Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Academic Freedom and ID

    Intelligent Design advocates are trying to make us believe that their struggle is primarily about academic freedom, about allowing a new idea to get the examination it deserves, and about ensuring that people are not persecuted for their beliefs. Similar arguments are used from the high school level on up, with the phrase “teach the controversy” setting the tone. People attuned to fair play like the sound of “teach the controversy.” It sounds like a fine idea–whenever it’s done in somebody else’s sandbox.

    Recently a firestorm has arisen in the blogosphere over the decision at Iowa State University to deny tenure to Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez. You can find some of the controversy via the following links:

    I don’t have any new revelations from the Gonzalez case. The arguments over the facts surrounding it are going full steam around the various blogs involved. I want to think just a bit about academic freedom, priorities, and how serious we are about them.

    You see, I don’t think the ID people put a high priority on academic freedom as such. What they put a high priority on is freedom specifically for their point of view. That is not actually all that uncommon. Most of us get hostile about attacks on freedom of speech when the person speaking does not support our particular point of view. When we despise them, it’s much harder. This isn’t a left or right phenomenon. When I see footage of a KKK demonstration, at some level I’d really like to see their mouths forcibly shut and have them hauled off the streets. I feel even more strongly about the Westboro Baptist people (not to be associated with any other variety of Baptist), who protest at funerals.

    But I have a stronger belief in freedom of speech. I think that in the long run we are worse off if I get to cart the people who anger me at the most basic level off to jail. For me, freedom of speech is more important. The ACLU is frequently criticized for supporting free speech for people who are despicable, but their finest work, in my opinion, is done when they are under attack from the right and the left. They stand up and demand freedom for people that they themselves despise.

    There are some similarities in academic freedom. I see this from a slightly different perspective because I was homeschooled, and then completed both undergraduate and graduate work at private schools (Walla Walla College and Andrews University respectively). These are Seventh-day Adventist institutions, and are not only conservative, but in the area of origins are (or at least were) generally young earth. I started as a young earther myself with a view of Biblical inspiration that was compatible with inerrancy.

    During my studies I came to reject both inerrancy and young earth creationism. But that wasn’t where I got into trouble. My studies had nothing to do with that. Where I got into some difficulty was in the area of comparative literature. Just what of the Biblical text is original, and what might have its source, either literarily or in terms of ideas, in other ancient near eastern literature? When it came time to write my thesis, it turned out that due to timing, we could find two, but not three professors who were open to my research subject. I am a controversy avoider, so my adviser and I did a count, we demoted my thesis to “project” and I took four more hours of classwork, completing a non-thesis MA. Now there’s no reason to sympathize with me here. The university was private, religious, and I was writing a thesis in Biblical studies. I took the path of least resistance and took my degree. But just beyond the edges of my path of least resistance I knew there was the fact that academics are not entirely free.

    Should academics be entirely free? That depends on what one means by freedom, and the range over which the problem is discussed. In discussing freedom of speech, I argue that speech should be almost entirely free. I accept obvious exceptions such as incitement. But there are those who will argue that one’s speech cannot be free unless one is provided a platform. I see that differently. I don’t have to provide a platform to everyone, no matter what they have to say. They can provide their own platform.

    I believe that applies even more in academic freedom. For some people, academic freedom means that no matter what a person teaches, no matter how bizarre, no matter how untested, they should have a university platform from which to say it. Now they don’t usually make such a broad claim. What happens in fact is that when my favorite idea is not given the hearing that I think it deserves, I yell “academic freedom.” But academic ideas are not created equal. Professors are not equal. In general those in academia approve of standards of some type. They just want those standards to let them in and keep others out.

    But I don’t see academic freedom threatened by one wrong decision on tenure at one university. (Note that I am not calling the decision on Gonzalez at ISU wrong. Let’s call this a hypothetical wrong decision.) First, there are numerous universities. Other people who are denied tenure go find themselves more fertile ground. Students then examine various universities and decide where they want to get their education. A pattern of wrong decisions on tenure would be destructive of any academic program in the long term. Good decisions will tend to make a strong department. DIs blog has just such a suggestion.

    Intelligent Design activists could try to model the type of behavior they advocate by creating departments at their various religious schools and seminaries that include “Darwinists” and atheists, and of course Christians of various other denominations to “teach the controversy” in all of their various departments. I think Baptist schools should have Methodist professors to “teach the controversy” about baptism by immersion. Certainly, Richard Dawkins should be a regularly invited speaker for programs at seminaries to “teach the controversy” over the existence of God.

