And to thine own self be true: ideological tensions of Orthodox Bible teachers in pluralistic schools

ABSTRACT

This phenomenological study looks at the ideological dilemmas that religiously Orthodox Jewish Bible teachers face when teaching in a pluralistic environment, where the majority of students would identify with a non-religious or secular worldview, in its varied manifestations. The study used a theoretical framework of ideological dilemmas, combined with pedagogical hermeneutic orientations, to understand the lived experience of these teachers and to identify the specific tensions that they encounter in classroom interactions. Ten teachers of diverse Orthodox affiliations participated in semi structured interviews to uncover their lived experience of the pluralistic school milieu, their students’ beliefs. Their pedagogical decisions in interpretation of Biblical texts and their hermeneutical approaches, were used as a vehicle for understanding these experiences. Two areas of tension emerged: 1. remaining authentic to their own beliefs while being sensitive to those of their students, and 2. the tension between the value they placed on pluralism from a pedagogical standpoint, while resisting this worldview on a personal level.

Plain Language Summary

This study looks at the experiences of Jewish day school teachers who teach Bible in Jewish community day schools where the majority of students do not share their religious beliefs. Although many school subjects can be thought of as belief based, the study of the Bible is especially sensitive, as it is the foundation of the Jewish religion. Today, with increased tension in American society around differences of belief, many educators find themselves unsure of how to navigate ideological issues in the classroom. This study highlights the tension for a specific population, Orthodox Jews, who are often called upon to teach in religiously ‘mismatched’ schools because of their knowledge of the Bible; the study of which is an important part of their religious practice. For their students, however, Bible study may simply be an intellectual, historical, cultural, or possibly irrelevant, learning experience. Teachers were interviewed to identify the challenges that they encounter, and two of the tensions that these teachers experienced are described here. First, the teachers wanted to find a way to stay true to their beliefs and teach what they felt was authentic Bible and Judaism, while remaining sensitive to students’ beliefs, worrying that offending students would be counterproductive to their vision and overarching goals as educators of Judaism. Second, many of the teachers expressed a belief in the value of education from a standpoint of multiple truths, and guiding rather than deciding, but when it came to their personal beliefs, retained the notion of one absolute truth.

KEYWORDS:

• religious education
• teacher research
• teacher beliefs
• professional development

Introduction

In an increasingly polarised world, those with strictly held religious beliefs face ideological challenges, especially when interacting with those outside of their religious communities. This study looks at one such population, Orthodox Jewish Bible teachers, who work in the pluralistic community school milieu. Teacher shortages and teacher retention continue to be universally pressing issues, resulting in ideologically unaligned religious educators being hired because of a need for subject matter experts. Ideological challenges can be exacerbated when the teachers themselves are not made aware of this hiring phenomenon (Friedman 2023). As recent studies on Jewish educators (CASJE 2021), have documented the need to understand teachers’ experiences, to better support them and allow them to succeed, this paper set out to describe tensions and ideological challenges that these religious teachers face in more liberal settings.

Orthodox beliefs and Bible education

This research focuses on the Jewish teacher population identified as ‘Orthodox’, and their ideologies and beliefs, especially as they relate to education and Bible study. While Orthodox Jews for the most part attend ‘clearly defined Orthodox schools’ (Gillis 2014), Schick (2014) identifies six Orthodox groups, with each further divided into subgroups, and represented by their own schools. Differentiation is largely related to the role of women, and the value placed on secular knowledge. A common denominator amongst all Orthodox subgroups, is the (at least outwardly held) belief that God transmitted the Biblical text to Moses (Nishma 2017) which renders each word divine and laden with meaning (Blumenthal 2014). Additionally, to the Orthodox Jew, ‘the study of religious texts itself is considered the quintessential religious act’ (Iluz and Rich 2009, 43) and a common appellation for Bible study is ‘holy’ or ‘sacred’ studies. This impacts text study, since ‘every word is sacred, an extra word matters and is a reason to look more closely at the text to understand a deeper point …and [to] engage with the text in uniquely religious ways’ (Krakowski and Block 2019, 17). These beliefs inform worldviews of Judaism and Jewish education (Krakowski 2008) and lead Orthodox educators to view their roles as a mission to instil faith, especially in non-religious students (Shkedi and Horenczyk 1995).

