A beautiful thought to consider for a Tuesday. Or any other day. Or not.
A beautiful thought to consider for a Tuesday. Or any other day. Or not.
Thanks to Ken for this article on recent developments among Presbyterians here in the United States. A traditional and hugely successful (in terms of numbers, books, congregations and ministries planted, and 5000 worshiping members in his current church – which may or may not be the best definition of successful) pastor and theologian has been rejected from an award after being awarded it because he dares to hold to the Bible and thus the traditional teachings and standards of the Christian church that deny we get to remake God into whomever we desire him to be in order to justify our redefined peccadillos of the day.
Tim Keller is a well known author and pastor who happens to teach and confess what the Church has taught and confessed for nearly 2000 years – human sexuality and gender are created by God, who alone gets to define how they are expressed and interacted with. This if course is not the most vocal definition of things today, and those who oppose the Biblical stance on these issues in favor of radical reinterpretation that legitimizes what the Bible calls sinful demanded Princeton Theological Seminary rescind the award.
Amazing when a few letters and e-mails and phone calls can ride rough-shot over the Bible and centuries of teaching and confession derived from it. It calls into question not so much Mr. Keller’s orthodoxy, as who determines the arc and trajectory of the institutions that train people like Mr. Keller. What are theological seminaries committed to – the long-standing confession of the Bible and clear Biblical witness or the preferences of the students it hopes to attract to the program.
When I went to seminary, the buzz-word was theological formation. I’m not sure this was ever really explained fully, but the basic assumption was that whatever I thought I knew as I entered the program, the intent of the program was to shape and shape me, rather than visa versa. I could take or leave the program, I couldn’t demand the program accommodate my personal theological preferences. It amazes me that other programs – theological or otherwise – around the country have so much trouble explaining this to their students. I assume this has to do more with economics than anything. For a school to survive it needs students. To entice students you make it appealing to the students. If the students demand something, you have to take it seriously or else your institution or your faculty are at risk of disappearing (at least that’s the assumption). It is predicated on the relatively recent idea that students get to determine what an institution is, rather than students selecting an institution of higher learning (or a business to work for, or whatever) for what they want the institution to teach and define about them. The authority is completely reversed. The students get to lecture the institution.
At which point, the institution is already irrelevant and has for all practical purposes already disappeared. I suspect Mr. Keller does what he does not for academic prestige or awards. I have little doubt this snub will not change his theology or practice. And as such, he demonstrates greater permanency than Princeton and it’s 200+ year tradition of education. That’s commendable for Mr. Keller, but so sad for Princeton. I hope what results from this are future generations of theologians questioning if they really want to attend an institution that allows students to dictate what it teaches, where the students insist on being the smartest and wisest people in the room.
I remember having to get parental signatures from time to time as I was in school. I remember needing their signature to watch Zeffireli’s Romeo and Juliet in freshman honors English. I might have needed a permission slip to go and see Elie Wiesel speak as part of the Historical Society.
Permission slips seem to have evolved and changed a bit since then. Hopefully you’re reading them carefully and asking good questions before signing them. Otherwise, your kid might come home with missing teeth.
This strikes me as pretty weird, but is a good reminder of the increasingly central role that public school has come to play in our society. Not just educating kids but providing them with food and health care as well. We’d best be paying attention to this massive institution if it’s going to keep expanding power and presence in the lives of American families!
By many accounts, we have a crisis of communication in American society today where people are unable to interact with people who hold diverging opinions and ideas from their own. Being able to discuss things without taking it personally is an important skill to have, so I was curious when I saw the headline for this article. Of course knowing the source, I assumed it would be hostile in some regard to a person of faith, but it was almost humorous how the author decides to start out.
By immediately dismissing as ridiculous a set of opinions and ideas on a number of hot-topic issues in American society today. Not by discussing the actual facts or examining the other position, but simply by dismissing those ideas as obviously wrong and ridiculous and chalking them up to something other than possible alternate interpretations of data.
