The college course syllabus has changed.
As some of us can remember, years ago a syllabus might take up no more than one side of a single sheet. Three pages or more seemed hefty. But nowadays a syllabus can run to five or six or seventeen pages.
One reason is because colleges now see the syllabi distributed by their faculty as contracts between the students and the institution. Provisions and expectations are spelled out in great detail. For example, many of today's syllabi include performance/learning objectives (which tend to be written in Education-ese), as well as the college's disability statement, word-for-word from the catalog, etc., etc.
To me, some of it seems excessive and tedious. I think that to college administrators, it seems like very cheap insurance.
Anyway, there's one thing that I think really belongs in a syllabus: a course outline and calendar. This is the part that details the smaller segments of the course and identifies what will be discussed and on what date(s). When done right, this part of the syllabus will benefit both instructors and students.
It requires instructors to plan a semester's journey from beginning to end, and to identify what will be seen along the way. This seems like a reasonable expectation for tour guides.
For students, the course outline and calendar spells out what they can expect as well as what will be required from them. A good course outline will provide those who are being taken on the trip answers to questions like, Where are we going today? What will we see when we get there? And how do I prepare so that I can make the most of this part of the tour?
This is where I'd like to ask for your help. I've already put together the outline for the 15-week survey course that is to cover the New Testament. Not an easy task, by the way. For each of the one-week units, I want to include in the course outline at least one thought-provoking, discussion-starting question, the kind of question that might actually get students reading (or at least considering) the book(s) to be covered ahead of time.
What follows are the numbered weeks and the titles I've given to the corresponding units. In some cases, I've added a few notes about what is to be covered. For any or all of these units, what question(s) might you include in the course outline?
1. Getting Started. (I know, this could go anywhere. To be more specific, in this first week we will explore (a)some possible good reasons for studying the New Testament, (b) the question of the NT Canon, and (c) the historic, cultural significance of the New Testament).
2. Introducing the Synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke (includes raising the question of why the earliest Christians remembered and wrote down what they did regarding the words and the deeds of Jesus; also includes an introduction to the Synoptic Problem, which I rather like to call "the Synoptic Question").
3. Exploring the Synoptic Gospels: Similarities and Differences among the Siblings (explores the evangelists as, well, evangelists, and also provides some guidelines for interpreting the parables of Jesus).
4. Christianity as the Promised Restoration of Israel: The Unique Vision of Luke and Acts
5. Light, Signs, Belief, and Life: The Gospel of John
6. The Life and Thought of the Apostle Paul
7. Some of Paul's First Letters: Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians
8. The Corinthian Correspondence
9. The Letter to the Romans
10. The Captivity Letters: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon
11. Letters to Paul's Delegates: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus
12. Hebrews and James
13. The Letters of Peter and Jude
14. The Letters of John
15. The Book of Revelation
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Monday, August 18, 2008
Free Course in Biblical Hebrew
What efforts I spent on that task (i.e., learning Hebrew), what difficulties I had to face, how often I despaired, how often I gave up and then in my eagerness to learn began again … I thank the Lord that from a bitter seed of learning I am now plucking sweet fruits! --Jerome, Epistula 125.12.Beginning Tuesday, September 2, a course in Basic Biblical Hebrew will be offered at Amarillo Bible Chair. There are no pre-requisites for this course. No previous knowledge of the language is expected. Anyone interested is welcome and encouraged to attend.
The class will meet each Tuesday evening, beginning at 6:30 p.m., at the Bible Chair building, 2501 S. Jackson (corner of Jackson and 25th), just across the street from the south parking lot of the Washington Street campus of Amarillo College.
Students should plan for class sessions lasting about two hours (until 8:30). But sessions can go a little longer if body, spirit, and time permit. A full school year of language study will require students to remain committed through May 2009.
Regarding textbooks: To begin, students must purchase Biblical Hebrew, Second Edition SET (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004). The two books and three audio CDs may be purchased as a package. The SET is available for purchase at the Amarillo College Bookstore, located in the College Union Building on the Washington Street campus of AC. Because the College bookstore has been kind enough to order several copies of the SET, students are requested to purchase these materials from the bookstore.
Questions? You may call the instructor, Frank Bellizzi, at (806) 372-5747, or send an email to frankbellizzi@aya.yale.edu
Saturday, August 16, 2008
A Talk: Rick, John and Barack
With so much attention focused on the Olympics right now, I almost forgot about tonight's big event: Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, will interview both John McCain and Barack Obama, separately, in a public forum at the megachurch in Lake Forest, California.
For all of his fanfare, I really don't know that much about Warren. At this point, I'm just wondering how close he'll come to doing what most people hope he'll do: be a sort of religious version of the late Tim Russert, who always asked tough, thoughtful questions.
If you could ask both candidates one question, what would it be?
