Francis Chan

[Benjamin Burch]

It may not prove my point which was that the academic prowess of CS Lewis should be unquestioned among academics, modern or otherwise.

Academics as a generalist in his time? Absolutely not.

As a specialist in today's time? He doesn't make the grade.

As a Biblical Scholar in today's time? He's a laymen.

[Dan Henderson]

Academics as a generalist in his time? Absolutely not.

As a specialist in today's time? He doesn't make the grade.

As a Biblical Scholar in today's time? He's a laymen.

He would probably agree with you, but I don't.

[Dan Henderson]

Here is my attempt at a Chesterson-like comment:

As a generalist, I can speak with ignorance on a great many subjects while a specialist is a dunce in one.

[Benjamin Burch]

Academics as a generalist in his time? Absolutely not.

As a specialist in today's time? He doesn't make the grade.

As a Biblical Scholar in today's time? He's a laymen.

Just so I'm clear, the first one should indicate that I think he was a top-notch general scholar of his time.

I should also say that The Great Divorce was one of the most important texts for me in my early theological formation.

As Dr. John W. Wright often says, you do not need to be a Biblical Scholar to read the Bible well.

[Benjamin Burch]

It may not prove my point which was that the academic prowess of CS Lewis should be unquestioned among academics, modern or otherwise.

FWIW - Doctor of Divinity is the highest ranking Oxford degree, Doctor of Letters is pretty high. A US D.D. is generally honorary and though, I'm sure deserved, does not carry the clout of any earned doctorate and has no relationship to a D.D. from Oxford.

I am not even sure one can earn a D.D. in the UK any longer. I could be wrong, but last I'd researched, this was an "honorary" degree everywhere.

[Hans Deventer]

Now I may be totally mistaken, but I thought that Lewis, like Tolkien, was a linguist. And remember having read he specialized in medieval literature, and lectured in that area.

[Jim Chabot]

The highest level of PhD, they are rank ordered is the PhD that does not contain didactics. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that a 1st professional degree from any US University is even remotely comparable to any Oxford PhD from anytime in the 1900s.

Absolutely right! Education is nothing like it was back then. Just look around and notice that almost every school teacher holds a Masters Degree as do most police officers. Advanced degrees are most assuredly not what they used to be. They can't be, pretty much everyone has one.

But you have surely stumbled onto something here. Ben evaluates scholars on the basis of his agreement with them, combined with what his professors have said about them.

Questioning Lewis academic prowess is truly a fools errand.

[Todd Erickson]

The theological landscape has changed wildly in the time since Lewis. There are whole schools of thought and tools of use that he would have to go re-educate himself in, and to some degree, it might not be worth his while.

I'm honestly not sure that the "job" people want Lewis to have this discussion is one he would have claimed for himself.

[Benjamin Burch]

But you have surely stumbled onto something here. Ben evaluates scholars on the basis of his agreement with them, combined with what his professors have said about them.

I know that you think this is true both about myself and about education, but it simply isn't. I have tons of respect and think plenty of scholars are reputable with whom I disagree, even some whom I don't think are correct at all. Why, just a while back I was blasted by Manny and Tim for saying that Marcus Borg is a top-notch scholar, even though I disagree with him on the majority of his Jesus scholarship.

Also, at this point in one's academic career, professors do not tell students who are good scholars by their opinion and who are not. They assign books to be read and ask students to form critical opinions of those books. Your statement is simply false all the way around.

I just don't know where this idea comes from that professors teach students to agree with them, or what to think.

Questioning Lewis academic prowess is truly a fools errand.

I don't know of anyone who was questioning Lewis' academic prowess. Instead, I've suggested that, as one who didn't even specialize in Scripture in his own time, the sea of Biblical scholarship has moved so very far since the 1920's that Lewis would be a layman in the field.

[Ryan Scott]

I just don't know where this idea comes from that professors teach students to agree with them, or what to think.

I'm not sure either, but it's incredibly insulting. I was told just a few weeks ago that literally all my opinions have been formed by professors who told me what to think (and was told this by someone with the same exact degrees I have from the same institutions).

Now, beyond the general problem with that statement (basically anyone who is out to form students in a specific mold has no business teaching anywhere) - anyone who knows me personally, knows I'm about the most contrarian person on the planet. Half the words out of my mouth are either "why" or "yeah, but..." The idea that I would just accept what people tell me is laughable.

[Jim Chabot]

I just don't know where this idea comes from that professors teach students to agree with them, or what to think.

Yeah you are right, it just happens and no one knows how or why.

It's a combination of peer pressure and the double academic standard that one must keep up with if they find the professors to be wrong headed. One must agree with the professors mind set in order to get good grades, even if you have to fake it. Question becomes how long you can fake it before you succumb. And I think they call that Stockholm Syndrome.

I was very fortunate in my college experience. I didn't need their degree nor their grades. So I never held back when I had a philosophical disagreement with a professor. Most students don't have that freedom, and most are honest enough to admit that Universities are not the bastions of free thought that they claim to be.

I don't know of anyone who was questioning Lewis' academic prowess. Instead, I've suggested that, as one who didn't even specialize in Scripture in his own time, the sea of Biblical scholarship has moved so very far since the 1920's that Lewis would be a layman in the field.

