Giving my first paper presentation at the national meeting for SBL, I felt a bit like Napoleon Dynamite trying to work out at Muscle Beach. After going through with the presentation, I now understand the shocked stares I got from some people when they heard I would be giving a paper at SBL as a mere second year Ph.D. student.

My paper was accepted into the Construction of Christian Identities program unit, which has been around for six years. I had never attended the group’s sessions in the past, but it seemed perhaps the most appropriate one for the paper I hoped to submit last winter. As it happens, my paper was good, but not exactly the sort of thing they usually do. I hadn’t engaged social identity theory in the paper at all. So, maybe not as appropriate for the group as I had first thought.

When I first discovered that I would be presenting on Tuesday morning (the last day of the conference), and competing with Hans Dieter Betz at that, I was disappointed. No one would be there. Upon reflection, however, I realized that this was the perfect opportunity for my first foray into presenting at the big show. I could get my feet wet without having to deal with the stormy waters of a room packed with highly experienced scholars.

There were seven people around for my presentation and five still there for the discussion time after three presentations. There were some clearly solid scholars who are rooted within identity theory. The explicit feedback I received from my paper was that I need to be more specific about the “other” to which I refer in my paper. My problem on that point is that my texts are not quite as specific about the “other” as I would like. But if a group is to construct an identity, the assumption seems to be that they must construct that identity contra some other group. In other words, identity construction apparently demands an “other.” The implicit vibe I got was that, for this group, I need to move beyond textual analysis and move more into the realm of social theory. This is something I was already feeling beforehand.

I left the session feeling very much the rookie in methodological theory. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Scholarship consists of baby steps, especially for a scholarly peon like me. The greatest motivator I could ever have is a reminder of my own inadequacies, a reminder that I have a looooong intellectual road ahead of me. This gives me something to strive for.

My objective, then, is to dive headfirst into my method. I find the rising field of social identity fascinating enough that I am now dedicated to immersing myself in identity theory. I will continue to pursue participation in this group of outstanding scholars and learn from my experience.

One positive note I should mention, though, is that introducing a paper with a Monty Python quote is a very good idea. I mean, really, what have the Romans ever done for us?