Today was academic convocation at Indiana Wesleyan and James Dobson spoke. He was initiated into the IWU World Changers Society and given a Doctor of Humane Letters, honoris causa.
Some students on campus had considered some sort of silent protest at his coming, something along the lines of "Dobson does not represent all Christians." But Dobson really didn't say much that was really protestable. It was a fine chapel talk.
If I were to sum up his talk, it was basically that people of college age today feel like they don't know what the real meaning of it all is. Dobson spoke of dead ends in the search for meaning--success, power, and money. He invoked things like evolution, relativism, and a lack of belief in absolute truth as a recipe for meaninglessness. In contrast, he spoke of some existential moments in his own life where he saw more clearly than ever what the real goal of life is. He summed it up as to "Be there" in heaven. Make sure that when the great reunion takes place in heaven, you are there. He punctuated these points with interesting stories.
Like I said, it would have made a good chapel. Is Dobson a world changer? Yes, I think he qualifies. Should we give him an honorary doctorate (16th, I think)? It seems fair enough that an institution like IWU would, since he does represent the values of the vast majority of the campus, its faculty, administration, and trustees.
So I have one basic criticism. He was not an appropriate speaker for an academic convocation. Why? Because his talk was neither profound nor academically inspiring.
What I would like to see in a speaker at an academic convocation is someone who says to me, "This is a place to learn." I recognize that, in ultimate terms, our eternal destiny trumps any earthly or intellectual concern. Saving souls is ultimately far more important than an education. But it is not the defining function of a university. By definition, education is the defining purpose of a university, and I suppose that means the defining purpose of a Christian university is to educate in a Christian way. Otherwise, we would just be another church.
I don't ask for much. I recognize that we are more about basic training here than about any real depth of scholarship. But it might be nice every once and a while to bring someone to campus who makes students think, "Wow, so that's what a scholar looks like." I'd like to have an intellectually stimulating speaker occasionally who would showplace academic excellence.
It wasn't today.
To illustrate, Dobson invoked the banal rhetoric of "relativism" today. What is relativism? Dobson says, "the idea that there are no rights and wrongs." Survey says, "wrong." That's moral nihilism. And of course he does the usual pop glide into the question of absolute truth. Sloppy again. You've moved from a matter of ethics to the field of epistemology.
Then let's talk about the fallacy of false alternative. Either you think it's okay to murder someone or you're a moral absolutist (the term he was looking for)? Frankly, most of the time the Bible takes a position I might call universal ethics with exceptional circumstances (although Paul is actually relativist on Sabbath observance). That's not relativism, even when it is correctly defined. And even Dobson is relativist on some matters. If he retains anything of his holiness background, then he believes in personal convictions. What are personal convictions? They are matters of personal relativism in which you believe God requires something of you that he doesn't require of others (like not wearing a wedding ring).
So what does the catch phrase "relativism" really mean in the Dobsonian language game? It alludes to a set of values that are a part of Dobson's Christian subculture. When the smoke clears, all he is basically saying is that it is wrong to take a relativist position on an issue he wants you to agree with him on. He doesn't care if you are a relativist when it comes to hair length on women. But he will call you a relativist if you say that in your family you think it's okay for the woman to be the leader on spiritual issues.
In short, it is a meaningless power word meant to dissuade you from disagreeing with his values without actually providing any evidence or substance that might actually convince you. It implies that God is against your values on an issue without providing any basis for it at all. It's like saying, "you can't hit me because I'm wearing glasses," but it's "you can't believe that because it's relativist." But since all Christians are relativist on some issues, the question is not whether Christians are ever relativist--it's on what issues are relativist and what are not.
Please, please bring someone sometime who is more than a high school thinker. Show me someone who makes me feel guilty for being a professor because I'm so stupid. I know about lots of them. I fear that the reason evangelicals are sometimes pegged as mediocre scholars is because, well, most of us are. I can be better than that. Anyone at IWU willing to move with me to the next level?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Ken, I think your post correctly identified a problem that runs much deeper than a mediocre convocation speaker. I think the underlying problem is IWU's ethos. Bringing in James Dobson to speak at the convocation warms the hearts of his listeners but also sets the academic bar extremly low. It is as if students are told, "College is just like youth camp expect you have to write a paper once in a while!" This was the case for me when I heard Frank Peretti speak at last year's convocation. I think convocations should involve people who have changed the world through scholarship and intellectual pursuits. These are the people who can set the tone for the rest of the year. Perhaps the problem lies with the Society's own criteria for being inducted into it. Or maybe they should make the induction ceremony a part of chapel instead of the convocation. But regardless of what criteria exists, until professors and administrators expect a higher standard of academics, resist the whinning of students who complain that the work load is too much, and REQUIRE projects and papers involving significant hours of library research, I don't see that happening. If IWU starts doing this, then perhaps it won't be long until they start inducting their own alumni into the Society.
I was worried that Dobson would use his time to equate Christianity with the Republican party so I was somewhat relieved when we got a nice Fairmount camp Sunday night young-basketball-player-keels-over-dead sermon.
