, and the best paper I attended that day was on Narrative-based learning for Children in Schools.

Monday was the busy day with the CETA conference stocked with many papers that were run parallelly on two separate buildings! I can understand that it would be difficult to manage so many conferences being held together, but in such a huge Carleton University Campus you would think that they would have two rooms close-by. Perhaps Theology does not get preference! :)

I also had the opportunity to use the Carleton Library for the three days, and even got some helpful resources. It was interesting to see that Carleton was not as well-equipped as McGill. And yet, they had books that McGill didn’t have (and vice versa of course).

One the of the best parts of the Congress for me was that I could stay on campus. That saved me from commuting and even allowed me to attend early morning (8:30am) sessions.The Carleton campus was nice (though huge and quite spread out which took a long time to get from one place to another. This was especially difficult when you are (as I was) trying to make it to another seminar in another part of the campus.  Another good thing about the congress was the helpful support staff; they had an army of volunteers(?) who did an excellent job in keeping everyone informed. It was also a great opportunity to see a completely different university (in a completely different city – Ottawa), and the exposure, while brief, was also signficant.

The biggest regret from the Congress was that the ideal point of the Congress… to get the multiple disciplines rubbing shoulders with each other… was just too impractical. Each conference in the congress was too independently run. The campus was too far apart. And so you simply had to pick and choose where you want to go… and stay there.

But I do like the fact that I attended. There was a lot to do; never a dull moment even when no seminars were being held (art exhibitions, recreation facilities, food-courts). Plus, the Theology papers were… well… not that great.. but pretty ok… some more stimulating than others.  But in some sense, being in a Congress, with over 2-3 thousand participants has its effect (even if not maximised); and it did feel that I was participating in an international (though predominantly western) event. And that was great!

On May 7, 2009, I attended the Presbyterian College Convocation at the St. Andrews and St. Pauls church. While I wasn’t quite finished with my chapter by then (only editing was left), it still felt like a completion for me as well.

The graduation ceremony was not unlike SAIACS; though a little simpler perhaps, with fewer events. But there were three honorary doctoral degrees, that made the service similarly long.

On the whole, this too was formal, though there was a lot more visible celebration and joy, more that the formal SAIACS graduation. ie. there was waving and hellos while the students were marching in. Plus a few sectional standing ovations by the congregation for some students.

One thing that I did appreciate about the ceremony was that only the faculty who were involved in the service were in front (and that too at either side), while the remaining faculty and students were seated in the front rows, along with the audience. This is something I feel very strongly about and wish for SAIACS. How cool would it be if the SAIACS faculty joined the students, seated together!

However, I guess SAIACS has its own rationale for its ways. And perhaps one day I too will see it.

The sermon was about speaking in the storm… amidst affliction, like Paul. A good theme, but because it was the final item of the night, it came too late and I must admit that I wasn’t able to follow along all the way.

Finally, I enjoyed the evening for both seeing students like graduate as well as recognising the ending of my time here in Montreal. And I praise God for carrying so many of us students through significant portions of their academic and spiritual careers.

Last week, I finally finished my chapter one. And with it effectively my most important work in Montreal. It did take a few late nights and a lot of writing/re-writing. But it is over. I feel a little sense of regret since it is numerically only “one” chapter. However, the depth of the work displayed is clearly a result of my stay in Montreal. And I know my dissertation and even my future thinking on this topic has been strengthened by this exposure.

I will be doing a further reflection on this year gone bye, but this post is simply to exhale: that it is finally over.

Now all is left to do for this is to meet formally with my supervisor one last time and go through what needs to be done in future chapters, which will all be completed back in India.

It’s come to that time. When I’m racing against the clock. Trying to finish my work. So this week I have begun to spend late nights at the McGill library. Interestingly, the McGill library is open 24/7 (ie. round the clock, even on Sundays!). So I decided to spend a full night getting some much needed momentum to finish my chapter. This is the story of my first all-nighter attempt.

The whole day I spent working in what has become my favourite corner to study. It’s in the Mezannine floor, near the reference library. there are big tables to study, and that part of the library is a little cooler than other areas. With plenty of book space, and also room to move around (I love to walk and read), it’s ideal for my needs. The only problem is that when I need to take a break… or even go for lunch, it’s a risk to leave my computer and books behind because it is a pretty public area and things could get flicked. So I find myself having to leave some of my stuff on the computer, hoping that I won’t be displaced. Anyway… it still is a good place to study.

So, I began work at about 1:30am (after lunch) and pretty much parked myself in the study area. By evening time, i went for dinner in the McGill cafeteria, which is incidentally ALSO open 24/7… it’s a little expensive, and the food options are not that great for the price, but still, it’s a time saver! (better than leaving the campus to find a place to eat downtown).  So I had a pizza and coke. And head back to the library.

