Thursday, November 17, 2005

INTELLIGENT RESIGN: WHEN FUNDIES MONKEY WITH ACADEMICS

For the last eight years, friends would ask me, "How can you teach at a place that has such a narrow view of the world? Surely you don't fit in there." I would defend the University. I would comment that many of our students are pretty bright, and that there is a nucleus of faculty committed to academic rigor and fair inquiry. Most of all, however, I would satisy them and myself by saying, "Even though the jack-booted thugs sometimes come knocking, the administration has historically been good about protecting our freedom to teach what and how we choose."

I kept making that argument after Dr. N was forced to retire as a religion professor and dean. He had publicly supported a moderate shift away from the conservative denominational control over the University. When they came for him, I did nothing.

I kept arguing that we still had academic freedom when, a year or two later, another religion professor, Dr. L, was denied promotion for supporting the same moderate denominational shift. Dr. L resigned after feeling pressured out. That time I did a little bit. I raised the issue as a point of concern in our bid for regional accreditation. I was regularly told that I was mistaken and that I was only going to hurt the University if I kept up such public naysaying. I resigned from the accreditation steering committee in protest.

I was still arguing that "at least my personal academic freedom is intact" when the campus moral squad came after the theater program. My good friend, Dr. F, is the director; I serve on the theater advisory board. I waded in a little deeper that time, writing pointed screeds to colleagues and powers, and going mano a mano with the provost on issues of academics, aesthetic freedom, and the theological politics of public morality. Apparently my efforts had little effect. The provost has just announced that he will be censoring cuss words in the next University theater production. It appears we may soon lose another immensely talented educator. Gosh darn it. Shucks.

All of this establishes a clear pattern of creeping fundamentalist control, and a profound erosion of faith (Anne Lamott, says "The opposite of faith is not doubt: It is certainty."), not to mention a serious problem for academic freedom and integrity. The purveyors of religious paranoia continue to ride the recent momentum of conservative populism, cracking whips and taking names, in case anyone dares to step outside their box. No one is being tortured on campus yet, but if your interests run more toward independence than indoctrination, it's a good idea to sleep with your rump to the wall.

This renascent evangelical inquisition has recently showcased its latest blunt object: Its name is Intelligent Design.

After 40 years of faithful service to the University, Dr. H is being forced out.

He came as a student in 1960, and went on faculty as the sole biology professor in 1966. He and his family suffered low pay and tough conditions: for years qualifying for food stamps and free lunches, but not accepting them. He was faithful to the school and the community, maintaining membership at First Big Church. For years he served as a Gideon, helping get copies of Christian scriptures into the hands of people around the world who hadn't really read them before. He became one of the most scientifically literate and well-read professors the University ever had. His personal collection of books currently fills bookshelves that stand seven feet high and span about 70 feet in length. He is a colossal mind with a warm heart. Sure, he's a little more churlish than the happy clappy college-is-like-Sunday-school teachers, and he is an unapologetic old school liberal--and I think he has read every book ever written about Bob Dylan--but, hell, er, I mean, "heck," that's what tenure's supposed to be for, right? Trustees and administrators are fundamentally prohibited from coming to a professor and saying, "We don't like what you teach, and you get our panties in a wad, so we are firing you."

Through the years some detractors would object to his refusal to teach a Genesis account of creation. He would respond with a simple, "Well, it's not science, you see," and that was usually the end of it. On the occasion that it went any further, the administrators of yore would assure him, "You let us fight those battles for you." They may not have personally agreed with him, but they recognized that his academic freedom was sacrosanct, if they hoped to have any credibility as an institution of higher education.

Emboldened by their recent rise to political dominance, conservative voices have grown louder. Three or four years ago, a University trustee, who is also a pastor in the community, convinced the Gideons to kick Dr. H out of the organization. I guess teaching evolution doesn't make you fit to worship or share Jesus. The pastor never talked to Dr. H. Hasn't ever met him. Coward. Oh, the Gideons? They're cowards too.

The University gave Dr. H his walking papers this week. They aren't making it too hard on him financially, but it's a firing. They are taking him out of the sensitive classes for the spring, then he's done for good in the classroom. And we are all worse off for it.

I am not going to rehearse the public debates over evolution, from Scopes, to McLean, to Aguillard. I'm not going to mention Dover or Kansas. My purpose is not to settle the dispute over the teaching of intelligent design; you can find an interesting discussion of the topic here. My interest is broader: How do we treat those with whom we disagree?

Apparently, the new stategy for people of faith is to love everyone (who agrees with you); and, if anyone stands in the way of your cultural agenda, recognize that the principles and the agenda are far more important than any stinkin' relationship. I have a good friend, soon-to-be Dr. S, who argues that the marker for fundamentalist communication is a form of "chaos rhetoric." She says the implied message is always, "Accept my argument, or our society will be catapulted into ruin."

Lucky for the University, Dr. H is not a crusader. Even though he has been treated like a plate of warmed over shinola, he maintains his commitment to the campus community, and refuses to hurt them publicly or financially.

