Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Christian Carnival CLXXIII Posted

    . . . at Pseudo-Polymath. Go look at it for the fine pictures used to separate the sections. Oh–read the articles too!

  • Bible Software for Linux

    Since I am playing with a new box I built with Ubuntu installed, I have written a short note on Bible software for Linux on my Computer Services company blog. I’m looking at a Java based application which is also available for Windows, so those looking for free Bible software should check it out.

  • How Politicians Survive Scandal

    Does this strike anyone else as odd?

    Fletcher’s political recovery has been little short of remarkable. A year ago, he was under indictment on three misdemeanor charges of rigging state hiring to favor loyalists. He declined to speak to a grand jury, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and issued a blanket pardon that nullified charges against nine state workers. (Source: Washington Post

    I just don’t get this. I understand that in court one is not supposed to take pleading the fifth amendment as evidence of guilt, but the voters of Kentucky aren’t on a jury. They’re voting for a leader. I have a really hard time understanding why such a person as Governor Ernie Fletcher would get any votes at all after using such tactics. It seems we should have higher standards. I suspect, as was noted in the article, that the GOP of Kentucky may be committing its own brand of suicide.

  • More on UC Admission Policies and Creationism

    I got my ears pinned back (very politely) in a comment by Mary on my previous post on this topic, and the commenter made such good points I think it is appropriate to promote her comment there to a post so more people will see it.

    You’ve asked some interesting questions about UC’s admissions policies. Most of them can be answered by a close read of the UC admissions web pages.

    The UC campuses have many more well qualified applicants than can possibly be accommodated. Anywhere from a third to half must be rejected, and it is only fair to give preference to students who can demonstrate that they are most likely to succeed. There are several ways for students to demonstrate that they are qualified. Very high test scores are one, special exemption is another, and there are other ways for transfer and nontraditional students to get in, but the easiest path for freshmen is to get good grades in a UC-approved core curriculum in high school.

    UC takes the approval process very seriously: it examines the textbook, the syllabus, any supplemental materials, sample lesson plans, and so on, to determine that each approved class actually teaches the material UC wants its incoming freshmen to know, at a college-prep level, accurately and completely. Students who have not demonstrated that they know this core material (because they didn’t bother to take the approved courses, or because they were home schooled) can still get in using the other pathways, although students relying on test scores alone must have higher test scores than students whose grades also demonstrate that they actually learned something in high school.

    One could argue that this arrangement is unfair to home schooled students, but as you pointed out, the quality of home schooling is hugely variable, and UC has no way to tell which parents have provided a good education. It is important for a university to have a student body with diverse interests and backgrounds, but it benefits neither UC nor the students themselves to accept unqualified students. In principle and in effect, UC’s requirements are no different from an employer giving preference to a job applicant who presents evidence of actual relevant job experience over one who scores well on an aptitude test, but doesn’t present evidence of relevant job experience.

    UC has no intention of closing its alternative paths to admissions, and Calvary Chapel’s students can use them even if they haven’t taken the proper coursework, just like any other applicant. Alternatively, a Calvary Chapel student can sign up for the appropriate number and kinds of UC-approved courses (the school has sufficient approved courses to offer students some choice while still fulfilling the requirements). What Calvary Chapel and its students can’t do is substitute unapproved Bible Study classes for the required science, history, and other academic classes, and expect a world-class secular university to go along with it. One has to wonder at the sheer hubris that leads them to file this lawsuit.

    Let me add a starting link to UC’s freshman admission policies. I have no way of knowing how these are actually applied myself, but the process described by Mary seems very rational to me.

    Specific answers to the process for home schooled applications start here.

  • Bible Prayer Index

    I have added my Bible prayer index to the right sidebar. This index has been in existence for some time. It is not exhaustive. For example, I did not include all prayers I found in the Psalms. The way I produced it was to read the Bible through and mark each prayer that particularly struck me at the time. There are 400 categorized entries. Over time I have been working to include more adaptations, such as written prayers based on promises. There are a number of those already in the index.

    Over the next couple of days I will add an index in scriptural order so you can search for a specific scripture, and also introduce an option to list only those with adaptations, notes, or translations added.

  • The Dream Factor on Money

    Pastor Tom Sims has a good short note on Christians and money, titles Spelling M-O-N-E-Y Biblically. Money is a tough topic for Christians. We tend either to go overboard on prosperity theology or be afraid of prosperity lest it destroy us spiritually. Tom’s thoughts may provide some guidance.

  • Homeschool Textbooks and University Admission

    It’s been a few days since this was front and center, triggered by the presentation of an expert report by Dr. Michael Behe, but I wanted to write a few notes about the issue of admissions at UC and homeschooling. There’s an article ACSI v. Stearns, aka Wendell Bird vs. UC on Panda’s Thumb article here. I agree with the criticism of the textbook content. In addition, here’s an older article that contains a good summary:
    Culture war pits UC vs. Christian way of teaching : Religious schools challenge admission standards in court    .

    My issue is not with the assessment of these textbooks, but rather with priorities and appropriate diversity in education. I was homeschooled eight out of 12 years through high school, and the four years in formal schooling were spent in a very conservative Christian school. I knew nothing about evolution except that it happened and it took a long time. My textbooks on science were deficient in all the areas noted. On the other hand, I took a GED and went on to college and graduate school. I had no difficulty with science or math courses (as in getting As with no exceptional amount of study), and when I began to study the appropriate material, I had no difficulty coming to understand evolution, at least sufficiently for my needs as a non-scientist.

    My question on this issue is this: Can this possibly be the most pressing issue in admissions at UC or any university? Is there some ongoing problem with home schooled students failing out of introductory biology? I’m not saying that any university shouldn’t have standards, but I am wondering if this is more about academic culture than about standards. I’m not certain from reading what I see, but while I often deplore what certain home school parents do (lax discipline and schedules, very narrow curricular material), there are also many, many parents who home school quite effectively, and whose children are well above standards.

    I was never in a situation of playing catch-up in any of my classes from the moment I entered college. I moved to upper division courses in my second semester (with some annoyance to the academic affairs committee). Any deficiencies in my curriculum were easily overcome by the fact that I knew how to study, how to sort out information, and was ready to pick up new material in a hurry.

    I’m not sure of the legal aspects of this case, but to me it seems appropriate to keep the diverse options open. I oppose teaching creationism and intelligent design in high school classrooms, because I think in the limited time we should teach consensus science and do it as well as possible. Evolutionary theory is the overwhelming consensus. But in addition, I believe it’s important that people who disagree with me have options, if they’re willing to put in the time and money. Private schooling and home schooling are two of those options. They have to pay for it. They have to live with it.

    If there is some evidence of home schooled children struggling with their college courses because of deficient curricula, then there’s a point here. Otherwise, I’d let the results speak for themselves.

  • 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.