I'm sitting in a different coffee shop (snif, I miss my old coffee shop) working on my Christmas eve message. Tonight I'm preaching at my childhood church which is surreal, pretty awesome but surreal.
I've always had a thing about Christmas. I'm not a holiday cheer kind of person. I guess I resent the secular world taking over the event. For example, a couple of years ago Target stores said "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas." I was happy with that decision. They aren't a specifically Christian organization and all of their shoppers are not Christian. So they shouldn't assume that all would accept their "Merry Christmas," nor should they be so presumptive to wish it. I don't like it when a stranger who knows nothing about me says "Merry Christmas." What if I'm Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist? What is the appropriate response when someone is wishing you have a good Mass celebrating the birth of Christ and you are not a Christian? Don't presume unless you know me.
I guess the good thing with all of the holiday crap is that the message is getting lost in the world - whenever the message is lost then the church can be truly counter-cultural and reclaim the message. It makes the service this evening seem a little different, like a moment for the rush, hustle and bustle of the world to stop and for God's time to be recognized and embraced.
So for tonight I wish a merry Christmas to all you who claim Christ as savior. To all you who do not, then I wish you a happy holiday - which ever one you may be observing.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
I've been sucked in...
I've been sucked into a conversation at my friend's blog (alien nation) concerning the nature and role of sex, abortion and the like. Stupid me. Here is the conversation thus far:
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Dignitas Personae
It may seem strange that an American Baptist pastor would place a link to a Roman Catholic Document. But I have long felt that Catholicism offers the most clear and concise thought available in regards to bio-ethics especially in the area of Abortion. The document 'Dignitas Personae' offers an excellent summation of Catholic thought in regards to these bio-ethical issues. Note especially under the heading 'Faith and human dignity' the statement; 'God has created every human being in his own image, and his Son has made it possible for us to become children of God.' Nothing new I suppose, but profound when compared to a recent post on 'The Nation' which is meant to lend a 'down to earth' approach to thinking about abortion. While in Dignitas Personae the unborn child bears the image of God and is therefore to be highly valued, in the Nation, the unborn child is a 'threat.'
the problem with the argument that Katha Pollit offers is two-fold, the first of which is the subject for today. First of all she vastly over-simplifies the perspective of those who are 'anti-choice'. Notice how she describes the perspectives of those who disagree with her in negative terms. The perspective of those of us who feel that abortion is the ultimate violation of the image of God that the unborn infant is created in, do NOT think that this child is 'one of life's little challenges.' As a matter of fact Dignitas Personae takes the conception and birth of a child in the most serious of terms. Under the heading 'The two fundamental principles' we read' 'The origin of human life has its authentic context in marriage and in the family, where it is generated through an act which expresses the reciprocal love between a man and a woman. Procreation which is truly responsible vis-a-vis the child to be born must be the fruit of marriage.' The child is not a slight inconvenience, but a gift that is to be treated with the utmost respect, care and responsibility. Under 'Faith and married life' we read; 'God, who is love and life, has inscribed in man and woman the vocation to share in a special way in his mystery of personal communion and in his work as Creator and Father...' Nothing could be taken more serious than the birth of a child for it is a mysterious cooperation between humanity and God in the process of creation.
I think that protestants could learn a thing or two from this Catholic document. That a man and woman are cooperating with God's creativity through conception may not be very romantic, but it does lend theological clarity to the sexual act, a necessary corrective to the 'purely recreational' view of sexuality that is rampant in our culture. And it reminds us that there is something sacred in every child. Every child bears the mark of the Creator, whether its life is viable outside the womb or not.
If you read Pollit's article carefully you find the second problem with her thought process. There a young woman, pregnant, who stands the very real risk of physical abuse from family, should she return home as an unwed mother. Pollit is admittedly a 'pro-choice' thinker. Being 'pro-choice' means assuming that sexuality is the choice of the individual, as is procreation and giving birth. Pollit hopes that we will support this womans personal choice to have an abortion. But her argument for abortion shows the weakness of the whole idea that ther is anything personal about sex, conception and birth. It requires the concent of a community, whether that is the community of father and mother in the act of conception, or the concent of the family is helping to raise the child. A child is not the choice of the individual, but the responsibility of a community, parents, family and yes, God. The family does not consent to this child, and so Pollit offers us an illustration of the weakness of her perspective. having a child is NOT an idividual choice.