He's a better man than I. I am fed up with the spiritual arrogance and academic ignorance that impels them to continue cherry-picking those they see as ideological threats. I'm also upset that they are allowed to keep acting with impunity, enabled by this guilt-trippy, "You don't want to make a big deal out of this and hurt the university, do you?"

What infuriates me even more is that this purging really has nothing to do with morality or scholarship, it's about money. The University, like most colleges these days, is facing tough budgetary times. They hear of a redneck kid from Gravel Road High School who decides not to come to the University because we teach the evil evolution, and they run scared. They lack the courage and the capacity to lead. Instead they circle the wagons into a tighter and tighter knot, until everything we were attempting to protect has been squeezed out onto the trail and trampelled by the stampede out of Dodge.

I know Dr. H wishes everyone would just forget it and go on. There's nothing we can do about it, and what would be the point anyway? I am in awe at his mind and at his enduring humility. Unfortunately, it's not in my nature to sit idly by when innocent people are treated unjustly, particularly when they mean so much to me.

Since everyone I respect on campus has been targeted, my day must not be too far off. Well, in the words of our commander-in-chief: "Bring. It. On." In fact, I doubt I'm going to wait. I think I'll bring it to them. Soon.

I won't call the media, or write op-ed pieces...at first, anyway. I will communicate with people honestly one on one, in hopes of restoring relationships. I have little hope that I can help Dr. H keep his job, but I hope I can help him regain some of the honor and respect he deserves.

Since there may not be anyone left to do anything when they come for me, I may be out of a job soon.

WILL BLOG FOR FOOD.

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

Any original thought I might have in response to this is lost in a labyrinth of migraine hangover today. Must steal quotes:

Mark Twain said - "If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be - a Christian!"

Mahatma Gandhi said - "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

And, perhaps most applicable to this discussion:

"Christians have to listen to the world as well as to the Word -- to science, to history, to what reason and our own experience tell us. We do not honor the higher truth we find in Christ by ignoring truths found elsewhere."
--William Sloan Coffin, Jr. (American activist and clergyman)

And Anne Lammott also says: "You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."

Be fearless. Sister has her whoop-ass ready.

Anonymous said...

At a particularly frustrating time in my life, a good friend of mine put his hand on my shoulder and quoted the sage wisdom of Kris Kristofferson to Sinead O'Connor when she was booed weeks or months after setting the Pope's picture ablaze: "Don't let the bastards get you down," said Kris to Sinead, and this great friend to me. I wish those words were enough for those professors who have been denied the ability to educate by close-minded religiots. I wish those words were enough for my friend, who fights for academic freedom in a suffocating conservative "university." Keep the faith, friend, in yourself and in the real Christ we know. And, in the immortal words of Johnny Cash: "It's good to know who hates you, and it's good to be hated by the right people."

Unknown said...

Ass. Fuck. Shit. Bastards. Sons of Bitches. Mother Fuckers.

I'll get it going for you. For an institution of "higher education" to lower the academic standards because of such issues is ignorant. Where if not in the realm of higher education within a context of fellow believers are we going to identify our beliefs and "work out our salvation in fear and trembling?"

I'm sorry. I really, really am.

Anonymous said...

Sister, I like your quotes. Indeed, indeed.

I have much to say, but I already wrote a book on my own blog. I know Dr. H and he is a fine, fine man. I was broken when Dr. L left. This left me speechless for a good while. I find it amazing that those who challenged and changed me are the ones who end up getting kicked out. Dr. F and yourself are on that list. Start working on that resume.

Anonymous said...

What the crap? I heard rumors this was being tried, but I just assumed just a thing would never happen (why I assumed this, I'm not sure -- haven't had much hope of anything else recently).

Expect an e-mail about this.

Jennifer

Anonymous Scout said...

What do you think they'll get you for? Here in Singapore the totalitarian government and school system are constantly punishing people who blog their criticisms. It makes the front page of the paper.

Do you think the Southern Baptists might give it a try? You had better watch out!

RDW said...

Hey Reacher... got a question if you've got the time.

If you were an administrator at a university, what would you value more highly, the academic freedom of the faculty, or high academic standards of instruction? Cause sometimes you have to choose.

I don't doubt that Dr. L was exercising both. But if your perspective as an administrator is that a certain professor's academic freedom was being used irresponsibly, and was compromising the high standard of instruction that the students deserve, what would you do?

Although I sympathize with what's going on in your school, I don't feel like I know enough details to pick sides. But to me, one of the primary concepts of intelligent design is not to teach Genesis, but rather to teach that Darwinian evolution is highly flawed, and unacceptable as a theory for the origin of life and humankind. I could venture to understand an administrator's concern for the standard of instruction when a Christian professor won't at least teach the flaws of Darwinianism.

But maybe he did. Just trying to see both sides.

And Loomis... maybe you should try working out your salvation by not using the worst words you know to describe people you don't. My guess is that the Reacher wouldn't stand for harshly judging people you've never met. Grace, friend, grace.

Ryan.

RDW said...

In my above reference to Dr. L, I meant to say Dr. H. Sorry.

Jody Bilyeu said...

Words fail me. I've managed to get out a couple-a sort of gurgling/choking noises. That's about it.