I made quite good progress, but I was trying to pace myself… and not exert myself too much, considering I was planning to spend all night. I had already started feeling tired… my back was really hurting… so with the library emptying out a little more… I spent some time reading on the floor, lying on my back. It’s interesting that you can do that here, without looking too odd! (or so I think!) :)

Next, at around 9:30pm, I heard a public announcement through speakers that I didn’t even know existed, that the library services are closing. So no more checking out after 9:45pm. Interesting… that the services were being provided till so late.

But I didn’t need to check out anything (I cart a heavy load of books back and forth from my apartment).And so I continued working.

Then, at about 1:00am… there was a siren kind of sound, and with people packing up, I assumed it was a sign for something. I asked one of the guards patrolling, what’s up? And he told me that we have to shift to the study area on the other side of the building of the Redpath library. (I was at the McLennan library side). It is a more secure location, with plenty of study place, and yet no access to the library books etc.  There’s a study area called the “Fish bowl”, which has small tables, like carols, for each student, but somehow I haven’t enjoyed studying there. it’s feels cramped. There is a computer lab, which is accessible to students. And below, where the cafeteria is, is the “Cybertheque.”

The Cybertheque is where I chose to study. It’s modern looking study area, with computers, large tables, glass (sound-proof?) cubicles for those who want to do group-study, and also place for low and sofa seating for those who like to sit on the floor or close to it. It was a little warm (too warm), but I liked the space I found. After a snack in the cafeteria, a doughnut with coffee (I don’t usually drink coffee), I got straight back to work.

At around 2:00am, I had finished an important part of a section I was writing, but there was another part to go, to finish my goals for the night.

At 2:30am… as I was reading (the photo is of the article that I was reading), a guard came with a sign-up sheet, asking me to write my name and McGill id. Since I’m a Presbyterian College student (thus, by association a McGill student), I don’t have a McGill id. The guard nicely told me that only students with McGill ids can work late. I didn’t protest too much, and packed up my stuff and left.

However, I had the chance to quickly check which buses are available through googlemaps, what an amazingly helpful website! And found two buses that could get me home in about 50 minutes. I did have to walk a bit, but the fact that I got the buses to get me home was great.

I reached home, glad for the work I accomplished, but also feeling a little incomplete… since I wasn’t able to finish my night goals.

But now, knowing that the library is basically closed for me at 1:00am, I will be a little more realistic on what I can/should attempt to complete each day.

Sadly, I still have a long way to go before I finish everything. Time, time, whereforth art thou, my time!

So the lasts have well and truly begun. Today was the last Presbyterian College chapel of this semester, and obviously for me as well. It was like a baccalaureate service, with the ‘graduating’ class given the opportunity to do the entire service. The graduating students led the prayer, hymns, bible reading, and two even shared a mini-sermon on the Presbyterian College motto. Then the principal, Dr. John Vissers, gave the ‘charge’ (a longer, call to persevere in the face of challenges in ministry, sermon).

The service was ok, pretty typical, and I did feel that having SAIACS graduating students do something similar may be a good idea. However, in the end, it was the after chapel programme that seemed ‘more’ meaningful.

The lunch ritual was followed by an opportunity for the non-graduating students and the faculty to say something for the graduating class. It was a little formal, initially, where the student council outgoing president and incoming present (both non-graduating) said a few words about the class and gave them a message.

After that, Principal Vissers lightened the mood with a funny projection of the students in 25 years. Then, the Director of Pastoral studies, Dr. Dale Woods did a powerpoint presentation featuring funny pictures of the graduating class, and also making fun of their earlier-stated views of ministry.

But the key point was that with the crescendo of humour, the mood suddenly changed (during the powerpoint) with a change in music. With worship music in the background, the laughter died down, replaced by a quiet nostalgia. You could feel the emotion run high in the group. The fun-laughter only helped bring out the true feelings of sadness at this “last”. Even I, who only was here for a year, could feel it.

In a way, that was a lesson in “presentation”… how to tweak an event to get the right “effect”. But at the same time, it was also a reminder that Presbyterian College is not unlike SAIACS; or probably other places we come to call home. The people we come to know, eventually (usually), become the ones we love, and when they leave, they become the ones we will miss.

(perhaps this is just a contextual reminiscence in light of SAIACS’ own graduation few days ago, but I guess it feels nice to feel this kind of connection even in a foreign land).

There’s just not enough time. Certainly not enough time to regularly update this journalic space at least. Currently I am busy trying to write my chapter two, and I’m well and truly in the “midst” of it, but not far enough to see the end of the tunnel. In effect I am harrowed, confused and rushed. My goal is to finish my chapter two by the end of this month, but there is so much to be done till then that I can’t even say at the moment whether it is a realistic goal or not. Needless to say, there’s not much time to write my reflections on my own academic journey in this blog. At least not yet.