Pollit offers the support of a community in her article... a community that will pay for an abortion. This is where the church must be more active in my opinion. It is not enough for us to be simply against abortion, but to be for the family, even the mother and unborn child that has no supportive family. We have to offer our consent to life by offering support, safety, home, and help to this mother who is in such danger. I am particularly reminded of Mary. We do not know exactly how her own parents felt about her pregnancy. We do know that her husband, despite some doubts and fear, consented to the child in her womb... and then the Holy Spirit created a supportive community around her; her cousin Elizabeth, the shepherds, the Magi. I see in the gospels the creation of an alternative family for the Holy Family that would support them in birthing and raising an unexpected child.
Here is my first response:
Darin,
I'm assuming that you are agreeing with the Catholic Church that the main purpose of sex and of marriage is to have children. This is the end towards which the acts point. Just want to be clear on that point. If that is the case then you should read Humanae Vitae, which explains why one should not use contraceptives because they get in the way of the natural end of sex and marriage. Not just get in the way, but obstruct God's desire - thus is sinful. Just want to make sure you are clear on this when getting in bed with the Catholics.
On another point, and this is where I struggle, ideally the community should come together and help the single mom (or dad) to raise the child. Somone once said, "it takes a village..." but as Ian remarked above, the reality is that churches do not have their sh-- together enough to provide that community and some people are left in a no-win choice. Remember the debate between the Niebuhr brothers about going to war. One was an idealist (H. Richard) saying that we must stay out of war, while the other (Reinhold) claimed that the reality of the situtation calls for us to be involved recognizing that the greater sin would be to stay out if the war.
You can take the idealist approach and say that all abortions are wrong in every case, but how does that minister to the mother in the impossible situtation? The danger with such an idealism is that it leads to a critical legalism of categorical oughts and shoulds. I don't think you want to head down that ecclesiological road. On the other hand, you don't want to ascribe to a pansy postion of saying that all we need is love and to work off of a "love ethic" (a'la' Fletcher). This puts a good Christian like yourself in a tough situtation. Fun, fun!
Here is his response to my comment:
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Dignitas Personae Cont
It is with great pleasure that I share a couple of comments from my good friend 'Theological Snob' regarding my posting on Dignitas Personae.
Darin,I'm assuming that you are agreeing with the Catholic Church that the main purpose of sex and of marriage is to have children.
No, I am not saying I agree with the Catholic Church that the main purpose of sex is to have children. I think that sex is meant to deepen and strengthen the emotional ties in marriage and be a catalyst for the emotional grouth of the two partners. Sex has a vital and important role in marriage regardless of procreation. So while I would not agree that the main 'purpose' of sex is children, I do think that the Catholic Church offers an important and necessary alternative to the purely recreational view of sex that is predominant in our culture. In my humble opinion this 'recreational view' leave sex devoid of any meaning or purpose but pleasure itself. 'Recreational Sex' is not primarily interested in a deep and intimate experience with another, but in personal happiness and satisfaction, which, in my opinion, leads to a culture which makes the sex partner, an object for the self's pleasure and which leads to the commodification of sex. In everyday life this looks like unwanted pregnancy, disease, marital infidelity and divorce in my experience (not personal experience, by the way) So while I do not necessarily agree with every conclusion the Catholic Church draws as a result of calling procreation a mystery in which humanity co-creates with God, I do think it is the best alternative to 'recreational' ethic of popular culture.
