Till We Have Faces is a book about how people argue with the divine, and a class reading it will include believers, doubters, and students who have never thought about the question. Their essays on the novel's religious themes will reflect those backgrounds, and a teacher grading them has to avoid rewarding agreement or punishing disagreement. The standard has to be the quality of the reasoning and the use of the text, not the student's view.

The first safeguard is to write the prompt so that it asks about the book, not about the student's beliefs. A prompt such as "How does Lewis present Orual's complaint against the gods, and how does the structure of the novel respond to it?" invites analysis from any perspective. A prompt that asks whether the gods are just invites opinion, and opinion is much harder to grade fairly.

The second safeguard is a rubric that names what is being assessed. Rows for the clarity of the claim, the use of textual evidence, and the handling of counterarguments leave no room for the grader's own theology to creep in. If a student argues that the novel supports a skeptical reading, and supports that argument well, the rubric should reward it just as it would a devotional reading.

Separating Interpretation From Endorsement

Students sometimes confuse describing what the novel argues with agreeing or disagreeing with it. An essay can explain Lewis's view of divine mystery accurately without endorsing it, and another can criticize it thoughtfully without misrepresenting it. Teaching students to mark this distinction in their writing, with phrases such as "the novel suggests" or "Orual believes," makes their arguments clearer and gives graders something concrete to look for.

• The essay accurately describes what the text says before evaluating it
• Claims about the novel are supported by specific passages
• Opposing readings are acknowledged and answered fairly
• Personal beliefs, if mentioned, are separated from textual claims
• The writer avoids dismissing or praising the book's religious content without argument

Handling Essays That Push Back on the Book

Some of the strongest essays will argue that Orual has a point, that a god who answers grief with silence deserves her anger. Teachers should read these papers with particular care, since they engage seriously with the book's central tension. A paper that treats her complaint as valid and then wrestles with how the novel answers it is doing exactly what the assignment asks.

The same care applies in the other direction. A student who writes from a devout perspective deserves feedback on the argument, not praise for the faith. Comments should address whether the claims are supported and the reasoning is sound, which keeps the conversation focused on writing and away from personal conviction. Treating both papers by the same standard is what makes the grade mean something to every student in the room.

Using Anonymous Grading to Reduce Bias

Even careful graders can be swayed by what they know about a student, and for essays on religious themes that risk is real. Removing names before grading, or having a second reader score a sample of papers blind, reduces the chance that a grade reflects an impression of the writer. Many learning management systems offer anonymous grading as a built-in option.

Keeping a short record of your scoring decisions also helps. If a student asks why a paper received a particular grade, you can point to the rubric rows and the specific passages that justified each score. That transparency protects both the student and the teacher, and it makes difficult conversations easier. A few notes written while grading take seconds and can save an hour of defending a score later.

Consistent Scoring Through Tools and Calibration

AI grading tools apply the same rubric to every essay without knowing anything about the writer, which can be useful as a check on human bias. When the tool's scores and the teacher's scores diverge on papers touching religious themes, it is worth examining why. The difference may reveal a rubric descriptor that needs tightening or a pattern in the teacher's own reading.

The tool does not remove the need for judgment, and a thoughtful teacher will still read every paper that sits on a boundary. What it offers is a steady reference point, a way to notice drift and to confirm that similar arguments receive similar scores. That kind of consistency is the foundation of fair grading on any topic, and especially on one as personal as faith.