But I need to give a quick update: even if it is to collect my thoughts.

1. I presented a paper in the McGill Graduate Student conference few weeks ago. The title of my paper was: “Ritual is not religion: Exploring Balagangadhara’s proposal for understanding the ‘east’” The presentation went quite well. It was a relief that I didn’t have to submit a paper in advance (so I was editing my presentation) during the conference!!! It was interesting that I got a similar reaction as the one I got in SAIACS… people not willing to abandon strongly-held beliefs about ‘religion’ (and ritual). But still it was a good experience.

2. I also attended a Theological Studies Graduate Students Conference at Concordia. (Partly because my Concordia classmates were presenting or organising it). The theme was “Theology outside the classroom”. And it was quite interesting, actually. More than I expected. No time to point to what exactly was interesting… but the paper themes included “The Green Bible”, “Sensory Services in the Emerging churches”, “Personhood and Disability”… and so on.

3. My final class on the “Method of Theology” using Lonergan, at Concordia University, is next week, Monday. Along with final presentations, there is also a pot-luck dinner. Hmm, somethings don’t change, regardless of culture!

4. I had a formal meeting with Dr. John Vissers, principal of The Presbyerian College, where we discussed many issues including those related to my dissertation. It was really nice talking with a “theologian”, and also nice being challenged and appreciated. I will be meeting with him again next week. Looking forward to it.

5. I am also slated to meet Professor Kirby, the Church Historian at McGill university. Prof. Kirby has extensive knowledge on early church history, especially Augustine, and some of his thoughts may be helpful for my work. It’s so great that he was willing to spend some time with me (subnote: the faculty here, really seem willing to talk. And though you have to book an appointment in advance, and sometimes weeks in advance, they are still quite willing to help students. Really good).

6. I also attended my last Doktorklub at McGill. It was on the 19th century debate in English theologians/philosphers between historicity and doctrine. Some good ideas shared.

7. The second-last chapel in The Presbyterian College, was on “Thou shall not steal” focusing on a broadening of the category of stealing to include deception etc. Thus, advertisers and tele-marketters, were included in the warning.

8. I’m in the process of booking tickets to return to India. But it’s quite complicating choosing an airline, considering that not all airlines accept the luggage size that we have. One airlines is even refusing to carry our size onto the plane! So hopefully that will get sorted out soon. Don’t need this distraction.

9. Also, winter has ended. But spring has not begun. So it’s cold and rainy. What kind of weather is that wintspring? At least now I know what it is like to live in England!

…

And so that’s it for now. Back to work.

There is a saying in Hindi, “Jab upar walah deta hai toh chapad phad ke deta hai” (roughly translated as, when God gives, he gives BIG! in both a blessed AND over-powering sense) And so in that context I really feel I have a little more than I can handle on my plate.

For those who have been following this space know that I am rushing against time to finish my chapter two (I submitted my chapter one to my supervisor yesterday, yeah!). Yet I have also to present a paper for a conference at McGill this weekend. It is a Graduate Student Conference, bringing many of the Canadian (and US?) university Graduate students together to present on a pre-determined theme. Details: http://rsgs.mcgill.ca/gradconference/about_2009.htm#schedule

The problem is that while what I am presenting is roughly within my research area… it is ONLY roughly within my research area. Which means I have to do some extra reading to come to speed with the topic. I still feel that I can finish the paper in a few days, because I have already done a lot of related research, but it sure feels like a pain to do somtehing “extra” when I am struggling to do my basic dissertation work.

But, the fact that my paper was selected among many applicants, and I am now one of 40! graduate students presenting… yes this conference is big… I know this can also be both a privilege and a learning experience (to be critiqued by fellow graduate students and also professors in the field of religious studies).

My paper is on the meaning of ritual, which I adapted from my dissertation study which is on the meaning of religion. And I am currently getting my grips on the research done on ‘ritual’. Not an easy task.

Nevertheless, the paper beckons and I feel I may have bitten more than I can chew (in terms of time). My only defense (for taking this on) is that I presented my proposal many months ago… not knowing what my personal academic situation would be like. Now I’m inundated in every sense. And my name, along with my article title and abstract, is already on the program. Perhaps there is a spiritual irony here somewhere.

So now I am forced to rely more on God’s grace. And hope to do a good paper. And then make up for lost time to work extra hard to complete my chapter two.

One positive thing I can take from this (at the moment, apart from the obvious “this exposure will be good for you” retort) is that I am already getting some more good ideas for my chapter two (as if I didn’t have enough already!).

Well… anyway… back to work, back to work.