Jewish pluralism and pluralistic education

While the Orthodox tend to sub-differentiate (Tavory 2016) based on religious and cultural nuances of belief and observance, the broader Jewish community sees the divide as between ‘the Orthodox and everyone else’ (Wertheimer 2018, 67). Although there are multiple denominations outside Orthodoxy, the non-Orthodox Jew is generally more liberal, and likely to identify as culturally, rather than religiously, Jewish (Pew 2021).

Unlike Orthodox schools that represent the specific beliefs of their individual communities, community day schools embrace all types of Jewish denominations and often identify as pluralistic. Pluralism in Jewish education can be defined as ‘cognisant of the differences among members but [able] to perceive equal value in a multiplicity of positions’ (Hartman 2007, 25). Pluralistic schools ideally embrace diversity through dialogue, the seeking of understanding across lines of difference, and ‘the encounter of commitments’ (Eck 2006). Individual Jewish schools, however, may be pluralistic only in that they represent ‘the reality of diverse Judaic beliefs and practices among members of the school community’ (Kress 2016, 294).

With regard to the study of the Biblical text itself, non-Orthodox streams of Judaism are more likely to hold the belief that ‘the Torah [Jewish Bible] contains many materials from widely different time periods and places’ (Dorff 2004, 1) and are more open to different interpretations of its origin. This results in varied options for Bible study, including source criticism, and acknowledgement of multiple written documents; form and tradition-historical criticism, which considers an oral origin and transmission of biblical tradition; or various holistic approaches, which focus on literary artistry or intent (Nahkola 2011). While traditional Bible study may include pointing out the inherent pluralism in Jewish rabbinic texts, Sacks (1993), argues that Orthodox Judaism cannot accept a pluralism which includes non- and anti-Orthodox commitments as equally valid, rendering the varied options available in the non-Orthodox tradition incommensurable with the mainstream Orthodoxy’s religiously binding, ‘sacred studies’ approach to Bible study.

Applying hermeneutics and pedagogic hermeneutic orientations

Because teaching texts in a classroom ‘is an interpretive activity’ (Galili-Schachter 2011, 216), the constant pedagogical choices, including questions asked, or the focus on specific words, are hermeneutical decisions that have educational implications. In a study of 12 teachers of Jewish thought in Israeli high schools, Galili-Schachter (2011) describes teachers’ beliefs about interpretation of text as ‘hermeneutic pedagogical orientations’, and applies hermeneutical theories to a teacher’s judgements in a practical educational context. As teachers and students interact over text, each brings their ‘own knowledge and set of preconceived notions, prior assumptions, and educational goals’ (Galili-Schachter 2011, 218). Galili – Schachter identifies five pedagogic hermeneutic orientations or PHOs that are consistent across three separate categories of teacher decisions [see Appendix]: 1. Reading and interpreting text 2. The role of the teacher in the process of interpreting and teaching text 3. The role of the student in the process of interpreting and learning text.

Ideological dilemmas as a theoretical framework

Belief tensions were located using Billig et al. (1988) theoretical framework of ideological dilemmas, understood as internal conflict, contradiction, and inconsistency of thought, and not as a struggle between two choices as its common usage implies (Goodman 2016). What Billig et al. (1988) refer to as ‘lived ideology’, or common sense within a society, ‘describe[s] the social patterning of everyday thinking’ (28). This is different from a society or group’s ‘intellectual ideology’ which is a system of ‘thinking and… a product of intellectuals or professional thinkers’ (27). An individual or group can maintain both a belief and its opposite simultaneously, thus creating ideological dilemmas within an intellectual ideology, within a lived ideology, or between the two. Ideological dilemmas are not perceived as negative; on the contrary, they give rise to the thinking process, which is closely related to argumentation, and are thus the way human beings make sense of, and ‘deliberate about their lives’ (18).

