North Hall Society

Highland Hall razed

2007-06-01T08:59:00.000-07:00

The Lenoir-Rhyne Onion carries an article ("Highland Hall razed," The Lenoir-Rhyne Onion, June 1, 2007) on the demolition of the venerable old Highland Hall, which was carried out last week at Lenoir-Rhyne University at Old Dominion, NC. Read it and weep. (N.B. -- If a pop-up window appears asking for an authentication code, click on 'cancel', and you will be allowed to proceed).

Introducing the 'Lenoir-Rhyne Onion'

2007-02-06T13:46:00.000-08:00

For some laughs and good fun, check out a new blog entitled the Lenoir-Rhyne Onion.

The Great Culture Quiz

2006-06-26T09:46:00.000-07:00

Recently the results of a student cultural survey have come in after being tabulated and analyzed here at Lenoir-Rhyne College among a cross section of students. The questionnaire included 20 questions ranging across topics from classical and popular music to film and literature, politics, geography, and current events. Here are a sampling of the questions with some of the tabulated results:

1. J.S. Bach and Ludwig von Beethoven are two great classical composers whose names begin with a "B." Can you name another great classical composer whose name also begins with a "B"? (Answ. Brahms, Berlioz, Bizet, etc. are all correct)

87.2% could not answer this question. Of the 12.8% who succeeded in answering this question, the vast majority (83.3%) could not identify the newest American Idol (Question #20).

2. Who wrote The Great Gatsby? (Answ. F. Scott Fitzgerald)

Only 19.1% answered this question correctly.

5. When asked to match the band or artist with the song, 90.5% of respondents could not every band or artist, including Elvis, Green Day, The Beatles, Simon and Garfunkel, The Doors, The Rolling Stones, David Bowie, and The Velvet Underground.

8. When asked to correctly match the artist with the work, 19.1% of respondents matched Rodin's sculpture, 'The Thinker,' with Michelangelo, 8.5% with Van Gogh, 6.4% with Breugel, 6.4% with Renoir, 4.3% with Joan Miro, 4.3% with Monet, and 2% with Leonardo da Vinci.

9. "I am a country called Chad. I am located on which continent?" (Answ. Africa)

53.2% answered this question correctly. On the other hand, of the 48.9% who got this question wrong, 26.1% identified Chad as being in South America, 8.7% said it was in Asia, and 4.3% each said it was in Europe and in Asia Minor.

11. "I am Paris Hilton's former best friend, and I have an on-again, off-again relationship with Adam Goldstein (AKA D.J. AM). Who am I?" (Answ. Nicole Ritchie)

68.1% (the highest percentage of correct answers) answered this question correctly.

12. "I am the current Secretary of Defense. Who am I?" (Answ. Donald Rumsfeld)

89.4% did not answer this question correctly. Of those who attempted but did not answer correctly, 11.9% identified the Secretary of Defense as Condoleezza Rice, 7.14% thought it was Colin Powell, and other answers included Tom Daschle, Dick Chaney at 2.4% each.

13. Who wrote The Nutcracker Suite? (Answ. Tchaikovsky)

Only 10.6% answered this question correctly.

14. Name one Right granted by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Answ. Right to remain silent, not to incriminate oneself)

48.9% were able to answer this question correctly.

15. When asked to match the film with its director, 4.3% of respondents matched Frances Ford Coppola's The Godfather with Robert Altman. Other matches included Woody Allen, Ed Wood, and Terry Guilliam (2% each).

19. Name the capital of the state that is directly East of North Carolina. (Answ. No such state exists.)

46.8% were unable to answer this question correctly. Of those who attempted to answer the question but did not do so correctly, 22.7% identified the capital as Nashville, 9.1% identified it as Knoxville, and other answers included Raleigh, Richmond, and Roanoke, VA (4.5% each).

20. Our newest American Idol is ... (Answ. Taylor Hicks)

63.8% answered this question correctly. Of these, only 3.3% were able to identify a classical composer whose name begins with "B" (Question # 1).

Generalizations & Inferences:

a) Students know their rights (#14)
b) Students know current pop culture celebrities very well (##11, 20)
c) Students do not know American geography (#19) (State East of North Carolina)
d) About half of all students do not know world geography well (#9)
e) Students do not know classical music, art, and literature (##1, 2, 8, 13)
f) Students do not know historical popular culture (##5, 15)
g) Most students have little acquaintance with the details of world politics (#12)

A Critical Look at the Proposed New Core Curriculum

2005-10-14T10:33:00.000-07:00

Note: The following statement was researched and written by faculty in the School of History, Philosophy, and Religion. It was discussed in several drafts and adopted without opposition (with one member abstaining) at a school meeting of Thursday, October 6, 2005, and presented at a special called assembly of the faculty on Wednesday, October 12, 2005.

The core proposal follows the premise that core hours should be significantly reduced. This is a flawed concept admittedly originally mandated to the core committee by the administration. The concept mentioned last year of a parallel reduction in the hours of the large majors will never happen because it cannot be done given the constraints of professional licensing organizations. Even if it could be done and the students had 30-40 hours of pure electives, one wonders how these unstructured electives would provide them with a better education than a well-thought-out larger core curriculum? The "small core" mandate is in fact a bankrupt attempt to pander to the perceived wishes of students for less rigorous courses with which to fulfill their graduation requirements. Some may even see it as a marketing tool to attract more students. However, schools of excellence have not chosen to go that route. Note the recent list of top schools in U.S. News and World Report. In the comprehensive college category, which is the category that L-R C is in, the top three choices in the south are Berea College in Kentucky, Berry College in Georgia, and Maryville College in Tennessee. Research shows that these schools of acknowledged excellence have the following ratio of core hours to hours required for graduation:

Berea College—core requirement is 15 courses out of 33 courses required for graduation.
Berry College—core requirement is 53 hours out of 124 hours required for graduation.
Maryville College—core requirement is 60 hours for a B.A. degree and 54 hours for a Bachelors of Music degree out of 128 hours required for graduation.

Clearly, the best schools in our region that are labeled "comprehensive" like us, having professional programs and a liberal arts commitment, have NOT chosen to decimate their core curriculums. They are able to attract well-qualified students in good numbers because of their strong liberal arts commitment, not in spite of it.

Now let us look at a comparison of North Carolina schools, both comprehensive liberal arts schools like Lenoir-Rhyne College and state schools to see which of these models the proposed core curriculum most closely follows:

[Scroll down]

Institution	Total Hours*	Core Hours	Tuition*
UNCC	124	49	3,473
UNCG	125	48	3,435
UNCW	124 (138)	45	3,199
ASU	127-8	38	3,199
UNCP	128	44	2,825
WCP	128	42	3,273
Mars Hill	144-54	18	15,922
Meredith	123-32	51-67	19,000
Presbyterian	122 (149)	50	19,740
Brevard	125 (127)	54	14,840
Newberry	152-63	50	18,101
Wingate	132	45	15,000
Campbell	(139)	51	14,200
Lenoir-Rhyne**	128 (142)	56	17,850

[* the parenthetical figure is selected for, eg, Music Education.
** L-R is the 7th most expensive 4-year undergraduate institution in NC.

Tuition figures are taken from the US Department of Education, NCES (National Center for Education Statistics), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System: http://nces.ed.gov/ipedspas/ExPT/.]

There are distinctly two types of institutions presented here, marked most dramatically by the difference in cost: the state universities, which charge around 40% of L-R's tuition, and liberal arts colleges, among which L-R is pretty close to average. Liberal Arts colleges tend to have more substantial Core requirements, but those in professional programs (eg Music Education) vary wildly. They offer fewer courses and majors, and have smaller /lesser facilities and services; but they also have smaller class sizes, and, it would seem, an atmosphere and identity that the larger schools lack. Something, this is to argue, justifies their spending an extra $14,000 per year over the likes of UNCG or UNCC. What is it?

The pattern of the larger university-model schools is clearly that which the Core Committee hopes to adopt -- which is to say, they intend that L-R should pretty much copy the Core / Major ratios of UNC institutions. The rub appears urgently and quickly: having thus constricted the liberal arts, and more or less given ourselves over to direct curricular competition with institutions that cost 40% of what we demand, what remains at L-R to justify that extra expense? It is a hefty cost-benefit gap.

We cannot gain in reputation as a "Liberal Arts College" by constricting the Core to make room for other things. So, the cost/benefit gap cannot be made up by the romance and prestige of that idea when there are so many institutions with a more credible claim to it. (To use the language of economics: ceasing, in effect, to specialize in the Liberal Arts, we will cease to be competitive at it). Do we have a clear enough identity, either among ourselves or in the marketplace, to make up the cost/benefit gap? Is L-R an especially social, cosmopolitan, or lively place? Is it in a town that would attract the general run of college students, like, say, Asheville or Chapel Hill? Are we more "caring" than the next place? Even if we are, how long can the College sustain itself on that single leg?

Why, then, are people willing to pay $14,000 over and beyond the $10,000 per year that is, in effect, the market price of a professional degree? Is our placement rate that much better? Do our graduates in, say, nursing or music education make that much more on average than their colleagues at UNCG? Again, we cannot gain in reputation as a "Liberal Arts College" by constricting the Core to make room for other things.

A considerable number of further questions and criticisms may be raised regarding the proposed core:

In the name of being interdisciplinary, the proposed core has courses that are supposed to integrate knowledge and understanding preceding courses that might give the students a basis for comprehending what is being discussed. For example the 2XX course [the proposed trimmed-down interdisciplinary required liberal arts course] is supposed to integrate "Great Ideas" in four credit hours by bringing together history, philosophy, religion, and literature. There is nothing, however, to indicate that the students should first have taken their "required electives" in religion and history. There will be no systematic arrangement or sequencing of courses to ensure that our graduates will have even the basics of a liberal arts education. Regarding history, the broad cultural and humanizing influence of the present World Civilizations courses is dismissed as either not important or too bothersome to trouble the students with. Under the proposed new core, future students might take no literature course at all (it is an option with music, theatre and art); and they very likely would never take a course in philosophy since it is an option together with physical wellness, fiscal wellness, and psychology. How can students benefit from "interdisciplinary study" when they lack the foundation to understand the basics of what is being discussed?

The present core proposal cuts the religion requirement by half. Lenoir-Rhyne is a Lutheran College characterized by the Lutheran tradition of a forthright commitment to a dialogue between faith and learning which is open to insights from secular learning and persons and ideas from various faith traditions. We are neither fundamentalist nor purely secular. We avoid these two extremes because of commitment to our historic mission. Many students and their parents as well as wealthy donors seek us out and support us for this reason. Furthermore, recent national and world events make it difficult to imagine a time when such dialogue is more needed. Are we breaking faith with the church that gave us birth as an institution of higher education?

