This post was written by Mark Hansard on October 15, 2008
In “Down on the Transplantations,” Anita Kuhn, an editor for Touchstone Magazine, reviews a recent article from the New England Journal of Medicine about the definition of patient death and when it is ethical to remove a patient’s organs for transplant. According to Kuhn, the NEJM authors admit that the definition of patient death has been changed to allow more favorable conditions for organ transplants. The old dead donor rule (”cold, blue and stiff”) is no longer in use because in the 1960’s it was changed to “devastating neurologic injury.” This definition, commonly referred to as “brain death,” allowed the organs to be removed from a body when they were still in use. Often, organs die when the patient dies, and so are not useful for transplant. But brain-dead patients still have functioning organs, and their bodies appear alive–they metabolize, excrete waste, and even mature sexually. This, of course, has raised ethical questions in the minds of some ethicists and medical practitioners about removing the organs from such a patient.
Therefore, some experts have proposed a definition of “cardiac death,” in which the patient’s heart is not operative for three to five minutes. But this also has ethical difficulties, as it is possible to revive a patient’s heart even after five minutes of ceased activity. Kuhn writes that this often leads to an ethically inconsistent position in which “irreversible cessation of cardiac function,” comes to mean “we won’t try to resuscitate.”
Interestingly, Kuhn goes on to note that the NEJM authors, instead of retreating to the old dead donor rule because of ethical problems with the new rules, instead say that the problem has been the dead donor rule itself. What is needed, they say, is informed consent ahead of time, either from the patient or the patient’s family, that the organs can be removed even from “irreversible neurologic injuries that do not meet the technical requirements of brain death.” Kuhn gives an interesting analysis and critique of this view, which definitely worth reading here.
This post was written by Mark Hansard on August 1, 2008
In the 1980’s the Christian College Coalition published the “Through the Eyes of Faith” series of undergraduate textbooks to integrate Christian thought with different academic disciplines. Ronald Well’s History Through the Eyes of Faith, published in 1989, is part of this series. Wells is a professor of history at Calvin College.
While quite dated now, Wells’ book, which is meant to supplement a secular textbook on the history of Western Civilization, gives a simple overview of Western history with an eye toward important ideas that shaped, or were shaped by, Christian thought. It connects a certain flow of ideas, beginning with Greek thought and running through the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and Postmodern thought. As is the case with books of this kind, the specialist in any one of these time periods may be scandalized at its simplicity. Nevertheless, it remains a helpful introduction to the flow of Western ideas, as well as an analysis of these ideas from a Christian perspective.
For example, in his discussion of America as an Enlightenment experiment, Wells asks if “the American idea” of unwavering faith in progress, particularly material prosperity as a means to happiness, is really consistent with the Christian ideas of the Fall and personal satisfaction primarily through Christ. While there are a number of complicated issues here that Wells doesn’t have the space to discuss, he is at his best when he is questioning how such ideas fit within historic Christian theology. His aim is to prick the thinking of the undergraduate, and in that he is largely successful.
On the other hand, his philosophy of history leaves much to be desired, particularly as it applies to Jesus. In his third chapter, “The Historicity of Jesus,” Wells declares that the “historical Jesus” was a man who lived in Nazareth and was crucified by the Romans, whereas “Jesus Christ, ‘the risen Lord’” is known through faith. The “risen Jesus” is not particularly supported by history, because the Gospels were written by “people of the faith community,” and are not independent accounts (among other problems which he lists). While he declares that there are other ways to obtain knowledge besides empirical investigation (through the Holy Spirit, for example), Wells’ bifurcation here between the “historical Jesus” and the “risen Jesus” has the effect of rendering the “risen Jesus” something less than knowledge (or at least, something less than academically respectable). His view seems to “relativize” knowledge in that the “risen Jesus” tends to become merely one of many perspectives on Jesus.