    You may think I’m joking. I truly believe that Christian education could do with a huge dose of the academic freedom that is now advocated for public and/or secular institutions. I’ve carried out such projects in Sunday School classes and small groups. I recommend Bible study with commentaries from traditions that get on your nerves. Anything that will tend to prevent inbreeding.

    At the same time there need to be boundaries. Another popular definition of academic freedom is freedom from criticism. The inverse of that is the definition of any criticism whatsoever as “persecution.” Scientific ideas need to be tested and challenged. Amongst the questions that should be raised are whether the idea itself is a scientific idea that generates explanations and new questions that can be objectively studied and tested. Few people would argue that an astronomy department should grant tenure to someone who believes that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth, or that the earth is the center of the universe. Few would argue that a chemistry department should invite an alchemist to teach or grant him tenure.

    Where one draws the line is going to be difficult. Most importantly, however, different departments are going to draw that line in different places, and thus we will get to see how things work. It may be sad for people refused tenure who might have deserved it, though I suspect if someone truly deserved tenure and was refused, they will find an institution to grant it. It may be sad for the students who study at the university that makes a series of poor decisions. But those students also have a choice of where to study.

    But in the end, the fact that we have a very large academic community in many institutions under many different organizations will tend to bring things out to better conclusions. The ID community is itself proving how free ideas are through their ability to keep the waters stirred in public discourse even while they claim academic persecution. If rejected by all of academia, one can, as a last resort, write popular books.

    And there is where I think the real failure of the ID community lies thus far. They are more anxious to play the PR war than to demonstrate their ideas. I personally don’t think they will ever be able to do so. I think their ideas are philosophical and religious despite their claims. But the one way to push the scientific community into seeing their work as science is to work on their formulations to provide testable material and then get into the lab or the field and test those predictions. If the existing publications won’t publish, publish those articles yourself. Build a substantial body of research literature that demonstrates your claim that you’re being frozen out. I don’t think you can, but that’s the proper way to gain acceptance for a scientific idea, and it’s the proper response to skepticism.

  • On Churches, Drinking, and Weaker Brethren

    Joe Carter has an excellent post looking at the Christian standards on drinking. What does one do with the behavior of Jesus, who did drink? Would Jesus be acceptable as a pastor or elder in our churches or as a faculty member in our seminaries?

    I am a member of a United Methodist congregation, and our standards are a bit softer today, but historically Methodists have been quite strongly against use of alcoholic beverages. I grew up as a Seventh-day Adventist, and in that denomination drinking is strictly forbidden.

    My own choice, and I believe the right choice for me, is not to drink at all, but I do not believe that my personal choice is necessarily the correct choice for everyone. I would certainly not have a problem with church members or church leaders, including pastors and bishops, who used alcoholic beverages in moderation. What precisely “moderation” means may also be difficult to define, but I believe it’s an appropriate exercise.

    Carter concludes:

    These types of questions have important implications that go far beyond the concerns about drinking beer or wine. Where does Christian liberty end and institutional authority over matters of conscience begin? Obviously there are times when we need to delineate such boundaries. But we should be cautious about where we mark those lines — especially when they would put Jesus on the wrong side.

    Good point. I would add that I think we should be comfortable if the way we answer is in accord with the “royal law” (James 2:8). If I drink, I do need to be concerned for those who might stumble because of my action. If I don’t drink (my own choice), I need to make sure that people understand that this is my choice for my walk with the Lord, and not something I hold up as a universal standard.

  • Book: The Voice of Jesus in the Social Rhetoric of James

    This should not be read as a review, but rather as a response and a few notes for potential readers. Dr. Wesley Wachob became pastor of First United Methodist Church of Pensacola last June. His associate minister, Rev. Geoffrey Lentz is a good friend, and I have been hearing many good things about that church and their ministry there. So I was led to read this book because of knowing something of the author and from having heard him preach.

    The Voice of Jesus in the Social Rhetoric of James was first published as a dissertation at Emory University (1993), which should tell you something of the level of discourse, not in James, but in the book itself. This is not for the faint hearted, nor for those looking for devotional or sermon material. It did, I must admit, lead me to some thinking about the book and one or two devotionals, but those were an indirect result, rather than a direct reference. I don’t intend this as criticism. Some of my best study, in my own view, at least, is triggered through reading material from which I find it hard to cite a specific instance.

    I approached this book with two purposes in mind. First, I was interested in knowing about the author and his thinking. Of course, nearly 15 years have passed since it was originally published, and one’s thinking can develop a good deal in that time. Second, I was interested specifically in looking at rhetorical criticism in action. With regard to the first goal I had more success listening to a few sermons. On the second, I found this an excellent case to study and enjoyed myself.