For all of his fanfare, I really don't know that much about Warren. At this point, I'm just wondering how close he'll come to doing what most people hope he'll do: be a sort of religious version of the late Tim Russert, who always asked tough, thoughtful questions.
If you could ask both candidates one question, what would it be?
Friday, August 15, 2008
Thinking about Proverbs
1986 saw the publication of a massive anthology edited by Wolfgang Mieder, The Prentice Hall Encyclopedia of World Proverbs.
In the 1990s, Harold Cordry produced an even larger collection, The Multicultural Dictionary of Proverbs. The subtitle reveals the scope of this work: "Over 20,000 Adages from More than 120 Languages, Nationalities and Ethnic Groups."
More recently, Jon R. Stone has added the Routledge Book of World Proverbs.
Each book is filled with thousands of proverbs coming from every corner of the earth.
The Sumerians, residents of Southern Mesopotamia, developed the first language for which we have written evidence. Among their documents, 4,000 years old, are proverbs by the hundreds.
Like many of today's proverbs, some that were circulated among the ancient Sumerians take up the question of money: Wealth is far away; poverty is close at hand.
Others address what you say and credibility: Tell a lie and then tell the truth: it will be considered a lie (reminiscent of the boy who cried "wolf!").
Evidently, not all of the Sumerian proverbs were written and remembered by men: To be sick is acceptable; to be pregnant is painful; but to be pregnant and sick is just too much.
It sounds like an exaggeration. But it's true: Throughout recorded history, and in every part of the world, people have always come up with short sayings that encapsulate the wisdom that comes from experience. Every culture at every time has had its proverbs.
Perhaps that makes it all the more remarkable that in ancient Israel, a certain collection of these kinds of sayings came to be recognized as holy Scripture, the biblical Book of Proverbs.
Soon, I'm supposed to give a short introduction to the Book of Proverbs. Got any suggestions? Ideas?
In the 1990s, Harold Cordry produced an even larger collection, The Multicultural Dictionary of Proverbs. The subtitle reveals the scope of this work: "Over 20,000 Adages from More than 120 Languages, Nationalities and Ethnic Groups."
More recently, Jon R. Stone has added the Routledge Book of World Proverbs.
Each book is filled with thousands of proverbs coming from every corner of the earth.
The Sumerians, residents of Southern Mesopotamia, developed the first language for which we have written evidence. Among their documents, 4,000 years old, are proverbs by the hundreds.
Like many of today's proverbs, some that were circulated among the ancient Sumerians take up the question of money: Wealth is far away; poverty is close at hand.
Others address what you say and credibility: Tell a lie and then tell the truth: it will be considered a lie (reminiscent of the boy who cried "wolf!").
Evidently, not all of the Sumerian proverbs were written and remembered by men: To be sick is acceptable; to be pregnant is painful; but to be pregnant and sick is just too much.
It sounds like an exaggeration. But it's true: Throughout recorded history, and in every part of the world, people have always come up with short sayings that encapsulate the wisdom that comes from experience. Every culture at every time has had its proverbs.
Perhaps that makes it all the more remarkable that in ancient Israel, a certain collection of these kinds of sayings came to be recognized as holy Scripture, the biblical Book of Proverbs.
Soon, I'm supposed to give a short introduction to the Book of Proverbs. Got any suggestions? Ideas?
Thursday, August 14, 2008
A Learning Experience?
Teaching is not a lost art, but regard for it is a lost tradition.
The test and the use of a man's education is that he finds pleasure in the exercise of his mind. --Jacques Barzun
I hadn't even noticed the billboards. The geezer in me won't take his eyes off the road. I proudly say in my raspy, old-man voice: That's twenty-seven years without an incident!
Anyway, here's an example of the controversial ads: One of the billboards pictures a shopping cart full of bagged groceries. The text: I wanted a job with choices. "Paper or plastic?" wasn't what I had in mind. At the bottom appears the Amarillo College logo next to the tag line: "Hire Education."
It seems like all of the negative reaction so far is of one sort. It says that the ads demean people who, for whatever reason, never went to college, folks who work for a lifetime in jobs that don't require a degree.
One of the many things my parents consistently taught me was that any honest, productive work should be honored. In my adult years, that view has become my own settled conviction. So I find myself siding with those who consider the ads irritating on that count.
What I don't hear about is how the ads tend to reflect and reinforce the debasing of higher education.
College is all about job satisfaction?
It's all about a better career? (And let's face it, in this climate better is code for more money).
No learning for learning's sake?
No becoming fit for public service?
No quest for knowledge or search for truth?
I know, in our current atmosphere, some of these questions sound ludicrous, a reflection of the problem.
Anyone who knows college life in the United States is well aware that student apathy and academic cheating are two of the biggest obstacles that professors face. There are reasons for that.