The proposed core eviscerates the present strong natural science requirement of one life science and one natural science plus Science 300: Environmental Science. This requirement is to be reduced to only one laboratory science course. And the only successful interdisciplinary course to come out of the CEPAC core reform of 1969-70, Science 300, is to be eliminated. Interestingly, this is being proposed by the same core committee that eliminates the present strong disciplinary requirements in religion, history, literature, and philosophy in favor of one four-hour course—"2XX." If the core committee wishes to mandate interdisciplinary work, why eliminate a successful interdisciplinary course on a subject of such importance? Secondly, why would Lenoir-Rhyne choose to weaken our science requirement in a century so heavily dependent on scientific knowledge?

As the core proposal weakens the natural science requirement, so also the social and behavioral science requirement is cut -- from two courses presently to only one. Thus, the student’s exposure to knowledge of the political, economic, social and psychological dimensions of life is decreased half. As the recent Constitution Day convocation revealed, our students are not very strong in even our own system of government. How can cutting this aspect of the liberal arts curriculum help L-R foster intelligent citizens who can make contributions to local and larger communities?

A cursory look at the proposed core makes it appear that only one liberal arts area has escaped unscathed -- the foreign language requirement, since 6 hours are still required. This may not be true, however, for the core proposal says a second language competency is to "be achieved through 6 hours of course work or satisfactory performance on proficiency examination." Latin is a 12-hour requirement for most students. Is it to be eliminated? This would likely kill the Classics major. What about French and German? As liberal arts majors (such as philosophy, English, history, religion) that provide students for these programs slowly wither from lack of exposure to students who might choose to major in them, will the French and German majors decline or die as well? Will the School of Modern and Classical Languages have become simply the Spanish Department?

Are the professional areas stronger because of a weakened liberal arts core? At least one, our School of Education, might actually be in grave danger from it. Current competency requirements that are met by our current core courses may no longer be met. Education students might actually have to take additional courses to meet these competencies. It is also the case that our school systems and their principals are under increasing pressure to raise scores on EOG exams. This requires teachers who themselves have competency in writing, reading and critical thinking skills as well as a high standard of cultural literacy. Prospective teachers with these skills will be in high demand. Prospective teachers who lack these skills will not.

Furthermore, the cost/benefit analysis mentioned above cannot work to the advantage of any of the professional programs. Minus the identity of a traditionally strong liberal arts program, what can the Lenoir-Rhyne professional programs offer to justify parents spending the extra $15,000 to send their children here? [Note: We can ask a similar question with regard to Faculty salaries. We charge our students two-and-a-half times what they do at state institutions. We pay our faculty 2/3 as much as they pay at state institutions. We ask them to work harder, give them less resources and less time and encouragement for professional development. If we are just a smaller and poorer version of the state institutions then why come here. Why stay?]

As we consider the proposed new core curriculum in all of its ramifications, we must therefore ask ourselves if this "reform" strengthens our identity as a liberal arts college and makes us more competitive with the best colleges in our category. The answer is clearly a resounding "no." All those top U.S. New and World Report schools have strong liberal arts core programs. Does the proposed core, then, provide benefits to the professional schools sufficiently strong as to justify the college forsaking its liberal arts identity? Will a bonanza of new students be waiting to beat down our doors as soon as the core is reduced? Not when we have the extra $15,000 price differential between us and the state schools. We may find we have sold our birthright for a mess of pottage and that the bowl is empty.

This is academic jihad!

2005-09-14T12:32:00.000-07:00

"Stand, therefore, having your loins girded about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith, with which ye shall be sable to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."

No, that was not Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction. That was St. Paul in Ephesians 6:14-17. And what you see pictured here are two snapshots of a great warrior preparing to do battle against the forces of darkness, which threaten the cultural literacy of future graduates of Lenoir-Rhyne by undermining the liberal arts curriculum.

Who is this great warrior? Is he one of the many students you can now see on campus sporting one of these shirts? Is he a faculty member, likewise clad in the armor of this shirt? From his flaring nostrils, the gritted teeth, and the clenched fists, one can see his determination.

Beware, O Enemy, O Dark Lords of Moria. For even as your amass your armies of committee Orcs to the beating of drums, there arises without your walls a mighty sea of warriors -- Hobbits, Dwarves, Elves, Rangers, Ents, all under the fearless leadership of Gandalf the White -- posed to bring down your walls and liberate these hallowed halls of learning from the tyranny of foreign domination. Freedom for the academy! Freedom for the liberal arts!

Resist the machine!
Free your mind!
Save the Liberal Arts
at Lenoir-Rhyne!
[Tip of the hat to Kirk G. Kanzelberger of Sapor Sapientiae. For shirts and other gear like this, visit The Academy Store]

Students' right to know

2005-09-13T08:25:00.000-07:00

Kurt Schmidt recently responded to my remarks to him, posted under the title of "Kurt Schmidt: Why are liberal arts classes being cut?" on the North Hall Society blog (Sept. 5, 2005). He said that after doing an article for the next issue of the Lenoir-Rhynean on the cancellation of classes, he was planning to talk at length with Dr. Sorenson about how much of the information about core revisions he would like released to the students and when. As you know, he said, this is not a simple issue, requiring a great deal of time and research.

I appreciated what he wrote, but had some misgivings as to the possibility of his having a heavy-handed kibosh put on his investigations for the Lenoir-Rhynean. I replied to his remarks by saying I'd be glad to help in whatever way I can. Then I offered the following comments.

Do keep in mind, I said, that students have a right to information purtaining to their education. Things like honesty in advertising apply to academic institutions too. LR claims to be a "liberal arts" institution. If the proposed curriculum entails cutting a number of majors from the LR program, this information should be openly stated. If current core requirements in the liberal arts are being trashed and replaced by a single 8 hr. smorgasboard puff course so that no student will be required to have more than a superficial dabbling in the liberal arts, this should be openly stated.

If you find yourself being stonewalled, it may be that there are parties who do not wish the facts to get out too early, for fear they could create a groundswell of opposition among students and their parents who could well feel betrayed by such a move. I would not want to see you manipulated. Students have influence, and should have the information needed to form their opinions and make their voices heard. Graduating classes often make a gift to the school -- usually some sort of physical gift. The senior class now has an unprecedented opportunity of making a far more significant gift to the school -- the gift of preserving its bona fide status as a liberal arts institution with liberal arts majors. Think about it.

Kurt Schmidt: Why are liberal arts classes being cut?

2005-09-05T06:37:00.000-07:00

Kurt Schmidt, a campus leader in the Lenoir-Rhyne Student Government Association, emailed me, saying he's been charged with writing an article for the school paper on the administration's decision to cut classes based on enrollment numbers. I replied that it's difficult not to see this issue in the context of the much larger picture of the administration's designs on cutting classes from the liberal arts core of the Lenoir-Rhyne College curriculum. Here's what I wrote Kurt, following a few preliminaries:

What you're asking about concerns a concerted attempt by the administration to reduce the liberal arts core requirements in the LR curriculum under pressure from the growing hegemony of the professional programs. Majoring in a liberal arts program at LR may require as few as 30 credit hours (or ten courses) in the major, leaving lots of room for electives. By contrast, majoring in a professional program -- like Occupational Therapy, Nursing, Education, or Business -- may require a vastly larger number of courses in the major, mandated by these programs' accrediting agencies. Students in these majors have a hard time squeezing everything into four years. In many national universities, for example, nursing students can expect to complete their programs only after five years of study. As a result, the administration is feeling the pinch from a number of directions. First, there's pressure to give the already top-heavy professional programs more elbow room, so their students can finish in four years and have some room in their program for electives. Second, there's pressure to carve out this elbow room from the liberal arts core. Third, since market demand for liberal arts courses is down, there is pressure to reduce the number of core requirements in the liberal arts, perhaps even at the cost of discarding a number of liberal arts majors, thus jeapordizing LR’s status as a bona fine liberal arts college.

About a year ago, the administration formed a carefully selected ad hoc committee to address these concerns of the administration and begin work on revising the core. The committee, convened by Dean John Sorenson and chaired by Dr. David Ratke, floated a number of proposed revisions indicating a reduction in the liberal arts core across the board by a staggering 20%, and by as much as 25% in the School of History, Philosophy, and Religion. The effect, quite naturally, was to immediately raise the hackles of the liberal arts faculty. The committee was suspected of being little more than a pretext for rubber stamping and railroading through the administration's predetermined agenda of radical cuts in liberal arts programs. When the constitutional legitimacy of the committee itself came under fire in faculty assembly, a number of more charitable voices intervened to help reconstitute the committee as a legitimate committee of the faculty.

More important than any of these technicalities, however, is the question of how such envisioned changes in the complexion of the LR curriculum can be seen as according with LR's stated mission. LR prides itself in being a “liberal arts” college, which is about the only thing that distinguishes its educational programs from those one finds at significantly less expensive programs of local community colleges, technical colleges, and business schools. At the heart of a liberal arts education are the curricular core requirements in the humanities, math, and the sciences. It is the hallmark of the Western liberal arts tradition that an educated person should know some basics about the world, including the sweep of world history, politics, religion, philosophy, ethics, the social sciences, math, and the natural sciences. The natural question, then, is: How can slashing 20-25% of these programs from the core curriculum be reconciled with the presumption of a liberal arts mission at LR?

The administration's answer is that nothing will be lost, in principle, in the proposed new curriculum. All of the liberal arts will be represented in an 8 hour humanities core course required of all students. But there are several serious problems with this answer.

First, an 8 hour tour through a liberal arts buffet is hardly a substitute for the solid liberal arts core curriculum we now have. In fact, it is hard to avoid viewing such an 8 hour humanities survey as mere "window dressing" in an education one might acquire for a fraction of the cost at a local community college -- either that, or something one might get at a finishing school for young ladies. Dr. Carolyn Huff of our history department administered a beginning-of-semester quiz in two of her history classes this fall and found that 37 of 60 students could not identify Muhammed; 43 students could not identify who Confucius was (answers given included a “Greek god” and “Muslim prophet”); and 16 could not identify Jesus Christ. The question is whether we’re satisfied with this level of “learning” (I use the term loosely). The proposed curriculum would eliminate the currently required courses in history, and the chances of an 8 hour humanities survey correcting such egregious misconceptions, let alone deepening student knowledge, would seem to be next to nil.

Second, the assumption that students would thereby be freed up to choose from a much larger selection of electives, while attractive in theory, raises the question of the integrity of the envisioned educational curriculum. A proposal floated by the core committee in August, 2005, bundled together courses in psychology, book keeping, and philosophy as “electives” alongside courses in "physical wellness." This would mean that students could opt between a course in philosophy or psychology and, say, bowling or badminton! One wonders at the intelligibility of making such curricular alternatives a matter of student discretion at an institution that claims to be a liberal arts college. Yet the fact that the committee was willing to float this as a serious proposal suggests the degree to which the administration appears to be willing to allow "market pressures" to determine its offerings. This might seem fiscally prudent on the face of it. But ask yourself this: How can LR with its stratospheric tuition costs ever dream of competing with the professional programs offered by state-subsidized public universities and community colleges? There is simply no comparison. Furthermore, it raises the "wag the dog" question -- whether the college is allowing the "tail" of whatever happens to be in vogue among students to "wag the dog" of its academic offerings. One wonders at the prudence of allowing the siren song of "market forces" to erode the traditional strong suit of a private church-related college like LR, which is its strong liberal arts program within the context of a small, religiously affiliated community. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how slashing religion core requirements by 25% and eliminating the religion capstone course (REL 400) can be reconciled with the stated religious mission of this "college of the ELCA," which “seeks … to clarify personal faith,” and holds that “wholeness of personality, true vocation, and the most useful service to God and the world are best discerned from the perspective of the Christian faith” (see the LRC Mission Statement).

