Is there academic freedom at Harvard?

Harvard President Lawrence Summers has yeilded to pressure to resign. The not-especially-conservative Yahoo News reports that many faculty, even those who consider themselves liberal believe that Summers has been "done in" by an ultra-liberal faction in the faculty who found some of his opinions "unacceptable."

My Favorite quote from this article comes from Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz:

"I'm clearly in the left 20 percent of the country, nationally. I'm a Ted Kennedy liberal," Dershowitz said. "In the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, I'm in the 10 percent side of the conservatives.
"That doesn't show I'm out of sync with the country," he said. "It shows how out of sync Harvard is."

I have been complaining for a while of what I see as an extreme liberal bias in America's colleges that not only betrays the principle of academic freedom of thought, but sends a steady stream of "spin" to the public under the guise of "solid Academic Research." This is not to mention a steady stream of future leaders who have been indoctrinated by said "spin."

I wonder what happens to the pursuit of truth when college professors, even when they are backed by methodologically sound research, are not able to make any kind of statements that challenge the prevailing ideology at their universities?

If a "Ted Kennedy liberal" agrees with me, you know things really are THAT bad, if not much worse.

(for a similar rambling, see my post for 12/01/05)

The Problem with Protestants and Authority

If you know me, you know that I am a faithful Protestant Christian. If you have known me for more than a few years, you may also know that I have gotten a lot more "catholic" (and I don't necessarily mean "Roman Catholic" when I use that word) in the last 5-ish years.

One of the reasons I left the congregational/free churches I had been involved with and headed back to liberal and stuffy old Methodism (in which I was raised) was the realization I had that, as an individual, I did not have the authority to interpret Scripture, and I wanted - even required - an organized Church with at least SOME established Doctrinal Standards or rules for interpretation.

I also realized very quickly, that it would have to be a Church whose doctrines and practice were in continuity with and rooted in the Universal Church through the ages and therefore acknowledged the great Orthodox and Ecumenical Creeds: The Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, on which all 3 major branches (and most of the minor branches) of Christianity are pretty much agreed.

The crisis came when I realized that I, who believed in the infallibility of the Scriptures as the written Word of God, interpreted them to mean different things (on fairly important points) than other very sincere Christians who also believed in their authority just as I did.How could such a disagreement about the meaning of the Scriptures - that ultimately reflected a disagreement about the character of God - be arbitrated? If the individual is the final authority, then my own authority was equal to those with whom I disagreed, and we have reached an impasse (and this is the point when the smaller group generally starts a new denomination).

I could appeal to the Holy Spirit's having guided my interpretation; but then so did they. Those Episcopal bishops who voted to consecrate a practicing homosexual as bishop in God's Church appealed to the guidance of the Holy Spirit (and indeed, even a selective reading of the Scripture) as the authority behind their position, yet most Protestants disagree with them based on the same criteria.

You see the problem? Some things (like the content of John 3:16) are abundantly clear from Scripture, but what about those things that are not? Or, how can we decide the best way to bring Scriptural truths to a world that is in many ways very different than the 1st Century Roman World, though exactly the same in its desperate need for those truths.

I remember reading a story in a book called Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail of a young man, who said he was tired of hearing 19 year old math majors in his college Bible study talk about what the book of Galatians meant 'to them,' but he wanted to hear from someone who had real authority. That story resonated with me, though I still think it VERY important for 19 year old math majors to read the book of Galatians and ask what it means for them (and then to live that).

I suppose Postmodernity can be content with going around and voicing what the Bible means "for me." But once you start trying to live together in a covenant community, making decisions that will affect more than "just me," then you need to know what it means for everyone.

Anyways, I got to thinking about this because of a post I just read at a Catholic (or Anglican?) blog called Pontifications (the discussion along these lines that they link to is very interesting). Though I think I am precisely one of those people they are disagreeing with, they got me thinking about this (and comment #4 at the end is challenging/insightful).

I certainly do NOT think that the pope is the one authority who should interpret Scripture for us all - that seems to me quite crazy. But, I must disagree with Luther here, I also do NOT think that my own conscience is a sufficient authority to do so either. The "just me and my Bible" approach has brought us unprecedented division as well as a number of cults that "spun out of" the Christian Church, though it fits well with the hyper-individualism of our day.