Now a link. The God-damned Pharisees may not be fully aware what a can of noodles they've opened.

Anonymous said...

I am inspired by your bravery, Reacher. Please don't stay silent. That's easy for me to say, since I don't have a family to support like you, but I would think there are many institutions of higher learning that would have you, and with a shorter commute. And I might me able to take one of your classes.
I am saddened, sickened, and frustrated by all of this.

Great link, Jody. That about nails it all right.

RDW said...

I have had numerous sightings of a spaghetti monster... but mine couldn't fly. However, they have made a humble (messy) servant out of me on many an occasion.

Although it's funny, the FSM people are obviously trying to make a serious point. And I have two problems with that point:

1) Intelligent Design (ID) already includes the possibility that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster, so long as it's an intelligent monster. So there is no need for the FSMists to ask for special treatment. ID does not make a point of trying to identify (no pun intended) the intelligent designer.

2) The folks at FSM define Science as being repeatable and observable. So until someone figures out how to repeat the initialization of matter, life or thought, and subsequently observes it, then as far as I'm concerned, NONE OF IT IS SCIENCE! Darwinism and Creationism both belong in the religion department, far from the science wing.

Anonymous said...

I think what distresses me about such actions is that it smacks of the "don't think" philosophy that seems to have such a hold on our "Christian" schools and in many of our churches. Some folks believe that they have all the answers, even that God has given them these answers, and the rest of us, as students, church members, teachers, etc, are to accept it as fact. Period. No questions asked. Don't know about the rest of y'all, but I don't cotton too well to the school of sit down, shut up, believe this. (I was always the kid in class and at home and in church saying, "Yeah, but what if...what about...when???) Absolutes are curiosities to me, and by their very nature, or maybe mine, it is necessary that I question them.

It just seems to me that this handy-dandy tool we carry around in our heads ought to be used for something other than nodding in agreement. And it seems to me that the primary purpose of ANY institution of higher learning should be to encourage and nurture the expansion of the mind.

Anonymous said...

Coreman,
Much of this has already been covered in the discussion thread that Reacher linked to (and everywhere else in the world, too, it's not like we were the first to talk about it the other day).

I also hesitate to get involved, since Reacher explicitly stated his objective as something other than discussing the merits of ID.

So I will try to keep it short. Just a couple questions:

You say ID does not state who or what the Designer is? But if the Designer created the universe, then he/she/it is outside of the universe, and thus not part of it, thus not part of its rules, those rules being science and everything it contains.
So how can the Designer be addressed with science at all? No one here is denying the possible existence of such a Designer (least I'm not), but just question how in God's name (so to speak) it is a topic that can even be covered in science class.

Any designer outside of the bounds of the universe, and thus out of bounds of science, is, essentially, God. I wouldn't know what else to call it. They have the power of God, anyway. Any variation would merely be semantics.

If, on the other hand, this designer is contained within the universe (a higher form of aliens, for example) then their designing methods could still be explained through science, though we probably haven't gotten there yet.

Even a God outside of the universe and science might still design mechanisms to do the designing (as in evolution, maybe), mechanisms that are within the universe, and subject to the laws of the universe, and that is all science deigns to study.

So what are the different kind of Intelligent Designers that you think might be possible?

I am merely curious, since this "ID doesn't state who the designer is" seems to be a popular statement these days.

Do you think the Designer behind Intelligent Design is subject to the basic rules of physics and chemistry? Please explain.

Anonymous said...

Well, turns out I didn't hesitate that much at all. Sorry.

I have talked about this TOO much in other circles, and I can't make it my personal mission to convince everyone everywhere who disagrees of the error of their ways.

It's easy to get lost in this stuff, y'know?

I'm interested, Coreman, in what you have to say, but whatever it is I think I'll let you have the last word on it for now.

RDW said...

Nate, I was mostly responding to the serious commentary behind the whimsical notion of a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" linked to by Jody. My point was that, since Intelligent Design does not give the designer a name, or discribe his/her/its appearance or attributes (apart from intelligence and creativity) then there is room under the ID umbrella for people to hold diverse beliefs about said designer.

Of course I personally believe that the designer is outside the realm of science. I said so in the sentence "NONE OF IT IS SCIENCE." If you have a designer within that realm, you still have not anwered the questions of origins. No system can contemplate its own origin. One must seek a larger system in which to comtemplate the smaller one.

Anonymous said...

"No system can contemplate its own origin. One must seek a larger system in which to comtemplate the smaller one."

Exactly. Exactly!
That is far more succinct than I have ever put it. I have been trying to boil my words down to a phrase like that since I've been aware of this debate.

I believe that the larger system is religion or simple faith. What else could it ever be?

Anonymous said...

Coreman,

Two responses to your earlier post: 1) You miss the issue of tenure. You may not believe that academics should receive tenure; but they do for just such times as these. Universities cannot survive and flourish as academic environments if market forces, arbitrary power plays, or non-expert fringe elements are allowed to dictate what can and should be taught in the classroom. Without academic freedom, the whole higher education experience collapses. If an administration is allowed to remove professors for "compromising the high standard of instruction," when they (the administrators) are really are just running scared, the integrity of the enterprise is what is compromised. Call it elitist, if you will, but no one is qualified to dictate to professors what they should teach except people of equal credentialing; and even then they have an obligation to demonstrate that their objections enjoy a consensus view in the field. That's how scholarship works. Anything less ceases to be academic.