Third, one wonders how long LR will be able to sustain her image as a bona fide liberal arts college when the proposed changes would very likely eliminate the possibility of sustaining majors in subjects like physics, math, history, English, art, philosophy, religion, and French. In a development that is hard to see as unrelated, a significant number of liberal arts classes with less than seven students in them were summarily canceled at the beginning of this Fall, 2005 semester. The rationale offered was financial -- that we had to cut small classes to save money. But the savings from slashing small courses is negligible, while the hardship this inflicts on our liberal arts majors in the final two years of their course work is significant.

The larger question at issue is what kind of an institution LR wants to be. Does she want to trade in her liberal arts core for a vocational school curriculum? Does she want to acquire the reputation of being an overpriced community college or trade school? Or does she want to stand by her mission and justly pride herself on being a church-related liberal arts college? If so, she cannot yield to utilitarian pressures and allow the tail to wag the dog. Yet if we follow the money trail in our recent campus building projects, it's not hard to see this is where we're headed. The new McCrorie Center for Allied Health Science and Athletics and the Mauney-Schaeffer building renovation (housing the Charles M. Snipes School of Business, Computer Science, etc.) represent major capital investments. Yet neither program represented by these building projects is related essentially to the historical liberal arts mission of the college. Liberal arts education, as traditionally conceived, is not primarily a matter of skills acquisition. Such practical know-how has its place in life -- certainly in the market place -- but is not what a liberal arts education is essentially about. Let me illustrate. In a recent Billy Bob Thornton film, Friday Night Lights, a high school football star faces a confident future. Football scholarships pour in from prospective universities across the land. Ironically, the young man has so neglected his academic education that he cannot read his own acceptance letters. Suddenly, his future hopes are dashed by a serious knee injury, and all the practical football skills he invested his whole high school career in learning are for naught. All he learned how to do, all he knew how to do, was to play football. And now that football is gone, he’s left with nothing. The moral? Skills come and go. But your mind lasts forever. And if you've starved your mind in school, what are you left with? Nothing. The technical skills you learn in a professional or athletic program may be obsolete within a few years. But liberal arts learning lasts for ever. Skills may make you useful. But the liberal arts feed your mind.

LR students have a right to a solid liberal arts education. They shouldn't settle for anything less. LR students have the right to major in whatever they want. If they want to major in business or nursing or exercise science, good for them. But they should also have the right to major in physics, math, English, history, art, philosophy, religion, or French if they want. And that right should not be taken away from them because of market trends extraneous to the rationale of a liberal arts education. LR students have the right to know that their LR diplomas will count for more than a diploma from a local community college or business school. They have a right to believe that the education paid for by their parents’ hard-earned money is the liberal arts education LR claims it is. They have a right to believe that LR stands by its mission statement and means what it says. These rights are now on the line.

Resist the machine.
Feed your mind.
Save the liberal arts
at Lenoir-Rhyne!

T-shirts, buttons, magnets, and tote bags with related slogans may be found online at: http://www.cafepress.com/academystore Support the liberal arts!

2005-09-02T06:35:00.000-07:00

RESIST THE MACHINE
FEED YOUR MIND
SAVE THE LIBERAL ARTS AT LENOIR-RHYNE

LR students and faculty, state your position and take your stand. Buy your shirts, buttons, or totes that make your statement at the online Store. The image is of Raphael's "School of Athens," representing the tradition of liberal arts learning. Get out the word.

The LRC curriculum battle in the blogsphere

2005-08-26T07:17:00.000-07:00

In an article entitled "Lenoir-Rhyne College and 'the erosion of liberal arts education,'" Christopher writes (Against the Grain, August 25, 2005):

Dr. Philip Blosser speaks out on "the erosion of the liberal arts core" at Lenoir-Rhyne College, my alma mater, including a proposal to group philosophy with a number of electives alongside courses in "physical wellness."

He goes on to quote from my article, "Bowling for Lenoir-Rhyne," then offers two quotations -- one from G.K. Chesterton, the other from Jacques Maritain -- apropos the institutional drift at Lenoir-Rhyne and other liberal arts institutions around the country. The first is from Chesterton's All is Grist:

Now, the nuisance of all this notion of Business Education, of training for certain trades, whether of plumber or plutocrat, is that they will prevent the intelligence being sufficiently active to criticize trade and business properly. They begin by stuffing the child, not with the sense of justice by which he can judge the world, but with the sense of inevitable doom or dedication by which he must accept that particularly very worldly aspect of the world. Even while he is a baby he is a bank-clerk, an accepts the principles of banking which Mr. Joseph Finsbury so kindly explained to the banker. Even in the nursery he is an actuary or an accountant: he lisps in numbers and the numbers come. But he cannot criticize the principles of banking, or entertain the intellectual fancy that the modern world is made to turn too much on the Pythagorean worship of numbers. But that is because he has never heard of the Pythagorean philosophy; or, indeed, of any other philosophy. He has never been taught to think, but only to count. He lives in a cold temple of abstract calculation, of which the pillars are columns of figures. Bue he has no basic sense of Comparative Religion (in the true sense of that tiresome phrase) by which he may discover whether he is in the right temple, or distinguish one temple from another....

The second is from Maritain's Education at the Crossroads:

If we remember that the animal is the specialist, and a perfect one, all of its knowing-power being fixed upon a single task to be done, we ought to conclude that an educational program that would aim only at forming specialists ever more perfect in ever more specialized fields, and unable to pass judgement on any matter that goes beyond their specialized competence, would lead indeed to a progressive animalization of the human mind and life.

Finally, he offers the following quote from "The Changing Idea of a University: American Higher Education and the Illiberal Use of Knowledge", by Matthew D. Wright [The 2001 Lord Acton Essay Competition - The Acton Institute]:

Liberal education values man as man, unique in an ordered universe and ordered in his uniqueness. Man is not a fungible cog in the gears of social progress. Developing the student's intellect is its own good, admitting of no further justification for the energy expended. Liberal learning educates for the good of man, and in so doing produces a good for mankind. Utilitarian training, on the other hand, abandons the good of the soul for the perceived good of society, and in so doing abandons the possibility of a good society to shallow and incontinent souls. This is increasingly the position of American culture. As Newman observed of his own day, "The Philosophy of Utility, you will say, Gentlemen, has at least done its work; and I grant it,-- [sic] it aimed low, but it has fulfilled its aim." The state's experiment in utilitarianism has been overwhelmingly successful as well. Contemporary technological sophistication is unparalleled, and the university has unquestionably been at the forefront of this progress. Nonetheless, as society begins to experience the upshot of abandoning its heritage, the realization grows that it has had far, far too low an aim.

(A tip of the hat to Christopher)

2005-08-24T06:21:00.000-07:00

Bowling for Lenoir-Rhyne
A new Michael Moore movie?
Or the new liberal arts curriculum?

by Philip Blosser

The following remarks express my concern about the erosion of the liberal arts core at Lenoir-Rhyne College. They should not be misconstrued as a self-serving gesture in behalf of job security. I have no fear of losing my job here, no matter what curricular changes are finally implemented here; although, given the current drift of things, it might be a blessing. While I may complain about Lenoir-Rhyne’s poor salaries like everyone else, I want it to be clear that my purpose here is to defend the integrity of the liberal arts mission of the college, not my personal position.

Several times since last fall, I have written about the eroding liberal arts curriculum in colleges and universities across the country, as well as in my own instition of Lenoir-Rhyne College. See, e.g., (1) "Designing educational 'outcomes'" (Sept. 18, 2004), (2) "Axing liberal arts courses in a market driven curriculum" (Oct. 4, 2004), (3) "Axing liberal arts courses (part 2)" (Oct. 4, 2004); (4) "Axing liberal arts courses (part 3)" (Oct. 4, 2004); (5) "Deconstructing the liberal arts curriculum" (Oct. 27, 2004); and (6) "On why liberal arts programs are being eroded" (May 11, 2005).

The matter is not merely academic. I have just come from a meeting in which the School of History, Philosophy, and Religion, of which I am a member, was asked by the chair of the faculty curriculum committee to consider a proposed new liberal arts curriculum in which philosophy would be no longer required of all students, but grouped together with a number of electives alongside courses in "physical wellness." Let me translate: a student, under this proposal, would be allowed to choose between Introductory Philosophy and, say, Introductory Bowling. Students would doubtless leap for joy. But from the point of view of anyone schooled in the history and meaning of the liberal arts, this is (to use the words of one of my colleagues in history) simply obscene!

The issues go far deeper than bowling or philosophy. The proposal shows a profound poverty of understanding – or at least a profound myopia – on the part of those faculty members who designed the proposed curricular changes. It reveals an erosion in understanding about the very purpose of liberal arts education, not to mention the place of philosophy in such an education. The problem behind this myopic reasoning is simple: philosophy, like the other liberal arts, has no immediately identifiable utility, therefore it is assumed to lack substantial value. By contrast, courses in "professional" programs -- such as business, marketing, tax law, physical therapy, occupational therapy, exercise science, nursing, computer science, etc. -- are obviously very useful, and therefore assumed to be eminently valuable. They offer practical “know-how” that can be harnessed for useful purposes -- often with great financial rewards -- in the world of business, industry, and the health-related professions. Hence, it's easy to assume that what has no immediate imaginable use must be basically worthless. This, at least is the assumption under which the liberal arts, including philosophy, are being eroded in favor of professional programs.

While I would be the last to question the value of whatever is useful, I would be the first to insist that not all value is reducible to utilitarian value. This is the great error of our times, especially in first-world countries like the United States. We value work. We value it because it is useful. It builds things, produces consumer articles, and gets things done.

But there are many things that have no utilitarian value that are of great value and importance. Who would question the profound value of happiness and pleasure? Yet we don't value either of these because they're useful. Useful for what? Nothing. We enjoy them precisely as ends-in-themselves. Who would be such a boor as to question the value of a birthday party! Yet we don't celebrate birthdays because they’re useful, but simply as ends-in-themselves – or, more precisely, to celebrate the life of an individual as an end-in-itself. Church attendance is not something generally considered useful either; which is likely why church attendance has fallen off so precipitously in our utilitarian work-a-day world. In fact, those who go out on Sunday, not to go to church, but to go shopping or to dine out, consider it very useful that stores and restaurants should be open on Sundays; and even those who have to work on Sundays consider it useful that they should have another day added to their schedule of gainful employment. But if God does exist, of course, then divine worship must have value, but not because of any particular usefulness it may have for God or for us. Even leisure is something of great value, though our utilitarian culture pressures us to think even of leisure in terms of its "usefulness" in enabling us to work harder. But that, of course, is to miss the point of leisure. Leisure is not something whose primary value is instrumental -- in helping us work harder -- but rather as an end-in-itself. Leisure is the point of work, not vice versa. We work in order to enjoy the leisure it makes possible, not the other way around; and anyone who confuses the means and ends here is in danger of losing all sense of what life is for. Likewise with the liberal arts.