On another point, and this is where I struggle, ideally the community should come together and help the single mom (or dad) to raise the child. Somone once said, "it takes a village..." but as Ian remarked above, the reality is that churches do not have their sh-- together enough to provide that community and some people are left in a no-win choice...You can take the idealist approach and say that all abortions are wrong in every case, but how does that minister to the mother in the impossible situtation? The danger with such an idealism is that it leads to a critical legalism of categorical oughts and shoulds.
Theological Snob raises an important critique of the idea that the church should be the alternative family for single mothers who feel ill-prepared and unready to raise a child. First, the practical application of that idea, that the church becomes a global adoption agency, is unrealistic. I'm not sure I want to go that far and this is where I ready admit I 'punk out' on my own ideas. I am not suggesting that the church becomes a social service agency. I am suggesting that the churches stance should be clear. We are a community for which abortion is not a viable option. In this way we stand as a prophetic voice to culture, offering a critique to the practice of abortion and showing an alternative way to deal with the 'no-win' situations that Theological Snob mentions. (in this area I am admitedly very influenced by Hauerwas).
As for Theological Snobs concern, that such a view becomes critical legalism, I think that is an excellent point. The alternative, however, leaves us no ground upon which to do pastoral care, which TS is concerned about. If the church does not have a clear and concise theological understanding of what marriage is, sex and procreation... if we do not clearly state that procreation is participation in the creativity of God, that children are such a high value that they should be created in the state of marriage and that abortion is a violation of who God is and how God acts in the world (which by the way the church is meant to be, the ebodiment of a Creative and Grace-full God) than what how do we determine our pastoral counsel? My fear is that if we refuse to have a clear statement about abortion, we have no ground for our pastoral care. If our pastoral care is not grounded on theology, than I fear we end up sliding towards the view expressed in the Nation, where the best way we can serve an un-wed mother ill-prepared and frightened, is to take up a collection for her abortion. Haven't we then ceased to be the church? In other words, how do we do pastoral care if we don't take a definite theological stand for life? If we do not offer a theological or spiritual view of the matter we are nothing but very poorly trained social workers.
While some may use a clear and concise theological statement regarding marriage, sex, procreation, and abortion in a legalistic manner, to throw away a uniquely biblical and theological view of a complex situation simply because some misuse it, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater (in a what is not an attempt at a clever pun). So while there is danger to 'idealism' I think the Liberal Christian church has discovered the danger of 'pragmatism' which is silence and apathy in regards to the issue of life, abortion and human sexuality.
My main concern (I think, because this is all just a theological thought experiment right now) is that the liberal church has failed to be a witness to its faith in regards to this issue. I am not trying to find a way to set social policy, but to return the church to its calling, which is to bear witness to the powerful presence of a living God. How can we do that if we remain so wishy-washy about a topic like Life?
And my response:
Darin,
I’m ever so humbled to find my pithy comments published on your distinguished blog. A thought getting at one of the deeper aspects of the conversation, i.e. the purpose of sex. Perhaps we need to think about sex in a relational context. This is not strictly recreational nor is it strictly for procreation but a way in which the relationship that exists in marriage is expressed in a physical and intimate way. Children, which tend to be an outcome of marriage, add and at times (most of the times) enhance the relationship of the marriage. If God is relational, and I believe that the Trinitarian nature of God does suggest a relationality, then marriage, sex, children, and the rest is a way of living into the will/nature of God. Thus sex is not primarily for procreation (and I think you are still leaning towards that conclusion), but is for the sake of relationality.
With this in mind, the church should be advocating for stronger marriages. It is only up to that point where I agree with the conservatives. In my humble, theological view, a healthy marriage is one of equality, not submission, one of respect, commitment and devotion, while maintaining one’s individuality (perichoresis). I am not willing to say that marriage is the foundation/bedrock of society, but it is a holy and sacred way in which we can continue to live into the relationships portrayed by the Trinity. Obviously, in an ideal world with healthy marriages (straight and gay), where sex is something celebrated within a marriage abortions would be less of an issue. Yet we are not living in an ideal world. Our views of sex, relationships, commitment and marriage are skewed at best leading to the impossible situations individuals find themselves in where abortion is considered an option.
