Sunday, February 12, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
The Literal Word
literal [ˈlɪtərəl]
adj
1. in exact accordance with or limited to the primary or explicit meaning of a word or text
2. word for word
3. dull, factual, or prosaic
4. consisting of, concerning, or indicated by letters
5. true; actual
6. (Mathematics) Maths containing or using coefficients and constants represented by letters: ax2 + b is a literal expression
Compare numerical [3a]
Compare numerical [3a]
n
1. You are composed of salt, as in the particular chemical compound (NaCl) useful for preserving food. (v13)
2. You are an actual light that emits photons and collectively you and other lights compose a city on an actual hill (which seemingly contradicts the first point). (v14)
3. If you have ever been brought to sin through visual stimuli, you are commanded to tear out the eye responsible and throw it away (no littering). (v29)
4. Ditto for your arm. (v30)
5. God actually sits on heaven (which we should perhaps expect to resemble a giant chair) not unlike how you are now sitting at your computer. He also rests his feet on the actual Earth. (v34, 35)
I hope the above list of interpretations are as obnoxious to you as they are to me, because they highlight the natural shortcoming an actual literal interpretation has. Obviously it would be impossible to render the Bible intelligibly this way, as the authors and characters used idioms, hyperbole, and poetic devices in common communication just as we do. But you are probably saying, "Boring Gabe, nobody actually reads the bible like this. This is nothing like what I mean when I say I read the bible literally". Of course it isn't what you mean, but the words we use are so very important. If our communication is reduced to some ugly amalgamation of broad equivocations than we will lose the very ability to meaningfully articulate the foundational tenants of our faith and the opportunity to have sensible and productive discourse with other people over differing views.
It seems to me that people usually intend one of two things when claiming to use a literal hermeneutic. The more ingenuous error happens when people say they read the bible literally but it is clear from how they speak that they actually intend to express their commitment to taking the bible very seriously. That is, that they sincerely believe the bible to teach the truth and they hold to the high virtue of employing the utmost sincerity in their commitment to an uncompromising application of biblical teaching to their personal lives. More specifically, they take the bible at its word on the miraculous and believe in the modern relevancy and everyday importance of the New Testament teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. This is a great position to have and I heartily encourage it, but it is a separate issue from whether or not the biblical text should literally be interpreted literally. For example, I believe that Jesus is rightly described as the sacrificed lamb of God in the 5th chapter of the Apocolypse, however I don't know anyone who expects to meet a bloody, mangled, wooly animal--one with seven horns and eyes no less!--when they one day come before the Christ.
The second manner of erring in the claim to a literal hermeneutic is, in my view, much more of a serious problem than the former example. It is particularly popular among some Christians to support their theological conclusions as superior based on the virtue of the supposed literal hermeneutic they are employing. It then becomes a matter of convenience to push forward a fallacious argument in order to dismiss other opinions: they read the bible the literal (right) way, other people are doing something less (e.g. spiritualizing or allegorizing) and they beg the question by asserting that every other approach is by definition wrong. The root problem with this is the misnomer of claiming literalism as a hermeneutic. They do not have any higher platform from which to disparage the non-literalism of others. They end up tending toward hypocrisy in so much as they wrongly criticize those they disagree with for not acquiescing to an impossible standard that they themselves do not actually uphold. This is often and perhaps most easily seen in debates on eschatology where one person declares their view more literal than the view of another person when in reality they have both taken some passages literally and some not. They simply disagree on what is literal and what is otherwise.
This is an important issue in theological discussion because carelessly disparaging the view of other people on faulty grounds leads to the dismissal of people who have different conclusions than us without caring to understand anything about them. This leads to increased disconnection and segregation within the body of Christ (not a literal term) and is unfair--even misleading--to those younger Christians that might be naive to the difference between their preacher/teacher's personal dogma and the methods of sound biblical exegesis. It is also a red-flag for the veracity of our own positions if the best polemic that can be mustered against other opinions is fundamentally false. Arguing from such a point is all around unproductive for everyone involved.