My question is why should a college ad campaign promote that culture of cynicism which undermines the academy's best reasons for being? For all of its instructing, shouldn't a college teach something of a higher order?
For a closer look, here's the story: Amarillo College ad campaign draws fire.
I'm curious. What do you think about this?
The test and the use of a man's education is that he finds pleasure in the exercise of his mind. --Jacques Barzun
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Today's issue of the Amarillo Globe-News contains a story that hits pretty close to my home. Apparently, some people have voiced their objections to a billboard ad campaign for Amarillo College.I hadn't even noticed the billboards. The geezer in me won't take his eyes off the road. I proudly say in my raspy, old-man voice: That's twenty-seven years without an incident!
Anyway, here's an example of the controversial ads: One of the billboards pictures a shopping cart full of bagged groceries. The text: I wanted a job with choices. "Paper or plastic?" wasn't what I had in mind. At the bottom appears the Amarillo College logo next to the tag line: "Hire Education."
It seems like all of the negative reaction so far is of one sort. It says that the ads demean people who, for whatever reason, never went to college, folks who work for a lifetime in jobs that don't require a degree.
One of the many things my parents consistently taught me was that any honest, productive work should be honored. In my adult years, that view has become my own settled conviction. So I find myself siding with those who consider the ads irritating on that count.
What I don't hear about is how the ads tend to reflect and reinforce the debasing of higher education.
College is all about job satisfaction?
It's all about a better career? (And let's face it, in this climate better is code for more money).
No learning for learning's sake?
No becoming fit for public service?
No quest for knowledge or search for truth?
I know, in our current atmosphere, some of these questions sound ludicrous, a reflection of the problem.
Anyone who knows college life in the United States is well aware that student apathy and academic cheating are two of the biggest obstacles that professors face. There are reasons for that.
My question is why should a college ad campaign promote that culture of cynicism which undermines the academy's best reasons for being? For all of its instructing, shouldn't a college teach something of a higher order?
For a closer look, here's the story: Amarillo College ad campaign draws fire.
I'm curious. What do you think about this?
Friday, August 08, 2008
God in His Sovereignty
In his book The Supremacy of God in Preaching, John Piper writes:
Years ago during the January prayer week at our church, I decided to preach on the holiness of God from Isaiah 6. I resolved on the first Sunday of the year to unfold the vision of God’s holiness found in the first four verses of that chapter:
So I preached on the holiness of God and did my best to display the majesty of such a great and holy God. I gave not one word of application to the lives of the people. Application is essential in the normal course of preaching, but I felt led that day to make a test: Would the passionate portrayal of the greatness of God in and of itself meet the needs of people?
I didn’t realize that not long before this Sunday one of the young families of our church discovered that their child was being sexually abused by a close relative. It was incredibly traumatic. They were there that Sunday morning and sat under that message. I wonder how many advisers to us pastors today would have said: “Pastor Piper, can’t you see your people are hurting? Can’t you come down out of the heavens and get practical? Don’t you realize what kind of people sit in front of you on Sunday?” Some weeks later I learned the story. The husband took me aside one Sunday after a service. “John,” he said, “these have been the hardest months of our lives. Do you know what has gotten me through? The vision of the greatness of God’s holiness that you gave me the first week of January. It has been the rock we could stand on.”
The greatness and the glory of God are relevant. It does not matter if surveys turn up a list of perceived needs that does not include the supreme greatness of the sovereign God of grace. That is the deepest need. Our people are starving for God.
This is one of those books I've gone back to again and again if only to be stirred by the mind and the passion behind it.
What books do that for you?
Years ago during the January prayer week at our church, I decided to preach on the holiness of God from Isaiah 6. I resolved on the first Sunday of the year to unfold the vision of God’s holiness found in the first four verses of that chapter:
In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim; each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.” And the foundations of the threshold shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke.
I didn’t realize that not long before this Sunday one of the young families of our church discovered that their child was being sexually abused by a close relative. It was incredibly traumatic. They were there that Sunday morning and sat under that message. I wonder how many advisers to us pastors today would have said: “Pastor Piper, can’t you see your people are hurting? Can’t you come down out of the heavens and get practical? Don’t you realize what kind of people sit in front of you on Sunday?” Some weeks later I learned the story. The husband took me aside one Sunday after a service. “John,” he said, “these have been the hardest months of our lives. Do you know what has gotten me through? The vision of the greatness of God’s holiness that you gave me the first week of January. It has been the rock we could stand on.”
The greatness and the glory of God are relevant. It does not matter if surveys turn up a list of perceived needs that does not include the supreme greatness of the sovereign God of grace. That is the deepest need. Our people are starving for God.
This is one of those books I've gone back to again and again if only to be stirred by the mind and the passion behind it.
What books do that for you?
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
The Sovereignty of God: A Neglected Teaching?