Pedagogical dilemmas

While ‘social beings are confronted by … dilemmatic situations as a condition of their humanity’ (Billig et al. 1988, 163), Sarid (2021) posits that ‘education is necessarily defined by an internal tension between competing core values’ (2) and is ‘the very meaning of education’ (3).

Dilemmas in pedagogical beliefs can occur around knowledge and skills transmission, with inconsistencies between educational theory and practice. While ‘education is an induction of pupils into culture … [it is also] a forum within which shared meanings are defined and negotiated’ (Billig et al. 1988, 63).When there are religious and cultural differences, dilemmas can exist between personal, pedagogical, and institutional ideologies, creating additional tension for those who are outsiders to the school milieu (Friedman 2023).

Pedagogical dilemmas and Jewish values

Prior research in Jewish education looked at the ways Jewish day school teachers navigate ideological and belief-based discussions (Dorph 2010; Nisan and Shkedi 2006; Shkedi and Horenczyk 1995). Rosenak’s (1986) description of the tension between authenticity and relevance remains at the forefront of Bible teaching and learning and is an example of a pedagogical dilemma still lived in Jewish day school settings. The translation of Jewish concepts in a way that learners in a particular milieu would be able to relate to them (relevance), without distorting the true meaning of these texts (authenticity) continues to be a challenge for Jewish educators, because ‘faith assumptions [are] not part of the lives of most modern Jews’ (Rosenak 1986, 76). In Israel, where Bible is mandatory for all, regardless of identity or beliefs, teachers struggle to find ways to make the Bible relevant, for example, by translating Biblical discussions into contemporary issues (Eliyahu-Levi and Semo 2023), engaging with students in discussions that are deeply personal (Deitcher 2019), and identifying pedagogies that appeal to students across the generation gap (Katz and Katzin 2020). Others have recognised the complexity of balancing competing pedagogical values, such as student driven interpretation and intellectual discovery with teaching ancient tradition and interpretation (Hassenfeld 2017; Holtz 2003).

This research addresses the ways Orthodox teachers, who themselves are committed to the authority of the Bible, navigate these and other ideological dilemmas that arise in interactions with their more secular students. The current study adds another layer of what must be negotiated when the teachers and students are separated, not only by generation and interests, but also by personal religious beliefs and values.

Methodology

This study used an interpretative or hermeneutical phenomenology, which allows the researcher to look for themes, and form their own understanding of what is meaningful in the participants’ lived experiences (Creswell 2012; Duckham and Schreiber 2016).

Sampling

A snowball sampling method (Creswell 2014) was used to identify ten teachers from four different schools in the United States and Canada for the first phase of the research, that is reported here. Participating teachers were located through the researcher’s professional connections and networks, and later through referrals from participants. This research was approved by the Ethics Committee of The Seymour Fox School of Education, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, approval number 20,191,012. Participants signed consent forms that explained the study and how their anonymity and privacy would be protected.

All participants identified religiously as along the Orthodox spectrum, remained fairly static in their religious beliefs, received an Orthodox education, and were Bible teachers at pluralistic community schools for at least four years. This allowed them enough time to develop a deep understanding of the school’s culture and mission and to grapple with ideological issues. They all had prior or concurrent teaching experience in Orthodox schools, which was not a criterion, but allowed a baseline for comparison of their experiences. Only secondary school teachers were included, as the assumption was that more mature students could better articulate, and thus challenge, ideological issues. The small sample size of ten teachers, and the North American context, meant that findings cannot be considered generalisable. However, they do present a rich description of the experience of the participants that has both theoretical and practical implications for the field.

Data collection and analysis

Semi-structured interviews of approximately one hour were audio recorded and later transcribed, and reflective memos were written immediately after each interview. Significant statements that provided an understanding of how participants experienced the phenomenon were highlighted and clustered into meaning units from which themes were developed. These themes were then used to describe the ways that participants experienced the phenomenon under investigation (Creswell 2012). Systematic procedures that moved from looking at narrow units such as significant statements to broader meaning units were employed, and resulted in thick descriptions that summarised the essence of the experience for the participating individuals.