So let us dispose of claims to literal hermeneutics. Nobody actually uses one and there would not be any virtue in doing so. Read the bible as it was written to be read. We should recognize that when we disagree with someone because they read a certain passage non-literally that we have to actually deal with that passage on its own merits. Simply pointing out that they are not reading it literally without pointing out why the particular section in question should be understood literally is in no way a valid argument. Of course, anyone is free to disagree with me and I heartily invite your expressed dissent. If you have stumbled across this and you're wondering who I am and what authority I have to speak on this, be sure to understand that I am nobody of significance and I don't carry any special authority. However, I believe that the preceding argument is able to stand on its own legs (also not literal).
(Literary & Literary Critical Terms) Also called literal error a misprint or misspelling in a text
For those who regularly engage in the bible and theology, you do not have to spend much time at all listening to church teachers and preachers before you will hear someone espousing the manifold virtues of a literal approach to biblical interpretation. Certain theological topics in particular attempt to rely heavily on the concept of employing a literal hermeneutic and the presumed merit of such an approach. I imagine that for many people the inherent wisdom of literal exegesis is too obvious to even think of it being soundly critiqued. Here is my critique:
A literal hermeneutic does not literally exist. With a little bit of examination I'm sure you'll see that the concept is actually rather absurd. An overwhelming amount of the bible would be rendered completely unintelligible if the words were understood literally. It is likely that one of the most common mistakes "young" bible readers make is to take passages or phrases that are idiomatic, allegorical, or symbolic, and attempt to understand them literally.
It is often said that the historical-grammatical approach is a literal hermeneutic, however it's self-evident that such a concept is necessarily false. By definition the historical-grammatical hermeneutic, which emphasizes the reading of text in lieu of the indigenous context, original intent, and unique genre of the particular passage in question, contradicts the idea of approaching the bible with consistent literalism. It is necessary to read Song of Solomon much differently than the way Leviticus should be read.
Now I know that this idea would probably produce a visceral reaction from some bible readers who have been taught that there is such a thing as a literal hermeneutic and that it is the only right way to read the bible. But I would truly enjoy meeting someone that actually consistently interpreted the bible literally and have them explain how they make sense of anything. For example, just within the sermon on the mount alone (Mathew 5) you would have to take away that...
[from Late Latin litterālis concerning letters, from Latin littera letter]
literalness , literality [ˌlɪtəˈrælɪtɪ] n
A literal hermeneutic does not literally exist. With a little bit of examination I'm sure you'll see that the concept is actually rather absurd. An overwhelming amount of the bible would be rendered completely unintelligible if the words were understood literally. It is likely that one of the most common mistakes "young" bible readers make is to take passages or phrases that are idiomatic, allegorical, or symbolic, and attempt to understand them literally.
It is often said that the historical-grammatical approach is a literal hermeneutic, however it's self-evident that such a concept is necessarily false. By definition the historical-grammatical hermeneutic, which emphasizes the reading of text in lieu of the indigenous context, original intent, and unique genre of the particular passage in question, contradicts the idea of approaching the bible with consistent literalism. It is necessary to read Song of Solomon much differently than the way Leviticus should be read.
Now I know that this idea would probably produce a visceral reaction from some bible readers who have been taught that there is such a thing as a literal hermeneutic and that it is the only right way to read the bible. But I would truly enjoy meeting someone that actually consistently interpreted the bible literally and have them explain how they make sense of anything. For example, just within the sermon on the mount alone (Mathew 5) you would have to take away that...