    It is probably not a good idea for someone with no knowledge of Greek or no prior knowledge of Biblical criticism to jump into this book. Though all foreign language quotations are translated, something one cannot always count on in scholarly works, a certain knowledge of Biblical criticism and how things fit together is assumed. This is not surprising, but since most readers of this blog are used to articles written at a much lower level (the ones I write) and reviews of material targeted at an audience with less prior experience, I think it’s important to give a warning.

    Let me deal first with the basics. This is a solid work of scholarship (to the extent that I’m qualified to judge), well-referenced with adequate discussions of a variety of viewpoints to point the author’s conclusions into context. I found it necessary to read the footnotes. I often fail to understand how one divides the text in the body from the footnotes. It’s easy to get too much into the text and drive readers to distraction, but it’s also possible to force footnote reading. I’m guessing that a more casual reader would find the body text adequate, but I found myself constantly moving from body to footnotes. Such are the hazards of reading scholarly works.

    I wanted to look at a case of rhetorical criticism, because my training was seriously lacking in that area. My one previous significant encounter was Betz’s commentary on Galatians, and I was not overly impressed there. The commentary was useful, but I felt that the material was forced into the critical mold rather than having the methodology enlighten one about the text.

    I still think that the rhetorical categories can be somewhat strained if one thinks of the author consciously composing in that fashion, but reading this book helped me shed that way of approaching the issue. The passage considered in James appears to me to be fashioned much more closely to the rhetorical pattern presented than was the one in Galatians. I admit, of course, that this could be due to my inexperience with the tools involved.

    Dr. Wachob considers James 2:1-13, and particularly James 2:5 and looks for the way in which that particular saying of Jesus is used in James. He sets this passage in the full context of James, then looks in some detail at the text. For a study such as this one does have to be very precise about the text one is using. Following that he looks at the rhetorical pattern and relationships of the passage itself. Finally he focuses on the use of that particular text.

    The most helpful point in this book came in chapter five. The key statement, for me, was this:

    Because rhetorical discourse is intertextual discourse – a social possession that is founded on previous texts–inevitably, there is within it a dialogue among different voices. . . .

    I had written myself a note about a week before with key elements of an essay I would like to write for this blog about the various voices involved in studying scripture in a Christian community. That list of voices go beyond whatever list might be made for the original author of the text and the way in which his audience would have heard him to include interpreters in the Christian tradition, and in my tradition and community generally. That sentence tied the detail elements together for me.

    I’m still traditional enough to be strongly oriented toward the “original intent” that elusive intended communication between the author and his audience. It’s quite problematic to track down, but I consider the chase worth it, even if the fox always escapes in the end. That keeps us looking in the right direction. But then we have to step back from looking at the way different texts and voices interacted for that audience, and recognize the web of relationships that results in our present understanding.

    One of the great benefits of critical study of the Bible, no matter which tools one uses, is to force us to think more seriously and in more detail about the text. One of the great dangers of that critical study is that we begin to think that the results of a particular critical methodology give us the final answer. The form critic has accomplished his task when he discovers the genre, the source critic when he has identified sources, and so forth. Rhetorical, genre, and canonical criticism, along with the various tools of literary criticism tend to push us to take a bit broader look at the text in one way or another.

    If you can work your way through the details, handle the Greek texts and the citations of numerous manuscripts, you will find this little book worth they time to read its 201 pages. Just make sure that you really want the kernel, else you’ll feel somewhat put upon by the effort required.

  • Christian Carnival CLXXII

    . . . has been posted at Crossroads: Where Faith and Inquiry Meet. For unknown reasons my post isn’t there, but it’s still a good collection. I’ll have to make sure I made it through the time related hoops.

    Enjoy!

  • ID and Theistic Evolution

    Ed Brayton calls attention to the “exchange of views” between P. Z. Myers and Wesley Elsberry. As any reader of this blog will know, I’m siding with Wesley Elsberry.

    But this whole debate continues to annoy me. Why is it that people have to care what someone believes about something that is not going to impact their science. Even Myers agrees, for example, that Kenneth Miller (with Levine) have written some excellent science texts. So who cares precisely what they believe when the issue is science?

    Yes, when dealing with political issues, that is going to come up. Even my name, as poorly known as it is, gets brought up in church. “Henry’s a Bible teacher and he accepts evolution.” Depending on the position of the person saying it, imagine a tone either of passing a dirty secret or of triumph, as in “It’s OK then.”

    The fact that I accept evolution is not in any sense a scientific reason for someone to accept the theory. But such is life in this fine world of ours. Some people accept or reject things because people that they respect accept them. In fact, much of the following of creationism exists, not because people have actually studied the issue, but because they are following the opinions of people who have the “right” theological views.