Admittedly, world-view shapes how we interpret data. My world-view leads one person to assume that we all evolved from simpler organisms and there should be a fossil trail of some sort that shows that, so that ever fossil has to be fit into an evolutionary spectrum. I don’t assume that this is how we got here, so I’m not forced to place fossils into such a spectrum. My world view causes me to assume that scientists are just as prone to sinfulness – or to being exploited by other sinful people – as anyone else, so that companies based on science like pharmaceutical companies shouldn’t be presumed to be error or criminal free simply because they employ scientists. I don’t doubt the reality of global warming because my understanding is that our planet has gone through plenty of cycles of warming and cooling over time. But I may doubt that mankind is the cause of this particular warming cycle, and I may doubt the notion that we can actually reverse such a cycle.
What Mr. Shermer doesn’t seem to recognize is that world-view contributes to how everyone interprets data to create facts. His world-view leads him to discard opposing view-points, and the data that might support them – as erroneous. He exhibits firm faith in a certain understanding of things despite the fact that evidence is hardly conclusive and exhaustive. And while I’m no fan of conspiracy theories as a rule, the idea that something sounds conspiratorial is not in and of itself grounds for dismissing the idea out of hand. The melting point of steel is a scientific matter, is it not? While I don’t hold to a conspiracy theory on the 9/11 attacks, it seems odd to dismiss such a piece of data or fact as minutiae as I’m sure that such data contributed not just to the creation of those steel girders, but their selection for use in the building of the Twin Towers in the first place.
The good news is that his advice for dealing with those irrational people who disagree with him actually works in reverse as well. And if both sides are willing to abide by these as a means towards deeper conversation, there’s a chance that useful conversation might be had – useful conversation that might ultimately lead one or the other to change their ideas, if not their world-view. In a surprising turn of events, I’m actually optimistic that such respectful dialogues are the hope of moving towards answering questions and away from demonizing people who disagree with us.
Long-time readers know that we home school our children, and that my wife helps lead a home-schooling cooperative. It’s mostly a means for about 300 home schooling families to communicate, sharing resources, ideas, field trip invitations, and any number of other miscellaneous items with one another via a somewhat moderated (and very unwieldy) e-mail list.
Part of what my wife coordinates is a weekly play date at a local beach or park (depending on the time of year). It’s a great way for people new to the area or new to home schooling or both can come and meet others and integrate into the community. Over time, she’s made some really good friends with a handful of other home schooling moms who come regularly for their kids to play together and for them to talk together. They’re all very different people, to be certain, and were it not for home schooling, they might never have crossed paths, let alone become friends. There’s a mutual respect and appreciation which has developed despite different home schooling approaches and backgrounds.
So it struck me recently, as she was talking about a conversation that had happened the day before, how destroyed our society is. The conversation among the mom’s veered over to the issue of vaccinations. One of the mom’s felt it necessary to remind or warn the group that this is a controversial subject. How sad.
How sad that a group of adult women who are highly capable and educated, who have known each other for some time and have grown to truly appreciate one another, feel like they have to warn each other before talking about a controversial subject. As though because it’s a controversial subject, they’re suddenly going to turn on each other and become nasty and rude and dismissive? As though it isn’t possible for intelligent people to reach different conclusions on a topic, be able to discuss the topic respectfully, and remain committed to one another even if nobody changes their mind as a result of the discussion. As though there are things that we shouldn’t talk about because it’s just too risky. As though issues and our stances on them are what defines and determines our relationships, rather than mutual respect and appreciation.
Home schoolers, of all people, ought to recognize not just the benefit but the need to model healthy dialogue and intellectual discourse to their children. To demonstrate that it is possible to disagree without disparaging. That someone who reaches a different conclusion than you is not necessarily an idiot or deranged or less of a human being than you are. If public schools are more and more prone to ideological indoctrination that makes people intolerant of others – all in the name of tolerance – then truly those educated outside of that box are going to need to know how to communicate with one another, how to engage in true intellectual discourse rather than just name calling and ad hominem attacks.
The great fallacy of our age is that there is only one right solution to any given situation, and that anyone who holds a position different from our own must be wrong and bad and stupid. The problems that face our society are nothing new. They have been around as long as people have, despite the shiny gadgets we have that are new. If solutions have eluded us for thousands of years, the odds of one group having the silver bullet solution and everyone else being raving morons are pretty low, it seems. And perhaps focusing on issues and challenges, rather than on political associations and ideologies, might be a better way of moving forward together.