1. You are composed of salt, as in the particular chemical compound (NaCl) useful for preserving food. (v13)
2. You are an actual light that emits photons and collectively you and other lights compose a city on an actual hill (which seemingly contradicts the first point). (v14)
3. If you have ever been brought to sin through visual stimuli, you are commanded to tear out the eye responsible and throw it away (no littering). (v29)
4. Ditto for your arm. (v30)
5. God actually sits on heaven (which we should perhaps expect to resemble a giant chair) not unlike how you are now sitting at your computer. He also rests his feet on the actual Earth. (v34, 35)
I hope the above list of interpretations are as obnoxious to you as they are to me, because they highlight the natural shortcoming an actual literal interpretation has. Obviously it would be impossible to render the Bible intelligibly this way, as the authors and characters used idioms, hyperbole, and poetic devices in common communication just as we do. But you are probably saying, "Boring Gabe, nobody actually reads the bible like this. This is nothing like what I mean when I say I read the bible literally". Of course it isn't what you mean, but the words we use are so very important. If our communication is reduced to some ugly amalgamation of broad equivocations than we will lose the very ability to meaningfully articulate the foundational tenants of our faith and the opportunity to have sensible and productive discourse with other people over differing views.
It seems to me that people usually intend one of two things when claiming to use a literal hermeneutic. The more ingenuous error happens when people say they read the bible literally but it is clear from how they speak that they actually intend to express their commitment to taking the bible very seriously. That is, that they sincerely believe the bible to teach the truth and they hold to the high virtue of employing the utmost sincerity in their commitment to an uncompromising application of biblical teaching to their personal lives. More specifically, they take the bible at its word on the miraculous and believe in the modern relevancy and everyday importance of the New Testament teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. This is a great position to have and I heartily encourage it, but it is a separate issue from whether or not the biblical text should literally be interpreted literally. For example, I believe that Jesus is rightly described as the sacrificed lamb of God in the 5th chapter of the Apocolypse, however I don't know anyone who expects to meet a bloody, mangled, wooly animal--one with seven horns and eyes no less!--when they one day come before the Christ.
The second manner of erring in the claim to a literal hermeneutic is, in my view, much more of a serious problem than the former example. It is particularly popular among some Christians to support their theological conclusions as superior based on the virtue of the supposed literal hermeneutic they are employing. It then becomes a matter of convenience to push forward a fallacious argument in order to dismiss other opinions: they read the bible the literal (right) way, other people are doing something less (e.g. spiritualizing or allegorizing) and they beg the question by asserting that every other approach is by definition wrong. The root problem with this is the misnomer of claiming literalism as a hermeneutic. They do not have any higher platform from which to disparage the non-literalism of others. They end up tending toward hypocrisy in so much as they wrongly criticize those they disagree with for not acquiescing to an impossible standard that they themselves do not actually uphold. This is often and perhaps most easily seen in debates on eschatology where one person declares their view more literal than the view of another person when in reality they have both taken some passages literally and some not. They simply disagree on what is literal and what is otherwise.
This is an important issue in theological discussion because carelessly disparaging the view of other people on faulty grounds leads to the dismissal of people who have different conclusions than us without caring to understand anything about them. This leads to increased disconnection and segregation within the body of Christ (not a literal term) and is unfair--even misleading--to those younger Christians that might be naive to the difference between their preacher/teacher's personal dogma and the methods of sound biblical exegesis. It is also a red-flag for the veracity of our own positions if the best polemic that can be mustered against other opinions is fundamentally false. Arguing from such a point is all around unproductive for everyone involved.
So let us dispose of claims to literal hermeneutics. Nobody actually uses one and there would not be any virtue in doing so. Read the bible as it was written to be read. We should recognize that when we disagree with someone because they read a certain passage non-literally that we have to actually deal with that passage on its own merits. Simply pointing out that they are not reading it literally without pointing out why the particular section in question should be understood literally is in no way a valid argument. Of course, anyone is free to disagree with me and I heartily invite your expressed dissent. If you have stumbled across this and you're wondering who I am and what authority I have to speak on this, be sure to understand that I am nobody of significance and I don't carry any special authority. However, I believe that the preceding argument is able to stand on its own legs (also not literal).