Study description

A triangulated approach was used to identify the specific hermeneutic challenges for Orthodox educators, and to map out the inconsistencies, or ideological dilemmas, that they faced in the pluralistic milieu. They were asked to discuss:

1. Their own understandings of pluralism, their school’s pluralistic mission, and pluralistic approaches to teaching Bible.

2. An ideologically challenging medieval commentary on a Biblical text, both their personal understanding and interpretation, and how they would present it to their students.

3. The role of the teacher, the student, and the text that they considered most aligned with their teaching philosophy, from a list of statements adapted from Galilee-Schachter’s (2011) pedagogical hermeneutic orientations (PHO).

Findings

Two areas of pedagogical tension emerged from the study; first, the value placed on presenting an authentic Judaism and Biblical interpretation, while remaining sensitive to students’ beliefs. And second, the participants’ valuing of pluralistic pedagogies, inconsistent with their personal rejection of a pluralistic worldview.

The tension between ‘authentic Judaism’ and sensitivity to students

All participants subscribed to the belief that Orthodox Judaism is synonymous with authentic Judaism, rejecting the possibility of multiple truths, except as multiple perspectives within the parameters of Orthodoxy.

Searching for an inoffensive version of the ‘truth’

Participants felt familiar with their students’ social context, and therefore grappled with presenting an ‘uncompromising’, ‘authentic’, and ‘true Judaism’ without offending, or ‘coming across as archaic’. Similar to other Jewish educators, these teachers valued both authenticity and relevance (Rosenak 1986), wanting their students to know how the Bible ‘addresses fundamental existential issues … relevant to their personal lives’ and ‘not as a history book but as a guide to their lives’.

Additional ideological tension was observed for this population of educators in balancing authenticity and relevance with sensitivity to the cultural milieu of the school. Worrying about teaching something that students might find offensive was an example of an ideological dilemma or inconsistency, as many made broad statements about how uncompromising they are in teaching ‘truth’. For example, Meir¹ stated ‘I will not approach Judaism from any other direction other than strict Orthodoxy’, but later in the interview, when shown a classical medieval commentary that could be interpreted as invalidating students’ personal beliefs, became extremely agitated:

To me that’s like, that’s Aleph-Beis [Hebrew ABC’s], but the point is, why bring it up? I wouldn’t bring it up because it would be diminishing returns to fight it out. Because you’d have a lot of kids that would be put off, because it is so totally against their entire lifestyle. …. What’s the point? What are you gaining by bringing it up?

Nine of the teachers expressed awareness of this tension and articulated the ways they grappled with these complexities. Only one seemed unaware of the extent that his personal beliefs impacted his teaching of sensitive issues.

Two teachers concluded that it was impossible to present authentic Biblical truth without offending anyone. For Yaakov, if it came down to a choice, ‘truth’ would trump any other value: ‘We don’t compromise on our standards to make it more appealing. Our standards are our standards’. His reasoning for this is straightforward:

I personally don’t shy away from difficult things to discuss…. because I strongly believe that the Torah [Jewish Bible] came from Hashem [God], there’s really nothing to hide…. I can say it as sensitively as possible, [but] I will still offend somebody.

While Yaakov acknowledged some regret for his inevitable offending of students, Tzvi intentionally provokes, describing his mission to ‘challenge some of the notions that they have about themselves and the way they live’. Tzvi describes the urgency of his mission:

I don’t have time to pussyfoot. I get them for 180 days a year. In those 180 days, I have to shove … I have to present them with some authentic sense of Judaism, okay? Not a compromised form, because they’re already living the compromised form

Five other teachers shared Meir’s approach, that ideologically difficult passages should be skipped or evaluated carefully for ways to cause minimal damage to the students’ cultural sensitivities. Some felt that controversial concepts were good openings for honest discussions with students. But fear of offending students generally won out, as Dov admits: ‘Yeah, there are definitely classes where I would want to say something a certain way and I haven’t said it that way because of a sensitivity towards [students]’. Skipping and ‘sugar coating’ the potentially offensive texts, were two strategies mentioned by teachers in their attempts to remain authentic, relevant, and sensitive.