If we bought a large wooded property of many hundreds of acres in the mountains, and came across a fence while exploring our newly-acquired lands, it would be foolish to act on an initial impulse to simply knock down the fence because it was in the way and we couldn't see its point in being there. The fence was presumably built for a purpose, and the prudent thing would be to discover that purpose. Likewise with the liberal arts. It would be equally foolish to act on an initial impulse to simply do away with liberal arts courses like philosophy, just because we couldn’t see any use in them. But that is exactly what the designers of this proposed curriculum have done in listing philosophy as an elective alongside bowling. Not only are they signalling that philosophy is as useless as bowling, however much certain curious individuals may enjoy them; whatever they may say, they are signalling that philosophy is of no more value than bowling!

Philosophy, like history and theology and the rest of the liberal arts, has a long and venerable tradition in western history. According to Aristotle’s classification, the practical sciences improve our practice. Thus computer science improves our performance in navigating the Internet world of online research and email. The productive sciences improve things in the world. Thus electrical engineering improves the memory chips that drive our computers. But neither of these sciences involves the liberal arts. What are the sciences, then, that improve our selves, our psyches, our souls? Why the liberal arts, of course, and none other!

It is a question of whether we want our students to all aspire to become in their own way “philosophers,” lovers of wisdom … or mere bowlers – knuckle-dragging mouth breathing bowlers for Lenoir-Rhyne, facing a future bereft of intellectual life, stuffed full of potato chips and sour cream dips and nachos grande, making shift to hobble, wheezing and grunting, hauling their tremulous torsos and abdomens in and out of fluorescent-lit bowling alleys. I am not so naive as to suppose that enlightened minds will prevail over the pressures of self-seeking utilitarian values among our faculty. But one may hope, and argue, and put up a good fight in behalf of our liberal arts mission.

Lenoir-Rhyne Business College & Technical Institute?

2005-08-24T06:14:00.000-07:00

Well, it was nice to get a few days after concluding summer school classes. But it's back to school again -- this time with the additional onus of being called upon to defend a liberal arts core curriculum against an administration and professional division who seem bent on turning this traditionaly church-related liberal arts college into a secular business college and technical institute.

Watering down the college mission?

2005-08-24T06:08:00.000-07:00

Last year the members of our school (History, Philosophy, and Religion) were asked to review our expected "student outcomes" in accordance with the demand imposed by our accrediting institution that we have a mechanism by which to measure our "performance." Are our graduating seniors exhibiting the "outcomes" we expect them to have attained in their liberal arts education at Lenoir-Rhyne College? It seems a reasonable idea.

The difficulty comes when we compare what our mission statement says with what we're doing. One of the major distinctives stressed in the Lenoir-Rhyne College Mission Statement is a religious one. It states that one of the institutional's goals is to "clarify personal faith," and that as "an institution of the North Carolina Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the College holds the conviction that wholeness of personality, true vocation, and the most useful service to God and the world are best discerned from the perspective of Christian faith."

Presumably, the framers of this mission statement believed that this mission could be achieved without succumbing to evangelistic proselytism and thereby compromising the academic integrity its programs. I, for one, believe that's an eminently attainable goal.

Recently, the chair of the committee charged with revamping the college curriculum wrote to me, thanking me for my input apropos our review of the "student outcomes" he had requested of us last year. I had pointed out a number of areas in which I thought there were significant disparities between the stated mission of the college and what we were in fact doing as an institution. He politely thanked me for my observations, and told me he both agreed and disagreed with me. He said he agreed with me on the importance of exploring the meaning of "vocation" (in connection with the mission statement's declaration about clarifying "personal faith"). On the other hand, he said, my concern seemed "a little over the top."

I responded by telling him that our Dean of Academic Programs had asked me about a month ago whether I'd be willing to mount a discussion series with the new faculty along the lines of the "Faith and Institutional Purpose" discussions I led with the Robert Benne book a couple years back. I declined. In my memo to the Dean, I stated that when I agreed to do so last year, only two faculty members turned up, and that if the administration and trustees of the college didn't show a serious commitment to the undertaking, then I didn't see why I, a Roman Catholic, should spend my time flogging a comatose horse that the Lutheran administration showed no interest in resuscitating.

I then said to the committee chair:

I have little illusion about the NC ELCA Synod offering any direction along these lines, much less the Administration or College Trustees doing so in the absence of Synodical interest or even understanding. My impression is of a decided drift in ELCA towards a prophetic stance which consists of holding up the denominational finger to see which way the wind is blowing. The imperatives of faith seem to be regarded increasingly as (1) having only a private, personal relevance, or, (2) insofar as they have any relevance to the world, as echoing what the secular world is already telling itself.

Hence, it was with some surprise that I received your email offering feedback on my comments about Student Outcomes from a year ago. I am not naive enough to suppose that anything I proposed will ultimately be considered seriously. Nevertheless, since you have taken the trouble to offer some remarks, I offer the following observations.
On the one hand, you say that you've thought a lot about my comments on value and agree with me. I imagine this has to do with the fact that most of us tend to assume that an ELCA college like ours ought to have some raison d'etre -- some noble or pious purpose -- to justify our sacrificial acceptance of its pathetic salaries.

On the other hand, you say that you may disagree with me and that my concern "seems a little over the top." And I imagine this has to do with the aforementioned ELCA drift, from which vantage point taking any position at odds with secular academe would constitute an institutional embarrassment.

You agree about the importance of vocation, but then ask about the students in our classes who may not even be theists, much less Christian. Well, what about them? Would we have expected the Apostle Paul to soft-pedal the Gospel because some of his listeners weren't believers? The issue is not avoided by pointing out that our venue is academic as opposed to evangelistic.

Look: when I was studying Buddhism in Japan, I took courses in which the instructor made no bones about the fact that his intention was to teach us Buddhism and to convince us of the truth of its Four Noble Truths. Should I have been offended by that? On the contrary, I should have been offended if the instructor singled me and other non-Buddhists out as a reason for watering down his presentation of Buddhism, should I not? Part of being liberally educated means understanding what believing Buddhists actually believe.

In our own case, the question is whether LRC as an institution means anything when it says, in its official mission statement, that it "holds the conviction that wholeness of personality, true vocation, and the most useful service to God and the world are best discerned from the perspective of Christian faith." Would it not be a trifle odd if none of our proposed outcomes even touched on the central component of the college's stated mission and purpose?

Again, I'm not so naive as to suppose that such considerations will constitute more than a passing annoyance to be waived aside like a buzzing fly over dinner. But I leave you with these thoughts, old fashioned enough to suppose that an accounting will someday be expected of our short lives.

Do the liberal arts leave the academy when God does?

2005-08-24T06:05:00.000-07:00

I received the following quotation from my son, Christopher, apropos the ongoing debate at Lenoir-Rhyne College over the administration's effort to reduce the size of the liberal arts in the core curriculum. The author, Michael Novak, suggests a link between the eclipse of God and the eclipse of Western humanism in education:

What, then, is the place of God in our colleges? The basic human experiences that remind man that he is not a machine, and not merely a temporary cog in a technological civilization, are not fostered within the university. God is as irrelevent in the universities as in business organizations; but so are love, death, personal destiny. Reliigion can thrive only in a personal universe; religious faith, hope, and love are personal responses to a personal God. But how can the immense question of a personal God even be posed and made relevant when the fundamental questions about the meaning and limits of personal experience are evaded?
"God is dead... What are these churches if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?" Nietzsche asked. But much of Western humanism is dead too. Men do not wander under the silent stars, listen to the wind, learn to know themselves, question, "Where am I going? Why am I here?" They leave aside the mysteries of contingency and transitoriness, for the certainties of research, production, consumption. So that it is nearly possible to say: "Man is dead... What are these buildings, these tunnels, these roads, if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of man?" God, if there is a God, is not dead.
He will come back to the colleges, when man comes back.

-- Michael Novak, "God in the Colleges," Harper's (1961)

Susan Jackson's boyfriend

2005-08-18T12:51:00.000-07:00

Susan Jackson's boyfriend is Brandon Patchin, a blond guy who taught Susan how to Salsa! Hot doggidy, if this isn't sizzlin news, I don't know what is!! Eric Wallace, eat your heart out! Hubba-hubba!

The Conveniently Selective Outrage of the “Culture of Life”

2005-03-31T23:50:00.000-08:00

Considerable outrage has been expressed in recent weeks concerning the much-reported family tragedy in Florida and of course the loudest voices in this cacophony have come from the “right to life” community. The typical argument from this community includes accusations that the US government has begun to sponsor euthanasia, that the US populous is too complacent with their government’s actions and some of the more fuming talking heads have even resorted to comparing the current state of the U.S. to that of Nazi Germany. And I must admit there is some truth in these accusations.

However, the irony of this situation is that the most convincing evidence of our country having gone astray is being completely ignored by the self appointed protectors of life. In Huston on March 15 a five month old child was taken off of life support against the wishes of his family. In this case there was no disagreement among family members concerning the course of treatment, they all felt that the child should remain on life support. However, according to a 1999 Texas Advanced Directives Act a hospital can legally cease life-sustaining treatment even against the expressed wishes of the patient or their families if the hospital decides that such treatment is hopeless (READ: COSTS TO MUCH!). It is also worth noting that this law does not require that the patient in question be in any sort of compromised mental state, so theoretically at the hospital’s urging an individual in perfect mental health could be taken off of life-support and not even be consulted about the discussion. What kind of a monster would support such a law? I don’t know but maybe George W Bush, who signed the act during his last year as governor of Texas (while at the same time running a pro-life presidential campaign) would have some thoughts on the matter.

The fact that the leader of “The Culture of Life” movement is directly culpable for the death of Wanda Hudson’s son may be one of the reasons why there were no TV cameras outside of her son’s hospital two weeks ago when he died. There weren’t any protestors either. And of course no federal effort was made to defend her child’s right to life. However, I have to wonder if the current republican leadership’s involvement in this death is the only reason why the “Culture of Life” is conveniently silent on this subject or if perhaps there is something much more sinister at work? Perhaps the “Culture of Life” being promoted is not a culture that concerns it’s self with the economically disadvantaged or certain minorities or those with non-tradition religious beliefs as Wanda Hudson falls into all of these categories.

