Pictures: “Sculptors in Ancient Rome - Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema 1877"
“Still Life with Grape Juice and Sandwiches (Xenia) - David Ligare 1994”
Passage: Exodus 32
Today, Conrad and Catrina finally came to Sunday school, along with Charlie and Fern. Both Donny and Obi were not here today which changed the dynamic. I moved all the chairs closer together and closer to the TV screen. This was a good choice as it focused the group and made the art more easily visible. I had Conrad and Catrina fill out the initial survey so that I could gather even more data for the start of the year.
Our first discussion went really well. Charlie gave me the feedback that the time spent looking at the artwork before discussing it was a waste of time because nobody pays that much attention and most of the details shared during the discussions are noticed in the moment. I explained that taking the time to really look at the piece was an important part of the process.
Conrad’s first comment when I asked what was going on in the picture was a goofy one. “They aren’t giving him nostrils.” This threw me for a loop as it was not a linear thought and was hard to summarize. I fell back on “What makes you say that,” and was able to draw from his answer the underlying assumption that we were looking at people carving a face. His observation that the face’s nose did not seem to have nostrils led to Charlie’s observation that the sculpture was not necessarily finished. Catrina noted that there were no pupils either. Charlie then pondered aloud if marble statues usually had pupils or not, “I feel like the really old ones didn’t but then things like David did.” I restated these reflections but also asked what made him say that it was a marble statue. While I was summarizing Charlie’s comment, Catrina googled some images of statues and noted that they didn’t seem to have pupils. Charlie’s answer to why it was marble: “White!” Then, elaborating, he also noted that the use of chisels implied it was hard stone and not sand.
Conrad’s next comment was that there were more than one chisel. He stood up and pointed to a pouch of extra tools hanging from the scaffolding. I broke slightly from the standard response and asked why the chisels might be there. Conrad quickly answered that the sculptors “sucked” and might break their tools. Charlie objected, pointing out that there might be more than three sculptors and these tools might be for them. I summarized both ideas and posed them as two possibilities - extras for when these tools wear out, or extras for when more workers come.
The focus then shifted to the background where Charlie noticed that they seemed to be in an enclosed space with a gap where the distant background could be seen. He also noted that light on the foreground implied the enclosure was not on every side.
They commented on the sculpture’s apparent neck beard, which I struggled to summarize, unsure of the best words to use “hair, fuzz, fur.” As I was stumbling over my words, Chalire suggested it might just be uncarved stone. As we were considering this, Conrad stood up again and said “you can see a bit of grass behind this man’s buttocks,” pointing to another gap in the background enclosure which indeed seemed to depict a grassy shore. “Ok, Conrad’s noticing behind the figure on the left, another gap that seems to be grass…” “Yeah, behind the man’s buttocks.” “Behind the man…” “Say buttocks!” The struggle here was that the man’s rear was in no way visible. It was not a matter of Conrad noticing a detail so much as contriving one to get attention. Still, in the spirit of open ended analysis, I said, “Condrad is noticing that this man has a rear end and that behind it is grass.” This satisfied the boy and we continued.
Other details that came up in our discussion was the fact that they were standing on scaffolding and therefore likely working up above the ground. Charlie pointed out that one of the men was not wearing a shirt. “That guy isn’t either,” said Conrad. Charlie argued that the other man couldn’t really be seen so we don’t know. “The third guy definitely does have a shirt though.”
Finally, as I prepared to wrap up the conversation, Charlie interjected “There’s rope.” When prompted, he noted also that it was holding the scaffolding together. At this point, I thanked everyone for participating and moved on to the next picture.
I should note a surprising exchange that occurred halfway through this conversation. Conrad was often making unrelated comments throughout the whole time. Most of these I have not reported as they had literally nothing to do with our class. At one point, however, he said “I noticed that what’s-his-face has a neckbeard.” He didn’t know my name. I have been teaching this kid for over a year and known him even longer so this was a surprise that derailed the whole discussion. I was shocked and we took a moment to go through everyone’s names to be sure we all knew each other. I introduced myself specifically and gave him a few ways to remember me. Then we moved on.
This was a different sort of image because it was a still life. There seemed to be practically no ambiguity and students seemed more confident to speak up. As it was, ambiguity emerged and potential debate which challenged my abilities as a moderator.
Conrad again began with a less serious comment, “The bread looks drunk.” Thankfully, I have learned to take even silly comments seriously and I asked him why he said that “The bread is leaning over.” Indeed, the stack of bread was stacked in a crooked way which I hadn’t even paid attention to. Charlie then said, “the bread and the wine is Jesus,” clearly referring to communion but with a vagueness that forced me to be more careful as I summarized. In this moment of pause, however, Conrad interrupted with, “that’s not wine, why on Earth would you put wine in a pitcher?” Charlie then shot back that you could put wine in a pitcher, which again Conrad denied. “In ancient times before they had bottles they had to put wine in something, and if they were going to serve it they might have used pitchers.” The conversation shifted into a bit of a debate. “They still wouldn’t have used pitchers.” “Bottles weren’t invented yet, what did they use?” “Wooden bottles.” At this point I stopped the debate and summarized both points again, “Conrad is pointing out that most of the time wine is kept in bottles and so we can’t be sure this is wine. Charlie has pointed out that there are some contexts in which wine might be kept in a pitcher so we can’t be sure it isn’t.” I had to make a conscious effort to not point out that the modern sliced bread meant this was not meant to be some ancient pitcher or scene. I think the debate was good, they remained friendly in their discussion. The only issue was the way it undermined my control as a moderator. Shooting points back and forth the goal of their discourse was to defend their view. I am glad that I never had to reveal the title and thus prove Conrad right. From a Sunday school perspective, it was a little disappointing that we didn’t get to explore the idea of the Eucarist a little more.