But it is not at all clear that events such as the Resurrection cannot be adjudicated through historical investigation. While it is true that interpretation and subjectivity are part of what the historian brings to the process, it doesn’t follow that the Gospels cannot be investigated for their historical reliability, their proximity to actual events, and so forth (and in fact, a number of scholars have recently done just that, with positive results. See Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses or N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God). To take the Risen Jesus out of the purview of history seems to concede too much to the (unfortunately too common) secular presuppositions in the Academy.
This post was written by Mark Hansard on July 23, 2008
Christianity Today recently interviewed Pastor and author Tim Keller on his book, The Reason for God, and how he approaches conversations with intellectuals who don’t believe in Christ. We have already posted a positive review of Keller’s book on the blog here.
I believe Keller has some excellent practical wisdom in this interview that is quite applicable to reaching academic colleagues for Christ.
First, notice that he discusses the plausibility of the Gospel, and how it differs from culture to culture. Some in Eastern cultures will have different intellectual barriers to coming to Christ than others in Western cultures, (or university cultures, or scholars in a particular field, for that matter). Since the plausibility of the Gospel varies for different groups of people, we ought, with the guidance and help of the Holy Spirit, to adjust our God conversations accordingly. And we can see the Apostles did this in Scripture, as they related the Good News to various groups of people. For example, if we compare Peter’s speech in Acts 2 with Paul’s speech at the Areopagus in Acts 17, the speeches are quite different because the hearers came from different cultural backgrounds (pious Jewish backgrounds and Greek philosophical backgrounds, respectively).
As well, Keller has some wise practical advice on keeping certain political and theological issues out of a conversation about the Gospel, because they are peripheral to the issue of the acceptance of Christ and who he was. Certain political ideologies, or particular views on creation and intelligent design, for example, while important, are not essential for a person to know the Lord.
This post was written by Mark Hansard on July 16, 2008
Along with Ken Elzinga’s presentation (see last week’s post), I found Greg Ganssle’s lecture on “Thwarting Cynicism and Discontentment” at our National Faculty Conference quite refreshing and convicting. Ganssle’s presentation was part of the graduate student seminar on June 27, and he has graciously allowed us to post the text of his lecture here.
Ganssle, a philosopher and lecturer at Yale, made a particular observation about the Academy that hit close to home: he said the academic world trains us to be cynics. The graduate seminar or the dissertation committee is the “seat of scoffers,” the place where it is comfortable to sit back and criticize a colleague’s work, which sometimes took many years to formulate. Instead of seeing the work as an extension of a person, we tend to see the work as an obstacle, or as merely a chunk of information to be dissected, with no regard for the author at all. Or, if the paper/dissertation is particularly well done, we may have trouble rejoicing with the author’s success because we see him or her as a competitor.
I must confess over the last few years, I’ve found myself growing more and more cynical as I’ve studied different academic topics and found much misinformation about them on the web, or worse, misinformation in books written by scholars who are speaking outside their field. It is sometimes discouraging, and at other times has made me pessimistic, about the public ever understanding the true nature of the topic at hand. At other times I’ve found myself reading about a new book, or hearing about a book published by a friend, and wishing I had published it myself. Ever been there?
Ganssle says that this kind of cynicism can affect our spiritual lives: that soon we are simply tearing down our colleagues around us rather than building them up. As well, he says we become spiritually blind to seeing and enjoying the good, the true, and the beautiful.
The solution to this, of course, is not to stop thinking critically, rather it is the Discipline of Affirmation. Ganssle’s idea is that a spiritual discipline of affirming what is good about a paper or presentation before critiquing it will bring balance to our spiritual sight and allow us to encourage our colleagues, as well as critique their work. Imagine what a different atmosphere there would be in your department if you, and perhaps others, always affirmed what is good about new research before critiquing it? The whole atmosphere of the seminar or committee could change, creating a pleasant and encouraging workplace. I’ve decided to try the discipline of affirmation in my own work and study, to see if it makes a difference in my walk and outlook. Won’t you join me?