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Leaving on a Jet Plane
Let me see if I can get a discussion going. So K and I have been giving more consideration to expatriating. We are nowhere near having the means to do this, but for us it is a question of near to mid term goals. Has anyone else out there among my vast readership given any thought to emigrating? If so, where would you consider going? For those that have not considered this, if you had to live somewhere else, where would you head?
Friday, January 27, 2012
Why You Should Vote for Ron Paul (Episode 1): Your Penance
So I want to start a series of posts on why you should vote for Ron Paul. This will be an exceedingly difficult task for me and it is likely that I will not succeed because it will require that I set aside the time and energy to come up with 3+ posts on the subject in order for it to rightfully be labeled a series. I am not at all confident in my ability to accomplish this--not because of the inadequacy of the topic but because of the inadequacy of my personal diligence. So for now I will think of this writing as the post that is the first in what will hopefully be known as a series.
Now to get to the point.
You owe us. By "you" I refer to just about everyone in this country that makes up the generation composed of my generation's parents and before. Allow me to be frank about this: we're screwed and it's your fault. It is very well possible--I'd lean toward probable--that the state of the union is beyond recovery at this point. That means that whatever you do, whoever you vote for, there is no guarantee that it is even possible to rectify the situation at this late date. However, that sad reality does not relieve you of your responsibility to do the right thing and personally repent of the poor decisions you have made and the evils you failed to prevent. You and your peers contributed to bringing about the present dire situation; now own your mistakes like adults.
Many of you likely do not understand how dire the situation is--a fact which only adds to your guilt. You should have educated yourself a long time ago. People were counting on you--your children and grandchildren trusted you. You failed. At this very moment, according to usdebtclock.org, the total national debt stands around $15 trillion, just slightly more than total GDP. Now, there is no easy way for any of us to comprehend what a number like 15 trillion means (which should be a huge red flag already), but I'll try to help you conceptualize the problem. This could be thought of as just under $50k for every man, woman, and child in this country from nursery to nursing-home. Or it could be seen as the 136k for every tax-payer. That debt to gdp ratio tells us that even if the government stopped spending money tomorrow and taxed 100% of every dollar spent for a year, the national debt would almost be paid for. That is what is called an impossible situation.
Now I'm not going to go on about the implications of all this on a society (and they are legion). That is something you should have been figuring out decades ago. I'm also not going to use this post to touch on the myriad of issues related to civil liberties, unconstitutional powers, or social debasement. The simple facts of the fiscal situation in this country should be enough to make you realize that you screwed up--assuming you care. Of course, judging by the your actions the only reasonable conclusion is that you obviously do not care. Like spoiled children, you had the proverbial wealth of the American experiment handed to you and you managed to spoil it faster than would have been believed possible.
To bring this back around to the point of this post, Ron Paul is nearly the only person on the political horizon (and the only candidate for president) that both understands the situation and isn't himself one of the perpetrators. He is the only candidate that comes close to being serious about initiating the kind of action that is needed if there is even a chance of rectifying the tragedy you have created. I am not employing hyperbole when I say that if there is still any political hope whatsoever of salvaging this country through civil means it will be gone after this election. We are certainly approaching a tipping point, beyond which everything changes. For our sake, for the sake of those who are just beginning to inherit your disaster, do the right thing for my generation and your children. Turn off the television. Learn the cause of Liberty. Vote Ron Paul.
Now to get to the point.
You owe us. By "you" I refer to just about everyone in this country that makes up the generation composed of my generation's parents and before. Allow me to be frank about this: we're screwed and it's your fault. It is very well possible--I'd lean toward probable--that the state of the union is beyond recovery at this point. That means that whatever you do, whoever you vote for, there is no guarantee that it is even possible to rectify the situation at this late date. However, that sad reality does not relieve you of your responsibility to do the right thing and personally repent of the poor decisions you have made and the evils you failed to prevent. You and your peers contributed to bringing about the present dire situation; now own your mistakes like adults.
