Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Religious Education

  • Freedom of Speech Rights Tangled

    Here’s an interesting freedom of speech issue again brought to my attention by Breaking Christian News and this time referring me to this LifeSite article. It appears that at a minimum there is confusion about the facts of the case, including the professor’s intentions and when the paper was graded, as comparison of the LifeSite article with this article on the Southern Illinoisian web site.

    I am uncertain of where the law would stand on this, and would certainly welcome comment that might clarify it for me. This whole story bothers me because of what it means for education. A professor’s beliefs do have something to do with what they teach and what they are going to find acceptable in a paper. I can imagine, for example, a person who wants to be a social worker, but who believes that the entire course of treatment should consist of prayer and Bible study. Should such a study be granted a degree in social work, essentially the university saying that this person is qualified to perform the functions of a social worker? If it’s a free speech issue, then the validity of the contents would not be relevant. I’m not suggesting that Christine Mize did not provide a reasonably competent, faith-based program, but it seems dangerous to me to apply free speech standards to the grading of college papers.

    To take an example from a field with which I’m more familiar, suppose that a biology student wished to write a paper on origins for biology class that claimed that all species appeared fully formed and without genealogy, and proposed to demonstrate this from the Bible. I would have to say that there should be no requirement that such a paper be accepted for biology credit. The student has free speech, and can go home and post his paper on his blog if he wants, but I don’t think the first amendment guarantees, or should guarantee a passing grade. Of course the level of competence required would depend on the level.

    There’s a subjective line here between thoroughly incompetent and competent but challenging prevailing attitudes. I must say that while it seems excessive to me for the professor to refuse any inclusion of faith based options in a treatment plan, considering that there is substantial disagreement on the value of such elements, it also seems to me that applying first amendment rights to the acceptance and grading of assignments is questionable, and I wonder what the courts may have ruled on this in the past.

    As I have time I will look it up, though it’s likely that brilliant readers will have straightened me out before I get the time to do that.

    Brilliant readers, where are you?? 🙂

  • Religious Rights Bill in Colorado

    It is very important not to assume what a bill will actually accomplished based on its title. Titles are generally designed to put a positive spin on the contents of the bill in the hopes that people will not read further or seriously consider the consequences of what is actually proposed.

    A new bill in Colorado has precisely that problem. There are a number of issues in terms of implementation, but I want to look at one particular line:

    NOT BE REQUIRED TO TEACH A TOPIC THAT VIOLATES HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND NOT BE DISCIPLINED FOR REFUSING TO TEACH THE TOPIC;

    Matt Young at The Panda’s Thumb comments:

    Realistically, what subject besides evolution will spur a great many parents, teachers, or students to opt out of a lesson? Enough, that is, to interest the legislature? None. I find it very hard to believe, then, that this bill is not a cover for undermining evolution in favor of a narrow religious agenda.

    Perhaps my past experience with very narrow religious groups gives me some perspective on the possibilities here, but sex education comes to mind immediately. But more importantly I know people who regard numerous works of classical literature as evil, and who could well claim it was a violation of their conscience to have to teach those. In effect, the bill hands over the curriculum to the individual conscience of teachers.

    I would suggest that a better plan is for those who feel they cannot handle the public school curriculum to go either the private or home school route. I don’t mean to be nasty here, or to suggest that the public should have no involvement in curriculum decisions. I believe parents and the public should be very much involved. But a public school teacher needs to teach the curriculum provided. Free speech rights do not mean that every individual has the right to modify the curriculum. It’s a public process. The teacher’s free speech is not impaired by this, in my view, simply because the government fails to provide a platform.

    The public schools exist as infrastructure, to produce citizens educated to a certain level. An individual teacher cannot be permitted to distrupt that process because he or she cannot conscientiously teach some subject matter that is required. The proper response is to find a job that he or she can conscientiously do.

    While I’m at it, I would suggest to Christian parents that the best time for your children to get their first exposure to ideas you find objectionable is while they are still at home. At that point you can respond with your own beliefs on the matter. Your Sunday School classes can teach on it, and your youth leaders can provide instruction as well. The child then gets a choice. If the sex education class doesn’t cover abstinence in the way you’d like, you can provide that instruction. If you disapprove of evolution, arrange to have your beliefs taught through the auspices of your church, or in your home. Parental involvement is tremendously important. Use it!