    That’s not good. They should change it. But it’s a fact of life.

    In the meantime, for those challenged by nuances and gradations in ideas, try this. ID advocates think God tinkers along the way in an identifiable way. Theistic evolutions expect to find the same physical things as atheistic evolutionists, but they also believe in God. There won’t be any difference in a science text written by a theistic and an atheistic evolutionist–unless they get off the subject. Kenneth Miller’s scientific writings are exhibit A.

    Now in politics and theology, all bets are off. 🙂

  • My Latest Book (Partly)

    My new book wasn’t planned–by me, that is. Rev. Riley Richardson, pastor of Gonzalez United Methodist Church (and thus my pastor) were talking one day about books, and he said, “What I need is an extremely simple book that I can give to new members that will tell them what to do next and help guide them into discipleship.

    Discipleship: Jesus With Us

    Being a publisher, and more specifically a publisher whose publications are driven by what I perceive as educational needs in churches, I immediately suggested to Riley that he write such a book and I would publish it. But he didn’t jump right on the bandwagon until I offered to help. So on the new book you will see right below Riley’s name the phrase “with Henry Neufeld.” That means Riley got to make all the decisions, and I helped him produce it. I helped myself by incorporating material from some of our existing Participatory Study Series tracts with Riley’s approval.

    For those who don’t know him, Riley is an energetic, evangelical Methodist pastor. He’s practical and down to earth. So the book isn’t really mine, despite the title to this blog post, but I had quite a bit to do with it and I’m happy to be able to offer it as a tool for pastors, church leaders, and every member who has ever wondered what to do next when someone becomes a Christian or joins the church.

    The statistics are not so good for new Christians staying in the church. Discipleship and fellowship are key elements to sticking with it. Both Riley and I pray that this little book will be a help to many.

    This book will not (or at least should not) teach the pastor anything new about discipleship. It’s a tool to use in ministry and in sharing with others. Activities and study questions are included so it can be used in small groups.

    A couple of personal notes–first, nepotism is involved in the cover production. That beautiful cover is the work of my nephew, Jason Neufeld (contact info at jasonneufelddesign.com). Riley has designated his royalties to go to the Ukraine missions that are carried out by Pacesetters Bible School and partially supported by Gonzalez United Methodist Church.

  • Elgin Hushbeck’s New Blog

    Elgin Hushbeck is a friend and also business associate (I publish his books in the Consider Christianity series). He is a contributor to the Running Toward the Goal podcast.

    He’s started a new blog at Townhall.com, and for better or for worse his first blog touches an issue on which we disagree, the war in Iraq, under the title Is there a War on Terror?. I’m not going to get into answering it now, as I think I’ve blogged enough on the war for the moment, but Elgin’s post is a thoughtful view from the other side of this issue.

    I will comment only so far as to note that I agree that there is a substantial threat to be faced, and that complacency has set in. I simply don’t agree that even in the face of that the invasion of Iraq, at least with the stated objectives, was a good strategic choice. But that is a long discussion part of which we have already had in person.

    I think many readers of this blog will enjoy Elgin’s posts in this series, some because I annoy you and Elgin won’t, others because he’ll annoy you and you’ll have to think of more arguments, all of which will be to the good.

  • Brokeback Mountain for Kids

    For some balance on the incident of showing Brokeback Mountain to middle schoolers, check out this post on Pursuing Holiness. I really can’t comment much since I haven’t seen the movie, but the phrase “age appropriate” (or in this case, not so much age appropriate) makes sense to me.

  • The Right Type of Accountability

    I’m an advocate of accountability, especially in church matters and our spiritual lives. I think it makes for wiser decision making and greater likelihood that we will carry out our goals. Accountability can come in many forms, from very formalized, such as an accountability group that meets regularly in which you question one another’s spiritual life, or simply telling friends and family what it is that you’ve determined to accomplish. The value of these types of accountability varies, of course.

    The Washington Post has an article on accountability, which quotes experts to tell us a number of things about accountability that may seem like common sense, but in government at least we don’t seem to follow them. Perhaps having a few PhDs say these things will help!

    This article quotes Jennifer Lerner, now moving to the Kennedy School of Government, as saying that the wrong type of accountability can produce the opposite effect to what was intended, and notes,

    What she and numerous other experts have found is that particular types of accountability are needed for particular situations. Get the nuances wrong, and accountability backfires on you.

    In particular candidates in either party may be drawn to the left (Democrats) or the right (Republicans) by the voters who will get them nominated, and then feel accountable to those voters once elected. Thus they may do things that please that constituency, to whom they are accountable, rather than what they actually believe is right.