Many of you likely do not understand how dire the situation is--a fact which only adds to your guilt. You should have educated yourself a long time ago. People were counting on you--your children and grandchildren trusted you. You failed. At this very moment, according to usdebtclock.org, the total national debt stands around $15 trillion, just slightly more than total GDP. Now, there is no easy way for any of us to comprehend what a number like 15 trillion means (which should be a huge red flag already), but I'll try to help you conceptualize the problem. This could be thought of as just under $50k for every man, woman, and child in this country from nursery to nursing-home. Or it could be seen as the 136k for every tax-payer. That debt to gdp ratio tells us that even if the government stopped spending money tomorrow and taxed 100% of every dollar spent for a year, the national debt would almost be paid for. That is what is called an impossible situation.
Now I'm not going to go on about the implications of all this on a society (and they are legion). That is something you should have been figuring out decades ago. I'm also not going to use this post to touch on the myriad of issues related to civil liberties, unconstitutional powers, or social debasement. The simple facts of the fiscal situation in this country should be enough to make you realize that you screwed up--assuming you care. Of course, judging by the your actions the only reasonable conclusion is that you obviously do not care. Like spoiled children, you had the proverbial wealth of the American experiment handed to you and you managed to spoil it faster than would have been believed possible.
To bring this back around to the point of this post, Ron Paul is nearly the only person on the political horizon (and the only candidate for president) that both understands the situation and isn't himself one of the perpetrators. He is the only candidate that comes close to being serious about initiating the kind of action that is needed if there is even a chance of rectifying the tragedy you have created. I am not employing hyperbole when I say that if there is still any political hope whatsoever of salvaging this country through civil means it will be gone after this election. We are certainly approaching a tipping point, beyond which everything changes. For our sake, for the sake of those who are just beginning to inherit your disaster, do the right thing for my generation and your children. Turn off the television. Learn the cause of Liberty. Vote Ron Paul.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Short Post, Long Links, Altogether Boring
So I've been listening to the "2011 Prophecy Update" series by Ken Ortiz of Calvary Spokane. While my eschatological views are starkly different than his and I consequently reject the notion that what is happening in the world today has very much direct relevance to biblical prophecy, I think that Ken does a good job of summarizing some economic and historical reasons to believe that we are altogether in an altogether terrible situation. He also has some good stuff to say about how to respond in light of a Christ-centered worldview. While I would caution you to not accept his "end-times" theological assumptions without strong consideration and thorough examination, the series should be worth your while if you have the while at your disposal. Enjoy:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Friday, December 23, 2011
Happy Holidays!
So now that I’ve attempted to start blogging again, I’ve
decided to be more forthright about my opinions. Nobody reads this anyway, so
it really shouldn’t be too upsetting to the world. Along with being more
forthright, I’m not going to just write about a few of my more mainline
opinions on bible stuff like I have in the past but will freely blog about anything
of note to me at the time, whatever the subject. What this really means is that
my audience (notice how I joke) should expect a lot of drivel about not just
religion, but also libertarianism and societal collapse. So there we are. All
of that to preface that what I’m about to say, though also mostly of a
religious nature, shouldn’t be thought of as evidence that religious drivel is
the only sort of drivel that should be expected to drivel out of me in the
future.
So in this special and beautiful season of aggression
between Christmas’ true crusaders and those irrationally bent on eliminating a
God they know doesn’t exist, let me take just a moment to implore those out
there (among my vast readership) whom call themselves Christians and fans of
Christmas—those of you that see yourselves as God’s appointed champions of
Christmas virtue and purity—to please, for Heaven’s sake, lay down your arms.
It is not merely my abhorrence of war that motivates me in this admonition, but
more the simple reality that you are fighting for an illegitimate cause, you
are likely doing spiritual harm to yourself and others, and (most importantly)
you are neglecting what SHOULD be your actual and legitimate mission.