I am still trying to sort out a solution; but I think it must probably involve the "orthodox consensus" of what has been believed by most Christians through the ages, and probably also the 7 truly Ecumenical councils (including those canonical Creeds) that are recognized by all Roman Catholics, most Eastern Orthodox, and some Protestants. The model of binding Ecumenical councils that are led by the Spirit is given in Acts 15.

A solution (if we find one) will likely involve some idea of Apostolic succession or Apostolic continuity of doctrine, though certainly not the "bishop-to-bishop" model put forth by some of the "Apostolic Succession churches", since it has demonstrably failed at times.

But if you stop and think about it, before there was a Roman papacy, and before there was even a New Testament Canon, there was an Apostolic Tradition that had authority for the Church (1 Cor. 11:2); and it seems to me that both the New Testament and the "Apostolic Succession of Bishops" were intended to inshrine that Apostolic teaching and make it available to later generations.

U.S. to continue aid to Palestinians

The United States will continue giving humanitarian aid to Palestinians in spite of the formation of a Hamas government, according to a Yahoo news report.

As someone who was in the Palestinian West Bank last month, I am very relieved to hear this. The people there are simply desperate and they see the U.S. as one of the major reasons for their situation since we give so much (military) aid to Israel, who is subjugating the Palestinians.

These issues should also be important to Christians because pretty much every single member of the Church, the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16), in the Holy Land is an Arab/Palestinian.

Evangelicals warn of Global Warming

One of the stereotypes about Evangelical Christians is that we are only concerned with saving individuals souls for an other-worldly heaven and are for that reason not concerned with environmental issues.

Unfortunately this has often been the case among individuals (some I know) who, for whatever reason, think that being conservative or evangelical (or both) with regards to their theology naturally entails being politically conservative or believing everything that they hear on conservative talk radio. But not so.

So, just to break down inaccurate stereotypes, allow me to introduce The Evangelical Climate Initiative, dedicated because of their belief in the authority of the Bible as God's Word to fighting global warming: http://www.christiansandclimate.org/ . Their statement "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action" explains their position.

South Dakota bans Abortion

The State legislature of South Dakota has voted to ban all abortions save for those performed to save the life of the mother. Doctors who perform illegal abortions would face prison time. The governor has said he will look favorably on such a bill when it comes to his desk. The bill's main sponser, Julie Bartling - a Democrat (!) - said that the state seeks to protect the lives and rights of unborn children.

I thank God that people are working to protect the very "least of these" in our world today. The Christian faith does teach and has historically taught that all human living individuals are created in the image of God and should be respected. In addition science has taught us that embryos are human individuals, genetically distinct from both parents, that are alive and growing from the moment of conception. There is no moment after conception at which the nature of the baby in the womb changes. Only the size and location change as it grows and is born.

If we are a nation that values freedom, then we MUST value freedom of innocents to live. Furthermore, we must balance our emphasis on individual rights with an appreciation of the affects that individual decisions have on others in the community so that all freedoms must be balanced by personal responsibility, and for those of us who claim to follow Jesus, all our freedom must be always exercised the self-giving love that he has shown to us (most especially at the cross).

Obviously this bill will be challenged in court. In fact, it may have been designed to see if the newly (supposedly) right-leaning Supreme Court will overturn or at least qualify the Roe v. Wade Decision. So it will be interesting to see what happens, but as always it will take some time.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185991,00.html

Episcopal Diocese may elect gay bishop

You probably have heard that in 2003 the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire consecrated an openly gay man, Gene Robinson, as bishop (who recently checked himself into alcohol-rehab as I understand it, and no doubt needs honest prayer and encouragment).

This move has caused a great deal of tumult in the worldwide Anglican communion (www.anglicancommunion.org), the thrid largest Christian Communion in the world (after Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox). The Anglican Communion is also, for the most part Evangelical and even a little bit Charismatic in its theological orientation, especially in the developing World where it is growing the fastest, unlike the very liberal (and in many places, very dead) Episcopal Church in America.

So a problem arises when a large group of people who have over the last 200 years or so drifted in very different directions all decide they want to live together, but have very different principles for living together that they are not willing to give up (we may have or soon have a similar problem in secular American politics as well).

Well, they all got together in Great Britain to try to come to a compromise and essentially said to the Episcopal Church that they need by 2008 to decide if they want to play by the rules of the whole communion or not.