This post was written by Mark Hansard on July 7, 2008
It’s been a little over a week since we returned from our National Faculty Conference in Washington D.C., and I am struck by how refreshing, encouraging, and challenging the content of the conference was.
One of the most memorable talks was given by Ken Elzinga, the Robert C. Taylor Professor of Economics at the University of Virginia. Elzinga is one of the more popular teachers on his campus, for good reason. Years ago in his walk with the Lord, he decided to “wash the feet” of his students: to look for ways to serve the students in his classes, even though the university would not reward him for good teaching or the time he took to help them.
Early in his career, Elzinga said he saw his office hours as an unfortunate interruption to his research. But as he began to pray about it, he sensed God leading him to view his office hours as an opportunity to minister. He began praying before every office hour that God would bring students to his office for whom he could pray. Over the years, God did just that.
Often, Ken says, when a student has a problem with his grades, it’s not that he doesn’t have the “mental horsepower” to understand economics; there is something else going on in his life. When appropriate, Ken asks the student if he can pray for him right there in his office, and he says that whether the student is a Christian or not, the answer is always “yes.” Over the years, Ken has prayed for many students, including Jewish students, Muslim students, and others, many of whom come back to his office later and ask for more prayer. Some students make up questions to ask him about economics, just so they can go to his office and have him pray for them. You’d think the other professors in his department would notice this. They have.
As I listened to Ken’s talk, I remembered a crisis in my own life as a student and how a professor (not a Christian) reached out to help. Even though it was nearly 20 years ago, I’ll never forget it.
At the time I was leading a Bible study on campus with several other students who were leading Bible studies of their own. One night, one of the students in my study called me and asked me to come over to his place to talk. He seemed very upset over the phone, and I came right over. He proceeded to break down and weep over a serious moral failing in his life–one that would prevent him from continuing to be a Bible study leader. As a young leader myself, I was in shock and quite upset. I really didn’t know how to help him, so I called my own Bible study leader to discuss it and ask for advice. I went to bed praying for my friend that night.
In the morning when I walked into my classical mythology class (a class of over 150 students), I noticed the screen wasn’t down as it normally was and students were flipping through their notes. It took me a minute to realize that there was an exam that morning, and in my distress over my friend, I had completely forgotten about it. For a split second I panicked. What was I going to do? Then a tremendous peace flooded over me from the Lord. I realized that he was with me and he would take care of this, even though I didn’t know how. I took the exam as best I could, and thanked God that he was in this. About a week later, the exam came back, with a grade of “54″ or something equally abysmal on it. A note at the top said, “This is not your usual work. Please come see me.”
When I showed up at my professor’s office hours, she said, “This grade isn’t as good as you normally do. Your other two exams were A’s. What happened?” I told her exactly what had happened the week before: how one of the guys in my Bible study had confessed this moral failing, and he probably wouldn’t be able to continue as a leader in our ministry. My professor (I can’t even remember her name!) listened thoughtfully and said, “Well, here’s what I’ll do for you. If you make A’s on the rest of the exams, I’ll give you a ‘B’ in the class. Normally, a grade this bad on one exam would ruin your grade for the course and require you to retake it. But I believe your story and I want to help you.” I walked out of her office grateful to the Lord for this professor who had noticed the grades on my exams and taken the time to help me. Because of her generosity, I was able to graduate Phi Beta Kappa a couple of years later. I know I would have been even more encouraged if she had prayed for me and my friend.
Ken knew it would be risky to pray for his students at a secular institution. Everyone in his department knows he is a believer (one grad student who designed his university home page told him she would put “Jesus Christ” under his interests on the webpage, because she knows that is important to him. A little afraid to let her do this, he went with it anyway. Today “Jesus Christ” is listed under his interests, right above “water skiing.”) Ken took a risk, and God has used it to minister to hundreds of students. What risk might God be calling you to take to minister for him on your campus?