2) ID does not enjoy a consensus in the field. Not by a long shot. Not at all. It is not recognized as science by science. Sure, there are a few scientists who accept it. They may be right; who knows? But, they do not have the right to strongarm their colleagues into a curriculum that is not recognized by the National Academy Sciences, the National Center for Science Education, or any other national scientific organization that has been in existence longer than the recent ID controversy.

In fact, The Discovery Institute - the major ID supporter - flatly rejects any political strategy that would force the teaching of ID. I think they would be appalled at what has happened here.

ID advocates need to spend less time in courtrooms and more time in the laboratory. Make your case. Change the consensus view of the scientific community. THEN you can start to pressure teachers who are out of line with your discipline.

I remain committed to not discussing the actual scientific arguments for or against ID or evolution. I am not qualified. I am qualified to talk about the debate and the cultural clash. And, by the way, I believe that debate should be taught. I believe in teaching the controversy, just not in a science classroom...yet.

At the end of the day, Coreman, I assure this was not about academic quality. They know Dr. H is smarter than all of them combined. It's about power and fear. I would have more respect for it (I would still disagree) if it were really about scientific differences. But, it's about PR and tuition deficits.

bl said...

I don't know if it's a transitional species or not but do you all realize that they have bred poultry so that there are now billions of chickens and turkeys whose breasts are so big they can not stand up.

(There's a militant vegan inside me who I let speak once or twice a year.)

Happy Thanksgiving!

RDW said...

Reacher,

Thank you for putting so much time and effort into your response.

You have to wonder if the creature which we like to call the "Christian Liberal Arts University" isn't somewhat of an anomaly. And I don't mean just because (according to some) you can't be a Christian and a Liberal at the same time. I mean... at a "secular" school, the chief goal is academic integrity, which (as you explained so clearly) is deeply rooted in academic freedom and tenure. Obviously, almost every secular school has an ulterior agenda, be it major or minor. But they usually don't put it in their names. I am a graduate of Evangel University. "Evangel" means "Gospel." IT'S IN OUR NAME! Evangel wears its ulterior agenda on its sleeve, as do most other religious schools.

This is not to say that religion and academic integrity are mutually exclusive. But that religious motivation causes many (administrators, faculty, parents, and -most importantly in your case- contributors) to give theories like Intelligent Design the benefit of the doubt. And that (be it right or wrong) tends to drive a wedge between the two camps.

All in all, maybe we are foolish to expect utter academic freedom to exist in a religious college. Or, for that matter, any institution of learning run by actual human beings.

But it's cold comfort, I know.

middleclasstool said...

I'd be willing to bet that Reacher and most of the commenters here would agree that there's nothing wrong with teaching ID at a religious school. That's not really the point.

It's not even really the point to state for the record that ID properly belongs in a philosophy or religion course, and not a science course. Though you clearly disagree, Darwinism is science. It is based upon serious, exhaustive scientific investigation, built upon evidence. Otherwise it wouldn't earn the venerable label of "theory." ID is a reaction to scientific theory, an argument against it. It has absolutely no empirical basis whatsoever.

It's not even the point to point out that every major scientific theory has flaws and weak spots that are constantly being tested and refined. Relativity and Quantum Theory, for two great examples. Even the theory of gravitation has its problems, but I don't see you arguing for Intelligent Falling.

And it's still not the point to tell you that a serious study of the flaws of any scientific theory would require an upper-level course dedicated solely to the ins and outs of that specific theory; a survey course in biology or physics or chemistry can't cover the whole discipline broadly and delve deeply into what are usually highly technical problems.

And you know what else? It's not even the point to characterize this whole ID push as an attempt to politicize science, which ranks up with book-burnings and Furbies in the list of Worst Ideas Ever. That is what it is, by the way. That's what happens when political bodies tell scientists what science is, instead of the other way around.

None of that is the point. The point is that a tenured professor of science was fired for doing his job. It's not that the university gave ID the "benefit of the doubt." Nothing was preventing them from teaching ID in a philosophy course. But the scientist said "it's not science, and you'll be hard-pressed to find reputable scientists who say that it is, so I won't teach it," and rather than listening to the expert, they fired him.

And yes, secular universities do have an ulterior motive. It's making money.

Reacher, I suggest you update your CV, if you haven't already. If they came for him, they'll come for you.

Anonymous said...

I'm just glad the picture for ID that you put in your post has the "man" spiral out from the waiste down...otherwise they'd get ya for man/monkey porn. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Reacher, my bride and I will be in Springpatch this weekend for Turkey day! Shoot me an email if you will be around.

Anonymous said...

Did I say "waiste?" I meant waist...It's hard to type without opposable thumbs.

Anonymous said...

When they come for you I will take you in. I love you and think of you often.

Reacher and Commenters, wow! I had read about the ID news in a Science and Spirit mag. and thought I could sink my teeth into a comment. But the blog was about teachers and tenure and creeping fundamentalist control, not ID.