That is the conversation thus far.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Dignitas Personae
It may seem strange that an American Baptist pastor would place a link to a Roman Catholic Document. But I have long felt that Catholicism offers the most clear and concise thought available in regards to bio-ethics especially in the area of Abortion. The document 'Dignitas Personae' offers an excellent summation of Catholic thought in regards to these bio-ethical issues. Note especially under the heading 'Faith and human dignity' the statement; 'God has created every human being in his own image, and his Son has made it possible for us to become children of God.' Nothing new I suppose, but profound when compared to a recent post on 'The Nation' which is meant to lend a 'down to earth' approach to thinking about abortion. While in Dignitas Personae the unborn child bears the image of God and is therefore to be highly valued, in the Nation, the unborn child is a 'threat.'
the problem with the argument that Katha Pollit offers is two-fold, the first of which is the subject for today. First of all she vastly over-simplifies the perspective of those who are 'anti-choice'. Notice how she describes the perspectives of those who disagree with her in negative terms. The perspective of those of us who feel that abortion is the ultimate violation of the image of God that the unborn infant is created in, do NOT think that this child is 'one of life's little challenges.' As a matter of fact Dignitas Personae takes the conception and birth of a child in the most serious of terms. Under the heading 'The two fundamental principles' we read' 'The origin of human life has its authentic context in marriage and in the family, where it is generated through an act which expresses the reciprocal love between a man and a woman. Procreation which is truly responsible vis-a-vis the child to be born must be the fruit of marriage.' The child is not a slight inconvenience, but a gift that is to be treated with the utmost respect, care and responsibility. Under 'Faith and married life' we read; 'God, who is love and life, has inscribed in man and woman the vocation to share in a special way in his mystery of personal communion and in his work as Creator and Father...' Nothing could be taken more serious than the birth of a child for it is a mysterious cooperation between humanity and God in the process of creation.
I think that protestants could learn a thing or two from this Catholic document. That a man and woman are cooperating with God's creativity through conception may not be very romantic, but it does lend theological clarity to the sexual act, a necessary corrective to the 'purely recreational' view of sexuality that is rampant in our culture. And it reminds us that there is something sacred in every child. Every child bears the mark of the Creator, whether its life is viable outside the womb or not.
If you read Pollit's article carefully you find the second problem with her thought process. There a young woman, pregnant, who stands the very real risk of physical abuse from family, should she return home as an unwed mother. Pollit is admittedly a 'pro-choice' thinker. Being 'pro-choice' means assuming that sexuality is the choice of the individual, as is procreation and giving birth. Pollit hopes that we will support this womans personal choice to have an abortion. But her argument for abortion shows the weakness of the whole idea that ther is anything personal about sex, conception and birth. It requires the concent of a community, whether that is the community of father and mother in the act of conception, or the concent of the family is helping to raise the child. A child is not the choice of the individual, but the responsibility of a community, parents, family and yes, God. The family does not consent to this child, and so Pollit offers us an illustration of the weakness of her perspective. having a child is NOT an idividual choice.
Pollit offers the support of a community in her article... a community that will pay for an abortion. This is where the church must be more active in my opinion. It is not enough for us to be simply against abortion, but to be for the family, even the mother and unborn child that has no supportive family. We have to offer our consent to life by offering support, safety, home, and help to this mother who is in such danger. I am particularly reminded of Mary. We do not know exactly how her own parents felt about her pregnancy. We do know that her husband, despite some doubts and fear, consented to the child in her womb... and then the Holy Spirit created a supportive community around her; her cousin Elizabeth, the shepherds, the Magi. I see in the gospels the creation of an alternative family for the Holy Family that would support them in birthing and raising an unexpected child.
Here is my first response:
Darin,
I'm assuming that you are agreeing with the Catholic Church that the main purpose of sex and of marriage is to have children. This is the end towards which the acts point. Just want to be clear on that point. If that is the case then you should read Humanae Vitae, which explains why one should not use contraceptives because they get in the way of the natural end of sex and marriage. Not just get in the way, but obstruct God's desire - thus is sinful. Just want to make sure you are clear on this when getting in bed with the Catholics.