Historically, whenever politics and organized religion are married the result is almost always a totalitarian regime that pays lip service to morality and a religious hierarchy that is so greedy for political power that they refuse to point out the government’s hypocrisy. I fear that if the well-intentioned members of the “Culture of Life” do not do a better job selecting their leaders, then they may be remembered in the same light as the German villagers who lived around concentration camps.

Detroit Free Press: 5-month-old taken off life support dies

Anti-Western Orthodoxy

2005-01-26T06:42:00.000-08:00

Sean Fagan recently called my attention to an article by Jason Byassee entitled "Looking East: The Impact of Eastern Orthodoxy" (The Christian Century , December 28, 2004). The article struck me as being an excellent specimen of ebullient hooey.

First, the article, obviously by a Protestant, is so obviously enamoured of all the self-congratulatory nonsense fed to him by the Eastern Orthodox person(s) he interviewed, that it looses any semblance of objectivity.

Second, the Eastern Orthodox views and attitudes parroted by the author remind me, once again, why Eastern Orthodoxy could best be described as Anti-Western Orthodoxy, since it seems incapable of defining its own identity in terms other than opposition to the West, whether Protestant or Catholic. It altogether loses sight of the fact that its own tradition, despite whatever cultural differences that emerged between the Greek and Latin divisions of the Roman Empire, is seamlessly Catholic up until and even substantially beyond AD 1054, that all Christians-- East and West-- accepted not only the Primacy but Supremacy of Rome and the unity of the Orthodox and Catholic Faith. (See for example the early testimony of St. Maximus the Confessor and the early Popes, or the witness of the Eastern Acacian Schism of 484-519.)

For example, when Jason Byassee draws a contrast at the beginning of this article between all the debates and dualizations of the West between Protestant and Catholic, on the one hand, and the unity transcending such debates and dualities found among the Orthodox, on the other hand, he's parroting Eastern Orthodoxy's paradigmatic self-identification as non-Western, as independent of all these false problems and futile dualizations of the West. On this view, Catholics and Protestants debate endlessly whether conversion is by grace or free will; whether theological disputes are adjudicated by the Bible or tradition; whether the Church's authority resides in pope, bishops, or the faithful; and over such dualizations as those between academic theology and sacred worship-- whereas Eastern Orthodoxy remains a bystanding observer removed from the fray, sadly lamenting all this Western foolishness in its own wise realization that these are all false dualities and that the truth of the matter resides in the duality-transcending unity of its own surpassing unitive wisdom. On this view, Western theology (whether Catholic or Protestant) is rationalistically compartmentalized into fragmentary disciplines focused on Scripture, ecclesiology, Church history, systematic theology, pastoral ministry, etc., whereas Eastern Orthodoxy, in its wisdom, understands that theology is ultimately no more than doxological prayer and worship. On this view, Western theology is centered either atomistically on "individuals" or on an impartial "they," while Eastern Orthodoxy, in its divine wisdom, is conducted in the first-person plural "we," in the understanding that theology is a loving word of praise to God who first speaks His Word to us in Christ and by the Spirit draws us into the communion of the Holy Trinity.

Of course, all this is very beautiful and sublime and enticing; which misses the point, however, that it is all a piece of historical fiction fabricated in opposition to a straw man, at least as far as Catholic tradition is concerned. For Catholic tradition has never insisted against Protestants that conversion is by free will in opposition to divine grace, but both. Catholic tradition has never insisted against Protestants that theological disputes are to be adjudicated by appeal to the Church's Sacred Tradition in opposition to the Bible, because the Bible is part of Sacred Tradition and may never be contradicted by Church teaching. Catholic tradition has never insisted against Protestants (or the Orthorox) that the church's authority resides exclusively in popes in opposition to bishops or the faithful, but in the college of bishops in unity with the pope in the context of the historical sensus fidelium ("sense of the faithful"). Catholic tradition has never assumed (against the Orthodox) that its Faith, whose diverse aspects are the subject of different divisions of theological inquiry, are meant to be divorced from the Church's life of prayer and worship, but rather has always insisted proverbially that "the law of prayer is the law of faith" (lex orandi, lex credendi). Catholic tradition has never focused impartially on atomistic "individuals" to the exclusion of the first-person plural "we," but always maintained that salvation is a matter of incorporation through baptism into the mysterious "Body of Christ," or that Church membership is a matter of being received aboard the "Ark of Salvation" in the company of the Communion of Saints.

In short, all of this enthusiasm about Orthodoxy's unique, non-Western identity is not merely misleading and dishonest, but the bad fruit of pernicious historical resentments and willful self-deception. Many Eastern Orthodox theologians, like many Protestant ones, have profound gifts of biblical, theological, and spiritual insight that should be appreciated and celebrated by all Christians. But efforts of contemporary Eastern Orthodox Christians to elevate themselves by falsely derogating, disparaging, or otherwise detracting from Catholic (or Protestant) tradition in this fashion simply exhibits the degree to which Eastern Orthodoxy has fallen from its claim to embody the universal Church and succumbed to a negativism that is most aptly described as Anti-Western Orthodoxy.

Christmas Reflections

2004-12-24T13:31:00.000-08:00

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying,

Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will toward men.

And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another,

Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pas, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them. (The Gospel According to Luke, Chapter Two, Verses 13-20)

Every Christmas, it seems, NEWSWEEK or TIME magazine will come out with an article featuring the "latest scholarship" concerning the "authenticity" of the Christmas story. The scholarly authorities cited are consistently and incorrigibly one-sided, usually including scholars like John Dominic Crossan who dissent from Church teaching, or more ostensibly mainline scholars like Raymond E. Brown (now deceased) who have been quite thoroughly corrupted by the Humean philosophical presuppositions of the historical-criticism of the biblical narrative. The upshot is always the conclusion, or at least the suggestion, that the Gospel writers are unreliable and not to be trusted, and certainly not to be taken at face value. Just how ludicrous this all is can be seen by almost anyone with a bit of intelligence and familiarity with literature, mythology, and history. One of the best examples of a powerful antedote to this kind of foolishness is a little essay by C.S. Lewis entitled "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism," which is available in a collection of essays by Lewis entitled Christian Reflections [Amazon link] (1967; reprinted by Eerdmans, 1994). The following are some excerpts from Lewis' essay, which begins on p. 152 and contains four objections (or "bleats") about modern New Testament scholarship:

1. [If a scholar] tells me that something in a Gospel is legend or romance, I want to know how many legends and romances he has read, how well his palate is trained in detecting them by the flavour...

I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one [of the stories in the Gospel of John, for example] is like this... Either this is reportage - though it may no doubt contain errors - pretty close up to the facts; nearly as close as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative...

2. All theology of the liberal type involves at some point - and often involves throughout - the claim that the real behaviour and purpose and teaching of Christ came very rapidly to be misunderstood and misrepresented by his followers, and has been recovered or exhumed only by modern scholars... The idea that any... writer should be opaque to those who lived in the same culture, spoke the same language, shared the same habitual imagery and unconscious assumptions, and yet be transparent to those who have none of these advantages, is in my opinion preposterous. There is an a priori improbability in it which almost no argument and no evidence could counterbalance.

3. Thirdly, I find in these theologians a constant use of the principle that the miraculous does not occur... This is a purely philosophical question. Scholars, as scholars, speak on it with no more authority than anyone else. The canon 'if miraculous, unhistorical' is one they bring to their study of the texts, not one they have learned from it. If one is speaking of authority, the united authority of all the Biblical critics in the world counts here for nothing.

4. My fourth bleat is my loudest and longest. Reviewers [of my own books, and of books by friends whose real history I knew] both friendly and hostile... will tell you what public events had directed the author's min to this or that, what other authors influenced him, what his over-all intention was, what sort of audience he principally addressed, why - and when - he did everything... My impression is that in the whole of my experience not one of these guesses has on any one point been right; the method shows a record of 100 per cent failure.

The 'assured results of modern scholarship', as to the way in which an old book was written, are 'assured', we may conclude, only because those who knew the facts are dead and can't blow the gaff... The Biblical critics, whatever reconstructions they devise, can never be crudely proved wrong. St. Mark is dead. When they meet St. Peter there will be more pressing matters to discuss.

However... we are not fundamentalists... Of course we agree that passages almost verbally identical cannot be independent. It is as we glide away from this into reconstructions of a subtler and more ambitious kind that our faith in the method wavers... The sort of statement that arouses our deepest scepticism is the statement that something in a Gospel cannot be historical because it shows a theology or an ecclesiology too developed for so early a date...

Such are the reactions of one bleating layman... Once the layman was anxious to hide the fact that he believed so much less than the Vicar; he now tends to hide the fact that he believes so much more...

If you're interested in ordering the book, click on the link below:

C.S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, edited by Walter Hooper [Amazon link]

Merry Christmas everyone!

Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon weighs in on the First Amendment debate

2004-12-03T11:14:00.000-08:00

Patrick Henry Reardon, a priest of the Antiochean Orthodox tradition and editor of Touchstone magazine, weighs in on the current separation of Church and State debate with a provocative essay entitled "Free Press & Pulpit: On the First Amendment." This article was used (with permission of the author) as a basis for the December Colloquium of the Center for Theology at Lenoir-Rhyne College, with Dr. J. Larry Yoder leading the discussion.

One of the issue to surface, left unaddressed by Reardon, was the issue of the tax-exempt status of Churches. While some present felt the question irrelevant, others pressed the issue, some arguing on the one hand that this should prevent churches getting mixed up in politics, others arguing that churches ought to abandon their tax exempt status in order to freely address the public square and endorse political candidates.

It seems to me that one of Reardon's most salient points was implicit in his title: "Free Press and Pulpit." The press has traditionally been seen as the public arena where "the facts" (policy issues, etc.) are freely addressed and debated. The Church has been viewed for some time as properly belonging to the sphere of private and personal "values" (religious and moral beliefs). This distinction conforms to the post-Kantian bifurcation of "facts" and "values." The problem, however, as we now see clearly, is that the press does not withhold its value-judgments in addressing various public policy issues. Likewise, Church teaching is replete with implications for the public sphere of politics. The "fact" vs. "value" dichotomy, as tidy as it looks, just doesn't work. The fact is, genuine values (the immorality of rape and murder, the goodness of courage and mercy) themselves are facts, as Peter Kreeft notes in his book, A Refutation of Moral Relativism. The upshot of Reardon's article, at least in my reading of it, is that the Church ought to be freely proclaiming her teachings, and she shouldn't be hesitant to do so just because these teachings have implications for public policy, as do Church teachings (at least of the Catholic and Orthodox churches) on such matters as abortion, stem-cell research, and same-sex "marriage."

Why We Must Invade Iran Immediately!

2004-11-20T02:53:00.000-08:00

It is of the up most importance that the United States immediately invades and disarms Iran. I know this argument may seem odd (particularly coming from me). However, after seeing recent reports concerning Iran’s admission to the International Atomic Energy Agency that they have been producing uranium hexaflouride and Colin Powell’s proclamation that US intelligence confirms Iranian dissidents are attempting to produce nuclear weapons I am forced to come to this conclusion.