ID is clearly an attempt to teach Genesis from a different angle. And it keeps the researchers warm and busy and the faithful hoping. Matters not to me whether we were designed by an computer program, evolution, or are living in a Petri dish under a microscope being observed by an Intelligent Designer. What concerns me the most about your blog is the direction higher institutions of learning seem to be heading. Reacher, you used the word elitist which is how we have generally viewed our teachers, preachers, and politicians. More is expected of them yet if they are cut they still bleed. I kind of buy into the elitist aspect because what father does not want his son to achieve more than himself?

ID debate or ozone problems - which is more important in the short run?
And, I have always been told by fundamentalists that the reason schools want to teach Darwin is to confuse the youth. Have you ever heard anyone say; "If they can make you not believe one part, such as the Genesis creation story, then their foot is in the door to convince you that none of it is true."?

While I am not sure that the professors in question will land on their feet I expect they will.

Ocho, I read about carrots being genetically altered to have blunt points so they won't poke holes in the packaging. If they do that to carrots who knows what will be done to chickens?

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Anonymous said...

Reacher,

I've enjoyed this post and the responses. I don't wish to stir the puddin' too much here. I'll just get one poke in the eye with my sharp stick. One should be carefull how quickly they reject ID as science and accept evolution as science. Evolution studies through the ages are rife with fraud and forgeries by scientists wishing to make a name for themselves.

I'll freely grant you that the "fundies", as you like to call them, have a political objective (and that is most sad in that it keeps Seekers out of the Kingdom). However, if you believe there isn't an agenda involved in the teaching of evolution in some dark corners of the world, then I have a bridge back in Kansas to sell you.

With that said, I couldn't agree with you more that ID proponents need to continue developing their emperical data. I personally believe they are correct, but shouting the loudest doesn't win an argument.

Here's my question for you. I understand your argument for the sanctitiy of tenure. But riddle me this, Batman...Are you willing to work on the barter system for eggs and a goat when the University looses money to the point they can't pay you. In a perfect world, academics could remain free of the influences of commerce. But then who would pay the janitor to clean up after the drunk college kids.

No matter how flat you make a pancake, it still has two sides. So, get out your spatula and do some flippin'. I'm just a redneck from Gravel Road High stuck in the world of capatalistic ventures. Help me to understand the world in which you dwell.

Shalom,

Jim

bl said...

So Jim, are you saying that the theory of evolution fails as science?

That doesn't quite hold water when it is the basis for many current fields of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation that most modern scientific work is built upon.

Are you saying that all science has lost its moorings?

Anonymous said...

Again, I am not going to argue the competing scientific points. I'm not a scientist. I do feel qualified to address the conspiracy and academic issues.

Jim, I appreciate that as an ID supporter you recognize the need for stronger support. I would be careful, however, suggesting that scientists who teach evolution are equally agenda-driven as the IDers. It's actually more proof for evolution that it survives in the academy where there is so much acrimony and difference of opinion. Scientists live to deny the findings of their colleagues. The fact that they are so unified in supporting evolution is not evidence of a conspiracy, it's evidence of an anomalous consensus. IDers, on the other hand, work tirelessly to advance a particular worldview.

I think the argument that disturbs me the most is your financial one. Correct me if I wrong, but are you suggesting that our academic standards be driven by the market? If, for instance, there was a growing consensus among evangelicals that millions of Jews were not gassed in concentration camps, should we start teaching Holocaust-denial as a serious take on 20th century history, even though there is no serious evidence to support such a claim? My students tell me that we have a history professor who teaches that some of those killed in the Salem witch trials probably were actual witches. Does such a perspective shore up a biblical worldview? Doesn't it seem to provide a tacit justification for witchhunts and religious zealotry? Do we ignore such teaching because it probably squares with the beliefs of some of the more conservative donors?

Here's my take on academics and finances: If we have to compromise all semblance of academic integrity to court donors and recruits, we have ceased to function as an academic institution, and WE SHOULD SHUT OUR DOORS. Furthermore, I don't think its an either/or proposition. I think the university has listened to the loud fundamentalist voices while ignoring the quiet masses who are disappointed in this conservative shifting of the university. I believe they could become quite prosperous if they would reject the new mind control fundamentalism and go back to an evangelicalism that honors the mind and the autonomy of the believer, while still pursuing a robust life of faith.

middleclasstool said...

My students tell me that we have a history professor who teaches that some of those killed in the Salem witch trials probably were actual witches.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to go off topic here, but for the love of God, man. In this day and age?

I remember reading some remarks of Helmut Thielicke's that the future of Christianity depends primarily on the future of American Christian fundamentalism. He made these prophetic remarks back in the 60s, and if that professor is any indication about the current state of Christian fundamentalism, then I hope and pray Thielicke was wrong. When did reason and sense become the enemy of faith?

Sorry, as you were.

middleclasstool said...

