Archive for the Uncategorized Category
What kind of education is best for developing the human mind and soul, and what is an education for? These two questions are arguably the most contested and challenged in the context of not only the liberal arts, but in the elective university system of education that is at the center of higher education in the world today. The purpose of education has moved in a revolving door between the poles of intellectual and ethical development to professionalization, from serving the interests of political ideals of citizenship to serving the interests of economic success.
The question is where theological education fits within these very general trends in education. Is it to develop church leaders primarily or is it to develop free thinkers who are able to critically evaluate the significance of the Gospel in the every fluid structures of the world. I want to address this question in a couple of posts largely in response to Carl Raschke recent article in The Other Journal entitled “From Church to “Rhizone”: Reconfiguring Theological Education for the Postmodern Era“.
The primary problem, Raschke argues, is that theological schools are suffering from “mission creep” which is a term referring to when an institution over-reaches its own prescribed boundaries by which it identifies its very mission and purpose. Combined with this is a growing sense of irrelevancy in certain aspects of preparing church leaders and scholars in biblical studies, theology and the like. As Raschke notes:
The relevance, or irrelevance, of theological education today has less to do with what is learned, including the methodological criteria for what might be considered appropriate knowledge. More than ever it has to do with how a limitless fund of knowledge and the skills for generating that knowledge are eventually applied in a practical or professional setting, especially when that setting seems limitless and undefined.
In addition to this move professionalization, Raschke argues that the reconfiguration of knowledge claims across distributed networks of ideas and information that usurp traditional boundaries in the institutions of Christianity only complicates the matter.
The possible resolution to this situation is that theological education “has to steep itself in its own irrelevant classical particularities in such a strategic manner that it is able to engage, critique, and transform the culture in a way that is genuinely relevant.” In other words, rather than jump on the board of focusing on creating a class of church leaders who learn the ins and outs of every possible permutation of skills that are necessary to lead, dipping into the critical evaluation of what we might call the classical curriculum that you then learn to flexibly apply to your specific place of call it a more adaptable and rigorous way to educate theological students.
However, to what degree should we educate students to flexibly apply their education to the whims of the world? Is this the best strategy, and is it even a new problem? I will tackle these questions in the next post.
Red-Herring #1: The continual experience argument is a clear red herring in the current election season. The fact is that we don’t know how McCain will respond as a president all that well either. Reagan was a governor as were Clinton and Bush II. Gore would have more experience than any of them going into the election but we did not vote for him either. Kerry had more experience than Bush II with Washington politics but we did not vote for him (and he used appeal to authority fallacies consistently to the detriment of his campaign).
We don’t know what acceptable criteria are for “presidential experience”. Not sure this is the best strategy for McCain and I am not sure he will push it which is good for his campaign. He will take a different angle on this issue applauding Obama’s idealism, but then saying that it will be impossible for him to do what he says and even dangerous. Although he will be hard pressed to produce evidence to substantiate that claim. But voters don’t care about evidence right? Voters care about the product they can “trust”.
The experience card is thus a fallacious argument.
Red-Herring #2: The other fallacy is that Obama will somehow be weak with terrorists or governments like Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, etc. This is the tough guy talk that somehow Obama will be “weak” with other countries. Again, what does this mean? James Baker, who to me is brilliant and still the example and standard of what Secretary of State means, was clear in stating that diplomacy must take place with even our enemies. This includes Syria and Iran. As stated in the Iraq Study Group Report, “Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively” (p. 7).
So what does this “weakness” actually mean? Again, without any legitimate criteria to measure this claim, it is a claim rooted in lack of any evidence and so, it too is a red herring and a fallacy.
However you look at it, these arguments are marketing strategies in order for campaigns, parties, and benefactors to sell us an image of a candidate mixed with a little cross-examination to “discredit the witness” as it were. By the way, the latter is called an ad hominem approach which again does not focus on the issues or “facts”, but actually distracts you from them by getting you to focus on the person.
Both McCain and Obama have already used language to “expose” the other’s marketing tactics. Why? They are appealing to a much more media savvy audience of 18-35 year olds who understand a lot of the nuance of media more so than other voting blocs in previous generations! It’s a way for them to form a relationship with a marketing cluster and none of it is accidental.
Nick and Bryan have posted a list and so shall I. Only in the order I thought of ‘em.