    Accountability may also make the decision maker favor things that are easier to explain, even when those things are not necessarily better. The article cites medical decisions, in which a physician may choose the course of action that would be easiest to explain in a lawsuit, for example, over what he or she truly believes is the best choice. From my own experience with the medical profession I suspect this would result in favoring a traditional, well-established course of action over something newer but potentially more effective.

    Of course it should be no surprise that accountability that kicks in before and during the decision is more effective than accountability that kicks in afterwards. We needed a good deal of research to figure that one out! But it is something we don’t always notice. Once a decision has been made, we’re more likely to spend our time justifying what we have done than in reflecting on what we may have done wrong. Questioning often simply hardens our stance on that matter as we get defensive.

    To relate this directly to church, consider the conflict between a forward looking ministry team and a hard-headed finance committee. We have the faith versus sight debate in full swing, with the ministry folks assuring the finance folks that they are following God’s leading and that God will provide for their need, and the finance folks pointing to the budget. Where is wisdom? I think each being accountable to the other is a good thing. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer.

    But that kind of decision is not limited to the church. In a business you would have a similar conflict between the creative folks and financial officer. Is this product worth investing in? Do we have the money to produce it? All the while the creative people are pointing out how sales will quickly bring in the necessary support. Or something like that . . .

    Accountability is good, but needs to be combined with the courage of our convictions and the humility to reconsider of favored ideas.

  • Roles and Relationships Add, Not Subtract

    I just got back from a Mothers Day service at my church. The pastor, a good friend, commented both to me before the service and during the sermon itself about those who can be hurt because for one reason or not they are not mothers. Often hurtful comments are made by well-intentioned people. I know how easy it is to make a comment that hurts when one is only intending to be friendly.

    But I see a community problem, or perhaps a problem of our whole society, in the way we view roles and relationships. It often seems to me that we view ourselves as having a certain capacity for relationships, so that any new relationship is likely to subtract from an older one. Similarly with our roles in life, we seem to think that if we honor one role, we dishonor another, or at least diminish its honor. But why must it be that way?

    Let me speak from my own experience. I do not have an “biological” children. I married late in life to a wonderful woman who has three wonderful children. People asked both of us numerous times whether we were satisfied with not having any more children. That would, they hastened to remind me, mean that I would never have any “children of my own.”

    Well, I guess I’m thankful for their concern for my happiness, but I do have children of my own, and now several grandchildren. They are my own because I claim them, because I love them, and to the best of my ability I’m there for them. I don’t have any overwhelming need to produce more children so that I can make some better claim to them.

    Once I had stepchildren, there came some complaints about the word “step.” Some people wondered if I didn’t want my stepchildren to call me “dad” and not “step-dad” or “Henry.” Well, to put it bluntly, I’m proud of the role of stepfather, and it doesn’t bother me at all to be reminded of it. The stepfather role in no way needs to diminish the role of dad, either. My children are all very musical. Their father was an exceptionally talented musician, talented in sports, and a good man. You can believe me since I’m talking about my wife’s ex. I don’t think I’m motivated to flattery.

    I knew with the children that I would not be taking his place, even if I had wanted to. A few minutes after he passed away, I had a conversation with James and he told me, “I guess it’s all up to you now.” That separate stepfather relationship was something special in itself. It wasn’t diminished by James’ love for his father, nor was his relationship with his father diminished by having a relationship with me.

    I can never share John’s dreams in baseball in the same way as his father did. I learned baseball watching John. His father helped teach him to play. I came in late in the game. Whatever John wants or does is fine with me. His father lived the dream of seeing his son in the major leagues. But the relationship between stepfather and stepson has its own special quality that can even survive my rather basic questions about baseball. Janet does call me “dad” now, but that doesn’t make our relationship better or worse. It is just what works for us. I love to hear her voice when she calls, no matter what the reason.

    I don’t think they can be any more “mine” than they are, and I respect their love for and memory of their father. No relationship needs to subtract from any other.

    Looking back on my own life, one of my elementary teachers, who taught me for several years in a small two-room school had a tremendous influence on my life, and I know on the lives of many others. She never married, and so was not “technically” a mother. But her role had its own special quality and its own special influence.

    My mother and my wife, while both having biological children, also tend to build up roles of friendship and mentoring with many others. Those roles and relationships do not diminish the relationship with their “natural” children. They add.

    So today I do celebrate mothers in the traditional sense. But my celebration for the day does not diminish my appreciate for all those other women and the roles they play in peoples’ lives at home or at work.