To atone for my derail, I'll add this, on topic:

Probably the only way this changes is if we "quiet masses" stop being so quiet. Many of us (and I'm guilty of this) register our nervousness or displeasure quietly, often just amongst ourselves or by spewing all over some online forum of the like-minded. Meanwhile, fewer and fewer theologically and ideologically moderate-to-liberal families are enrolling their kids in Christian schools. As long as this trend continues, the schools are probably going to continue focusing on the squeaky wheels to their right.

Anonymous said...

I think I just lost my comment I just created, so I'll try this again.

Reacher,

As a former student of you and this university, I am greatly saddened to hear another professor leaving, I am more saddened that my old school is on a constant downhill spiral to it's own demise. What will it take for students to WAKE UP and think for themselves? For years I constantly thought the way others told me to think, It wasn't until I left the university "bubble" that I learned to think for my own. I only can hope that students will learn to do so sooner than I did.

On another note, I am a member of that trustee's church, and I am ashamed at times like this to call him my pastor.

Anonymous said...

I didn't mean for that to be anonymous

-E. Davey

Anonymous said...

This entry sums up all thoughts and emotions I have about my old university. I am glad to hear that there are still a few who beleive in academic freedom and a "liberal" education. Continue to fight the good fight. If you decide to go on the offensive, make sure you go down swinging.

Anonymous said...

Glad to see my friend found the blog. I am currently a student who has learned that one of the only men that I look up to at my university is being driven out after an astounding 40 years of service, love, and sacrifice for a university. As I have studied science for the past four years of my undergraduate studies at MSSU and my university, one thing is ultimately clear. The beliefs that we have and the things that we hold dear must not be derailed by the few. Regardless of how one may feel about the topics of evolution and ID, one must keep the sciences pure of non-evidential ideas. Science does not have the oppurtunity to pick and choose what evidence it wants to support it, science must take the evidence for what it is without manipulation. As Reacher pointed out, there must be a reason that nearly every scientist looks to evolution as truth. Yet at a university, quite possibly the most intelligent and caring man I know is loosing his job over this controversy. What is the purpose of higher learning? I guess for now at my university it is to attain a one dimensional outlook at life and the possible controversies one will encounter. For now, I pray for wisdom. I encourage all to read a verse that has recently been brought to my attention by the vary man the university seeks to remove. Proverbs 26: 4-5. I will stand up for what I feel is right. You see, before I came to the university I now attend, I had many questions about science and how it correlates with God's Holy Word. The man who spent countless hours with me in my search is being left at the bus stop. What happens when someone else like me decides to step onto the bus with a curious mind?

Anonymous said...

Hey know - since this Baptist University is rooting out the theory of evolution, here's a link that provides good information for you.

I wonder if the Kansas discount could also apply to Baptists.

Anonymous said...

I used to attend the school we are speaking of... I left because after working in the administration building as a student rep, I knew too much to be able to ignore it anymore. Well, that, and the fact that I had been praying for God to release me from the spiritual warfare going on for two years and he finally did. Don't get me wrong, God used that school, and ppl there, to grow me, but God will use what he will inspite of circumstances. I'm grateful he did, I'm also grateful he finally made it clear that I could leave. I will be praying for you on the journey ahead. My family had an identical sitaution in a church, not joking, blackmailed by the pastor's wife because she was not in control and didn't like it. She was cussing people out, spying on surveillence camaras, listening in on phone calls, searching for dirt that didn't exist so as to have a reason for her actions. We weren't the only people it happened either, about 12 others, all on staff, lies where used to cover her actions. It was hard, really hard, but our God is sovereign and he provided. I trust he will for you as well. All that to say, he brought me out of my situation, and my family out of ours together and has restored and grown us. I love the school I'm now at, and my family is doing better than they have in years...I'll be praying that you will be blessed in a similar fashion

Anonymous said...

Reacher,
I'm sorry it has taken me this long to get back to the computer.

I'm not saying that academics be driven by the market. But, there is an inescapable truth which is that in a free-market society, I have the right to choose what my favorite flavor of ice-cream is and where I buy it and also where I'll go to get my higher education. If I want to be a "fundie" and only spend my money where I'm taught what I agree with - or a flamin' lib and go where I'm taught that the 9/11 victims are "Little Eichmans", I can do either or.

So, you're living in a vacuum void of reality if you don't recognize this fact and that it will have an influence on academics, as salaries and bills must be paid.

Anonymous said...

Reacher,
Sorry, my fat thumbs hit the "return" key. Anyway, I go back to my original question which was, "How do you reconcile these two competing points and maintain academic freedom"
Shalom,
Jim

Anonymous said...

Soil,

I appreciate your concern and the logic you use to construct your argument. However, the essential argument becomes: The Bible says such and such, therefore we must teach science so and so. If the Bible becomes the authorizing manual for science teaching, it ceases to be science for one, and it endangers the school's accreditation for another.

You have some legitimate concerns about textual and hermeneutic consistency. If the creation story isn't true, then maybe the atonement story isn't true. Fair point. I think that argument should be taken up in a theology class, or some other forum where biblical interpretation and religious challenges to science can be aired. It probably shouldn't be taught as science. Not until it becomes accepted as science. Otherwise, we should just throw out all theories and research in all of our departments and only teach the Bible as our text. That would be an acceptable choice, but not when operating as a university. It's a difficult job, walking the line between faith and academics.

Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate the commitment you have made to your daughters. I hope to be able to do the same for my daughters some day.

Anonymous said...

Good to hear from you, Jim. I think you are right. What? Reacher agrees with Jim? Hold on. I think you are right that higher education is becoming more and more market-driven.

I am questioning how much we should allow that to happen. Where does it stop? If a donor offered to give the university a million dollars if they would teach that blacks are mentally inferior to whites, or that the Holocaust didn't happen, or that men never landed on the moon should they do it? Of course not. You can find theories to support such things, but it's nonsense...not accepted by any serious scholars. I realize my example is extreme, but only to make the point. When we start to make our curriculum and personnel decisions based solely on the market, we cease to have academic integrity.

In fact, I would argue that there is a corresponding relationship between the extent to which schools consider the market and declining academic integrity. For instance, your local storefront "business" college will do anything to attract tuition-paying students. They have absolutely no academic integrity. Top-tier academic universities are very resistant to populist politics and agendas. They have very high academic integrity.

(Oh, and there is another issue at play here. Schools that publicly identify with denominations continually opposed to accepted intellectual thought will suffer fallout in terms of academic integrity.)

Sure, at the end of the day it's a tough call for a small private school with a small endowment, but at what cost will you seek prosperity? Are you prepared to be seen as a provincial vo-tech school in your pursuit of the dollar?

There is another way: If you steadfastly refuse to compromise, you will build a reputation for academic integrity that will attract funds. If it does, you succeed. If it doesn't, you close your doors with your honor intact. THAT'S when we start bartering with goat cheese.

Jody Bilyeu said...

The question is whether we are to achieve such unity through the crucible of free scholarly inquiry, publication, and review--that is, through academic discourse--or by firing people who don't see things our way.

The first way makes us a University, the second way makes us the monastery of a sect. A scared, controlly, faithless sect that's worried about denominational die-hards pulling funds from its (remaining) school.

Surely you're not saying that the denomination's biblical viewpoint isn't well-represented at that school? What's happening, then, is a zero tolerance for dissent: "I don't want my children to be in the presence of a teacher who believes in evolution."

There doesn't seem to be much resistance from the fundamentalists in this discussion to the idea that this has been a market decision, which is to say, a mammon decision, which is to say, there's no Jesus in it.

Jody Bilyeu said...

I obviously need to clarify: I don't think, and never said, that these denominationalists are simpletons; I think they're complexletons. They have an elaborate structure that they believe in which they substitute for and confuse with Jesus. This confusion is much more in evidence by what the bible clearly says that they ignore, either by design or by delusion, than it is by which passages of the bible they strongly believe, and are willing to drum people out of the denomination or school for. They say they're biblical literalists, but that's a falsehood. They're really biblical selectivists, with the selections invariably made to justify themselves and enforce their ways. The rampant misreadings aren't through stupidity, but through willful blindness.

This is a tiny thing, and I fear I'm bringing it up mainly to be provocative, but the bible clearly says, for instance, "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more" (Proverbs 31:6-7), but that university will be happy to fire you, regardless of your poverty, the heaviness of your heart, or your proximity to perishing, for "using alcohol as an intoxicant," soberly (we can assume) citing the bible as their guide as they do so.

The ease with which you appear to be able to overlook the famous, clear command: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth" (Matthew 6:19) is a symptom of that same disorder, endemic to the denomination.

I simply don't believe that your concern is making sure your daughters hear both sides of the story. I'm willing to guess they've heard your side many, many times, on that campus, to where that's now a moot point. Your concern is with "this man's beliefs," with casting out people who disagree, with making sure your daughters hear your side everywhere, believing your money gives you the right.

I actually like your story about the stupid, non-biblical reasons pastors get fired and congregations and denominations split. Here's another one: If I were a baptist preacher who taught that those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, invite the stranger in, and visit prisoners will inherit eternal life, and that those who pass those people by will inherit eternal punishment, wouldn't I be drummed out of the pulpit, even the denomination, for preaching salvation through works, even though the bible, namely Jesus, clearly says that? (Matthew 25:31-46)

On the other hand, if Jesus is right, and the baptists are wrong, wouldn't it be nice to have a few rebels on hand in our pulpits and classrooms, so that maybe a few of our converts won't be consigned to eternal punishment along with us, becoming twice the sons of hell that we are? (Matthew 23:15)

Jody Bilyeu said...

I have a glad host of leaders I don't tear down, most of whom would never dream that I consider them my leaders, because they're not very leader-y, in worldly terms. (Note to self: tell them.) A good dozen and a half of these are southern baptists by affiliation, though most of them complicatedly so. Universally, their authority, which I'll agree with you is real, and spiritual, is based on their great capacity for love. I'm afraid I don't always serve them well, because I'm silly and ignorant, but I try. Oh, and I'm undependable. And lazy. And self-indulgent.

By contrast, people who wag their authority around, and invoke the name of Jesus to do it, I have absolutely no use for. They're going to win, at least as to the church--their house, their rules--so if you're on their side, be not afraid. But they're going to get an earful from me on their way to doing it, is my new policy. That won't hurt a thing.