On another point, and this is where I struggle, ideally the community should come together and help the single mom (or dad) to raise the child. Somone once said, "it takes a village..." but as Ian remarked above, the reality is that churches do not have their sh-- together enough to provide that community and some people are left in a no-win choice. Remember the debate between the Niebuhr brothers about going to war. One was an idealist (H. Richard) saying that we must stay out of war, while the other (Reinhold) claimed that the reality of the situtation calls for us to be involved recognizing that the greater sin would be to stay out if the war.
You can take the idealist approach and say that all abortions are wrong in every case, but how does that minister to the mother in the impossible situtation? The danger with such an idealism is that it leads to a critical legalism of categorical oughts and shoulds. I don't think you want to head down that ecclesiological road. On the other hand, you don't want to ascribe to a pansy postion of saying that all we need is love and to work off of a "love ethic" (a'la' Fletcher). This puts a good Christian like yourself in a tough situtation. Fun, fun!
Here is his response to my comment:
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Dignitas Personae Cont
It is with great pleasure that I share a couple of comments from my good friend 'Theological Snob' regarding my posting on Dignitas Personae.
Darin,I'm assuming that you are agreeing with the Catholic Church that the main purpose of sex and of marriage is to have children.
No, I am not saying I agree with the Catholic Church that the main purpose of sex is to have children. I think that sex is meant to deepen and strengthen the emotional ties in marriage and be a catalyst for the emotional grouth of the two partners. Sex has a vital and important role in marriage regardless of procreation. So while I would not agree that the main 'purpose' of sex is children, I do think that the Catholic Church offers an important and necessary alternative to the purely recreational view of sex that is predominant in our culture. In my humble opinion this 'recreational view' leave sex devoid of any meaning or purpose but pleasure itself. 'Recreational Sex' is not primarily interested in a deep and intimate experience with another, but in personal happiness and satisfaction, which, in my opinion, leads to a culture which makes the sex partner, an object for the self's pleasure and which leads to the commodification of sex. In everyday life this looks like unwanted pregnancy, disease, marital infidelity and divorce in my experience (not personal experience, by the way) So while I do not necessarily agree with every conclusion the Catholic Church draws as a result of calling procreation a mystery in which humanity co-creates with God, I do think it is the best alternative to 'recreational' ethic of popular culture.
On another point, and this is where I struggle, ideally the community should come together and help the single mom (or dad) to raise the child. Somone once said, "it takes a village..." but as Ian remarked above, the reality is that churches do not have their sh-- together enough to provide that community and some people are left in a no-win choice...You can take the idealist approach and say that all abortions are wrong in every case, but how does that minister to the mother in the impossible situtation? The danger with such an idealism is that it leads to a critical legalism of categorical oughts and shoulds.
Theological Snob raises an important critique of the idea that the church should be the alternative family for single mothers who feel ill-prepared and unready to raise a child. First, the practical application of that idea, that the church becomes a global adoption agency, is unrealistic. I'm not sure I want to go that far and this is where I ready admit I 'punk out' on my own ideas. I am not suggesting that the church becomes a social service agency. I am suggesting that the churches stance should be clear. We are a community for which abortion is not a viable option. In this way we stand as a prophetic voice to culture, offering a critique to the practice of abortion and showing an alternative way to deal with the 'no-win' situations that Theological Snob mentions. (in this area I am admitedly very influenced by Hauerwas).