Chris Cornell - No one can blend falsetto and head voice this way and still sound like a man.
Tom Johnston - More soul than Michael MacDonald and a better song-writer at that.
Ann Wilson - Apparently estrogen has no place in the other lists. I watched Fergie try to pull off “Barricuda”. Not bad, but not a Wilson sister either, which means not all that great. Then there’s what Ann does in a song like “Crazy on You”.
Robert Plant - Even with Alison Krauss he is fantastic.
Cheryl Crow - Ask any woman with American Idol chops to pull of “If It Makes You Happy”. You won’t find too many of ‘em I tell ya.
Roger Daltrey - Not “Daughtry” not even close.
Scott Weiland - Yes he’s a coke head and his movements on stage just copy Steve Tyler and Mick Jagger. But his tone on the song “Atlanta” is fantastic and he shows off his melodic range.
Doug Pinnick - Haven’t heard of him have you? From King’s X and Poundhound. One phrase. Soul that hurts.
Geoff Tate - Queensryche was always on the edge of cheesy, but this boy had serious chops that any hairband dude could not really approach.
Corey Glover - Living Colour needed to make at least two more albums after Stain. That is still a bummer of a band break up for music fans.
* Extra props go to Freddie Mercury (I still don’t like Queen all that much), Bruce Dickinson (One reason many cover bands can’t cover Maiden songs), Pat Benetar (Does she have good pipes), Janis Joplin (For changing the role of the woman in music), Dennis DeYoung (see Queen), Ronnie James Dio (Messed with Black Sabbath, but also created a lot of pretenders probably in a bad way), Steve Perry (Those solo albums were a mistake dude, but I still love you on Escape), Steven Tyler (”Dream On” is still amazing and reveals the effects of a hard rock ‘n roll lifestyle on the voice).
Not only will I not be reading as many blogposts this week, I will also be posting less. The last week of the term is here and I have a grading hemorrhage to resolve as well as proposals to write, courses to design, grades to submit, classrooms spaces to design, laptops for faculty, and probably a lot more I don’t know yet.
Cheers!
This is like David Lynch met Godard in a parlor in Amsterdam for a little absinthe before this ad was pitched to Tab in the ’60’s. Hello Beyond the Valley of the Dolls this is your soft drink.
The strange courtship between McCain and the religious right is discussed in a New York Times piece here.
A McCain adviser acknowledged on Monday that the campaign had failed to look into Mr. Hagee’s background adequately and said that as a result the campaign’s procedures for vetting endorsers had improved.
Mr. McCain, who does not talk about religion publicly, has a rocky history with conservative Christians. Eight years ago, he called the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance.”
But as he prepared to run for president again, Mr. McCain was the graduation speaker at Mr. Falwell’s Liberty University in 2006, met with Mr. Hagee in Texas and spoke at his Night for Israel in Washington in 2007.
Should we believe that first line? If this is how McCain works with such awful advisement as this, then, once again, it is clear that his judgment is way off kilter. You don’t have to look at Hagee’s background to figure out who is is and the type of Christianity for which he stands. What an absurd statement. How about a simple Google or Amazon search? Why ask a guy to endorse you if you know so little about him? Seriously. Don’t piss on us and tell us that it’s raining! Even all the young earth creationists can’t be that stupid. Here are the first three filtered hits in Amazon for “John Hagee” and it took me all of thirty seconds:
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Would you not, if you are a rational person, maybe check out a book or a website to see what these titles are all about? You don’t need an FBI background check (which by the way they can get in a moment’s notice and probably sent to a mobile device in seconds). So ask yourself this: Do you want a president whose administration will be this incompetent and stupid? Or do you want a president who does not care to examine the endorsements he is getting more carefully? Or, do you want someone to lead us who will continue this bait and switch crap? Aren’t you a little sick of it? I hope to God, literally, that Obama does not get tainted by crap like this or something that may be even be mistaken for the stench of it. The Jeremiah Wright issues were much ado about nothing but a bunch of white folk who don’t care to understand the life in the black church anyway.
C’mon McCain, stop insulting our intelligence with this tripe. Everyone’s s@$# stinks including your own. Some just choose to wipe up after themselves. At this point it’s too late for you to hide it since we have all caught a strong whiff.
(HT: Melissa Rogers)