You can order the audio of Ken’s talk, “The Professor as Servant,” or you can read his article based on a similar talk he gave at our 2000 conference, God and the Academy.
This post was written by Mark Hansard on April 7, 2008
Dear editors and publishers of Christianity Today,
I am becoming more and more dismayed at the editorial direction of your magazine, which appears to increasingly embrace the “emergent” or “emerging church” movement and promote it, as if this movement(s) will do our churches a valuable service. While it is true that today’s culture of young people is different than previous generations, it is not in their interest to abandon the life of the mind and the soul’s powers of reason in order to reach them. Much of what I read in CT and hear from youth leaders, is anti-intellectualism of the worst kind: the kind that dismisses logical thinking and apologetics as “modern” and irrelevant today.
For example, in Scot McKnight’s “Five Streams of the Emerging Church” (Feb. 2007), he says that postmodernity “cannot be reduced to a denial of truth” but instead “is the collapse of overarching metanarratives…like those of Marxism and science…because of the impossibility of getting outside of their assumptions.” But this is self-referentially incoherent, since postmodernity has a set of assumptions that, presumably, it cannot “get outside of.” If none of us can “get outside of” our assumptions, the only recourse is complete agnosticism about knowledge itself: an admission that radical skepticism is the only option. True, on his description, McKnight’s view of postmodernity doesn’t lead to a denial of truth. Rather, it leads to a denial that truth can be known. This is somewhat silly in my opinion, since McKnight is probably writing his article on a word processor, something he would not be able to do unless scientific presuppositions about physics had turned out to be true and led to the construction of microchips.
In another egregious example, Molly Worthen, in her article “Not Your Father’s L’Abri” (March, 2008), quotes John Sandri as saying, “I’m not an inerrantist, but I’m not an ‘errantist’ either. Both are wrong. Man makes these opposing points of view. The modernist agenda is behind both.” The problems with such a quotation are legion. For one thing, I assume that he holds to some middle position between inerrancy and “errancy,” but the way the quotation is constructed it appears he is denying the law of the excluded middle (either there is at least one error in Scripture, or there is not—no other logical option is available). Whether he intends to deny this law of logic is unclear, but it certainly leaves a muddleheaded impression that does your readers a disservice (besides—what’s wrong with inerrancy?!). Frankly, I grow weary of hearing youth leaders say that logic is “modern,” and thus something irrelevant to young people today. I suppose they get such ideas from professors like Sandri, but I find that exactly the opposite is true.
As I have occasion to speak to college students and 20-Somethings, I teach of the importance of reason, how Jesus used logic in his debates with the Pharisees, and how we can defend Christianity rationally. The response is often stunned amazement and interest, rather than hostility or indifference. Often, after the teaching time is over, students will rush forward to be the first in line to ask questions. It is as if the reasoning portions of their souls, which have to this point been anesthetized, are resurrected. Occasionally an emergent adherent will scoff, not because he does not have the same needs which this sort of teaching meets, but because he has been trained to think it will not work in reaching the unchurched.
Today’s leading literature departments are abandoning deconstructionism and a whole host of postmodern beliefs. At the same time, the emerging church movement (if it is even one movement that can be defined) is embracing many of these same postmodern beliefs. Instead of being counter-cultural like many emergentists believe, they are simply following academic ideas that are twenty years out of date. It is difficult enough to get today’s youth to use their minds without emerging leaders encouraging this sort of intellectual lethargy.
Today’s evangelical leaders have a choice: either to acquiesce in the anesthetization of the mind, or to take part in its rational resurrection. It is clear that Christianity Today has made its choice to go along with the anesthesiologist. For this reason, I will not be renewing my subscription to CT.
Sincerely,
Mark Hansard
This post was written by Mark Hansard on March 28, 2008
The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) publishes a series of introductory student guides on areas of interest in the humanities to round out a student’s education in Western civilization with traditional canonical works which may not be required reading in some secular academic settings. From American history to classics studies to philosophy, these little guides are quite useful in aiding students as they navigate their university studies in order to achieve what would today be considered a “classical education.”