If our education system is a mess, I don’t really care if a Democrat or a Republican is the one who comes up with a better solution. If we really want to slash our national debt, it’s going to require a new alternative to what has traditionally been championed by one party or another, if only because party-politics prevents any plan from being implemented very well.
There shouldn’t be any issue that can’t be discussed, particularly among people who respect and care about each other and yet may have different attitudes on the topic. Sharing different perspectives, learning about how and why people think differently is hugely important. It’s important for us as adults but also important for our kids as well, and I’m grateful that my wife has a place where this can occur, and where our kids can watch and hear it happening.
The alternative is that we aren’t allowed to discuss anything, and that’s truly deadly for all of us.
It isn’t what you think it is, you cheeky monkey, you.
Here’s an amazing interview/article with an intelligent man who is infuriating those who see freedom of speech as a dangerous and unfair thing. Beware of a few obscene words here and there, but beyond a shadow of a doubt it is his counter-cultural stance that many will find most obscene. He does an admirable job of defending something we used to take for granted – freedom of speech even when we disagreed with what was being said. For this, his job is likely on the line, and perhaps eventually, if he refused to change his tune, his freedom.
Thanks to Ken for sending me this article from the Wall Street Journal, which discusses the skyrocketing numbers of students seeking mental-health services from colleges across the US. On the surface, it seems as though more and more college students have difficulty coping with life or college or a combination of the two.
But the article doesn’t clarify adequately what the numbers mean. If mental-health staff are actively promoting their services and luring students to come by to pet service dogs, and if students are attracted by the “warmth and accessibility”, and if these centers are reaching students that would not otherwise have sought them out, does this accurately portray a greater need among students for mental health services? If a student misses their dog at home and comes to the mental-health center to pet a therapy dog, does that mean the student needs therapy? Why not just allow dogs in dorm rooms?
The article also doesn’t make any attempt to ask why students are increasingly feeling alone and inadequate to the tasks that face them in life. I can’t help but wonder whether the rising levels of young people with little or no religious/church experience – the nones – are correspondent to a rise in levels of people looking for things that used to be gained through religious practice. In other words, does religious belief (and in America, that overwhelmingly has meant Christianity) provide benefits which, when absent, leave people vulnerable, anxious, worried? If students are looking for warmth and accessibility, it seems that congregations near campuses could be reaching out to these students through activities that are not – initially – specifically religious. If members show up every evening with their pets for a play-time, does that qualify the pets as therapy pets? Mid-week, home-cooked meals and times where students could sit in a home with a family and eat them have always been a great blessing to many college students. Must love and care and compassion be reduced to a clinical diagnosis?
College is a stressful time for many students. The drive to do well, the awareness of the huge costs they personally or their families are undertaking to make college possible, the growing list of things that are necessary to do in order to leave not with just a degree but a robust resume, all of these things are stressful. But they seem to be distinctly first-world, self-created and self-perpetuated issues as well. Not that they aren’t real, but they are real because of a very small bubble of possibility and prosperity. Outside that bubble, stress and the problems of life quickly take on much more dramatic and lethal dimensions, as this article about the torture and execution of Christians by ISIS illustrates.
Stress is stress, and the causes and reactions to it are likely defined primarily by our culture and society – what is considered normal and reasonable. But it’s bitterly ironic that people are willing to suffer horrendous things and die in humiliation for their belief in Jesus as the Son of God, while here such beliefs are seen as irrelevant despite the many warning signs in our culture to the contrary.
A fantastic letter from one university to incoming students that clearly defines university expectations in terms of the free exchange of intellectual ideas, regardless of how unpleasant some may find them.
It continues to puzzle me how everyone can assume that college and university should be prerequisite for literally everyone, yet students are increasingly unable and unwilling to handle anything on campus they don’t agree with. Rather than equipping students to overcome these emotional or psychological hurdles, universities and colleges just accommodate them.
It’s a big world. And while there are plenty of folks that seem to want to champion a uniformity of experience and thought under the guise of radical individualism, the reality is that you have to deal with thoughts and ideas and people you don’t agree with almost every day. If you’re going to be considered an educated person, shouldn’t you have a means of at least coping with this reality? For decades the progressive/liberal element has championed this very notion on college campuses. Bucking a conservative culture, college campuses became the place where radical ideas could be shared and promoted with less censure. Now that they are more firmly in control of those environments, proponents of those radical ideas seem eager to stamp out any dissension or shield people from ideas that might be challenging – ideas that were once far more status quo than the current batch of ideas and ideologies.