Christmas is superfluous. Neither Christmas nor any
celebration of Christ’s birth (or anyone’s birth) was ever commissioned by
Jesus or the Apostles. December 25th has no inherent significance in
the Kingdom of God. Nothing is gained or lost in how Christians or
non-Christians spend their time (or greet one another while shopping) in and
around this time of year (as compared to any other time, I mean). The church
will not be edified and the lost will not be found through your protests, your
petitions, and your punditry. So give it up and let us focus on keeping the
Christ in Christian for a change.
Fifteen days from now, when the smoke clears and this Christmas
season is just another in a long string of holiday memories, how will the
Kingdom have advanced because of your ire? Is there going to be one more soul
in heaven because you’ve campaigned (or just sat at home and complained) for
the local department store to make sure its Christmas greeting conforms to your
specifications? Celebrate Jesus’ birth on December 25th in
accordance with your desires and convictions. Or celebrate it some other time
if you want. “The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of he Lord”
(ESV, Rom. 14.6). Just don’t think some bit of outward scorn toward the secular
world during this arbitrary time of celebration in any way amounts to “your spiritual
worship” (Rom 12.1). I believe that if you stop and reflect you would find that
God would have more for you and ask more of you than fighting this war on
Christmas.
Merry Christmas.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Bread for Dogs
There is a growing niche in education. Enabled by the new global information structure, some rather significant players in academia have pioneered new approaches in educating the masses. Most notable at the moment might be heavyweight Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has been the leading proponent of a concept called OpenCourseWare (OCW). In a nutshell, MIT OCW provides material (e.g. lectures, handouts, exams) from maybe thousands of courses taught at the school over the past decade. This is all free and accessible to anyone anywhere in the world who has access to the internet.
Another approach comes from MIT/Harvard educated Salman Khan. His online Khan Academy has thousands of video lectures along with a unique platform for practicing and tracking student progress. I have personally significantly benefited from Khan in my own studies with geology and advanced calculus, and just a few weeks ago I heard of a family near me that integrates Khan’s resources with their homeschooling. The kids themselves say they love it.
Univeristy of the People is taking a third route and endeavoring to create a truly tuition free online university. At the present, they offer programs in computer science and business administration and they are in the process of seeking accreditation. U of P adds the structure that is not present with OCW offerings such as an actual professor and a class of peers. This general trend toward alternative means of educating is remarkable in and of itself and also stands in remarkable juxtaposition to the other, more prolific trend of creating for-profit commercial institutions out of the carcasses of failing traditional colleges. I can see only good things coming from intelligent, creative people taking it upon themselves to make education more available to the broad world.
So what is going on with the church? While we certainly have some strong representatives in the for-profit (and arguably predatory) movement with Grand Canyon University and Victory University, the church is conspicuous in its near absence from the alternative higher education thrust. This should be an utter embarrassment to all of us who claim to take seriously the standards set forward in scripture, because we have a mandate to build up the church freely and sacrificially. Making disciples certainly encompasses education, so should gaining a Christian education for a disciple of Christ cost as much as it does for a disciple of Wall Street to attain an MBA? Is the church just blithely trudging along on the same well-worn path with the rest of academia—the same academia that much of the church is so quick to condemn as damnably secular and progressive?
It would still be an embarrassment to us if Christian educators were merely on par with the secular educators in alternative education. We have fairly clear guidelines on how to go about life differently and we are the ones that should be setting standards. And while there are small players here and there that are operating in that direction (see thenarrowpath.com, covenantseminary.edu, and studycenter.com), the major agents in Christian academia (e.g. Wheaton University or Dallas Theological Seminary) are, to my knowledge, completely absent. So what are we to make of this? Is there to be a distinction in this kingdom of priests between a well-educated, controlling class and laity that has a life-long dependence upon the professional ministers to truly understand the Bible? Are we to understand that Jesus’ edict to make disciples of the world was intended to include a hefty tuition for those being made (and comfortable salaries for those doing the making)? And what happens to Mathew 10:8—is it null in our day considering that those who now have (in the context of education) certainly didn’t freely receive it for themselves?