I'd be happy if I talked you out of going to church if it was because your church was run by or otherwise financing or abetting those people, or just because it was taking up time and resources you could be using to serve God, or because your involvement with it was hampering your communion with other believers or interfering with your service to the poor. Jesus doesn't care whether we go to church, he cares whether we are the church.

As to what you see as the main point: Southern baptists are making the same mistake now in drawing a battle line at the historicity of Genesis as they did at their own genesis, when they drew a battle line over whether human bondage was an institution ordained by God for the good of the bondsman. As with Genesis, so with slavery: baptists had what they felt was impeccable biblical authority for their denomination-splitting position (as to the letter of the passages, it is impeccable); their actions benefitted attendance and giving and pleased both their congregants and their culture; they were indifferent as to the suffering their positions engendered; and they were unable to distinguish the spirit from the letter, the whole from the part, God's authority from their own, Jesus from a hole in the ground.

It appears neither of us is silly enough to claim that we have the final word on Genesis. When in doubt, why not do the right thing for that brother, and push that he should be able to continue his job? He's not hurting you one bit, nor the kids he teaches, who presumably come equipped with brains and bibles of their own.

Anonymous said...

For the record, Jody, you're one of my leaders. Mostly because you're so pervious.

Jody Bilyeu said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jody Bilyeu said...

Blogger's being funky, so this may not go through, but:

It's good you came by. I'm sure I've been talking past you for much of this; sorry where that's been the case. Thanks for taking it in good graces, in the best gravel road tradition, one I'm intimately acquainted with. In that Spirit, please help yourself to the last word (at least as far as I'm concerned).

Anonymous said...

Actually, "talking past" means exactly that: the messages miss the target. It doesn't mean talking above or below, it just means that we missed each other. Usually we talk past each other, not because of someone's superior perspective or inferior perception, but just because of very different worldviews.

I echo Jody's comment, Soil, when he thanks you for coming by and sticking with the conversation, while maintaining a level of tolerance and grit. If you look through the history of this blog, we tend to draw a fair variety of views. In fact, sometimes the little baby inside me secretly wishes for more sympathetic comments. It is important to me that you feel included. I am also glad that you started your own blog place so when things get too lengthy and start to turn into new topics that I don't want to post about you can carry on at your location.

And, might I say..."smidgen"...what a cool word.

Anonymous said...

And "Complexleton"...that's another cool word.

Wasn't he a Decepticon?.

Anonymous said...

Oh for the love of The Intelligent Designer, why can't I do links?

"Decepticon" was supposed to be linked to transformers.net, which would have been, like, uber-webby clever.

Anonymous said...

Ahem, "Wasn't he a Decepticon?"

Anonymous said...

Dammit!!!

Anonymous said...

Soil, why is it that you feel your daughters will be hurt by being taught evolution? If anything else, I would believe one who doesn't believe in evolution would benefit that much more to learn about a topic that is contrary to ones own belief. I have personally never been "hurt" by what I have been taught while attending college. Furthermore, how can one support ones belief(If it be Creationism) to evolution if one knows nothing about evolution. Do you think people will actually take you seriously when you talk about Creationism if you know nothing about evolution? I hope not. Being a person that is well rounded requires knowing both sides to a topic. If anything, I believe this would benefit your daughters. Just curious as to how old your daughters are too. If they are in college, I believe them to be old enough to make their mind up for themselves concerning any issue. As far as you insult University's as "secular" or "denominational",in order to be called a university, all points with regard to truth must be presented regardless of ones personal preference towards ID/Evolution. If evolution is that damaging to faith, I ask that one would evaluate just how much faith they actually have. My faith lies in that I have absolutely believe Christ loves me for who I am and wants a personal relationship with me. Where is yours?

Jody Bilyeu said...

Nate, is this what you were after?

Soil, the verdict's in. The teacher's gone. The university, under pressure of the loss of tuition and donations, is forcing him out, and also pulling a Clinton and spinning it as a "retirement offer," and he's doing the Jesus thing and not putting up a fight. Done and done.

I enjoy your company, and I don't give a shoe shiner's shit how much education anybody has, and don't let anybody tell you different. As a wise woman once sang, "Philosophy is a smile on a dog." As for me and my house, come ever' chanct you get.

But I'm still waiting for your last word. What will it be?

Anonymous said...

http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_14_05_MM.html

Those damn "fundies"

Jody Bilyeu said...

Got it: someone may have accused fundamentalists of something they didn't do. (Even if that guy didn't, lots of people have.) But that would be pertinent here because...?

Julo said...

I haven't taken the time to read all these comments, but I am an alumnus of this school and I would NOT send my children here. I will not contribute financially because all it is is a glorified youth camp. The Bible is not central and this is suppose to be a religious school.

As for this issue with evolution, It is not academically ignorant to teach that the Bible is God's Word and teaches that He created the world in seven days. Is that so hard to believe when He raised Jesus from the dead? Denying these truths will eventually cause this school to become nothing but mroe overpriced, more mediocre. Academic excellence that exalts the Bible. That's what's missing here.