Last week, I mentioned and asked about my recently-assigned topic: The Sovereignty of God. Several ideas and suggestions came in. Thanks!
Getting started in my study, just for kicks I did a few searches over at Restoration Serials Index, a really useful resource I've blogged about before. Here are the words I keyed in, followed by the number of matches:
attendance: 291
obedience: 801
baptism: 1570
sovereignty: 45
reign: 44
supremacy: 10
Now, I know, simply giving the number of hits for certain words is arbitrary. (Ever tried to find the word love in the Book of Acts?) At the same time, I can't help thinking that the huge disparity of those numbers has to be saying something.
It's reported that G. C. Brewer once preached night after night about the greatness of Christ, the sacrifice of Jesus. A church member asked him, "When are you going to start preaching the gospel?" Brewer understood what he meant. He was asking, "When are you going to start talking about the mode, necessity, and purpose of baptism?"
It seems that in the Churches of Christ we've talked a lot about certain acts of obedience. And that is extensively appropriate. According to Romans 1:5, the gospel of Jesus Christ calls us "to the obedience that comes from faith."
However, what we haven't done so much is to talk about the source and the reason for our obedience. Earlier in the same verse, Paul mentions it. The apostolic mission of announcing the gospel of Jesus Christ is "through him and for his name's sake."
We must obey the Lord. We must continue to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. But the reason and the power must come first: "for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose" (Philippians 2:12-13).
Got any thoughts about this you'd like to share? I'm still studying and thinking, and would be glad to hear what comes to your mind.
Getting started in my study, just for kicks I did a few searches over at Restoration Serials Index, a really useful resource I've blogged about before. Here are the words I keyed in, followed by the number of matches:
attendance: 291
obedience: 801
baptism: 1570
sovereignty: 45
reign: 44
supremacy: 10
Now, I know, simply giving the number of hits for certain words is arbitrary. (Ever tried to find the word love in the Book of Acts?) At the same time, I can't help thinking that the huge disparity of those numbers has to be saying something.
It's reported that G. C. Brewer once preached night after night about the greatness of Christ, the sacrifice of Jesus. A church member asked him, "When are you going to start preaching the gospel?" Brewer understood what he meant. He was asking, "When are you going to start talking about the mode, necessity, and purpose of baptism?"
It seems that in the Churches of Christ we've talked a lot about certain acts of obedience. And that is extensively appropriate. According to Romans 1:5, the gospel of Jesus Christ calls us "to the obedience that comes from faith."
However, what we haven't done so much is to talk about the source and the reason for our obedience. Earlier in the same verse, Paul mentions it. The apostolic mission of announcing the gospel of Jesus Christ is "through him and for his name's sake."
We must obey the Lord. We must continue to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. But the reason and the power must come first: "for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose" (Philippians 2:12-13).
Got any thoughts about this you'd like to share? I'm still studying and thinking, and would be glad to hear what comes to your mind.
Monday, August 04, 2008
What Non-Books Do You Read?
Book talk. It's one of the many things I like about blogging. I like to hear about that great book someone else has discovered. I like to hear about classics, old favorites that people keep going back to again and again. And, of course, I like to talk about books that I'm reading or have read.
But this time, I want to ask about non-books:
1. What are some of the journals, newspapers, and magazines you regularly read? Why those?
2. Which single publication would you want delivered if you could get only one?
3. Is there a subscription you'd like to add to your current list?
4. Do you think you receive too many serials? Not enough? Or are you with Goldie Locks in "just right" territory?
5. Do you read non-books mostly on-line, or mostly paper-in-hand? (Or do you mostly print off stuff that you found on-line?)
Monday, July 28, 2008
Cooking Something New: Help Wanted
It might sound ironic at first, but I really like it whenever I'm asked to preach or write and the topic is assigned.
For one thing, being assigned a topic saves me from the sometimes-agonizing question: So what exactly will I speak (or write) about? It's already decided. They're expecting to hear from me about that.
Something else. Of the better things I've ever come up with, many were the result of an assignment. I have a theory about why. I think it's because, whenever I pick the topic, it's something I think I already know about. Now, it's true that I do know something about a few things. The only problem is, when I select a topic that I think I already know about, I don't begin to search. Instead, I simply try to figure out how to say what I think I already know.
The result? Not much digging. No new discoveries. No trying to figure out a thing for myself. None of the excitement that comes from a fresh insight. Just trying to convey what I think I know. It feels like I'm taking something out of the freezer and tossing it in the microwave. "Ding!" Ready to eat?
I'd much rather serve and eat a home-cooked meal made of fresh ingredients. And that's more often what I come up with whenever I start with an assigned topic. So I'm happy that I was recently asked to deliver lessons (about 30 minutes each) for these titles:
1. The Sovereignty of God
2. Christianity as Counter Culture
Now I want your help. Would you name one or more biblical texts to go with each title?