As for Theological Snobs concern, that such a view becomes critical legalism, I think that is an excellent point. The alternative, however, leaves us no ground upon which to do pastoral care, which TS is concerned about. If the church does not have a clear and concise theological understanding of what marriage is, sex and procreation... if we do not clearly state that procreation is participation in the creativity of God, that children are such a high value that they should be created in the state of marriage and that abortion is a violation of who God is and how God acts in the world (which by the way the church is meant to be, the ebodiment of a Creative and Grace-full God) than what how do we determine our pastoral counsel? My fear is that if we refuse to have a clear statement about abortion, we have no ground for our pastoral care. If our pastoral care is not grounded on theology, than I fear we end up sliding towards the view expressed in the Nation, where the best way we can serve an un-wed mother ill-prepared and frightened, is to take up a collection for her abortion. Haven't we then ceased to be the church? In other words, how do we do pastoral care if we don't take a definite theological stand for life? If we do not offer a theological or spiritual view of the matter we are nothing but very poorly trained social workers.
While some may use a clear and concise theological statement regarding marriage, sex, procreation, and abortion in a legalistic manner, to throw away a uniquely biblical and theological view of a complex situation simply because some misuse it, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater (in a what is not an attempt at a clever pun). So while there is danger to 'idealism' I think the Liberal Christian church has discovered the danger of 'pragmatism' which is silence and apathy in regards to the issue of life, abortion and human sexuality.
My main concern (I think, because this is all just a theological thought experiment right now) is that the liberal church has failed to be a witness to its faith in regards to this issue. I am not trying to find a way to set social policy, but to return the church to its calling, which is to bear witness to the powerful presence of a living God. How can we do that if we remain so wishy-washy about a topic like Life?
And my response:
Darin,
I’m ever so humbled to find my pithy comments published on your distinguished blog. A thought getting at one of the deeper aspects of the conversation, i.e. the purpose of sex. Perhaps we need to think about sex in a relational context. This is not strictly recreational nor is it strictly for procreation but a way in which the relationship that exists in marriage is expressed in a physical and intimate way. Children, which tend to be an outcome of marriage, add and at times (most of the times) enhance the relationship of the marriage. If God is relational, and I believe that the Trinitarian nature of God does suggest a relationality, then marriage, sex, children, and the rest is a way of living into the will/nature of God. Thus sex is not primarily for procreation (and I think you are still leaning towards that conclusion), but is for the sake of relationality.
With this in mind, the church should be advocating for stronger marriages. It is only up to that point where I agree with the conservatives. In my humble, theological view, a healthy marriage is one of equality, not submission, one of respect, commitment and devotion, while maintaining one’s individuality (perichoresis). I am not willing to say that marriage is the foundation/bedrock of society, but it is a holy and sacred way in which we can continue to live into the relationships portrayed by the Trinity. Obviously, in an ideal world with healthy marriages (straight and gay), where sex is something celebrated within a marriage abortions would be less of an issue. Yet we are not living in an ideal world. Our views of sex, relationships, commitment and marriage are skewed at best leading to the impossible situations individuals find themselves in where abortion is considered an option.
That is the conversation thus far.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Beware the Crushing Oppressive PhD Program
I don't really like this time of year. Last night we took the four boys to have their picture taken and the waiting room was filled with "cute" (read - snot dripping, yelling and demanding) little people of which my boys were a part. To much green and red, way to many dripping sweet Christmas songs and more smiles than I could handle. Bah says I. Bah!
In order to clean the system of the Christmas crap that I had visually and aurally ingested last night while putting two of the boys to sleep I read some of the Ramblings of Samuel Johnson, a sensible chap, and this morning I read an essay by William James of which I will comment. After this time of blogging I will read a nice surprise article in the AAR, "What Cultural Theorists of Religion Have to Learn from Wittgenstein; Or, How to Read Geertz as a Practice Theorist" by Jason Springs. If that doesn't get the grime of the time off of me I don't know what will.
William James wrote a tight little essay in the March 1903 Harvard Monthly titled "The PhD Octopus." In this article he bemoans the emergance of a desire for smaller institutions of higher learning to be sure that all of its professors have a PhD James is observing how the PhD is becoming a flashy title that people seem to earn in order to garner respect, a degree program with considerable hoops to jump through (examins and the like) in order to cut people down, and a requirement for teaching even if the individual is not teaching in the area that his or her PhD is in. The original purpose of a PhD, James claims was:
"instituted for the laudable purpose of stimulating scholarship, especially in the form of 'original research.'"