There are likely unqualified, ungifted, and I dare say even unsaved men and women in Christian institutions of higher learning all across the country. They can afford tuition so they receive the best that Christian minds can offer while there are likely those who are called, gifted, and abandoned to the Lord who get by on the scraps that are left on the floor. Can we seriously not do better than MIT and Yale in meeting the educational needs of our own? Certainly it is not right to take the children’s bread and sell it to the dogs.
Christians should be very interested in finding creative ways to make the highest quality theological education available to anyone in the church who is willing to learn. We have seen that with OCW models this can be done without risking the established system of allowing those with the means to attend school and actually walk away with diplomas in hand. There are likely several potential solutions to this situation that do not involve an overnight abandonment of the Christian educational system as it now stands, so it really comes down to whether or not the people with the knowledge care enough about equipping Christ’s body to actually do so.
Another approach comes from MIT/Harvard educated Salman Khan. His online Khan Academy has thousands of video lectures along with a unique platform for practicing and tracking student progress. I have personally significantly benefited from Khan in my own studies with geology and advanced calculus, and just a few weeks ago I heard of a family near me that integrates Khan’s resources with their homeschooling. The kids themselves say they love it.
Univeristy of the People is taking a third route and endeavoring to create a truly tuition free online university. At the present, they offer programs in computer science and business administration and they are in the process of seeking accreditation. U of P adds the structure that is not present with OCW offerings such as an actual professor and a class of peers. This general trend toward alternative means of educating is remarkable in and of itself and also stands in remarkable juxtaposition to the other, more prolific trend of creating for-profit commercial institutions out of the carcasses of failing traditional colleges. I can see only good things coming from intelligent, creative people taking it upon themselves to make education more available to the broad world.
So what is going on with the church? While we certainly have some strong representatives in the for-profit (and arguably predatory) movement with Grand Canyon University and Victory University, the church is conspicuous in its near absence from the alternative higher education thrust. This should be an utter embarrassment to all of us who claim to take seriously the standards set forward in scripture, because we have a mandate to build up the church freely and sacrificially. Making disciples certainly encompasses education, so should gaining a Christian education for a disciple of Christ cost as much as it does for a disciple of Wall Street to attain an MBA? Is the church just blithely trudging along on the same well-worn path with the rest of academia—the same academia that much of the church is so quick to condemn as damnably secular and progressive?
It would still be an embarrassment to us if Christian educators were merely on par with the secular educators in alternative education. We have fairly clear guidelines on how to go about life differently and we are the ones that should be setting standards. And while there are small players here and there that are operating in that direction (see thenarrowpath.com, covenantseminary.edu, and studycenter.com), the major agents in Christian academia (e.g. Wheaton University or Dallas Theological Seminary) are, to my knowledge, completely absent. So what are we to make of this? Is there to be a distinction in this kingdom of priests between a well-educated, controlling class and laity that has a life-long dependence upon the professional ministers to truly understand the Bible? Are we to understand that Jesus’ edict to make disciples of the world was intended to include a hefty tuition for those being made (and comfortable salaries for those doing the making)? And what happens to Mathew 10:8—is it null in our day considering that those who now have (in the context of education) certainly didn’t freely receive it for themselves?
There are likely unqualified, ungifted, and I dare say even unsaved men and women in Christian institutions of higher learning all across the country. They can afford tuition so they receive the best that Christian minds can offer while there are likely those who are called, gifted, and abandoned to the Lord who get by on the scraps that are left on the floor. Can we seriously not do better than MIT and Yale in meeting the educational needs of our own? Certainly it is not right to take the children’s bread and sell it to the dogs.
Christians should be very interested in finding creative ways to make the highest quality theological education available to anyone in the church who is willing to learn. We have seen that with OCW models this can be done without risking the established system of allowing those with the means to attend school and actually walk away with diplomas in hand. There are likely several potential solutions to this situation that do not involve an overnight abandonment of the Christian educational system as it now stands, so it really comes down to whether or not the people with the knowledge care enough about equipping Christ’s body to actually do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)