    I hope people will consider these issues and a number of other troubling points of this bill, especially if, as predicted, similar bills are introduced in other states.

  • Evolution Sunday

    Evolution Sunday is coming up February 11, 2007. Some folks may be a bit concerned, or even seriously annoyed with the idea of an “evolution” Sunday. Is the theory of evolution going to become a point of Christian doctrine? Shall we celebrate evolution for a day?

    Well, I can think of several subjects right off hand that would make good sermons that relate the theory of evolution to relevant topics in Christianity, and I would have no problem with preaching them, should I have the opportunity. (My venue is more commonly the classroom, but who knows?) But the real point of Evolution Sunday is to discuss the relationship between religion and science. Evolution seems to be the topic most commonly used to drive a wedge between the two, and the event is scheduled as near as possible to Charles Darwin’s birthday because he is made the focus of the controversy.

    I have no greater desire to see evolution become an element of a Christian doctrine of creation than I do to see young earth creationism in that position. I would like Christianity to deal doctrinally with the doctrine of God and his relationship to his creation, and to leave the how to those who employ the scientific method. Getting those physical facts and coordinating them is what science does well. It is also something that religion generally does poorly.

    So what I would suggest to churches is that they focus on the topic of science and religion, with an emphasis on living respectfully together as Christians in spite of our disagreements on the details of how God created. Let the congregation know that we can live together even when we disagree on matters of science. Believe it or not, young earthers, old earthers, ID advocates, and evolutionists can and do exist in the same congregation without immediate war breaking out.

    This respect doesn’t mean that we have to give ground in debate or discussion. A vigorous exchange of ideas is important in seeking the truth. Too often respect is equated to agreement or even to the idea that what we believe doesn’t matter at all. What I would hope for is that members of Christian congregations could debate these issues without fear of being thrown out of the church or cut off from positions of authority.

    So on February 11, 2007, consider talking about science and religion working together, about how we can both disagree and communicate our disagreement, and how we can place our focus on the essentials.

    (For some ideas on the doctrine of creation, see the Energion Publications tract God the Creator.)

  • Heat, Light, and Comments

    This morning I awoke to start my early morning blog and e-mail work only to find that co.mments.com had supplied me (at my request) with seven messages alerting me to comments on Ed Brayton’s most recent blog entry on the Richard Dawkins petition debate, representing 27 comments. I only worked my way through a few of the comments which seem quite repetitive.

    What struck me initially was simply that it seems like the least central of issues easily get the largest number of comments. My largest blocks of comments generally don’t come on the posts in which I feel that I’ve made a thoughtful contribution, but on those posts in which I got emotional on reading a news story or someone else’s blog entry and batted out a few paragraphs worth of annoyance.

    It’s worth considering why that is. I think my own commenting often reflects a similar trend. When I read a good, thoughtful post, I go think about it and often by the time I have anything to say, I’ve even forgotten where I read it. That’s one of the reasons I signed up for co.mments.com in the first place.

    Now I’ve already commented on this issue as such. I wrote about how I think that indoctrination, as I understand the term, is not a good thing. As a Christian, I don’t want people indoctrinated into my faith. I want them to learn about and choose it. That choice is up to them, not to me. I think the petition Richard Dawkins signed was not a good idea, and I’m glad he’s repudiated that signature. In fact, he has risen in my estimation by his response. I have realized from my first exposure to his work (reading The Blind Watchmaker [link is to my review]) that he and I are not going to see eye to eye on many things, and that he has some contempt for my liberal Christian perspective (or moderate perhaps). At the same time his writing on science is truly exceptional and challenging, and I must continue to recommend reading it. Further, I think my fellow Christians should climb down off the ceiling, especially hear in the United States. I’d be much more concerned about the religious right getting power than the “atheist left.” There is, in fact, so little “atheist left” out there, that your expectation should not be that atheism is going to take over. Probably you should be more worried about me. 🙂 The woods are full of us moderate and liberal Christians, and we’re beginning to get really annoyed at what the hard right is doing to our faith. (Note that I use “moderate” as a very broad term that actually includes most evangelicals.)

    As I was thinking up all these exciting things to say, I saw in my feeds Nick Matzke’s post Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position. It doesn’t make me want to go beat up on Ed for his reaction. Many Christians will react even more forcefully and will not be satisfied with the explanations. After reading the petition, and based on my own experience living overseas, I still think that petition reads very badly and implies some inappropriate things. But what Richard Dawkins is saying in the quoted e-mail is very rational and forms a good basis for discussion.