For example, Mark C. Henrie, in A Student’s Guide to the Core Curriculum, offers eight areas of study which students can pursue to lay a foundation for Western thought, including classical literature (Homer and Virgil), ancient philosophy, Shakespeare, the Bible, modern political theory, and others. In the chapter on studying Bible, there is a brief discussion of the historical-critical method and how this skews study of Scripture in many religion departments. Henrie helpfully recommends that, for believing students, they become involved in a church or para-church organization that could help them navigate these issues in such a course.
Additionally, the guides often include wonderful asides that are useful for forming a student’s soul. For example, Henrie’s introduction includes a brief description of Aristotle’s view of intellectual friendship, in which friends discuss with each other thoughtful insights that they can “present to others for testing.” This, he says, “is the surest means for connecting pleasure with true education.” Bravo. How wonderful it would be if today’s students occasionally turned off their video games to have a stimulating intellectual discussion that might turn out to be life-altering.
It seems to me these guides might also be useful for the scholar who wishes to read more broadly, perhaps in fields outside his own, and gain some knowledge of the classical view of such fields. These little books are merely 100 pages each and can be read in one sitting. The downside, of course is that they are very broad, very basic, and thus necessarily very general. They proffer a certain view of each field which they do not defend, but merely authoritatively state. Nevertheless, I have found them quite useful in rounding out my own education in areas which I could only take a brief introductory course as an undergraduate.
This post was written by Mark Hansard on February 4, 2008
In a fascinating op-ed piece for the New York Times a few months ago, physicist Paul Davies ruminates on the “faith” that scientists have regarding the logical order and mathematical elegance of what makes the universe tick. He observes that scientists, in going about their research, assume that the universe is ordered and intelligible in the first place, yet they refuse to ask “Why?” Why is the universe as ordered and intelligible as it is? One reason scientists won’t ask that question, according to Davies, is that “it’s not a scientific question.”
I certainly think they are right: it is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one. It is a question that scientists used to be comfortable asking because they did not separate philosophy from science, but recognized that both were intertwined. Science cannot be performed without making a whole set of philosophical assumptions, about reality, about the universe, and this was common knowledge a hundred years ago. And yet in the academy today there is so much emphasis on keeping science separate from any other discipline that the philosophical underpinnings of science are largely forgotten.
Davies is to be commended for bringing our attention to the fact that science is intertwined with philosophical, even religious, questions. Interestingly, he admits that Christian theological assumptions were behind the beginnings of modern science. To my knowledge, Davies is not a Christian, or even a theist. Unfortunately, at the end of the article he falls prey to the same old, tired refrain: that if there isn’t a scientific answer to these questions, there is no answer at all.
This post was written by Mark Hansard on January 4, 2008
In an interesting article in the Boston Globe, Peter Berger, a sociologist at Boston University, has decided to study the “emerging evangelical intelligentsia” as a cultural phenomenon. A recent conference at Boston U. initiated the study, and evangelical scholars from across the country attended.
It is, of course, extremely gratifying to see non-evangelicals sit up and take notice of evangelicalism as an emerging intellectual force. It will be interesting to see the conclusions of Berger’s study, which is being run by Timothy Shah, an evangelical and public policy expert in Washington D.C.
As well, Michael Lindsay’s recent book, Faith in the Halls of Power, seems to be a sympathetic treatment of evangelicals in various positions of political, economic and intellectual leadership. I have not read the book, but I am very curious to see it. Lindsay has his Ph.D. from Princeton, and is a professor of sociology at Rice University.
Unfortunately, the Boston Globe article highlights some disturbing trends within evangelicalism (if that is what one could continue to call it) that I believe are decidedly un-evangelical. One implication of the article is that only ignorant fundamentalists would reject Darwinism or embrace Intelligent Design. However, even if, for the sake of argument, ID is a theological position and not a scientific one (as the article states), this would not make it irrational to believe.