Since I expected a one-sided political speech and got a sermon I was frankly relieved. However, if I had been expecting an address that would inspire us all to more study, motivate us to pursue the life of the mind in order to change the world, remind us that we are not here for youth camp but to learn and prepare, then I would have been disappointed. Perhaps the name of the event is wrong -- “Academic” convocation, maybe we should just let it be an “assembly” or a “Convocation.” Dressing up in robes and marching behind banners does not an academic convocation make.
Or maybe the problem is merging the world-changing bust with the event—we have a hard time understanding what scholarly world-changing is.
I suspect that Kevin is right—it may be an ethos thing. But perhaps is it who we are and who intend to be? Is last year’s speaker and this one not an accident—as in “Oh whoops, we meant him to be more scholarly.” Perhaps this is what we are and want to be as an institution. We’d like to be known for scholarly work but not if we have to change the campus ethos. According to last week’s newspaper the reason students and their parents pick IWU is—for the “buildings and spiritual atmosphere.” Apparently the “life of the mind” is not in the top two at least. We are more like Liberty, Cedarville and SWU than we are like Wheaton, Calvin and Houghton. We are a “materially progressive warm-hearted pietist training school for the professions with a highly relational and activist campus.” We are a seeker sensitive university. We are the church growth movement transported into a University. We’re practical. Growing. Booming! We get it done. We are busy. Frantic! We like quantity. More is better. We are the megachurch of the Christian universities. And I love it!
But like you, Ken, I’d like to have a speaker at an “academic” convocation who is academic. One who communicates the romance of study and learning, inspiring us all to move to a higher level of scholarship. I suspect I’ll have to wait yet another year. maybe longer. But it will come I believe. And maybe that will be a sign that we want to make at least a tiny shift in the ethos too.
Gentlemen
I understand what you are all saying and I agree. I was worring about the same things Dr. Drury was: expecting a Republican Convention speech and getting a crappy sermon.
Could you give an example of who a Christian academic speaker would be? Who is the kind of person that you would choose to have speak at an ACADEMIC convocation?
Additionally, do you think there is any way to figure out how much the school paid Dobson in speaker's fees for that terrible sermon?
WOW, DR. SCHENCK!!! I think I smiled/laughed/snickered through your entire post. :)
I know about 10% of all there is to know about Dobson speaking (not teaching?) at IWU and what went down...but...
I think KKW is on to something about the intellectual ethos being low...and spiritual vitality ethos being high. "He reads one book a year, but he's passionate for God!" I think Coach's comment - "this is who we are" - fits into this somewhere as well.
Perhaps the only problem IWU has is you. :) Maybe you need to take your intellectually stimulated desires to an East Coast school where you could sit in chapel and wish you could hear someone like Dobson again. :)
Seriously though - I really appreciate your BLOG and your BRAIN. The two of them are a lethal concoction for good.
Coach and Josh: I accept the emphasis of IWU and I'm not out to change it. I know some profs get a little nervous with all the talk of scholarship of late. I heard one recently vigorously emphasizing how low scholarship is a priority and the point was this was how it was supposed to be. I don't think that prof has anything to worry about, as if scholarship will take over at IWU and we will lose our spirit. My feeling is just that, surely at least someone could be doing some classic scholarship here?
Jake: For whatever reason, people like Nicholas Wolterstorf, Richard Hays, and N. T. Wright popped into my head, admittedly people from my general field. I wonder how an Alvin Plantinga would come across here or a Tom Morris (philosophers).
Most interesting, Ken and commenters. Thanks to all of you!
As for your list Dr. Schenck, here are a few problems:
Nicholas Wolterstorff- Got his undergrad from Calvin College...is he even orthodox?
Alvin Plantinga- Same problem
Richard Hays- Teaches at a liberal school.
N.T. Wright- Anglican? Does that mean we'll have to have use the Book of Common Prayer at the convo?
Judging by the flavor of the current inductees into the Society, it appears that one of the unspoken yet overhwelming criteria is to have a strong conservative evangelical bent. I'm not sure that could be said for all of the candidates (at least IWU's version of evangelicalism).
As for the prof who made the comment on scholarship being a low priority, I wonder if that will change with the influx of new teachers coming to IWU. It seems like the "young, fresh out of grad school" group might increase the level of research because that is what they're used to. Perhaps the idea of not having a "publish or perish" environment is hard to shake off. This might be good as well for older profs who have grown comfortable with not putting out any new research or work within the past five years. IWU can mentor students in a strong spiritual environment AND produce quality scholarship. Of course, the school will have to do something about teacher overloads but that's another story...
I am trying to think of names that seem to bridge the gap between academia (pure scholarship) and the local evangelical parishioner (pure practicality). Doing so I realize already that these "pure" connotations don't really exist so black and white. In fact, it's IWU's religion department that focuses on the whole "pastor-theologian" model. Here's a few names that popped into my mind in no particular order:
#1) Eugene Peterson
#2) Philip Yancey
#3) Brian McLaren (seeing him next saturday)
#4) Robert E. Coleman (the "master planner" himself)
#5) Dr. John Oswalt (WBS)
#6) Dr. Jerry Walls (Asbury Arminian)
#7) Lauren F. Winner (Girl Meets God)
I like Mike's suggestions as well as Dr. Schencks. N.T. Wright or Plantinga would absolutely thrill me, as would Owswalt or Walls. I guess I feel like Dobson did an ok job. He didn't say anything that I hadn't heard, nor that I couldn't say and I feel like the only reason it was so well recieved was this "perceived credibility". What he said has more weight cause he said it.
