|
Subscribe Here
Integration Points is a brief, weekly email written by Randy Newman, on the intersection between the life of the mind and your Christian faith, especially as it is lived out in academe. It's aim is to help you be more intentional in your calling as a Christian scholar. See sample emails below.
Resident Aliens
Dear Christians in Academia,
Recently, the faculty fellowship at the University of Maryland discussed a sermon by Dr. Tim Keller, pastor of New York City's Redeemer Presbyterian Church. The sermon was entitled, "The City of God," and was built around an exposition of Hebrews 11:13-16 and 13:10-16.
The premise of the sermon is this: When you embrace the living God by faith, into your life comes transforming power and a deep tension. And if you try to resolve that tension, you lose the transforming power. In fact, much of the power to change comes from living with that tension. Resolving the tension is a spiritual disaster.
The text calls us "resident-aliens." We're not tourists, just passing through. Nor are we merely citizens, feeling quite at home in this world.
Sometimes the word is translated, "stranger."
The tension comes from the teaching that we "have come to the city of the living God," (Heb. 12:22) but "here we have no enduring city." (Heb. 13:14)
Many have observed this already/not yet tension. Augustine referred to the two cities and wrote his treatise, The City of God, to explore how we can live this out. Keller observes that only one city is for the other one. Only the city of God has in mind to be a blessing to the city that has already come. As Jeremiah told the exiles to work for the shalom of the city of their exile, so Christians are called to, "love the city that will never love you back." (Keller's words).
At Maryland, our discussion focused on how this relates to Christian professors called to secular campuses.
Indeed, we have been called by God to a city that is alien to us. Many in the university think that education can solve all our problems. Or some use the university as a manipulative vehicle for power to advance a social cause. Still others see their academic prowess as cause for boasting and ego-inflation.
All of these displays of folly (and many others) must be rejected by Christian academics.
Nevertheless, the academic enterprise is tremendously valuable. As Christians, we do our work "heartily as unto the Lord." The fruit of our efforts does help people in countless ways. The university has traditionally been viewed as a resource for societal good and with good reason. Education has brought forth medical advancements, social well-being, and insight to bring relief to human suffering in a variety of spheres.
We, Christians, just don't think we're the Messiah or that the university is the heaven.
As a result, we are residents of the academy but alienated from it. We work for the shalom of the academy but are rejected and "bear shame" from it (see Hebrews 13:13). There will always be a sense of being an insider/outsider, a resident/alien, a member/antagonist. We love the campus that will never love us back.
Do you find this to be true in your setting?
Next week I'll explore the two dangers of resolving the tension in one direction of the other.
For Integrity's Sake,
Randy Newman
Resident Aliens, part 2
Dear Christians in Academia,
In the last Integration Point I referred to Dr. Tim Keller's sermon on "The City of God." I highlighted his teaching that Christians are called to be residents of this earthly city but citizens of the heavenly one. Thus, we would be resident/aliens. We live here but we're alienated from this world.
Towards the end of his sermon, he says that sociologists have identified two ways religious groups relate to culture: either as sectarians or as chaplaincies.
Sectarians see society as "them," have high standards and exclude people who do not live up to them, and emphasize the "alien" side of our calling. This is how fundamentalists have resolved the tension.
Chaplaincies, on the other hand, see society as "us," have no or low standards and include all. They emphasize the "resident" side of our calling. This is how mainline protestants have resolved the tension.
In both, the tension has been resolved and thus both have lost the power to change—themselves and the culture around them.
"It's not enough to say, "be in the world but not of the world." The Pharisees were in the world but were not of the world&mdashand they hated the world!
Both groups, sectarians and chaplaincies, are about power and are thus part of the earthly city!
The correct balance is both difficult and rare!!!
I think this is blatantly displayed on secular campuses where Christians serve. Some (most evangelical student fellowships) side with the sectarian approach and dismiss the academy as "them."
Most chaplains on campus feel far too "at home" and offer no power to change.
So how do we find the right balance? By reflecting on the cross. Keller concludes his sermon with these declarations. They are worthy of our serious consideration:
"We need the fundamental structures of our hearts changed by an encounter with Christ."
"The Bible never says, 'Do this, now get to it' or 'Do this because it's the Christian thing to do,' or 'Do this because Jesus did it and you should follow His example.'"
"Instead, the process is like this:
The Bible says, 'Do this.'
We respond, 'I can't.'
The Bible says, 'That's right. But there's One who did! For you! In your place! And the extent to which you grasp this, you'll be transformed into the kind of person who will do what God calls you to."
"Jesus Christ lost the city that was,
so that we could become citizens of the city to come,
making us salt and light in the city that is."
"Only when I see that Jesus loves the city that will not love him back,
Loves me, who does not love Him back,
Only then,
Am I melted, affirmed, empowered, humbled
Into being able to do the same thing."
"When I realize I have the ultimate city,
The city to come,
I will not be seduced or scared by
the city that is."
Are we only residents? Only Aliens? Or are we resident-aliens?
The Gospel Makes Us Resident-Aliens!
For Integrity's Sake,
Randy Newman
OS or WP?
Dear Christians in Academia,
My colleagues in The Academic Initiative and I constantly seek out illustrations, quotes, and motivational stories to help professors and students pursue the task of integration.
Here's one we just heard.
Ken Myers with Mars Hill Audio recently shared an illustration of how the Christian worldview should serve as the foundation for all that we do, rather than just one of several influences in our lives.
He posed the question of whether our faith in Christ serves our lives the way an operating system runs all the programs on a computer or if it's just one of the programs.