Also, can you name something else--a book or an article or a movie clip or anything--on these topics that you think I should know about?
Thanks for any feedback. I always like hearing from my blog buddies.
For one thing, being assigned a topic saves me from the sometimes-agonizing question: So what exactly will I speak (or write) about? It's already decided. They're expecting to hear from me about that.
Something else. Of the better things I've ever come up with, many were the result of an assignment. I have a theory about why. I think it's because, whenever I pick the topic, it's something I think I already know about. Now, it's true that I do know something about a few things. The only problem is, when I select a topic that I think I already know about, I don't begin to search. Instead, I simply try to figure out how to say what I think I already know.
The result? Not much digging. No new discoveries. No trying to figure out a thing for myself. None of the excitement that comes from a fresh insight. Just trying to convey what I think I know. It feels like I'm taking something out of the freezer and tossing it in the microwave. "Ding!" Ready to eat?
I'd much rather serve and eat a home-cooked meal made of fresh ingredients. And that's more often what I come up with whenever I start with an assigned topic. So I'm happy that I was recently asked to deliver lessons (about 30 minutes each) for these titles:
1. The Sovereignty of God
2. Christianity as Counter Culture
Now I want your help. Would you name one or more biblical texts to go with each title?
Also, can you name something else--a book or an article or a movie clip or anything--on these topics that you think I should know about?
Thanks for any feedback. I always like hearing from my blog buddies.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Is the United States a Christian Nation?
Is the United States of America a Christian nation? There’s more than one way to answer that question.
According to statistics gathered by the Pew Forum, Roman Catholics and Protestants in the U.S. account for more than 75% of our population. By the numbers, America is overwhelmingly Christian.
On the other hand, if one looks at our nation in terms of truly following Jesus Christ: loving neighbor, doing the right thing, ensuring dignity for all people, etc., the measurement is much harder to take. But what is certain is that the numbers aren’t so high.
So, is this a Christian nation? A third answer would begin with the intentions of our Founding Fathers, the men who gave our country its start.
I recently watched a new video series, now being shown to dozens of churches in the U.S., entitled, “The Silencing of God.” The subtitle reads, “The Dismantling of America’s Christian Heritage.” Among other things, I was told that people like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin fully intended to establish the United States of America as a decidedly Christian nation, and that the separation of church and state “is not a Constitutional concept.”
Of course, statements like these are part of a bigger picture, namely, the so-called “culture wars” raging in America. Evidently, one of the many armies in this war has decided to advance the notion that our government should not be religiously neutral. Instead, they say, it should be positively Christian.
But did the Founders themselves ever speak to this question? They did.
For example, when John Adams was serving as our second President, the U.S. made a treaty with the Muslim country of Tripoli (now Libya). Article 11 of that treaty includes these words: “the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Copies were distributed to the Legislature, and the treaty was read aloud on the floor of the U.S. Senate. In June of 1797, the Senate ratified the treaty by unanimous vote, and President Adams signed it into law.
In his book, Jews, Turks, and Infidels, historian Morton Borden writes, “What is significant about the Tripoli treaty is . . . its ready acceptance by the government. Not a word of protest was raised . . . Whatever their personal feelings on the question of religious equality for non-Christians in particular states, all concurred that Article 11 comported with the principles of the Constitution.”
Following its ratification, the text of the treaty appeared in several leading newspapers of the day. The public’s reaction was hardly a ripple. Why? Because the citizens of our new nation then understood something that threatens to become for us a forgotten truth: according to our Constitution, the United States of America was intended to be a federal republic where people can believe anything they like. Only the rule of law, rooted in self-evident morality, would be enforced. Religious beliefs, provided that they did not lead to the violation of law, could be advocated, criticized or ignored. Either way, all of them would be tolerated.
For example, in his Notes on the State of Virginia, written in the early 1780s, Thomas Jefferson includes a short chapter on “Religion.” Regarding various religious beliefs, Jefferson observes: “[I]t does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” One might think his neighbor’s religious ideas are nonsense. But what is the effect of attempting to coerce people to accept what you “know” is the truth? Said Jefferson, it makes “one half of the world fools, and other half hypocrites.”
Paradoxically, because the First Amendment to our Constitution prohibited the establishment of a national church, and any form of coercion, religion in the United States flourished. In those early years, devout Americans came to realize that they would have to do by persuasion what other countries had pretended to do by legislation.
And persuade they did. But not because they were somehow compelled by their Uncle Sam, but because they felt called by their Father God. As a result, the United States certainly is, in that sense, a Christian nation. In 1819, James Madison, commonly regarded as the father of the Constitution, observed that the religious devotion of the American people had been encouraged by what he called “the total separation of the church and state.”
I believe that when it comes to the political state and the church of God, Christians should remember what the Founding Fathers certainly knew: the first axiom of real religion is that it resonates in the heart. It cannot be coerced.
