Touchstone Magazine - Mere Comments

The City

I don’t think I’ve ever (until now) written for a publication before I’ve ever actually seen a copy. I wrote an article on the death of John Updike for a new journal The City, published by friends at Houston Baptist University. The issue just arrived in the mail, and (apart from my contribution, of course) it is truly excellent.

The summer 2009 issue includes articles by Wilfred McClay on the soul in the city, Hunter Baker on science and secularism, Peter Augustine Lawler on Solzhenitsyn, and Robert P. George on Obama and abortion. The issue also features a symposium on “younger evangelicals.”

The symposium includes this quote from Francis Beckwith: “If the young evangelicals are really serious about ’struggle’ and ‘authenticity,’ they should avoid drama queens like Donald Miller and look at those who have really lived it.” This is in the midst of Beckwith’s argument that “authenticity” is being treated by some evangelicals as one more commodity to be acquired in the whirl of their “image-hypnotized” lives.

You should subscribe to this journal. Kudos to Houston Baptist University, and to their president Robert Sloan for leading this great school to this kind of intellectual leadership.

Suicide Loopholes in UK to be Spelled Out?

IN the increasingly irrational world of the culture of death, we find rhetoric such as this, which celebrates a "right to die" victory of sorts in the UK. Debbie Purdy, who suffers from MS:

 "I'm ecstatic. I am eagerly awaiting the DPP's policy publication so that we can make sure what we do does not risk prosecution. I think people are beginning to realise now that this is not about a right to die; it is about a right to live. It feels like everything else doesn't matter and now I can just be a normal person. It's terrific. It gives me my life back. We can live our lives. We don't have to plan my death."

From the article it seems that the clarification in the UK on what will actually be prosecuted (assisting a suicide is still illegal) will allow people to arrange their deaths without having to go to Switzerland's Dignitas "clinic", thereby removing the burden of planning and making the trip while they are still physically able to do so. If they know what sort of activities won't be prosecuted, they can wait until they're ready and exit this life through a loophole that's been clarified. In other words, we'll look the other way if you do X. Did I get that right?

The Value of Theology, Continued

In the latest issue of Themelios, Carl Trueman of Westminster Theological Seminary provides some rather different guidance for theologians than that offered by K.A. Noll (discussed previously here). 

On some level the two agree. For Trueman, as well as for Noll, the theologian is an adherent, working from inside a religious tradition. As Trueman writes, "any Christian studying theology, at whatever level, is not engaged in a simple mastery of technique or information. The study of theology engages heart and mind; to put it in the idiom of Calvin, true knowledge of God and true piety are inseparable. In addition, the temptations of theological study are huge."

There's a great deal of value, circumspection, and chastisement for the theologian in Trueman's essay. It is worth reading in full (HT: FT via BTW).

But I do wonder if the essay reflects a bias endemic to the larger Protestant world today. Trueman notes the historic attraction in Protestantism toward a sort of "intellectualism," not something that meshes well with contemporary accounts of fundamentalism or evangelicalism, at least on popular accounts. But this attraction is there, nonetheless. 

Trueman rightly criticizes the ubiquitus temptation for theologians, especially non-ordained theologians, "to sit in church on Sunday and to do little more than silently critique the exegesis and theology of the pastor. Even more so will the same student find it hard not to sit in condescending judgment at the often muddled attempts of the people at the church Bible study to make sense of some passage of Scripture or other."

He goes on to argue that the doctoral theologian's "training, in and of itself, does not give them any platform from which to pontificate to the church." There is no biblical precedent for 'self-appointed' complainers, "ranters themselves [who] have nothing but a PhD, an annual contract from some outfit somewhere, and a website."

We ought to recall at this juncture that at one time, in some places at least, there was room in the church for intellectual leaders and theologians, not primarily called to administer the sacraments and proclaim the Gospel from the pulpit, but to do the work of scholastic theology. Calvin called this fourth office the "doctors" of the church, in addition to elders, deacons, and pastors. Perhaps the fact that some theologians feel the need to appoint themselves is that the church has largely neglected to appoint for itself such "doctors," preferring instead to have pastors of education (who are also expected to preach) or pastor-scholars, or seminary professors with no real institutional role other than to train said pastors of education or pastor-scholars.

I agree with Trueman that there needs to be intimate involvement between the academic or professional theologian and the church. This doesn't just mean that the theologian submits to the rule of the church and participates in its life like any other layperson. Perhaps it also means that the church begin to recognize this calling as particularly important and valuable, even perhaps resurrecting the notion of the "fourth office," thereby resurrecting a vigorous catechesis, not only of the youth but also of the adults.

Trueman's challenge to the prospective theological student is quite important, and he is certainly right in his conclusion: "Theological study at the highest level is a high calling indeed; but just for this very reason those who pursue it need to make especially sure that they truly are humble servants of the church." I think it would help if more churches made welcome such students of theology in an intentional and institutional way.