We cannot know if Iran is telling us to truth when they claim that the uranium hexaflouride is intended for the production of atomic energy and not the production of atomic weapons. However, we can be certain that the Iranian government knows that we preemptively invaded Iraq because we believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, despite warnings to the contrary from the International Atomic Energy Agency. We can also be certain that the Iranian government knows that the United States now believes that the Iranians not only have the capability to create but intend create and use atomic weapons. AND this time the International Atomic Energy Agency believes that Iran has this capability because Iran has admitted it has this capability.

So, the government of Iran knows that we will feel justified in invading and overthrowing any nation we believe has weapons of mass destruction that could be used against the United States. They also know that we believe they have this capability and will not accept any other nation’s assurance that Iran does not have this capability. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that the Iranians believe that a US invasion is inevitable and that it would be pure folly to obey their agreement with the European Union to freeze their nuclear program. In fact it logically follows that the Iranians will deduce that the only thing which will halt an invasion by a vastly superior US military force is either the use or the threat of nuclear weapons. Therefore the Iranians must believe that the only way to preserve their nation and way of life is to double their efforts to create atomic weapons.

When the globe repercussions of a fundamentalist theocratic nation in the most volatile region in the world possessing atomic weapons is taken into consideration we must admit that the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran is a hundred times more urgent, a hundred time more important and hundred times more immediate then the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We also must admit that we are obligated to act to prevent this situation from becoming reality by any means necessary. We must do this not for the sake of our safety at home, not for the sake of democratic ideals and not for the sake of anything short of preventing global annihilation. We have fallen to far down the slippery slope of the doctrine of preemptive strike to return to our previous methods. We must accept responsibility for the course of action we have committed ourselves to and follow it though to its enviable conclusion because the alternative is unthinkable.

There is not doubt that our invasion of Iran would cause every Islamic nation in the world to unite against us. There is not doubt that the blood shed and dreadful atrocities sure to be committed on both sides in the war which followed would be the most horrific thing ever seen in the human era. Furthermore, there is not doubt that even if victorious the United State will be forever remembered as a nation of warmongers. But we must act thus, not for peace in our time, not for the relaxed erroneous assurance that humanity is not capable of such horror and not for the legacy of our nation. We must act thus because we are in this one for no less then the species.

Democracy At Risk

2004-10-31T08:23:00.000-08:00

Here is a post from one of my favorite political blogs, MSNBC's Hardblogger, the reason why I like it so much is it is one of the very few political blogs where the posters are both politically balanced and competent. With commentators like Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, Ron Regan and Joe Trippi (just to name a few and not even considering the msNBC reporting staff) you would be hard pressed of find anywhere else that gathers as many diverse political opinions and this much practical political experience in the same place. The other day one of their reporters David Shuster posted an article entitled “Our democracy at risk?” which was on a topic that I was planning on writing about but Mr. Shuster article was much more elegant then anything I could throw together in my spare time so I thought I would just re-post his article for popular consumption.

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." ~Thomas Jefferson

I've been wondering lately what Thomas Jefferson would think about the millions and millions of people who are about to step into a voting booth... and instead of being "well-informed," they are "mis-informed."

I'm talking specifically about those voters who are convinced Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime had weapons of mass destruction when U.S. forces invaded.

Despite a recent and well-publicized report from the Bush administration's own chief weapon inspector that Iraq did not have WMD or WMD programs before the Iraqi war, a new poll suggests that 53 percent of "uncommitted voters" believe that Iraq did have such WMD or WMD programs. The University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm, had even more stunning numbers regarding "Bush voters." 72 percent of Bush voters said they believed Iraq had WMD or WMD programs when the U.S. invaded. (47 percent of the Bush voters believe Iraq had actual weapons of mass destruction, and 25 percent
believe Iraq had WMD programs.)

A few weeks ago, Charles Duelfer, the Bush administration's own Iraqi weapon's inspector, wrote a report concluding that Saddam Hussein's regime (1) destroyed its chemical and biological weapons after the first gulf war 13 years ago, (2) ended the nuclear program 13 years ago and never restarted it, and (3) abandoned biological weapons research 8 years ago because of UN sanctions.

To me, some intellectually logical and honest arguments do exist that support the invasion of Iraq. I respect people who feel that because our government suspected in March of 2003 that Saddam had WMD... the invasion was justified to find out for sure. (Whether one agrees or disagrees with the decision to invade versus continue diplomacy/inspections is an entirely different matter.) My point is that you can argue for the invasion while still acknowledging today that Iraq didn't have WMD.

So, why are so many voters clinging to the now disproven claim that Saddam had WMD? Have those voters been misled? Are these voters simply ignorant? Whatever the reason, an electorate that is widely "misinformed" is dangerous to us all. Thomas Jefferson, if you can hear us, please help.

Our Commander-in-Chief

2004-10-28T19:20:00.000-07:00

This little piece of footage (from the last few months GW Bush was governor of Texas) pretty much speaks for itself. However, perhaps it explains what our current commander-in-chief considers victory to be and why he sees the current status of Iraq as a "great victory in the war against terror."

Declaring Victory (.mov Quicktime 1.09Mb)

Deconstructing the liberal arts curriculum

2004-10-27T08:54:00.000-07:00

I have been carrying on a lively exchange with a couple of colleagues who favor dismanteling the current liberal arts curriculum. On the one hand, they oppose the reduction of liberal arts core requirements, since this would compromise their own investment in the core curriculum. But on the other hand, they are opposed to the traditional division of subjects along the lines of distinct "disciplines" corresponding to traditional "departments." The reason they offer for this opposition is that it does not do justice to the "inter-disciplinary" nature of knowledge. My own hunch is that two related concerns are more likely what really animate their opposition: first, their postmodern commitments, which inevitably tend toward deconstruction; and second, their desire to teach philosophical issues (what they would call the "meta-" issues) rather than what is traditionally proper to their own disciplines. In any case, the lively discussions we have been having may be followed, for anyone interested, at the following links:

An exchange on whether the liberal arts core should be deconstructed in the college curriculum (Part 1) [Note: this post focuses on the question whether the contention that curricular disciplines are cultural constructs means that the traditional distinctions between curricular courses and majors has no basis in fact. I cite Herman Dooyeweerd's work for the negative.]
An exchange on deconstructing the liberal arts curriculum (Part 2) [Note: this post focuses on the question whether an "interdisciplinary" approach to the curriculum is justified by the assumption that there are no irreducible aspects of experience or reality that serve as the basis for distinct subjects and majors. I cite Herman Dooyeweerd's work for the negative.]
An exchange on deconstructing the liberal arts curriculum (Part 3) [Note: this post focuses on the question whether there are irreducible dimensions of experience or reality, which serve as the basis for dividing the curriculum into distinct subjects or majors. I cite the work of Herman Dooyeweerd for the affirmative.]

Pro-choice logic

2004-10-27T08:30:00.000-07:00

I recently forwarded an email to several colleagues with what I consider to be an absolutely brilliant parody of pro-choice logic by Robert P. George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton. It goes like this:

"I am personally opposed to killing abortionists. However, inasmuch as my personal opposition to this practice is rooted in sectarian (Catholic) religious belief in the sanctity of human life, I am unwilling to impose it on others who may, as a matter of conscience, take a different view. Of course, I am entirely in favor of policies aimed at removing the root causes of violence against abortionists. Indeed, I would go as far as supporting mandatory one-week waiting periods, and even non-judgmental counseling, for people who are contemplating the choice of killing an abortionist. I believe in policies that reduce the urgent need some people feel to kill abortionists while, at the same time, respecting the rights of conscience of my fellow citizens who believe that the killing of abortionists is sometimes a tragic necessityâ€”not a good, but a lesser evil. In short, I am moderately 'pro-choice.'"

One colleague who received the email responded, which led to an interesting exchange, which you can read on my Philosophia Perennis blog here.

Dr. Janet Smith visits Lenoir-Rhyne College

2004-10-25T07:00:00.000-07:00

Well, well, well ... What a weekend it was. Lenoir-Rhyne College hosted the Aquinas-Luther Conference this past weekend, beginning on Thursday evening with a festival vespers at Holy Trinity Lutheran Church in Hickory, with the magnificent accompaniment by the Lenoir-Rhyne College choir, followed by an hour-long presentation by Dr. Janet Smith entitled "Why Natural Sex is Best." Dr. Smith presented a natural law-based defense of the traditional Catholic view of marriage, including an interesting discussion of what makes contraception and homosexuality problematic, including a discussion of the scientific studies by Lionel Tiger.

The following two days included talks by Richard Niebanck, yours truly (Philip Blosser), Charlotte Bishop Peter J. Jugis, John Pless, and Patrick Henry Reardon, editor of Touchstone magazine. Friday evening, following the banquet presentation by Bishop Jugis, Campus Pastor Anderew Weisner (pictured left) organized a student discussion session in the Hickory Room, where students could ask questions directly of the presenters. Unbeknownst to those in attendance, Pastor Weisner had asked student, Sean Fagan, to "drop a bomb" to spark a good discussion. Mr. Fagan's rather liberal interpretation of Weisner's suggestion led him, while sitting near the Bishop of Charlotte, to assume the role of an overheated gay activist promoting the glory of anal sex. Fellow student, Eric Wallace, who had introduced himself as Mr. Fagan's roommate, quickly ventured to withdraw the earlier statement he had volunteered during introductions that he was Fagan's roommate. The discussion, for obvious reasons, was quite lively, with particularly memorable input by student Amy Greensfelder and presentor Dr. Janet Smith.

My only regret, as I mentioned to Dr. Smith after the conference, was that more students did not have the chance to hear or engage in discussion with Dr. Smith. Whatever their views on sex and marriage, those who met and talked with Dr. Smith were nearly unanimous in their assertions that she had given them a lot to think about. Thank you, Dr. Smith.

Dr. Smith's audio CD, "Contraception: Why Not?" is available online from http://www.omsoul.com/category19.html.
The text can be found online at: http://www.lrc.edu/rel/blosser/Janet%20Smith.htm.
Also, I still have available a number of free audio CDs of the talk from the conference for any students willing to come by my office at Russell House, No. 7 (campus extension: 7186).

For books by Dr. Janet Smith and other related books, see below:

Axing liberal arts courses in a market driven curriculum

2004-10-04T13:43:00.000-07:00

[Note: this is a reprint off another one of my blogs, but I thought it appropriate to post here for a wider audience.] ... About every five or ten years it always seems to come back around to what can be cut from the liberal arts core at these private, church-related liberal arts institutions. Funny isn't it, how the liberal arts is nearly always one of the central components nestled securely in their mission statements. Yet the liberal arts courses are usually the first to fall under the axe. Usually something like art. Or philosophy. Or history. Or religion. Why? The problem, apparently, is that they seem the least defensible in a market-driven economy.