James' worry was that the PhD would become a badge or a trophy that all ambitious individual would try to obtain and others would expect regardless if the individual had the skills, the passion or the drive.
Whenever I meet with someone who is considering the ministry (God help them) I tell them, very openly that if they can do anything else with their lives, then they should. If they can go down any other vocational path, then they should. The ministry, while rewarding at times, is also very demanding and is not the place for someone who is not fully called and committed. When I was considering PhD work I asked myself the same question, "can I do anything else?" Do I have to engage in this level and depth of study? I admit that I have not been as vigilant in posing the same question to others. If some have an itch for higher learning I have been encouraging them to enter into the hellish world of the PhD student. Perhaps I should listen to James, and my own advice. The level of study, the exams, the work is all important and necessary for "original research," but it is not for everyone. One may have a sharp mind and an inquisitive nature, but may not need to do the original research. The PhD is not for everyone.
Perhaps we should not place the degree on a pedestal. We should respect the work that the degree demands and the knowledge the individual has obtained, but perhaps we should not elevate an individual because he or she has earned a specific degree. As James says, "They ought to guard against contributing to the increase of officialism and snobbery and insincerity as against a pestilence; they ought to keep truth and disinterested labor always in the foreground, treat degrees as secondary incidents, and in season and out of season make it plain that what they live for is to help men's souls, and not to decorate their persons with diplomas."
The irony that my blog is titled "Theological Snob" is not lost on me.
In order to clean the system of the Christmas crap that I had visually and aurally ingested last night while putting two of the boys to sleep I read some of the Ramblings of Samuel Johnson, a sensible chap, and this morning I read an essay by William James of which I will comment. After this time of blogging I will read a nice surprise article in the AAR, "What Cultural Theorists of Religion Have to Learn from Wittgenstein; Or, How to Read Geertz as a Practice Theorist" by Jason Springs. If that doesn't get the grime of the time off of me I don't know what will.
William James wrote a tight little essay in the March 1903 Harvard Monthly titled "The PhD Octopus." In this article he bemoans the emergance of a desire for smaller institutions of higher learning to be sure that all of its professors have a PhD James is observing how the PhD is becoming a flashy title that people seem to earn in order to garner respect, a degree program with considerable hoops to jump through (examins and the like) in order to cut people down, and a requirement for teaching even if the individual is not teaching in the area that his or her PhD is in. The original purpose of a PhD, James claims was:
"instituted for the laudable purpose of stimulating scholarship, especially in the form of 'original research.'"
James' worry was that the PhD would become a badge or a trophy that all ambitious individual would try to obtain and others would expect regardless if the individual had the skills, the passion or the drive.
Whenever I meet with someone who is considering the ministry (God help them) I tell them, very openly that if they can do anything else with their lives, then they should. If they can go down any other vocational path, then they should. The ministry, while rewarding at times, is also very demanding and is not the place for someone who is not fully called and committed. When I was considering PhD work I asked myself the same question, "can I do anything else?" Do I have to engage in this level and depth of study? I admit that I have not been as vigilant in posing the same question to others. If some have an itch for higher learning I have been encouraging them to enter into the hellish world of the PhD student. Perhaps I should listen to James, and my own advice. The level of study, the exams, the work is all important and necessary for "original research," but it is not for everyone. One may have a sharp mind and an inquisitive nature, but may not need to do the original research. The PhD is not for everyone.
Perhaps we should not place the degree on a pedestal. We should respect the work that the degree demands and the knowledge the individual has obtained, but perhaps we should not elevate an individual because he or she has earned a specific degree. As James says, "They ought to guard against contributing to the increase of officialism and snobbery and insincerity as against a pestilence; they ought to keep truth and disinterested labor always in the foreground, treat degrees as secondary incidents, and in season and out of season make it plain that what they live for is to help men's souls, and not to decorate their persons with diplomas."
The irony that my blog is titled "Theological Snob" is not lost on me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)