Lose Your Faith, Lose Your Reason

     So the last two Popes have been saying, though always more politely than that.  I have recently experienced, in a most dismaying way, what happens when an entire culture places faith under suspicion, and relies upon the weak reed of unassisted reason.  For reason divorced from faith collapses in upon itself.  In a few minds it becomes the ratiocinative faculty alone, that which compares quantities, or that which attempts to reduce all questions to the deduction of conclusions from faultless syllogisms, as if life were nothing but geometry.  In most minds it collapses into the pseudointellectual fad of the moment, usually a fad that bows down to the available alternatives to faith, which alternatives have been, since the days of Baal and Molech, sex and the city.  Meanwhile, faith itself (and also, though this is seldom seen, that more vibrant and fuller-blooded faculty of reason so championed by Benedict XVI in his speech a few years ago at Regensburg, and by John Paul II in Fides et Ratio) must slink in the alleyways, scorned as half drunk, poor, probably thieving.

     Tomorrow a court in Canada may grant full custody of two small girls to the father who has been credibly accused of molesting one of them.  This man, by his own testimony in court, is lazy and works only part of the time during the year.  But who are we to judge laziness, and what difference do work habits make, so long as money comes into the household?  For money will come into the household.  He is seeking, by his own testimony, alimony and child support from his wife.  What kind of man would do that?  You might answer, "Not much of a man," but we can't accept that answer anymore, since we have ruled that masculinity and femininity are matters of indifference.  He abused the laws of this country for many years while taking illegal drugs; but that can't matter, not to our thin and debased version of reason, since he claims now to be clean, and since it is no blot on a man's character to have gotten away with doing what provided him pleasure.  He admits that he used to be an alcoholic; but we can't hold that against him, either.  He admits that he slept with other women while his second child was on the way.  But we all know, now, that an oath taken before God and man is just a verbal formality; that cannot possibly weaken a man's credibility, that he broke such a paltry thing as a matrimonial oath.  He admits that, when the children were in his keeping, he forced one of them to sleep in the same bed with him and the woman he had over; but let's not be prudes here, shall we?

     His drawings, hundreds of them, show him to be a deeply disturbed young man.  Diabolism abounds; but surely we cannot judge between faith and faith, since they are all irrational, right?  So the picture of Satan in the manger, with the caption, "Il Saviour est ne," is of no consequence.  Likewise, inconsequential are all the pictures of cruelty and violence: the man being garrotted, the other being disembowelled.  Those are just works of art, and as we know, all art "transgresses"; that is almost our definition these days of what it is to be a work of art, to be "edgy," that is, stupid and offensive to people we despise.  So also the dozens of pictures of women being humiliated; they are pornographic, but who cares for that?  Women themselves are now the great matrons of pornography.  So also the pictures of orgies and of every form of sexual perversion.  So also, apparently, the pictures of father-daughter incest.  We can draw judgments from none of these things.

     Lose the faith, then lose faith in reason; rely upon mathematical deduction alone, a utilitarian calculus in the service of hedonism.  Or, if you are as blockheaded as the judge in this case, rely upon fads.  So he's a junkie, a boozer, a porn addict, and a fantasizer about incest, if not a practicer of it.  That doesn't mean he's not a nice person.

The Value of Theology

In an essay appearing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, religion professor K.L. Noll proceeds to outline "The Ethics of Being a Theologian" (HT: Religion in America) Noll does so despite not being a theologian, self-identifying instead as "theistic off the job and professionally agnostic." And Noll does so too despite repeatedly asserting that "I do not presume to tell theologians how to be theologians, and I will not attempt to define the value of theology."

Of course, Noll does tell theologians how to be theologians insofar as they exceed the boundary lines he draws for the discipline. The study of religion is the attempt "to advance knowledge by advancing our understanding about why and how humans are religious, what religion actually does, and how religion has evolved historically." Out of bounds, essentially, are the claims to self-understanding of the religious adherents themselves.

That, instead, is the realm of the theologian and by definition beyond the realm of "knowledge," because "theologians practice and defend religion," they do not study it. Noll goes on to liken the relationship between religion researcher and theologian to that of biologist and frog.

So what does beign an 'ethical' theologian amount to? For one, theologians should "begin every theological discussion with the disclaimer 'the god described in this sacred text is fictional, and any resemblance to an actual god is purely coincidental.'" And furthermore, theologians should accept the limits of their own 'discipline,' such as it is: "I simply request that theologians fulfill basic ethical obligations, such as the affirmation that theology is not knowledge and must position itself apart from those academic disciplines that try to advance knowledge, such as history, anthropology, religious study, and (perhaps especially) the natural sciences."