Positive role models

Acting as positive role models, or the living but inoffensive embodiment of authentic Judaism, was a strategy described by participants. This was inconsistent with stated disinterest in their students becoming Orthodox or more religiously observant. As Yehuda explains ‘I do believe that if they have a positive interaction with someone that they identify as Orthodox, … that positive attitude towards Orthodoxy is, perhaps, my greatest contribution… Orthodoxy will not be something that would scare them’. Yehuda’s dilemmatic thinking is uncovered with his stated goal that his students develop a positive view of the Orthodox Jew, rather than simply a positive attitude towards Judaism.

Negative stereotypes of the Orthodox Jew, are cause for concern for Meir who worries about ‘the danger [that] they’re going to present a face of Orthodoxy that is very put-offish’. Rivka, similarly, feels that a large part of her mission is to ‘subvert stereotypes’. To her, the opportunity to be a role model is why she chose to work in an ideologically different school ‘Your interest is that you could present Orthodoxy in a positive way, in an educated way. … . there’s no question that that’s something that’s a strong motivation to being here’.

Learning the lingo

Another way that sensitivity manifested itself was through participants learning culturally sensitive language. While Orthodox Jews are generally less influenced by secular values, these teachers actively attained a working knowledge of the surrounding culture, a difficult undertaking: ‘it took a while to learn the lingo’. Participants also expressed a need to adapt their use of language to be inclusive and express a broader Jewish, rather than a religious, or Orthodox only, approach, but without actually embracing these cultural values. Teachers recognised the subjective nature of language and the need to speak the same cultural language as their students to be effective. As Miriam explains:

It’s a very tricky balance. We have to have tremendous respect for the students sitting in our classroom. I can say ‘as an Orthodox woman, this is what I believe, and everyone is entitled to their opinion’. When we talk about [Divine origin of the Bible] I use neutral language, like ‘the traditional perspective’, to make everyone feel comfortable.

These examples illustrate the ideological dilemmas and tension that this population of teachers experience when presenting their authentic Judaism with sensitivity in a pluralistic school setting.

The tension between pedagogical and personal belief

A second area of tension was the value that many participants placed on pluralistic pedagogies, while simultaneously rejecting a personal pluralistic worldview. As Orthodox Jews, they exhibited deeply held religious and personal connection to the Biblical texts. This did not, however, translate into their pedagogical approaches. Unsurprisingly, all participants described a personal orientation towards uncovering G-d’s intent, objective moral meaning, and truth in the Biblical text, aligned with Galili Schacter’s first and second pedagogical hermeneutical orientations. In their roles as educators, however, four participants strongly identified with Galili-Schachter’s fourth PHO, that meaning is created through dialogue, and the text and reader have their own voices, inconsistent with a religiously normative approach to Bible study.

Personal beliefs about pluralism

Teachers were asked to discuss their definitions of pluralism, as a personal value, within and between Jewish denominations, and between different religions. They were also asked to discuss their understanding of their institutions’ pluralistic vision.

Most understood pluralism broadly as ‘a context in which multiple approaches are seen as valid’. Their nuanced understandings of pluralism varied greatly, however, ranging from ‘you have the right to be wrong’, to the belief that pluralism is inherently flawed because something cannot be true and also untrue at the same time. Others outrightly rejected any denomination outside of Orthodox Judaism as ‘inauthentic Judaism’. Two teachers acknowledged that they did not have much knowledge of other denominations or how they evolved, but were still convinced that these others were ‘wrong’. Only one teacher ‘believe[d] in [pluralism]’ and expressed that this belief was strengthened after teaching in a pluralistic environment.

Although none of the teachers interviewed fully embraced pluralism, two did from a pedagogical standpoint, four were tolerant, using terms such as ‘accepting of everyone’ and being ‘nonjudgmental’, and only two could be classified as intolerant. One participant refused to be placed into any category, and considered himself ‘neutral’ in the classroom. This was the same participant who was unaware of the ways his personal beliefs impacted his teaching.