How do you deal with national issues like food waste and traffic congestion? We have our traditional approaches that we think of, but it’s fascinating to see how other countries deal with these situations.
China is experimenting with solutions to traffic congestion that don’t require as extensive a support infrastructure as light rail or subways. Their approach is to elevate buses – but not on separate tracks, but rather on existing roads. The buses are designed to actually travel over vehicles on existing streets! Some infrastructure is required but it doesn’t look as massive as building a completely separate transportation system. I wonder how they deal with trucks and other large vehicles on the road? Maybe they design a separate transportation system for *those* vehicles instead? Hmmmm….
Food waste is a major issue around the world, particularly in Western countries. Italy passed laws with the goal of eliminating 20% of food waste nationally, going from five million tons of food waste per year to four. Part of the solution is bureaucratic – making it easier for food to be donated to those who need it, even if it’s slightly out-of-date. Legislation about making it easier for farmers to donate excess produce is also part of the mix.
But the other aspect is cultural – changing the way people deal with the food they have on their plates at restaurants. Apparently in Italy it isn’t very common to ask for to-go containers for leftover food. Money is being spent on advertising and educational campaigns to convince Italians that there’s nothing demeaning about taking unfinished food home and making another meal out of it.
Small steps can make a big difference. And sometimes it’s just helpful to see how other people approach a problem – something I love about traveling.
A bill in the California legislature that would severely challenge or limit Christian institutions of higher education made another step towards law when it was approved by the Higher Education Committee of the Assembly on an 8-2 vote with three abstaining votes. The votes were strictly party-line votes, and two of the three abstained voters were Republicans.
This bill seeks to eliminate religious exemptions to non-discrimination legislation specific to gender and sexuality for religious institutions for any program that is not specifically a religious program or preparing students for a religious vocation. This means that an institution of higher education is not free to integrate religious beliefs throughout the academic experience for all students. It would create a bizarre environment where one section of the student body is governed by policies that don’t apply to the other section. Furthermore, it completely undermines the notion that religious belief and practice should be integrated into one’s life as a whole, regardless of vocation.
State funding for low-income students would be eliminated for these non-religious programs at these institutions, effectively limiting low-income student options for where to attend university, even if a religious university is consistent with their personal beliefs.
What is the point of public funding? To encourage education for any and all citizens, or to encourage specific types of education and particular ideologies for any and all students? The bill expresses concern that potential or existing students might not know the religious beliefs of a school they are applying to or enrolled in, leading to them investing time and money in a school that will at some point expel them for their personal beliefs and leave them no financial recourse.
I don’t have a problem with the portion of the bill that requires schools to be fully forthcoming about the fact that they are exempt as religious schools from non-discrimination legislation, meaning that they can require students to sign statements of belief and/or practice and expel those who refuse or who violate those agreements. I don’t think there are too many students who get surprised by a private religious school’s expectations on behavior or belief, but fine – let’s make sure of that to the best of our ability.
And while my concern is for Christian schools (are there any publicly funded universities in our state that are affiliated with and uphold the doctrinal beliefs of another religion? Any Muslim universities? Hindu? Hmmmm.) this bill would affect any religious school.
Should tax-payers be funding private Christian education that encourages a particular set of beliefs and practices? The error is in assuming that legislation such as SB1146 is setting us free from linking tax-payer dollars to specific belief systems. This legislation is simply penalizing one set of beliefs in favor of another. While there are some tax-payers who are undoubtedly happy about this, there are others – like myself – who are not. What is the best solution? Is the best solution to require tax dollars to be allocated to any student who wishes to attend any institution? Or is it better to marginalize the preferences of some tax-payers in favor of the preferences of other tax-payers?
I prefer the former option. I think it intrudes less on personal liberty and freedom of religion than the proposed legislation. But I’m pretty positive that this legislation will pass, and that legislation similar to it will crop up in your state eventually. Be prepared and informed.