Noll is surely right on a few points. There is an essential and important difference between the academic and secular study of religion that goes on in many "religious studies" departments and theological study. This is an important distinction to make. And Noll is also quite right that far too often, theologians live and move and have their being in a world far removed from that of religious adherents. In Noll's words, "They are content to construct their own ideas about ritual, which reveals an irony many theologians fail to comprehend: Not only are the theologian's ideas about ritual irrelevant to the religion researcher, they are irrelevant to most religious people."

The root of the conflict between the religion researcher and the theologian in Noll's account is as much about epistemology as it is about ontology or metaphysics. Theologians, in Noll's view, can't be oriented toward advancing knowledge, in part because of lack of access, and in part because theologians "defend a set of truth-claims for which empirical data are, by definition, unavailable."

On the whole, however, I don't think it is theological studies that comes out looking the worse for wear after reading Noll's account. I think by his own standards, there's a real question about the validity and value of religious studies as an independent and constructive discipline. He's happy to list religious studies along with history, anthropology, and the natural sciences as those "academic disciplines that try to advance knowledge." But in reality, part of the motivation for the essay is that religious studies does not get the respect he thinks it deserves from researchers in those other disciplines. Noll thinks this is because there is too much "theology" in "religious studies." This is an essay in defense of religious studies in the guise of a critique of theology.

But it may just be that there isn't as much actual advancement of knowledge coming out of religious studies as Noll thinks. I have had a working thesis that any academic discipline that needs to add "studies" as a modifier might not be an independent discipline at all. It may be true that "most people do not understand what religious study really is," and that "professors of religion are often confused with, or assumed to be allies of, professors of theology."

It may also be that once people do understand what religious study really is (at least on an account like Noll's), they don't find it to be a valuable, authentic, or helpful way to advance knowledge.

Drop PowerPoint & Teach "Naked"?

From the Chronicle of Higher Education we learn of a call to drop much of the technology used in teaching so that teaching will be less boring:

Students in the survey gave low marks not just to PowerPoint, but also to all kinds of computer-assisted classroom activities, even interactive exercises in computer labs. "The least boring teaching methods were found to be seminars, practical sessions, and group discussions," said the report. In other words, tech-free classrooms were the most engaging.

The full article is accessible.

Christian Academic Talent Scouting

A few weeks ago, I put a notice on this weblog about the Wheatstone Academy weeklong educational bootcamp being held at Houston Baptist University.  I went to hear a lecture on Plato this morning and was thrilled to see an intellectually curious horde of 47 young people in the session.  The soon to be "Dr." Gary Hartenburg engaged the students socratically for an hour and a half.  As a dyed in the wool lecturer type, I was amazed to see how intensely Hartenburg pushed the students to figure out what they really believed about faith and knowledge.  Really good stuff.  

I had lunch with Professor Hartenburg afterwards.  Christian colleges and universities, if you want a strong philosophy prof. (and yes, we should be much about the business of philosophy if we hope to form students' minds) this young man is a good person with whom to talk.

FamilyIntel Website

FamilyIntel is a new website: "Intelligent solutions for busy families." It offers news, resources, including condensed versions of family/marriage/relationship books written from a Christian perspective. The site is FREE, easy to navigate, and full of valuable info.

Satan and the Children's Aid Society

     Dear friends at Mere Comments: I'm writing from Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, on behalf of friends of mine, devout Catholics who are trying to prevent their grandchildren from being given over to the full custody of their father, a sick and sex-obsessed man whose pornographic and Satanic drawings -- hundreds of them -- I have just viewed, and one of whose children has accused him, among other things, of pulling over to the side of the road, taping black garbage bags to the windows, laying her down on the back seat, and "hurting" her.  She was four years old at that time.  Two of the pictures I have seen involve father-daughter incest.  A hearing on this case will be held on Thursday.  This family needs prayers, but also legal and other advice (they have spent already well over $150,000, and their lawyer has given up fighting against the essentially lawless social service agency).  Is there a good lawyer out there?? 

Christians Need Not Apply (to NIH)?

If you are a sincere Christian believer, you may be disqualified by your beliefs from high-level jobs, such directing the National Institutes of Health., according to Sam Harris in the New York Times:

    Dr. [Francis] Collins has written that “science offers no answers to the most pressing questions of human existence” and that “the claims of atheistic materialism must be steadfastly resisted.”
    One can only hope that these convictions will not affect his judgment at the institutes of health. After all, understanding human well-being at the level of the brain might very well offer some “answers to the most pressing questions of human existence” — questions like, Why do we suffer? Or, indeed, is it possible to love one’s neighbor as oneself? And wouldn’t any effort to explain human nature without reference to a soul, and to explain morality without reference to God, necessarily constitute “atheistic materialism”?
    Francis Collins is an accomplished scientist and a man who is sincere in his beliefs. And that is precisely what makes me so uncomfortable about his nomination (to head NIH]. Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?