Aristotle gave us our distinctin between theory and practice. He also had a third category: production. These were his division for the sciences (from the Latin term scientia, meaning "knowledge"), which where not sharply distinguished from philosophy. These three categories corresponded to 'knowing', 'doing', and 'making'. Productive science improves things in the world. Practical science improves our practice. But what does theoretical science (knowledge for the sake of knowledge improve? The philistine mind might well answer: nothing.

This, you see, is what we're up against. The usefulness of subjects like "computer science," or "industrial arts," or "auto mechanics" is immediately apparent. They are practical. If you know auto mechanics you're not worthless. You can fix cars. You can get a job. You can make money. Auto mechanics thus provides the clear means towards attaining the desired practical end: gainful employment. Thus one becomes a productive citizen. But to what end are liberal arts courses like history, philosophy, literature, and religion directed? What are they good for? Again, the philistine answer would seem to be: nothing.

Why "philistine"? Because the liberal arts are the core of a what the accumulated wisdom of the Western tradition has long regarded as a genuine education. Productive science may improve things in the world. Practical science may improve our practice. But theoretical science -- or "knowledge for the sake of knowledge," which is what the liberal arts represent -- which seems so "useless" to the philistine, actually improves the most important thing of all: the self, one's self-understanding and depth of understanding of human experience as such. People who lack an education in the liberal arts lack depth perception, glimpsing only the surface of things. They themselves are flat, like cardboard cutouts. Yet demonstrating this is next-to-impossible in an ethos that has been effectively eviscerated of this depth dimension of understanding. Socrates said "know thyself," and "the unexamined life is not worth living." People today seem to frightened of self-knowldege and to suppose that the effort required in examining life makes the only life worth living the unexamined one.

The Lenoir-Rhyne College administration is floating a proposal that would mean the diminution of the liberal arts core of its curriculum by a little over 20%, and a reduction by approximately 25% in the School of History, Philosophy, and Religion. From the vantage point of someone educated in the classic Jesuit tradition where core requirements included three courses in philosophy -- one in logic, one in ethics, and one in philosophy of human nature -- the fact that Lenoir-Rhyne is now floating a proposal to eliminate their single core requirement in philosophy and effectively undermine the viability of a philosophy major strikes me as ludicrous. Of course, though, from the vantage point of administrators who view courses in terms of market forces, the prospect of requiring students to take something as "useless" as philosophy is understandable. It's not even that philosophy is unpopular among students. Rather, it's that most of them don't even know, before they've had a class, what philosophy is. All they want to do is make themselves marketable when they graduate, and they think thy know that philosophy won't be of any help.

At the same time, it's mildly amusing that one problem the administration faces is graduating students performing abysmally poorly in senior exit exams in the area of "critical thinking," an area in which more rigorous philosophy requirements could help shore up scores considerably. What, these students don't need logic? Out of my 78 students in two sections of Intro to Philosophy this fall, only one student could tell me who "that man" is in the following simple puzzle of logical relationships: "Brothers of sisters have I none; but that man's father is my father's son." And that's after I gave them five minutes to puzzle it out in their notebooks. No wonder these students succumb to the pervasive pedestrian relativism in the atmosphere! They don't even know the difference between an argument and an unsupported assertion (which is why so many of them think John Kerry "won" the first "debate" with George Bush), much less the difference between what's "valid" in reasoning and what's "true."

And what, they don't need ethics? And they embrace a sophomoric subjectivism that collapses any possible distinction between the "apparent good" and the "authentic good"? And they don't need a philosophical understanding of human nature, the basis for any notion of natural rights? of any notion of natural vs. abnormal psychological development? of our tradition of political liberalism, which says government is best that governs least because human nature can't be trusted with absolute authority?

And now they want to drop 3 hours of religion from the core. In a school where we've graduated a senior (a daughter of a prominent local lawyer) who didn't know the difference between Martin Luther and Martin Luther King, Jr.? Where a graduating senior came into my office and asked in her senior year: "Can you tell me, just who was this Jesus dude?" Where 19 out of 25 students flunked an introductory religion course because they couldn't pass a final in which the curve allowed anyone to pass who made 50% or higher?

And they want to drop 3 hours in history, in an ethos intellectually inimical to any study of the historical, where, as George Santayana declared, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"?

The School of History, Philosophy of Religion, lies at the core of the liberal arts, with its disciplines centered on tradition. From the utilitarian perspectives of the market-driven economy, these disciplines are very difficult to defend. What looks more impractical and useless than history, philosophy, and religion? Yet these are in many ways the "mother disciplines" at the heart of an education that cultivates intellectual virtue, not merely as an end in itself, but as a means
of fostering practical wisdom and pointing the way to the virtues of morality and faith.

Two indispensable components of our institutional mission lie at the heart of Lenoir-Rhyne: (1) a liberal arts committment, and (2) a committment to the Christian perspective represented by the affiliated religious tradition. I see the current proposals, however inadvertently, as undermining the integrity of this mission. I see little hope in an environment where members of the college board of trustees no longer have much of a clue what they hold in trust. Let us hope that there are still some burning embers around in whom the fire of intellectual life has not died out completely.

I keep telling my students that the ideal of a liberal arts education for everyone is a relatively new and novel ideal in history. Just take a look at when most small liberal arts colleges and universities were founded. Most were founded in the mid-19th century. Most of their grandparents, I tell them, probably didn't go to college. And now, looking ahead, I suggest to them that their children may no longer have available the possibility of a liberal arts education. They have the privilege of living during this opportune window of time in which they have access to the kind of education that most ancients and medievals would have died for. Of course such remark don't have much impact.

For an excellent example of a church-related liberal arts institution that has done it's homework, see: Christian Liberal Arts Education: Report, Grand Rapids, Curriculum Study Committee, Calvin College.

For a profoundly insightful discussion of what the liberal arts means in a life devoted to the Socratic ideal, see: A. G. Sertillanges, The Intellectual Life: Its Spirit, Conditions, Methods

For another excellent discussion, see Robert Benne's Quality with Soul: How Six Premier Colleges and Universities Keep Faith with Their Religious Traditions

For extended discussion of this issue, see subsequent posts in Musings of a Pertinacious Papist.

2004-10-04T10:22:00.000-07:00

I found this press release from the ELCA rather interesting... any comments?

CHICAGO (ELCA) -- About 45 scientists and pastors, membersof the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, studied the linksbetween their Christian faith and their vocations and avocationsin science and technology. They gathered here Sept. 17-19 for a"Sunday Scientists! Symposium" sponsored by the ELCA Alliance forFaith, Science and Technology. "The aim was twofold," said Dr. Kevin Powell, a member ofthe Alliance, symposium organizer and a pediatrician, College ofMedicine, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "One wasto improve how Lutheran congregations relate to science, and theother was on a more personal level," he said. "For many of these people there's been a conflict betweenscience and religion, and they are people who really want tointegrate the two. They feel that what they are doing with theirvocation is what God has called them to do," Powell said. "The symposium was to give people cognitive tools, emotionalsupport and some affirmation from the institutional church thatyes, what they are doing is in fact God's calling," he said. "This was a great opportunity for people to come together tothink about what it means to be a scientist and a Christian andhow to live this out in their daily lives," said Gail Bucher,retired pharmacologist and chair, ELCA Alliance for Faith,Science and Technology, Belmont, Mass. "It met all of ourexpectations and probably exceeded them," she said. The symposium attracted Lutheran pastors, scientists,retired scientists and students, Bucher said. Some pastors weretrained in the sciences as well as Christian ethics andcongregational dynamics. The scientists represented such fieldsas astronomy, atomic physics, biochemistry, biotechnology,chemistry, computer science, environmental chemistry,mathematics, meteorology, molecular biology, neuroscience,nuclear chemistry, organizational biology, physics and publichealth. Participants came from California, Colorado, Illinois,Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico,New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia,Washington and Wisconsin. Their ages ranged from early 20s to80s. "If nothing else happened, we have now a great network offolks from within the ELCA" who can be a resource for the churchand a support system for each other, Bucher said. The symposium's agenda included worship, lectures,discussions and activities. Speakers included:+ Sarah Fredericks, a doctoral student in science, philosophy andreligion, Boston University, Mass.+ Dr. Theodore Hiebert, professor of Old Testament, McCormickTheological Seminary, Chicago+ The Rev. Antje Jackelen, associate professor of systematictheology, religion and science, and director, Zygon Center forReligion and Science, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago+ The Rev. George L. Murphy, ELCA pastor and trained physicist,pastoral associate, St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Akron, Ohio, andadjunct faculty, Trinity Lutheran Seminary, Columbus, Ohio+ Dr. Scott Nichols, scientist, Dupont, West Chester, Pa.+ The Rev. Patrick Russell, associate pastor, St. Peter'sLutheran Church, Lafayette, Pa.+ Roger Willer, part-time associate for studies, ELCA Divisionfor Church in Society, and doctoral candidate in theology,University of Chicago Presentation topics included a history of the interactionbetween science and religion, neuroscience and theology, andgenetically modified organisms. Small group discussions dealtwith the minimum scientific and theological understandings themodern Christian needs, a Bible of the book of Genesis, and theUnited Methodist Church's position on science and creationtheology. "George Murphy and Antje Jackelen handled the topic ofevolution and creation," Bucher said. "These are very difficultissues for Christians who are scientists to get their headsaround" and to explain how creation and evolution can co-exist inthe faith life of a Lutheran scientist, she said. Some of the most interesting speakers were the participants,Powell said. They discussed their experiences in ELCAcongregations and gave the Alliance some ideas on how to proceed,he said. "Our aim is to make congregations friendlier to science sothey can understand the world they are living in, which is soprofoundly influenced by science," Powell said. "People in thecongregations, especially the non-scientists, recognize how muchtheir lives are affected by science, but they can be veryfrustrated trying to figure out how to impact that change," hesaid.

Political Mumbo Jumbo

2004-10-04T08:45:00.000-07:00

Anyone have any reaction to the debates or the campaigns in general. We can keep this train of discussion up until the election or beyond.

2004-10-04T05:45:00.000-07:00

The ELCA's pet issue

2004-09-24T18:02:00.000-07:00

Today the ELCA published a press release detailing the fact that the the bishop of one of its synods has "[sent] a letter of censure and admonition" to one of its congregations for installing a pastor a person who is inelligible, vis a vis current "Visions and Expectations" for clergy ministry. The man in question is gay. In the letter, the Bishop said he would hold off on disciplinary action until the results of the current study on the issue of homosexuality is complete while emphasizing the fact that the congregation in question had flown in the face of current ELCA standards. Of course the release failed to mention whether the minister in question is a practicing homosexual. If he is, then the censure is entirely in order, because current church policy does call for celibacy outside of marraige. Bracketing the outcome of "the study," policy is policy. It seems that there are at least some church leaders out there are willing to take a stand. For more information... http://www.elca.org/co/news/, http://www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/, http://www.elca.org/dm/candidacy/vision_ordained.html. Comments?

The heart of an issue

2004-09-24T05:39:00.000-07:00

Friends - This article was emailed to various students for discussion by the Pastor, so I felt it appropriate to see what you all think...