Just as we can have Word Perfect, Outlook, and several other programs running simultaneously, with no interaction or influence upon each other, so some Christians have their "window" of Christianity running along side a secularist view of human freedom, a deist view of history, a selfish view of economics, and numerous other contradictory—and even destructive—perspectives on life.
Christ is compartmentalized to certain spheres of life (or certain times during the week) with little consideration of how a grace/Gospel/Biblical worldview would shape daily life, interaction with other people, work ethic, and interpretations of research data.
The results are disastrous, although often without immediate consequences. What this tends to look like is...well...much of America and perhaps most of academia.
It's an image worth considering. Does a Christian world-and-life view shape all the "programs" running in your life? Does it serve as your OS (Operating System) or merely one of your programs like WP (Word Perfect )?
I commend Ken Myers' ministry to you. You may find more about this illustration at www.marshillaudio.org. Their mission statement says, "Mars Hill Audio exists to assist Christians who desire to move from thoughtless consumption of modern culture to a vantage point of thoughtful engagement."
For Integrity's Sake,
Randy Newman
Academia and Culture
Dear Christians in Academia,
Where, exactly, is the intersection between academia and the so-called culture wars? Is there no intersection at all? Should academicians remain aloof? Or are they to be "right in the fray?" It was, after all, an academician, James Davidson Hunter, who used (coined?) the phrase "Culture Wars" for his book title.
And what difference would it make if the academicians who want to engage in the discussion are followers of Christ?
This requires some thought and, hopefully, respectful dialogue among Christian professors. I'm not talking about debates about which side of the divide deserves our allegiance. Surely, that too is worthwhile. But I believe those conversations are already taking place—with varying degrees of productivity.
But I'm referring to tone and method more than content and positions.
How we respond is just as important as what we say. (If not more important).
I'm sure I don't need to point out that the atmosphere of the debate has gotten ugly in our world today. A thoughtful Christian often finds himself or herself alienated from the shallow arguments and insulting rhetoric on both sides.
I sensed this as I read an editorial in the Washington Post recently entitled, God and Darwin.
The writer warned that the so-called "Intelligent Design" movement is "far more sophisticated than the creationists of yore." He bemoaned that this "has had widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory." The tone reminded me of other published articles that sounded alarmist and knee jerk.
The most disturbing thing to me was the anti-intellectual tone of a piece that accused creationists of being anti-intellectual.
Surely, there may be the temptation to gloat—a terribly un-Christlike response.
We may also want to retreat—leaving the voices of unreason to dominate with name-calling, straw man building, and overstatement.
What role do you think you play—as one redeemed by Christ, gifted with intellectual abilities, and entrusted to be a steward of all your academic training?
I look forward to hearing from you.
For Integrity's Sake,
Randy Newman
Authority, Not Historicity
Dear Christians in Academia,
As we continue to think about evangelism in the university, we must consider answering thoughtful people's questions with thoughtful answers. Some of the old apologetics don't always work—not because the answers are wrong but because they're trying to answer a different question than the one being asked.
For example, our attempts to defend the Bible often fail to move people closer to the cross because we're answering the wrong question.
When people say, "How can you believe the Bible?" many Christians respond with a history lesson. We display charts with numbers of manuscripts. Or we employ unusual words like historicity, papyri, and bibliographic. Or we offer proofs that events really did happen in space and time. Or we quote archaeologists no one has ever heard of.
All the while, our questioners remain unmoved.
Historicity isn't the issue. Authority is.
What people are asking is not, "Why do you believe the Bible to be an accurate reporting of events in ancient history?"
Instead, they want to know,
"Why do submit yourself to the authority of this book?"
"Why do you allow it to dictate what you do, think, and value?"
"Why should anyone give allegiance to a book that tells us not to look out for number one, not to sleep with anyone unless we're married to them, and not to enjoy every stimulating thrill that comes our way?"
These are different questions than the ones answered by papyri charts.
And when we answer a different question than the one being asked, thoughtful people conclude that we really have nothing to say to them. They dismiss Christianity as a religion for simpleminded people. They look elsewhere for intelligent spiritual beliefs to integrate into their worldview.
However, it need not be this way.
We can "become thoughtful to the thoughtful" that we might save some.
We can build an answer to their real question by:
1) Clarifying the question. Ask if the authority issue is really behind their question. Restate the question and say, "Are you asking why someone should allow the Bible to dictate their values, ethics, and moral behaviors?"
2) Building a plausibility structure for allegiance to the Bible with a question that begins with "Isn't it possible?"
"Isn't it possible that a God who created us would want to also communicate with us?"
or "Isn't it possible that the God who made us would want to tell us how to live?"
or "Isn't it possible that there are some things a creator would want his creation to know?"
3) Answering the question personally. Tell them why you accept the Bible's authority in your life—how it has helped you find purpose, meaning, satisfaction, comfort, strength, answers, etc.
It is true that relying only on experience is a weak apologetic. In particular, academicians tend to shy away from such "proofs" and rely on more objective data. But the subjective experience does have some value. I Peter 3:15 does exhort us to include "the hope that is within you" as part of our apologetics. Articulating this can lead to the more objective "reason" for that hope.
But don't think this will just flow automatically. Think how you'll offer this defense for the Bible's authority in your life. Figure out the words to use. Have it as handy as the papyri charts.
I hope this is helpful as you pray for open doors to proclaim the good news and watch for God's answer. Pray for your colleagues and students' hearts to be softened to the gospel.
For Integrity's Sake,
Randy Newman
| 