Furthermore, according to the Scriptures, the responsibility of training children does not belong to some “Christian nation” and its public schools commissioned to make all students sufficiently “religious” through state-mandated, teacher-led prayer and Bible reading. The responsibility for training children belongs to parents. To the Israelite nation, Moses said, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up” (Deuteronomy 6:6-7 NIV).
Paul wrote to Christians, “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4).
If the Bible provides for a partner in the training of children, that partner is the church which Paul referred to as “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).
At present, even in the midst of a real or imagined “godless assault,” Christians in the United States face much less hostility and oppression than did the earliest Christians. And yet, at least some of them went everywhere preaching the Word, serving others, setting an example, bringing up their children in the instruction that comes from heaven. Who would argue that under our present laws in these United States, Christians are not free to do the same?
God has not been silenced. In these last days, he speaks clearly “by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe” (Hebrews 1:2).
A few credits: In writing this post, I've been informed and inspired by Richard T. Hughes' book Myths Americans Live By (which was reviewed by my long-lost friend Joel M. Solliday over at Campus Crosswalk); and also by a fine article, Joel Barlow and the Treaty with Tripoli, by church-and-state journalist extraordinaire, Rob Boston.
According to statistics gathered by the Pew Forum, Roman Catholics and Protestants in the U.S. account for more than 75% of our population. By the numbers, America is overwhelmingly Christian.
On the other hand, if one looks at our nation in terms of truly following Jesus Christ: loving neighbor, doing the right thing, ensuring dignity for all people, etc., the measurement is much harder to take. But what is certain is that the numbers aren’t so high.
So, is this a Christian nation? A third answer would begin with the intentions of our Founding Fathers, the men who gave our country its start.
I recently watched a new video series, now being shown to dozens of churches in the U.S., entitled, “The Silencing of God.” The subtitle reads, “The Dismantling of America’s Christian Heritage.” Among other things, I was told that people like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin fully intended to establish the United States of America as a decidedly Christian nation, and that the separation of church and state “is not a Constitutional concept.”
Of course, statements like these are part of a bigger picture, namely, the so-called “culture wars” raging in America. Evidently, one of the many armies in this war has decided to advance the notion that our government should not be religiously neutral. Instead, they say, it should be positively Christian.
But did the Founders themselves ever speak to this question? They did.
For example, when John Adams was serving as our second President, the U.S. made a treaty with the Muslim country of Tripoli (now Libya). Article 11 of that treaty includes these words: “the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Copies were distributed to the Legislature, and the treaty was read aloud on the floor of the U.S. Senate. In June of 1797, the Senate ratified the treaty by unanimous vote, and President Adams signed it into law.
In his book, Jews, Turks, and Infidels, historian Morton Borden writes, “What is significant about the Tripoli treaty is . . . its ready acceptance by the government. Not a word of protest was raised . . . Whatever their personal feelings on the question of religious equality for non-Christians in particular states, all concurred that Article 11 comported with the principles of the Constitution.”
Following its ratification, the text of the treaty appeared in several leading newspapers of the day. The public’s reaction was hardly a ripple. Why? Because the citizens of our new nation then understood something that threatens to become for us a forgotten truth: according to our Constitution, the United States of America was intended to be a federal republic where people can believe anything they like. Only the rule of law, rooted in self-evident morality, would be enforced. Religious beliefs, provided that they did not lead to the violation of law, could be advocated, criticized or ignored. Either way, all of them would be tolerated.
For example, in his Notes on the State of Virginia, written in the early 1780s, Thomas Jefferson includes a short chapter on “Religion.” Regarding various religious beliefs, Jefferson observes: “[I]t does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” One might think his neighbor’s religious ideas are nonsense. But what is the effect of attempting to coerce people to accept what you “know” is the truth? Said Jefferson, it makes “one half of the world fools, and other half hypocrites.”
Paradoxically, because the First Amendment to our Constitution prohibited the establishment of a national church, and any form of coercion, religion in the United States flourished. In those early years, devout Americans came to realize that they would have to do by persuasion what other countries had pretended to do by legislation.
And persuade they did. But not because they were somehow compelled by their Uncle Sam, but because they felt called by their Father God. As a result, the United States certainly is, in that sense, a Christian nation. In 1819, James Madison, commonly regarded as the father of the Constitution, observed that the religious devotion of the American people had been encouraged by what he called “the total separation of the church and state.”
I believe that when it comes to the political state and the church of God, Christians should remember what the Founding Fathers certainly knew: the first axiom of real religion is that it resonates in the heart. It cannot be coerced.
Furthermore, according to the Scriptures, the responsibility of training children does not belong to some “Christian nation” and its public schools commissioned to make all students sufficiently “religious” through state-mandated, teacher-led prayer and Bible reading. The responsibility for training children belongs to parents. To the Israelite nation, Moses said, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up” (Deuteronomy 6:6-7 NIV).