Beaufort, S.C. - Much has been made in recent years of the
< unwillingness among college and university presidents to
< venture above the parapet and challenge some of the
< shibboleths of higher education. By this I do not mean
< advocacy of political positions. Presidents who would keep
< their campuses places where ideas are in fact freely
< exchanged ought to avoid signing public letters or
< endorsing candidates, tempting as it may be.
<
< No, I mean something else. I retired in June as president
< of Middlebury College in Vermont, but during my 13-year
< tenure I was as guilty as any of my colleagues of failing
< to take bold positions on public matters that merit serious
< debate. Now, a less vulnerable member of the faculty once
< more, I dare to unburden myself of a few observations. As
< the new school year begins, there are many things I suspect
< university presidents would like to say to their various
< constituencies but dare not.
<
< To faculties and governing boards: tenure is a great
< solution to the problems of the 1940's, when the faculty
< was mostly male and academic freedom was at genuine risk.
< Why must institutions make a judgment that has lifetime
< consequences after a mere six or seven years? Publication
< may take longer in some fields than in others, and familial
< obligations frequently interrupt careers. Why not a system
< of contracts of varying length, including lifetime for the
< most valuable colleagues, that acknowledges the realities
< of academic life in the 21st century?
<
< Moreover, when most tenure documents were originally
< adopted, faculty members had little protection. Today,
< almost every negative tenure decision is appealed. Appeals
< not upheld internally are taken to court. Few if any of
< these appeals have as their basis a denial of academic
< freedom.
<
< To current and prospective parents (and editors of
< magazines that profit by the American public's fascination
< with rankings): student/faculty ratio is overrated as a
< measure of quality. Can any faculty member persuasively
< argue that a class of eight or nine students is
< qualitatively superior to a class of 10 or 11? How many
< classes at any institution, large or small, are the actual
< size of the celebrated ratio? (Answer: very few.)
<
< More meaningful statistics, for those seeking to measure
< quality of education in terms of faculty accessibility, are
< average class size, average instructional load, percentage
< of faculty members who are full-time, and how frequently
< professors hold office hours or take their meals in student
< dining halls. And not all subjects are best learned around
< a seminar table. The large lecture, well designed and
< delivered, can, in fact, be a superior way to learn certain
< subjects.
<
< To lawmakers: the 21-year-old drinking age is bad social
< policy and terrible law. It is astonishing that college
< students have thus far acquiesced in so egregious an
< abridgment of the age of majority. Unfortunately, this
< acquiescence has taken the form of binge drinking. Campuses
< have become, depending on the enthusiasm of local law
< enforcement, either arms of the law or havens from the law.
<
<
< Neither state is desirable. State legislators, many of whom
< will admit the law is bad, are held hostage by the denial
< of federal highway funds if they reduce the drinking age.
< Our latter-day prohibitionists have driven drinking behind
< closed doors and underground. This is the hard lesson of
< prohibition that each generation must relearn. No college
< president will say that drinking has become less of a
< problem in the years since the age was raised. Would we
< expect a student who has been denied access to oil paint to
< graduate with an ability to paint a portrait in oil?
< Colleges should be given the chance to educate students,
< who in all other respects are adults, in the appropriate
< use of alcohol, within campus boundaries and out in the
< open.
<
< And please - hold your fire about drunken driving. I am a
< charter member of Presidents Against Drunk Driving. This
< has nothing to do with drunken driving. If it did, we'd
< raise the driving age to 21. That would surely solve the
< problem.
<
< I hope the public, and the higher education community, will
< be willing to engage these issues seriously and
< respectfully. My head is now well above the parapet.
< Gaudeamus igitur!
<
< John M. McCardell Jr. is college professor and president
< emeritus of Middlebury College.

This Blog

2004-09-22T16:45:00.000-07:00

This blog is set up for only a few people who happen to know each other pretty well, so the problem of forgetting who we are dealing with will likely be quelled. That said, lets get on to discussing!

Concerning the Internet and Blogging

2004-09-22T13:54:00.000-07:00

My suggestion wasn’t that good discussion isn’t worthwhile, rather that there is something about the Internet that catalyzes such discussions into screaming matches and competitions where those with the most outrageous conspiracy theories win (and note that you may indeed be disqualified from said contest if you try and support your claims with any valid information at all). All one has to do is look at the plethora of political blogs and see that the few that do offer good legitimate insight are infinitely outnumbered by the countless folks out there jamming angry at their keyboards and yelling piercingly through their computer screens.

I think this is probably due to the fact that it so easy to forget that there are actual people on the other side of the information super-highway and once you have forgotten that it becomes a simple matter to dehumanize everyone involved except yourself. Thus the end result is that people are much less concerned with the other guy then they would be if we were all, let us say, at the local tavern sipping a cold PBR. Where before you would most likely recognize that the opinion you were being presented with was important to the person presenting it and treat it with the respect which it entails, now you are free to completely ignore that fact. In short, as it has been similarly said of alcoholic drink, the Internet just turns you into the asshole you really are. However, I do have much hope that this will not be the immediate fate of this blog, as since we have to deal with each other on a daily basis I believe we will show much more respect to each other then your average blogger.

Of course this raises a more interesting question about the fate of the Internet. In the end is it going to be the great revolutionary tool for academia that it first promised to be or is it just going to be a source of stolen music, stolen movies and free pornography for the masses? Bread and Circus, anyone?

Post-Kierkegaard

2004-09-22T10:42:00.000-07:00

Perhaps Kierkegaard did not deny the metaphysical of the fallenness of man, but one must acknowledge that an incorrect reading of Kierkegaard could lead to the breakdown of such ideas. It seems evident in the Post-Modern Philosopihes of deconstructionism, etc. Sadly it would seem that one could draw a line from these relativistic ideas to existentialists, or perhaps even as far back as Descartes who set the standard for beginning philosophy from the individual. After this shift, philosophy split into the more Lebniz-ian conception of rationality and the train of thought that lead to the "subjectivism" of Kierkegaard. It would seem that the latter is more in keeping with the spirit of Descartes thought. I would argue that in a sense Descartes was asking the same questions as Socrates and Augustine , "Who am I?" But this question I think needs to be placed into the contect of the reality of the universe (and for Augustine the supernatural as well) - "Who am I?" and "How do I fit into the world around me?" Sadly, it would seem that Post-Modernism has lost sight of this last question.

Existentialism, truth, and fallenness

2004-09-22T06:19:00.000-07:00

All existentialists focus on the immediate inwarness of the individual subject's experience. In that sense, they lack the objectivistic openness to the world characteristic of traditional metaphysicians like Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. Thus even the Christian Soren Kierkegaard (pictured right) defines truth in terms of "subjectivity." Such a definition, of course, has its hazards. As Notre Dame Professor Ralph McInerny (pictured left) says, Kierkegaard is, at best, a "corrective." Kierkegaard was reacting to the excessive emphasis upon rational, scientific facticity characteristic of his time. But his reaction has often been understood to have been an overreaction, landing him in the quanderies of subjectivism.

Atheistic existentialists, such as Jean-Paul Sartre (pictured right, looking typically alienated amidst the oppressive greyness of a Parisian drizzle), lack any notion of "fallenness" whatsoever, except the fallenness that lies in the "bad faith" of refusing to choose what one wants to do. Kierkegaard, however, as a Christian, couldn't quite brazen out such a position. He still possessed on some level a sensitivity to the notion that one could sin, though this took an existentially over-inflated Lutheran form of describing God as a being over against which one "must always be in the wrong." However paradoxically Kierkegaard may express himself, therefore, I am disinclined to think that he jettisoned all notion of objective truth and fallenness.

A problem with an Existentialist conception of truth

2004-09-22T05:52:00.000-07:00

For our first topic of discussion I propose a subject that will be of interest to those in the Existentialism class.

An existential conception of philosophy seems to have an essential flaw in the fact that it places the datum of truth with flawed individual. For example, Kieregaard discusses the phenomenon of people who possess a great theretical knowledge of morals, yet themselves lead immoral lives. However, just because a problem is not given assent does not necessarily show that it is false. The essential problem of man is his fallen state. Perhaps one might view this as a more theological that philosophical argument, but even philosophy has acknowledged the finitude of human epistemological capabilites. This fallen state, however, is more than an epistemological problem. In a moral sense, man even when he knows right and knows wrong, often will choose wrong. This is the necessary result of free will. This thought does not seem all that different from Kierkegaard or other existentialists, but the difference is in the placement of flaw. It would seem that an existenialist would view the existence of immorality in the face of theoretical knowledge as demonstrating a fundamental flaw in methaphysical philosophy/knowledge. On the other hand, I would place the flaw with the knower rather than the knowledge. Thoughts?

Prove Voltaire wrong ...

2004-09-22T05:33:00.000-07:00

Jake's prediction could prove right, based on his adaptation of the quote from Voltaire (pictured left), "Good discussion over the Internet is usually neither good nor a discussion." But -- while we've the time for it, anyway -- we could try to prove him wrong. Perhaps one thing we could discuss is the value of discussion, to begin with. One observation I've heard many, many times is that students today, compared to students in the 1970s during the Vietnam War, are politically diffident, religiously indifferent and generally apathetic, that their chief interests lie in chasing the muses of personal peace ("don't bother me with anything") and affluence ("whoever dies with the most stuff wins"). In what, then, does the value of discussion, involvement, ecumenism, and political activism consist? Could all this discussion and talk and involvement not amount to useless and idle chatter? Could a disposition of apathy and indifference not be the essence of sanity amidst this insane world? Bertrand Russell (pictured right) once wrote a book of essays entitled In Praise of Idleness (pictured above left). Could he have been right? Are political debates, such as we have every four years, an exercise in self-delusion, futility, and an utter waste of time? Are ecumenical discussions between Lutherans and Catholics and Anglicans and Presbyterians a waste of time? Where have they gotten us? Should we perhaps jettison the ideal of that old geezer, Socrates (pictured left), who said that "the unexamined life is not worth living" and substitute for it the Russellian ideal "in praise of idleness"? Perhaps the majority of contemporary students are right after all, and it's the examined life that's not worth living. So why should we discuss anything at all? Perhaps we should each waste away our lives in idleness, sitting in front of his or her own computer monitor, shopping online, playing interactive games, watching movies, checking the news, listening to favorite tunes, or writing blogs that nobody will ever read ...

On that happy note, we'll see you around!

Good Discussion

2004-09-21T18:17:00.000-07:00

I will give this a try despite the fact that I am pretty sure that it will end poorly. Why do I say that you ask? Because to butcher an aphorism of Voltaire’s “Good discussion over the Internet is usually neither good nor a discussion.” But I am sure it will be fun anyway, at least for a while.

WELCOME!

2004-09-21T13:24:00.000-07:00

Welcome Friends,

This blog is intended for good discussion on various topics. Feel free to post topics as you wish, but it would probably be a good idea to keep the number of different discussions happening simultaneously to a minimum to ensure that each may be addressed fairly and completely. Enjoy!