It looks like the answer is "not," judging by the move of the diocese of California who, in its list of 5 candidates to be elected the next bishop included both an openly gay man and a lesbian.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/22/nchur22.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/22/ixhome.html

What will happen? I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect that the Episcopal Church will first get thrown out of the Anglican Communion (in 2008 at the very earliest), then it will split and the more traditional churches will form a new church or merge with an evangelical group like The Anglican Mission in America (http://www.anglicanmissioninamerica.org/) that is in communion with the Anglican Church worldwide.

The Episcopal Church's General Convention at which any elections would be confirmed and also a new presiding bishop will be elected for the whole American Church will be held June 18.

Pat Robertson again apologizes for remarks

Charisma Magazine reports that Pat Robertson has apologized for his remark claiming that Ariel Sharon's stroke came as judgment from God for Sharon's giving up the occupation of the Gaza strip. I don't usually follow Pat Robertson too much, but I don't think this apology was widely reported. In the future, perhaps Pat Robertson could hire some PR guys to screen out such stupid comments before they air them. Just a thought.
http://www.charismamag.com/a.php?ArticleID=12569

Pope Benedict XVI names new Cardinals

Pope Benedict XVI named 15 new cardinals, 12 of whom are under the age of 80 and eligible to vote for/become the next pope.


The cardinals come from 11 countries in Africa, Europe, Asia, North and South America. In addition to 2 Americans, a noteworthy name on the list is Hong Kong Bishop Joseph Zen, an outspoken advocate of religious liberties in China.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_cardinals

New Study says Evangelical Christians, Rich People are Happier

Americans are still cheerful says a new study, 84% claiming to be "pretty happy" or "very happy."
Those who are married report being more happy than those who are not by a ratio of almost 2 to 1.
Contrary to much-used cliches about money and happiness, the study finds that the richer one is the happier he reports to be.
Republicans report being more happy than Democrats (some of my Democrat friends may be surprised by this).
Regular Church-goers report being happier than those who do not attend, and white Evangelical Protestants report being happiest of all.
Older people are happier than the young.
Americans are happier than Europeans (some of my Democrat friends may be surprised about this too).
And (my favorite) Southerners report being happier than Yankees!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021302145_pf.html

Is there any theological reasoning behind these trends? Maybe it all means God favors wealthy, white, elderly, American, Protestant, married, conservative, Evangelicals. Maybe. I suspect it is a bit (or a lot) more complicated than that. But it is an interesting place to start thinking, isn't it?

Another interesting note: the all-time American "happiness high" came in the mid-70s coinciding with the fall of Saigon, the disgrace of the Nixon administration, a fuel crisis, and an economic recession. I wonder what that may suggest about when we report being happy and when we really are happier? I suppose it might imply that people report being more happy when they are less happy for some reason and the title should read "Evangelical Christians, Rich people less Happy." But I doubt it is that simple either.

A blog after my own heart

Here is a blog I stumbled across that I have really enjoyed reading. It is published by an evangelical United Methodist Christian and it makes for interesting reading (especially if you are methodist/wesleyan, but probably for anyone).
Enjoy:
http://www.wesleyblog.com/

Clash of Civilizations?

As probably everyone knows by now, one of the biggest news stories in the world for the last couple of weeks has been the great protest among Muslims across the globe over cartoons published in Denmark featuring the prophet Mohammed (whom it is always sacrilegious to depict, according Islam) and picturing him in a negative and mocking fashion.

The worldwide outcry has now turned violent in many places, including the burning of Danish embassies and Christian missions in Middle Eastern Countries. And all over a political cartoon published on the other side of the world that, without modern (Western?) telecommunication, no one in the Middle East would even be aware of.

The furor has some people raising the alarm over an inevitable Clash of Civilizations between the Western/Christian (or perhaps "Post-Christian") Civilization and the Muslim/Sharia Civilization. Others have brought up thorny questions about what to do when there seems to be a clash between “human rights” (whatever that phrase means these days) and freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

I certainly understand that people are upset when others blaspheme their God – my Lord and Savior’s name is used as a cuss word in most every movie I see – but at first I was a bit shocked by the viciousness of the protesting: “Can we not just live and let live – after all, it is on the other side of the world, why do they care so much?”

I am certain that those who published the cartoon may see the worldwide reaction as evidence that their own critiques (even mockery) of Mohammed and Islam were justified. I suspect, however, that they do not understand the particular iconoclastic sensitivity of the Muslim religion.