Paul wrote to Christians, “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4).
If the Bible provides for a partner in the training of children, that partner is the church which Paul referred to as “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).
At present, even in the midst of a real or imagined “godless assault,” Christians in the United States face much less hostility and oppression than did the earliest Christians. And yet, at least some of them went everywhere preaching the Word, serving others, setting an example, bringing up their children in the instruction that comes from heaven. Who would argue that under our present laws in these United States, Christians are not free to do the same?
God has not been silenced. In these last days, he speaks clearly “by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe” (Hebrews 1:2).
A few credits: In writing this post, I've been informed and inspired by Richard T. Hughes' book Myths Americans Live By (which was reviewed by my long-lost friend Joel M. Solliday over at Campus Crosswalk); and also by a fine article, Joel Barlow and the Treaty with Tripoli, by church-and-state journalist extraordinaire, Rob Boston.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
A Trip to San Antonio
It was sunny and hot at the Alamo!
At the RiverwalkAs of last Saturday night, we're back in Amarillo.
On Tuesday morning last week, Benjamin, Abigail and I got in the Camry and traveled to San Antonio. Michele was already there, finishing up a two-day teacher's conference.
My kids are good travelers. We made good time on the road. But everyone was tired when we finally made it there and met up with Michele around 6:00 that evening. We all took a dip in the motel pool and had a 22-inch pizza delivered to the room.
Next morning, we decided that our choice for Wednesday was Sea World. We got passes and parking tickets online and took off. A couple things about Sea World.
First, like a lot of other first-class "adventure parks," this one is pricey. If you decide you want to go, buy your tickets and parking pass online and find every coupon and promotional break you can.
Second, we really liked the variety of Sea World. It has all kinds of shows and exhibits. But it also has a water park and lots of rides you'd expect to find at a regular amusement park. We were there for the entire ten hours and didn't come close to doing and seeing everything we wanted to.
Favorite sea-life attraction: Dolphin Cove, where you can get really close to dolphins, and maybe even pet one. The "Shamu Rocks Texas" show gets an honorable mention.
Favorite ride: the Steel Eel. It was fun getting to sit next to Abigail on her first serious roller coaster. But she nearly squeezed my arm off.
I guess it was the combination of water and sun and staying up a little too late on Tuesday night watching some of that marathon All-Star Game. It was nearly 10:00 when we woke up Thursday morning. I can't remember the last time I slept that late. The worst part was, we completely missed the complimentary breakfast! I could hear Gomer Pyle saying, "For shame, for shame, for shame!"
Anyway, Thursday was our "Alamo and River Walk Day." After a very late brunch, we ventured downtown. There's so much to do and see down by the river. In the afternoon, we stayed cool walking around in the Riverwalk Mall. Then, we decided to see the IMAX film about the Battle of the Alamo.
From there, we walked two blocks over to the Alamo itself and spent a good bit of time looking around inside and out. I understand Texas pride and the street names in Amarillo a little better now, although I still don't get all of the fanatical stuff. Texans are awfully proud of Texas, if you didn't know. That evening, we took in the Riverwalk and had supper at one of the many restaurants there.
Friday, the four of us traveled north from San Antonio to my folks' house in Altus, Oklahoma. Along highway 281 in Texas, I'd have to say that Marble Falls gets the nod for nicest looking town. I noticed that we'd eventually make it to Mineral Wells, Texas. I instantly recognized that name from my wonder years.
Back then, every summer my parents would take me and my sisters to Possum Kingdom Lake (called "PK" by folks in the region) near Mineral Wells. For a week or more, we'd sleep late in the morning, ski and swim during the day, and fish well into the night. Those were some of the best times I ever had.
I decided to take my wife and kids to see some of those places. It brought back so many memories, and I found myself wanting to renew the tradition there. Maybe next year, I'll be writing about our trip to P.K. We'll see.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Water Woes, Etc.
Rain! . . . Let's Keep It
Most sections of the Texas Panhandle have gotten a few inches of rain over the past two weeks. In some cases it's been the typical downpour accompanied by lots of wind. But we've also had some gentle overnight showers. The high plains are relatively green these days.
However, . . . Lake Meredith, a key source of Panhandle water, continues to sit at record-low levels. (The photo of a buoy where there used to be a lake is no gag). Given the circumstances, I'm amazed that some folks here in Amarillo continue to leave their lawn sprinklers set to run every day. That's not even an effective way to keep the lawn healthy. Every third day, in the early morning, is plenty. Because of the recent wet weather, I've watered maybe twice in the last three weeks.
And then there's the problem of over spray and run-off. You don't have to look around much in this city to see well-watered driveways and soaked sidewalks, with the excess running down the street. Most everyone here would agree that we have a problem. Few seem ready to acknowledge that they're a part of that problem. We can and must do better.