As well, the statement in the article that some evangelicals believe non-Christians can go to heaven is puzzling. On what basis would that be possible? What would this do to the missions enterprise, and all that is said about it in Scripture, or verses such as Acts 4:12?
Nevertheless, the other “essential beliefs” identified as evangelical in the article I heartily agree with. Over the next decade perhaps, we will see more debate and definition of evangelicalism among a new generation of scholars. It should be very interesting to see this unfold.
This post was written by Mark Hansard on November 26, 2007
AI staff member Mark Hansard sat down with J.P. Moreland recently to interview him about his new book, Kingdom Triangle (Zondervan, 2007). Moreland is distinguished professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology. He is the author and co-editor of numerous works including Scaling The Secular City (Baker, 1987), Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (IVP, 2003), Does God Exist? (Promethius, 1993), Body and Soul (IVP, 2000), and Christianity and the Nature of Science (Baker, 1989), among others. Excerpts:
In Kingdom Triangle, you talk about a thin worldview. What is a thin worldview, and how is it promulgated in the academy?
A thin worldview is a worldview that doesn’t have the resources to make sense out of meaning to life and objective value. It is a world without purpose to life. Naturalism is exactly a thin worldview. It says the material world is all there is. Postmodernism says whatever values your culture invents are true for you. On this view, the difference between abortion and choosing life is no more meaningful than choosing McDonalds over Burger king.
How does a thin worldview multiply “empty selves?” What is an empty self?
An empty self is someone who is a self-absorbed narcissist for whom everything is about him. If there is no ultimate purpose in life, some big picture, the only thing to live for is me.
If you were a professor in the secular academy today, what would you be doing to foster a “thick worldview?”
Just as Marxist professors and feminist professors teach their discipline from their point of view, Christians ought to do the same thing. They ought to integrate their worldview into their teaching. You don’t have to explicitly appeal to the Bible to do this. You could show that there are objective moral values without appealing to the Bible, for example.
Practically speaking, how can a Christian professor in a secular setting do this, without ‘relativising’ their position? If they say, “I’m coming from a Christian perspective” in the classroom, are they merely saying theirs is one more perspective among many?
Well, such a professor could say, “I’m coming from a Christian perspective here that I believe is actually true.” Or you could find reasons in your discipline that don’t presuppose Christianity to teach something. In history, for example, you could show that there are objective facts that can be known, without appealing to Christianity.
How, in your view, can the recovery of non-empirical knowledge be brought about? Why must non-empirical knowledge be brought back, and how can it be done?
The first step is to try to get clear on what knowledge is. I do that in the book. Secondly, gaining knowledge about what knowledge is, is not empirical. You can’t solve that issue by any empirical test. Third, when you come to understand what knowledge is, you learn two things: you can learn something without knowing how you know it, and you can know something without being 100% sure that you’re right. So that opens up the fact that people do know that kindness is a virtue without knowing how they know that. And I suggest other things in the book.
How is spiritual formation related to solving the problem of a thin worldview?
One of the three causes of depression and anxiety is moral relativism, according to secular psychological studies. The other two causes are a breakdown in community, and the rapid pace of life in modern culture. Why moral relativism? There is a right and wrong way to function. If you think everything is relative, you can justify any behavior and you will harm the way you were actually made to function. There must be knowledge of wise functioning to give people guidance out of their fears. If everything’s relative, there is no such knowledge. Robust spiritual formation is a way of producing flourishing human beings that know how to live life according to truth and knowledge. The proof’s in the pudding.
What, in your opinion, do evangelicals not know, that they ought to know, about restoring the Spirit’s power?
They ought to know that God is performing miracles with healing and demonic deliverance, and He is speaking to people through dreams, visions and impressions all over the world. We tend to think that happened in biblical times and it’s not for today. We’re way behind other parts of the world. To put it differently, Christianity is a lot more supernatural than people realize.
|
