The highlight of the day was meeting Tina at the bus stop and having a friend to ride into MHS. It was nice to have a distraction from the pending “mock defense”–really called a “midway evaluation” with two faculty respondents.
I arrived early to make sure my Powerpoint presentation was all set up and ready to go.
There were about a dozen present, mostly PhD students. The presentation went smoothly, and my editing down from a 30-minute presentation to a 15-minute presentation seemed to keep the important aspects without slighting the overall message.

From my perspective, the respondents were a bit harsh. Both ended up to be traditional Western scholars who don’t have much–if any–engagement with inter-disciplinary projects. I was given bits of time for clarification with the first respondent, and the second respondent used his time to ask some questions, so there was a bit more dialogue.
I took notes as they went along, partly to carefully reflect on what they said, and partly to prompt my clarifications.
Tina said that I did a great job in the dialogue and gave strong responses. It didn’t feel like it, because I soon was able to think through what I would have wanted to say. But I remained gracious, which is important, and pointed out a couple places where a clarification would help them better understand a different perspective.
Fortunately, Knut was able to meet with me immediately after the evaluation. His first question was, “Do you think they understood your project?” I replied that I don’t think they have ever read an African theologian, much less a multi-disciplinary project, so I’m not sure they know how to process my project except from a traditional exegetical project perspective.
There was an effort to have a second respondent be someone who had engaged African theologians and qualitative research for an Old Testament PhD and post-doc research. Unfortunately, she was too busy.
So, Knut helped to filter what was valid for my project. There are things to heed, glean, and adapt for my dissertation, but unfortunately it was lopsided on the traditional exegesis. There was no constructive criticism on the qualitative research methods and related content.
The encouraging word from Knut is that he clarified that this was an interdisciplinary project that those in the mainstream of biblical scholarship would see as being on the margins. But then he said, “But it is the right margin.” And then added that he wondered what is the distinction between being on the margin and being on a leading edge of research? Indeed, with the majority of Christians being in the southern hemisphere, we need to find way to build bridges of understanding integrating both the Western exegetical methods and majority world voices. I have a great future ahead of me; it is just unfortunate to be critiqued by two traditionalists.
The good news is that for the PhD defense, there will be respondents (they call them opponents then!) who will understand intercultural and multi-disciplinary research.
The afternoon was watching another PhD student go through his midway evaluation. His is a missiology project and his two respondents seemed less harsh from my perspective, but they work with similar projects and understand the the methodology.
The late afternoon was a Maasai Research Group session to reflect on last week’s seminar.
I took the bus home and found Anya eating cheese and crackers. She has just returned from a day at an amusement park. Her class had won a race (when she was sick), but the whole class got to go for the day. She had decadent fair food and developed a slight sunburn on her face.
I escaped by watching The Matrix Reloaded to distract my brain from the day.

Ok, so if I had the ability to play a movie character, I think it would be awesome to play Trinity (but not the bedroom scene!) or Yu Shu Lien, the woman in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Surprised? What movie character would you want to play!?!
With blessings,
Beth



