The Silencing of God: Part Deux
I don't plan to write about every segment of the "Silencing of God Seminar." I just don't want to. But here are a few responses based on notes taken during the second installment. Speaker Dave Miller begins with George Washington's farewell speech, delivered at the end of his second term as President. Several quotes from Washington are read, words to the effect that religion and morality are essential to the common good. So far, so good.
The speaker then says that, from his words, we must draw the conclusion that our first President rejected the idea of separation of church and state. (!) Here we have a completely unwarranted leap, a textbook example of non sequitur. "It does not follow." To say that a great nation must first be a moral nation is simply not an argument against what Thomas Jefferson called a Constitutional "wall of separation."
Something positive! I agree with Miller's assertion that you can't go just anywhere and, among any group of people, set up the institutions of an American-style federal republic and come out with the same results that we've seen in the U.S. Along this line, Miller's passing critique of the Bush Plan in Iraq is, in my opinion, spot on.
Back to the negative. It's a little irritating to see the way that other Protestants, and even Deists, are referred to as "Christian" when under different polemic circumstances representatives of the Churches of Christ have not acknowledged the Christian identity of these people. The subtitle of the "Seminar" is "The Dismantling of America's Christian Heritage." And the U.S. Founding Fathers are said to have established a Christian nation.
However, if any of the Founders had strapped himself into into ye olde time machine, set the dial to 2008, and flown forward in time, my guess is that very few promoters of the "Silencing of God Seminar" would extend to any of those men the right hand of fellowship. That is to say, none of the Founders would be considered true Christians. So tell me again how it is that non-Christians established a Christian nation. . . .
Video of Mark Henderson Interview
A few months ago, Frankly Speaking featured a few posts about the Quail Springs Church of Christ adopting instrumental music. Located in the Oklahoma City area, Quail Springs was formerly an a-cappella-only congregation. At the time, I didn't see a video of an interview featuring Mark Henderson, preacher at Quail Springs.
Most sections of the Texas Panhandle have gotten a few inches of rain over the past two weeks. In some cases it's been the typical downpour accompanied by lots of wind. But we've also had some gentle overnight showers. The high plains are relatively green these days.
However, . . . Lake Meredith, a key source of Panhandle water, continues to sit at record-low levels. (The photo of a buoy where there used to be a lake is no gag). Given the circumstances, I'm amazed that some folks here in Amarillo continue to leave their lawn sprinklers set to run every day. That's not even an effective way to keep the lawn healthy. Every third day, in the early morning, is plenty. Because of the recent wet weather, I've watered maybe twice in the last three weeks.
And then there's the problem of over spray and run-off. You don't have to look around much in this city to see well-watered driveways and soaked sidewalks, with the excess running down the street. Most everyone here would agree that we have a problem. Few seem ready to acknowledge that they're a part of that problem. We can and must do better.
The Silencing of God: Part Deux
I don't plan to write about every segment of the "Silencing of God Seminar." I just don't want to. But here are a few responses based on notes taken during the second installment. Speaker Dave Miller begins with George Washington's farewell speech, delivered at the end of his second term as President. Several quotes from Washington are read, words to the effect that religion and morality are essential to the common good. So far, so good.
The speaker then says that, from his words, we must draw the conclusion that our first President rejected the idea of separation of church and state. (!) Here we have a completely unwarranted leap, a textbook example of non sequitur. "It does not follow." To say that a great nation must first be a moral nation is simply not an argument against what Thomas Jefferson called a Constitutional "wall of separation."
Something positive! I agree with Miller's assertion that you can't go just anywhere and, among any group of people, set up the institutions of an American-style federal republic and come out with the same results that we've seen in the U.S. Along this line, Miller's passing critique of the Bush Plan in Iraq is, in my opinion, spot on.
Back to the negative. It's a little irritating to see the way that other Protestants, and even Deists, are referred to as "Christian" when under different polemic circumstances representatives of the Churches of Christ have not acknowledged the Christian identity of these people. The subtitle of the "Seminar" is "The Dismantling of America's Christian Heritage." And the U.S. Founding Fathers are said to have established a Christian nation.
However, if any of the Founders had strapped himself into into ye olde time machine, set the dial to 2008, and flown forward in time, my guess is that very few promoters of the "Silencing of God Seminar" would extend to any of those men the right hand of fellowship. That is to say, none of the Founders would be considered true Christians. So tell me again how it is that non-Christians established a Christian nation. . . .
Video of Mark Henderson Interview
A few months ago, Frankly Speaking featured a few posts about the Quail Springs Church of Christ adopting instrumental music. Located in the Oklahoma City area, Quail Springs was formerly an a-cappella-only congregation. At the time, I didn't see a video of an interview featuring Mark Henderson, preacher at Quail Springs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