Reaping the benefit of the pluralistic values they do not accept

Another found ideological dilemma was in the participants’ expressed appreciation for the pluralistic school setting, especially opportunities for open discussion and critical thinking. Four teachers expressed that this feature was their primary motivation for working at the ideologically different school. As Rivka states ‘I like it better. I feel like it’s less ideologically restrictive…. I didn’t want to focus on, like, [religious observance] and all these kinds of things that I felt got in the way of the learning’. Dov appreciated the opportunity for open dialogue that the pluralistic school environment offered, comparing it to the Orthodox school he attended. ‘I felt the students were engaged. They were intelligent. They were critical thinkers. I came from a school, which was basically a fraternity. It was like, do anything you can to get out of class’.

Although Rivka enjoys the ideologically open environment, she falls short of fully embracing the value system.

I like pluralism, and I respect [it], but to say equal – I don’t even want to get into that question. Do I want to send my child to a pluralistic school? No, I don’t, because I think that there is a particular value and beauty in one way.

Dov also believes that a pluralistic approach is best, but only from a pedagogic perspective:

I certainly don’t believe it spiritually or religiously. Do I believe in it educationally? Yeah, I think on some levels I do. You have to if you’re going to try and engage different segments of the community. By default, if you kind of don’t acknowledge the right for a different set of beliefs to exist, then you’ve cut them off.

Aryeh echoes those sentiments: ‘Would those perspectives go against my beliefs? Sure, they would go against my beliefs, but they weren’t – did they go against my beliefs to teach them? No. I didn’t feel like that’. These teachers display dilemmatic thinking, in line with Billig et al. (1988) description of a dilemma of lived ideology, seeing the value of pluralism as educators, but unable to mesh them with their personal values and beliefs.

Use of non-Orthodox sources

The use of non-Orthodox or non-Jewish Bible commentaries was used as a measure of the teacher’s pedagogical pluralism. Three attitudes to the teaching of non-Orthodox sources emerged: unilaterally unwilling, conditionally willing, and unconditionally willing.

Unwilling

Only Meir was completely unwilling to teach any non-Orthodox or non-Jewish sources, displaying ideological consistency. He even refused to teach the work of an Orthodox commentator of the 20^th century who took a literary approach to text, because she embraces an evaluative process of medieval commentators that ‘she had no business doing. Rashi [medieval commentator] is Rashi, you don’t get to decide if he is wrong’. Meir felt strongly that anything other than a strictly normative approach to medieval commentaries was a waste of time, and was very vocal about his disapproval of modern methodologies and pedagogies as well, saying,

Teach them [Bible], teach them [Prophets], teach them something. Inside, what the [commentaries] say and what our tradition is. None of this [nonsense], with all the comparative this and the comparative that.

Conditionally willing

Four teachers expressed conditional attitudes towards teaching non-Orthodox sources on the Bible. These teachers believe in teaching the traditional commentaries, but alongside other, more contemporary, approaches. Shuki, while somewhat open to using ‘outside’ materials, believes that the student must be familiar with traditional commentaries, as well the methodologies for studying them.

One participant was willing to teach these sources only as a starting point to navigate the discussion towards his ‘authentic’ beliefs, and another expressed that he would ‘point out what the issues’ were with the non-Orthodox viewpoints. The other two teachers were willing to quote non-Orthodox sources as long as nothing is ideologically uncomfortable, or contradicts their personal values and they ‘pick and choose’ from among the non-Orthodox or non-traditional commentaries. While these teachers seemed willing to incorporate multiple perspectives and hermeneutical approaches, on closer analysis, they may have been using this openness as a way to further their ideological agendas and reaffirm their worldviews.