I feel like that has been the goal of the last few people Impress us with "who" they are as opposed to anything they are going to say.
Ken, I tend to agree with your thoughts on the matter. I suppose you have to take your pick among evangelicals to present at this kinda function. You've got some pure thinkers like Plantiga, who might be a little to heady, Ok a lot heady, for most of the student body. You've got evangelical activists like Dobson and you've got spiritual leaders/evangelists like Ravi Zacharius. Personally, I think somebody like Dallas Willard would have been a good balance. Is there a planning commitee you can get on for next year?? :)
Dr. Schenck, I always appreciated the universities attempts to integrate faith and learning. It was one of the things that attracted me to the university five years ago when I started, but as the years passed I became frustraited with the consept. I felt that some topics where over emphesized becauase the fit better with the construct while others where passed over because they didn't fit as well or becasue the particualar prof was unable to make them fit. To be honest some of my favorite classes where those where the prof let the chips fall where they may. If all knowledge originates from God, then we shouldn't have a problem, right? As Evengelical we do fall short when it comes to scholarship, and while I would like to see the focus of the university change to accommodate that, I don't forsee that change happening in the near future. Something that Choach said caught my eye as well. I've never thought of the university as a seeker sensitive instituion. If it is such an instituion that I believe we shouldn't be so careless with the number of students we bring in during the year. In reading another friend blog, he commented on how much things have changed as the number of students have grown. Not simple space and buiding wise, but also spiritually and culturally. There needs to be a balance between those who are seeking and those who have found and want to grow. The faculty do a wonderful job in with emphisizing the spirituality of the classroom, but in at the end of the day you go home. If the balance isn't maintained within the student body, no amount of chaple, convocation, or classroom devotions will rectify it. I don't know how to help this stituation. For the last three years I tried my best in the groups and activities that I was in to keep a spiritual emphesis, but really to no avail. I am convinced that there is a way to combine scholastics and spirituality. But for that answer I'll bow to both your learning and that of the other faculty.
Hmmm... how does this grand Christian academic community come into being? Do you focus primarily on professors, students, or give both equal weight? Knowing more about students, let me say just a few words and make some generalizations:
Most students aren't here at IWU to study. Let's be honest. The prime activities are: having a good time, res life games, concerts and parties, video games, dating / marrying, drinking coffee (or other "beverages of choice"), and watching movies. Studying is done only to fulfill a minimum requirement and to provide an excuse to linger in such a great, care-free environment. This is a summary of our campus. I would say I study more than the average student, but 1) that's not saying much (mostly I do the minimal work anyway) and 2) I'm a bit of a perfectionist.
Lots of people (lots of students) are fine with this. I'm a little disturbed, but not too much. But if we are to become a "Christ-centered ACADEMIC community", what needs to change, and where does the change being, and... oooooh. I have a feeling if anything is going to change, feathers will definately be ruffled.
To Coach, Dr. Schenck, and Kevin: thanks for your insight. My words are humbled and brought low by your eloquence.
Hey Ken, sorry I wasn’t aware until now that you had shared your thoughts on the academic convocation. As you know, I agree with everything that you said; though I remain less convinced regarding Dobson’s credentials as a “world changer.” He has provided sage, proven advice on raising children that has benefited numerous Christians, but in recent years, his role in the “culture wars” has served to create more heat than light. He is great at mobilizing evangelicals behind a political or social cause, great at reinforcing overly black-and-white opinions on complex issues, but not so great at helping Christians (or non-Christians) think more deeply about how the truth of the gospel relates to the difficult, gray areas of everyday life.
It depends, of course, on how one defines “world changer.” For an institution supposedly pre-occupied with developing world changers, we have spent remarkably little time (as far as I know) thinking about and discussing what the ideal world changer looks like. Until such time, we cannot possibly judge whether are efforts to develop world-changing graduates are proving successful or test the merit of an inductee into the Society of World Changers against a thoughtful set of criteria.
As for the ethos of intellectual mediocrity at IWU, perhaps I am too idealistic, but I refuse to accept it. I believe it is a matter of gospel integrity. I think it is bordering on heresy to perpetuate the mindset that we should love God with all our heart and all our soul; oh, and by the way, if you happened to have time, or if you need to maintain your academic scholarship, than you might also think about loving God with your mind.
We pursue the life of the mind, we engage in scholarship, we strive to think new thoughts and gain new insights because we want to become better lovers of God. And fulfilling our mission as a “Christ-centered academic community” means (as Briner states in Roaring Lambs) that “students need to hold to rigorous standards of scholarship, with learning taking precedence over ministry” (157). I find it ironic that although Briner’s book is a major touchstone for our institutional mission, his devastating critique of the “underachieving” “youth camps” that we call Christian colleges has yet to resonate here.
David Riggs
Post a Comment