As this exchange was dying down, Catrina said “Sunset.” The boys were content to keep talking so I had to intentionally stop everything to focus on her point. It felt a little forced but I’m glad I did. “Catrina, you say sunset, what makes you say that?” Cautiously, “The lighting.” Charlie: “side lighting.” “Ok, so Catrina is noticing the light seems to be coming from the side, and a sunset would cast light from this angle.”
This was, I think, the trickiest conversation we’ve done so far because the kids seemed so comfortable and impatient to be heard. It is also the first conversation we’ve had where I really feel I’ve lost information by not having the recording. I remember for certain that Charlie kept trying to get us to focus on the water in the background. Throughout some of the subsequent observations from others, he was simply saying “water” which was a little less of an observation then I would have liked. When I finally got to give him direct attention and asked what he meant he just said “Water.” As a result I found myself putting words in his mouth: “In the background there seems to be a body of water, yes?”
He also noted the box but again, struggled to articulate much more than “box.” When I asked him why he said that he made motions to indicate the three visible walls. “Ok, Charlie is noticing the three solid surfaces and comparing them to a box.” “Maybe,” said Charlie, “We’re the third wall.”
Conrad noted the towel beneath the objects. Charlie and Catarina both noted the strong shadow cast by the pitcher. In my summaries, I began calling the grape juice “the liquid” so as to not confirm either of their views. spent time looking at the color of the sky. “Sunset colors,” and Charlie noticed green in the sunset gradient. The last observation of this conversation was Conrad noting that the juice had bubbles in it. I thanked them for participating and we switched over to scripture.
My plan is to go through the ten commandments but not tell the kids this pattern. The story each week is connected to a commandment and today was “You shall not make for yourself an idol.” I knew I wanted to cover Aaron’s Golden Calf but listening to it last night I was struck by how violent and extreme the story is. Especially because I know Conrad (a) has a father who works against his mother and her attempts to raise him Christian and (b) has a personality that often fixates on things that are violent and inappropriate. Moses’ response is to execute everyone who bowed to the idol and orders the Levites to go through in a mass extermination. My plan had been to play only the first part in which Moses intercedes for the people and asks God not to wipe out everyone.
As we were listening, however, it struck me that my goal with this experience is to engage the students with an open-ended examination of what the Bible actually says. To cut it short is to censor the parts we don’t like, instead of talking about them and understanding them. We listened to the whole chapter.
Of course, when I asked “what happened in this passage?” Conrad spoke up immediately. “They did what God told them.” “Who did what, what did God tell them to do?” “Genocide.”
Here I wasted some time, “Well, at least a mass homicide, mass execution. Genocide is against a specific people group.” This led to a tangential discussion of the meaning of genocide and I regret it because it changes nothing about the facts (save our extreme unacceptance of genocide, which honestly should be no different than any other mass murdering).
What else happened in the passage? Charlie was hesitant to answer because he has had so much church experience he felt he would spoil it. I finally had him just share - “They had to drink gold.” I had him explain Moses’ other punishment of the people: drinking the dust of the smashed statue. Then I asked a leading question: what other punishment did the people face?
Today I feel confirmed in last week’s feeling that the best growth is going to happen if I direct the conversation as it goes. Whereas pure VTS would leave them to observe only what they can find on their own, audial observation works a little differently. The most they can do is summarize and highlight details. My job is to show them how we can connect these observations, working as much as I can with only the information they highlight. Genocide is Conrad’s word for indiscriminate killing and I ought to have accepted this. Even so, I think it is a good choice to not leave him there but help him understand the context.
Our discussion shifted to pondering God’s mercy and God’s severity. Moses interceded for the people and God changed his mind and didn’t kill them all. But then Moses chose to execute the idol worshipers - 3,000 people. This led to a proud moment as Charlie looked up the population of the camp: 600,000. He then did the math to determine that 3,000 is only 0.5% of the population. At my suggestion, he then looked up the global level of covid deaths and discovered that it can be estimated at about 1% of the global population (which is way higher than I would have thought). Compared to God’s initial threatening desire to wipe out the whole camp, this was much mercy.
We discussed what it meant for Moses to intercede and wondered at the fact that God is said to have changed His mind. Would God have neglected His promises if Moses hadn’t reminded Him? In what ways is Jesus like Moses, interceding for us?
My aspiration was to not just choose easy stories and today’s lesson certainly did the trick. It made me want to force it into a box of the Gospel. This is how seriously God takes sin, this is what we deserve, this is why we need a righteous intercessor. Today, however, with this model, I was forced to not just carelessly wield the story but see it as terrible through the eyes of an outsider. It is not inherently a fun story and we literally need Christ to redeem it for us.
It is my hope and my prayer that the relationships formed in these classes will prove the truth of this power in the lives of these students.