But to be honest, I doubt that all of this rage is entirely religiously motivated, religion is just a convenient way to differentiate the adversarial “teams.” Let me explain: what we have in the Muslim Middle East is a civilization that was once the most powerful empire the world had yet known. At its height in the Middle-Ages the undivided Ummah (Muslim political community) was larger than the Roman Empire had ever been. It was culturally, intellectually, religiously, and militarily vigorous; and though it failed in the 8th Century to conquer Western Europe, it was able to (eventually) re-conquer the Holy Land after a massive invasion and occupation by Latin Crusaders in the 11th -13th Centuries.

Now fast-forward a few hundred years. The Middle East is now among the poorest parts of the world with some of the highest birthrates and disease rates as well as some of the lowest levels of education. Much of the blame for the failure of Islam as a political power (and the Muslim religion puts an emphasis on political unity and strength in a way that is unknown in Christianity or even Judaism) is placed upon the colonial empires of Western European (Christian) nations and more recently the state of Israel – which is widely seen as a colonial project of the United States, the latest Western Christian Empire that threatens Islamic culture.

This weakness of their civilization has also caused a theological crisis: since the Muslim Ummah is the only people who are completely faithful to God ("Allah," in Arabic) and, as the Muslims say many times in their daily prayers "Allah akbar!" - God is greater, stronger than anything else, then it follows that the Ummah should also be strong. But it is weak. This has led to the rise of various forms of what we might call "puritanism" (purity movements) in Islam since the 19th century.

So, we have a large number of poor, angry, and defensive people who see a powerful (compared to them) Western European nation as mocking the thing that means the most to them as the source of their identity: their religion. And so all that resentment for the decline of a civilization comes pouring out. The reactions we see are not simply about anger over a political cartoon they are about anger over the last 200 years or so of Middle-Eastern History.

Now, this theory I have forwarded here does not really address the issues of whether Islam can hold the same values of freedom of expression that the Western Culture has produced or whether our Civilizations are fundamentally irreconcilable. I really don’t know how to address those questions (I am not even sure if “multi-cultural” Western nations are able any longer to hold the values that Western culture has produced).

The United States Supreme Court once ruled that “fighting words” were not protected as free speech. What do we do if all critiques of Islam are understood by huge numbers of people to be blasphemous and worthy of death? Would it even be possible for both Islamicist Muslims and people (such as myself) who are extremely critical of Islam to abide together in a country that promised to both of us freedom of speech and religion?

Some pretty smart people have said it is impossible. Other pretty smart people have said those first people were driven by anti-Islamic feelings to unwarranted conclusions.

Another VERY important question raised by this controversy is: At what point (if any) does free speech (or free religion??) become 'irresponsible'? And maybe more to the point: Who decides?

These may be some of THE questions for the 21st Century.

I can say two things for certain: 1) if a large number (say, 100%) of Middle Eastern Muslims would accept Jesus Christ as their divine Lord and Savior (whose teachings are inherently pacifist), many of our current problems would evaporate (though, no doubt, new problems would arise); and 2) if the United States were to cut its economic dependence on Middle Eastern oil, we would be much better off, and possibly even better-perceived by Middle Eastern Muslims.

I am really interested to see how all of this plays out. I also wonder what the ever increasing numbers of Muslims living in European countries (and, to a lesser extent, in the US) will mean for the future of these debates. I am hinting at a lot of really complex questions here that I am still trying to articulate at this point. What do you all think?

If you haven't heard about any of this, here are some links to learn a little more:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060205/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184043,00.html

Mega Churches keep strong and growing

Despite the insistance by some of my professors that MegaChurches are just a fad and they are already on their way out, being eclipsed by smaller and more intimate (emergent?) churches, a new article says that Mega Churches are growing both in the number of congregations AND in the average congregation size.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060204/ap_on_re_us/mega_churches

I think some of my professors are just grumpy because these extraordinarily successful mega churches do not reflect their own theological orientation or sense of worship style, but I probably presume too much here. Most mega Churches according to this study are socially and theologically conservative and place a great emphasis on personal evangelism (thus the phenominal growth). Many, though by no means all, use contemporary praise and worship services of one kind or another (I live 100 yards from a mega church that uses a very traditional Protestant worship service as its "main" service).

One thing that did surprise me was the most mega churches are NOT independent or free churches, but fully 2/3 (66%) belong to established denominations.

I personally am partial to both large and small churches. I love the family atmosphere of small churches but I also love the excellent programing and worship planning associated with large churches. Rare it seems is the church that can achieve both (and First Methodist of Baton Rouge does so: www.firstmethodist.org, especially if you start with the smaller Wednesday services).