Unconditionally willing

What was somewhat surprising is that five of the teachers interviewed had no issues at all with presenting non-Orthodox and even Christian Biblical hermeneutical approaches to their students, and did not make any qualifying statements. Yehuda expressed the rationale for his openness, inconsistent with his stated personal anti-pluralistic stance, as ‘It’s not that you’re accepting the person; you’re accepting the thought’. Aryeh saw a specific advantage to teaching non-Orthodox sources in this environment because ‘you see multiple perspectives and often from the more modern thinkers. You get multiple perspectives that are more relatable’. Although, he admitted that because of his educational background ‘I’m not as familiar with non-Orthodox sources’.

Rivka felt comfortable using these sources and saw what a different viewpoint had to offer.

It offers something useful. It offers some kind of insight. No, I never had any teachers like that, but … there were some kinds of perspectives that I felt – they were very interesting. I would look online. They came from Reconstructionist – whatever, somebody’s blog, but it was a really interesting perspective.

While this group of teachers were open to teaching with pluralistic values, they stopped short of embracing them on a personal level. Some degree of willingness to examine their personal beliefs was present, in this group, however, perhaps demonstrating Gadamer’s [1960 (1975)] assertion that when one is open to what the text has to say, one is willing not ‘only to question the text but also to question one’s own beliefs’ (268–269).

Pluralistic pedagogies

Many of the teachers interviewed consider themselves amenable to ambiguity, not requiring ‘definite’ answers at the end of a lesson. They were comfortable with student constructed ideas, describing a postmodern, pluralistic approach. Tzvi felt that student constructed ideas were valuable, but not when he believed that a student’s interpretation of the sacred text was ‘wrong’. ‘There are times that what’s going to be presented is way off and the teacher has to find a positive way of saying that perhaps we can adjust it in a different direction’.

Yaakov expressed his pedagogical dilemmas as feeling that it was important for him as the teacher to have the last word, alongside the value he placed on guiding students to ask questions and look for their own meaning.

I always end the lesson. I try mostly to be the one to have the last word. It’s important to me, the takeaway, because the takeaway is really important, but no, I don’t believe that there has to be one answer or one solution to a question. I am okay with multiple approaches

Although the teachers who participated in this study clearly saw the value of a pluralistic approach, and the positive outcomes of using those pedagogies, they were not prepared to accept these values on a personal level. This, combined with the challenge of presenting an authentic representation of biblical teachings while remaining sensitive to their students’ milieu are the two areas of tension identified for the teacher participants, who must navigate their religious beliefs in a mostly secular environment.

Discussion

The present study extends Rosenak’s oft cited and still felt tension between authenticity and relevance in the teaching of Bible (Deitcher 2019; Eliyahu-Levi and Semo 2023; Hassenfeld 2017; Holtz 2003); here to include cultural sensitivity, an additional tension faced by these participants, because they are religious outsiders in the milieu in which they are teaching. This tension emerged in the ways teachers navigate their beliefs around authentic Bible studies, trying to be relevant to students whose beliefs are more secular, and in making pedagogical decisions that go against personal beliefs.

Teachers generally spend their formative years in classrooms as students, as compared to other professions where one is a ‘stranger in a strange land’ and must ‘define their new surroundings and recreate their world’ (Pajares 1992, 323). This study examines the lived experience of a small group of teachers who are ideological/religious ‘strangers’ (Greene 1973; Pomson and Gillis 2010), and who recognise the necessity of learning about their students’ milieu, understanding that to be to be effective, they must first understand their students and their social context (Deitcher 2016; Rosenak 1986).

The tensions faced by these Orthodox teachers in pluralistic schools were explored through the lens of their personal and pedagogical worldviews, and the lived and intellectual ideological dilemmas that they face. These teachers grapple with ‘strange’ pedagogies, and face challenges to their personal religious beliefs, perhaps for the first time, as they were likely raised in fairly insular societies (Krakowski 2008; Schimmel 2008). And they do this while trying to remain sensitive to the beliefs and values of their students.