    I think Christian education, specifically what goes on in churches in Sunday School classes, Wednesday night classes, and even many weekend retreats fails because it is shallow, repetitive, and intended for indoctrination. We want our children to be like us, and the programs are designed to make them like us. What we need is a next generation that knows how to consider, think critically, and decide. Now there will be some both non-Christians and Christians who will think I’m being foolish here, in both cases because they think children educated in that way won’t grow up as people of faith. I understand the possibilities, and I’m willing to risk it. In fact, risk is not the best word. An unthinking, knee-jerk Christian is just as much a loss to the faith and possibly more so than the person who leaves because of their best judgment.

    I believe that the reason Christianity has failed so many times in accomplishing its purpose is that the principle of self-sacrificing love is not something that can be produced by indoctrination, it can only be chosen. What indoctrination produces is a simulation of self-sacrificing love, thus hypocrisy, and soon after that judgmentalism. The fruit of unrestrained judgmentalism is persecution.

    Hopefully with Nick Matzke’s nifty contribution, and Richard Dawkins well-considered words (unlike the initial petition signing), we can work toward some light here coming out of a great deal of heat.

    Update: I don’t want to write another post on this subject, but I want to add a link to Ed Brayton’s excellent letter to Richard Dawkins that was posted after I wrote this.

  • Indoctrination and Religious Education

    In the course of the discussion of typology of ID opponents the topic of Richard Dawkins and his claim that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse came up. Now since I’m a religious educator, and particular one who works in churches and other voluntary organizations, you can imagine that my response to Dawkins and to the petition referenced in Ed’s post, is not positive.

    I agree fully with Ed that this is not an area for governmental regulation. I also understand the difference between the British system and ours here in the United States. Thus I would support any effort to remove government support from religious education, while opposing any attempt for the government to regulate what is done in private.

    Update: Richard Dawkins has repudiated the signature on that petition. See post here with a link to the comment in which Dawkins repudiates it.

    (more…)

  • Why I Oppose ID

    . . . and how I oppose it.

    There has been an interesting flap that started when MikeGene at Telic Thoughts proposed a typology of ID critics, and Ed Brayton responded, with further response again from MikeGene.

    I think most of what needs to be said has already been said in those posts and the comments attached to them. I have to note that while I find Telic Thoughts a much more thoughtful and useful blog to read than Uncommon Descent (Translation: I now read the former, but not the latter!), my initial reaction to the typology was much less positive than Ed’s. There is, however, a point to the whole thing, which MikeGene makes. After quoting the following from Ed’s post:

    There are several things that unite all these factions. Already mentioned is their inability to contemplate the issues related to ID without relying on the “ID=religion/God” stereotype. Furthermore, I would argue that all groups entail a very strong tendency toward closed-mindedness: Types B, C, D for metaphysical reasons and Type A for political reasons. Also, all groups are united in their strong tendency to label ID proponents as “Creationists” and “threats to Science.”

    He then says:

    Yet he then spends the rest of his blog demonstrating that my description was on track, as he tries to justify his broad brushed approach that includes stereotypes and labels. I have dealt with all his arguments before, and may rehash them again. But for now, I can simply point out that while I am willing to make a distinction between someone like Ed Brayton and Richard Dawkins, Ed apparently wants to lump me with Duane Gish and Philip Johnson, where, I suppose, the TT contributors are all nothing more than players in a “PR campaign to place a thin veneer of scientific-sounding terminology over good old-fashioned religious anti-evolutionism.”

    Will the critics of ID ever break free of their stereotypes and realize that not all proponents of ID can be painted with the same broad brush?

    There is a good point here, but it is one that is not carried through.

    (more…)

  • Bad Teaching and Abuse

    Al Johnson has posted a story about an abused wife on Recovery Poetry blog.

    Before I comment on this particular story, I want to note that a site like Johnson’s blog can be an important tool for people who are suffering abuse, no matter what the cause or the background. In working in ministry in various churches I’ve found that one of the most damaging problems, if not the most damaging, is a feeling of isolation.

    There are many causes for this feel.  One factor is the “faith face.”  We know we’re supposed to be doing well, because good Christians are happy people, so we paste a smile on our face and charge forward.  Another factor is gossip.  Churches are often small, closed (unforunately) communities, and gossip is a besetting sin.  As soon as someone’s personal story is repeated, trust is lost, and that person will become more isolated.  Judgment is also a factor, usually cloaked in a guise of simply protecting the reputation of the community.  But the more people any individual has heard condemned, the less likely that person is to share any problem they may have.

    (more…)

  • Wisdom, Discernment, and Creation

    My Breaking Christian News E-Mail tipped me off to this article on http://www.worldnetdaily.com”>WorldNetDaily titled End creation-evolution debate in your home. This sort of thing amazes me and makes me very, very concerned. The article advertises a new printing of the book Bishop James Ussher, The Annals of the World.

    Now I certainly do not mind seeing an old book reprinted, but even the title of the article makes ridiculous claims for this book. It will certainly not settle anything about creation-evolution debates. One should be warned by someone giving a month and day for the creation of the world based on texts that are at best written in years and with considerable doubts about those.

    But the article also calls this book “. . . a favorite of homeschoolers and those who take ancient history seriously.” That is simply incredible. Practically the entire field of ancient near eastern archeology has been created since that book was written. It is, itself, a historical artifact, and not a good source for the facts of the history of the world or of their interpretation. If homeschoolers are being taught history in this fashion, we have a great deal to be worried about.

    This is not wisdom and disernment. This is gullibility. I was homeschooled myself. Understand that I’m not criticizing homeschooling as such, though I do believe that many people try to homeschool who have neither the skills nor the discipline for it. But I am criticizing the use of materials that are not appropriate to the task for which they are used.

  • More on Bible in Public Schools

    Ed Brayton calls attention to a Texas Freedom Network report on the teaching of the Bible in public schools. Not surprisingly, the report is not good. Bible teaching is constitutional under certain specific circumstances, largely amounting to requiring that it be taught as an academic subject in a non-sectarian way. The recommendations by the Texas Freedom Network, available at the link I provided, are good ones, if public schools are going to teach Bible courses.

    I have previously commented, however, and I continue to believe that it is not best to have Bible courses in public school. I still continue to believe that is the best policy. That doesn’t mean that the Bible shouldn’t be mentioned. I think it will find an appropriate place in literature, history, and comparative religions, for example. But a class specifically in the Bible presents problems.

    From the point of view of a conservative Christian, the possibility that Biblical criticism will be taught is a serious issue. What view of the Bible is to be taught? Should it be taught as inspired? Inerrant? Mythology? Each of those issues will differ depending on the particular religious view of the teacher. It will be difficult to find teachers who can teach the Bible in a neutral manner. I am practically certain, for example, that I could not give fundamentalists a fair hearing in class. In my view, academic study of the Bible makes such things as Biblical inerrancy and a literal understanding of such material as the antedeluvian material so improbable that I would have a hard time presenting them as having any kind of validity outside of faith. A rational person might believe they were historical material, but that would come from a faith position.

    From the point of view of any non-Christian, I think there is an overwhelming probability that a course will be taught from at least a generally Christian viewpoint. Even thought I think the Texas Freedom Network’s suggestions are good, as far as they go, but even though such a Bible class would be constitutional, I think it would be better to leave teaching of the Bible as a separate subject at the Elementary and High School level to churches, synagogues, and religious schools.

    As a part of other classes, I think it could and should be done appropriately. The Bible is involved in a substantial portion of our history and literature, and that background shouldn’t be lost. But that can be accomplished effectively as part of classes in those other subjects.

  • Nitpicking Translations

    Centuri0n responded, in a way to my post Conscience of a Christian Publisher. I posted a response once, and unfortunately that response was eaten by the server. I was able to restore everything else, but this I have to rewrite. I’m not trying to repeat the other post precisely, so if you read it, don’t look at this as a duplicate, though I am trying to cover the same ground.

    There are a number of things I could respond to, such as his comments on my use of “conscience,” but I think I’ll skip to what I see as the major problem of logic, and it’s one that is not unique to centuri0n. It’s quite prevalent amongst advocates of literal translations. Consider the following quote:

    My complaint about the TNIV, as you can read for yourself, is that it whitewashes the controversial nature of its methodology. Now, if the Bible is just a “signpost”, my complaint is, of course, nit-picking. What the Bible says isn’t actually of first importance but of far secondary importance