Contradictory statements and inconsistencies, as per Billig et al.’s (1988) ideological dilemmas, were located by a three-way comparison of 1. stated understanding of pluralism and teaching the Biblical text in the pluralistic milieu 2. response to a sample Biblical commentary that could be deemed offensive to their students and 3. choosing of statements that define the role of teacher, student, and text in the Bible classroom. Analysis of these inconsistencies showed that they were likely the result of working in a tension provoking, unfamiliar environment, which the non-Orthodox school setting would be for the Orthodox teacher.

The tension of presenting what they believe is authentic Judaism and Biblical interpretation, in a relevant way, while remaining sensitive to their students’ values and beliefs, manifested itself in creative interpretations, intentional use of language, or avoidance of text that would be deemed offensive.

A pluralistic paradigm, in which religions and ideologies outside Orthodoxy are presented as equally valid (Sacks 1993) was confirmed to be a very difficult stance for the teachers in this study, who understand religion as binding and obligatory. However, these teachers, who see the Orthodox view as the only authentic truth, still expressed an appreciation of pluralistic pedagogies. This led them to create an open atmosphere for discussion, to use non-Orthodox source materials, and to give students permission to question or comment, which meant living with daily ideological tension, dilemmas, and a ‘divided self’ (Dewey, 1938). Participants recognised the value of having the learner encounter and deliberate between ideological options, demonstrating their cultural understanding and the sensitivity required for teaching in the pluralistic school milieu.

Conclusion and implications

Knowledge of teachers and the tensions that they face are valuable for those who seek to improve conditions in schools, especially around teacher satisfaction. This mapping of specific tensions faced by a religious and cultural group of ‘strangers’ suggests the value of teacher training and support in the area of cultural and religious beliefs, rather than leaving teachers to navigate these challenges on their own.

Although this study looked at Orthodox Jews who work in pluralistic schools, where the ideological differences are well defined, this research is relevant to the many different settings where teachers do not fully embrace the ideology of the school. This study on teacher ideological tension is therefore important to the field of education in today’s increasingly polarised society, beyond the narrow scope of the particular population being studied. Further understanding of the impact on the teacher of navigating ideological tensions is an important research avenue to explore.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Professor Howard Deitcher for his guidance with the wider study that has informed this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Esther S. Friedman

Esther S. Friedman is currently a research fellow at CASJE (Collaborative for Applied Studies in Jewish Education) housed at The George Washington University. Esther bridges research and practice in religious education, having completed her Ph.D. at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and with practical experience as a Bible instructor, curriculum designer, department chair, new teacher mentor and teacher trainer/professional development provider.

Notes

1. All participants names have been changed.

Appendix

Galilee-Schachter’s 5 PHOs

1. “The teacher who conveys objective knowledge”, is where the goal of interpretation is to reproduce the author’s intent, the role of the teacher is to provide the objective academic knowledge and skills to uncover that knowledge, and the student’s role is to acquire this knowledge and skills.

2. “The teacher who leads an intellectual and spiritual quest”, where the job of the reader is to search for the truth, waiting to be uncovered in the text. In this orientation, the text is seen as a resource in the “quest for truth, which contains a lesson that transcends its historical context. The teacher’s role is to guide students in this quest for truth and the student’s role is to join the teacher in this quest.

3. ”The Teacher who conveys moral and educational ideas by creating Midrash” sees the text as containing infinite meanings. The role of the teacher is to present an interpretation that she believes to be relevant to her students and that teaches them a moral lesson. The students’ role is to be receptive to the teacher’s interpretation, and to find it interesting, meaningful, and relevant.

4. “The teacher who enables a dialogue between the students and the text as a senior partner”, meaning is created through dialogue, and the text and reader are both seen as having their own voices, enriched through the encounter with the other. The role of the teacher is to lead discussion, encouraging students to raise ideas that the teacher herself may or may not have considered. The students’ role is to engage in dialogue, interpret text, argue their points, check their ideas against others and develop their own worldview.

5. “The teacher who conveys moral educational ideas by creating radical interpretation”, an objective meaning of the text cannot be reached, because every reading is impacted by the reader’s context. In this PHO, the role of the teacher is to create a subjective interpretation of the text that serves her educational goals, and values, while the role of the students is to absorb the teacher’s messages through reading the text.