The question of course in which direction has it moved. While I can see some forward progress, there has surely been a lot of movement off to the side. To consider Lewis as a layman in the field is simply arrogant, the fact that he would probably agree not withstanding.

[Benjamin Burch]

Yeah you are right, it just happens and no one knows how or why.

What "just happens"? I could point you to plenty of instances of PhD students not agreeing with the professor with which they studied. Off the top of my head, Dr. Simon Gathercole comes to mine who wrote his dissertation refuting the New Perspective on Paul, and wrote it under the direct supervision of James Dunn.

It's a combination of peer pressure and the double academic standard that one must keep up with if they find the professors to be wrong headed. One must agree with the professors mind set in order to get good grades, even if you have to fake it. Question becomes how long you can fake it before you succumb. And I think they call that Stockholm Syndrome.

I'm sorry that you think so low of our Nazarene professors and institutions, Jim. Once more, though, you simply couldn't be further from the truth. I don't know where your disdain for higher education came from, but you're very far off the mark.

I didn't have to fake anything to get good grades. Nor did anyone that I know of. I wasn't taught what I was supposed to think. Again, I know you think this is how it works, but the world you describe I can only call a fantasy.

I was very fortunate in my college experience. I didn't need their degree nor their grades. So I never held back when I had a philosophical disagreement with a professor. Most students don't have that freedom, and most are honest enough to admit that Universities are not the bastions of free thought that they claim to be.

.
Again, I'm not sure which schools you are talking about. This doesn't touch down on the ground as realistic in any experience of mine.

The question of course in which direction has it moved. While I can see some forward progress, there has surely been a lot of movement off to the side. To consider Lewis as a layman in the field is simply arrogant, the fact that he would probably agree not withstanding.

Goodness gracious, Jim. Can you stop? Thanks. It isn't arrogant in the least. The fact is that since 1950 we have since found the Dead Sea Scrolls and uncovered tons of archaeological evidence which has changed the field indefinitely. Lewis would have to start all over again. It's just reality. It isn't arrogant at all.

The man was obviously mentally capable of doing so, but he'd have to go to school all over again. It isn't arrogant. Not one bit.

[Paul DeBaufer]

It is not the role of higher education to teach one what to think, but rather HOW to think. Critical analysis, no matter the discipline, is always the goal, not agreement with the professors opinions. There were times I vehemently disagreed with my adviser's opinions. Some of these disagreements he eventually came 'round. His role was to teach me experimentation and analysis and was quite okay if I came to different conclusions than he did. Maybe I went to an exceptional school in that none of the professors (from assistant to full) ever looked for agreement with opinions or conclusions.

Edited to add: Now the TAs could get a little insistent on their opinions, but that's the arrogance of ignorance

[Cam Pence]

Yeah you are right, it just happens and no one knows how or why.

It's a combination of peer pressure and the double academic standard that one must keep up with if they find the professors to be wrong headed. One must agree with the professors mind set in order to get good grades, even if you have to fake it. Question becomes how long you can fake it before you succumb. And I think they call that Stockholm Syndrome.

I was very fortunate in my college experience. I didn't need their degree nor their grades. So I never held back when I had a philosophical disagreement with a professor. Most students don't have that freedom, and most are honest enough to admit that Universities are not the bastions of free thought that they claim to be.



The question of course in which direction has it moved. While I can see some forward progress, there has surely been a lot of movement off to the side. To consider Lewis as a layman in the field is simply arrogant, the fact that he would probably agree not withstanding.

I would have to disagree here Jim. I am a student at NTS right now and can say that none of the professors I have have made my grades dependent on agreeing or disagreeing with them. The name of the game is critial thinking. I can attest the same thing for my time at Olivet. In fact in my laziness as a college student, I often tried to get my professors to tell me what they wanted to hear, and fortunately, they would not. I did however attended a fundamentalist Baptist school for a year and can tell you that this was the case, for the most part, there. In my personal experience there, I had professors that wanted you to fit their theological mold and not even think about looking else where or analyzing anything contrary. I agree with you, that is dangerous and I had many students in my class who had succumbed to the "Stockholm Syndrom" you speak about. What baffles me is that most of the time I hear concerns such as yours, it is only leveled at a progressive lack of critical analysis, but never an ultra conservative lack of critical analysis. I agree with you that when professors displayed behavior which dictates students grades by agreement or disagreement, that is detrimental to learning to think critically. I just don't think it should be seen as somehow, less severe, when it comes to not thinking critically about 6 day creation vs.,say, open theology (for example). Sorry went off on a bit of a tangent there, but all this to say that in my experience with our Nazarene educational institutions, this has certainly not been the case. If it was the case for you, then I am truly sorry.

[Jim Chabot]

Again, I'm not sure which schools you are talking about. This doesn't touch down on the ground as realistic in any experience of mine.

Just an observation, not a big deal. Surely you have a right to your opinion.

Goodness gracious, Jim. Can you stop? Thanks. It isn't arrogant in the least. The fact is that since 1950 we have since found the Dead Sea Scrolls and uncovered tons of archaeological evidence which has changed the field indefinitely. Lewis would have to start all over again. It's just reality. It isn't arrogant at all.

The man was obviously mentally capable of doing so, but he'd have to go to school all over again. It isn't arrogant. Not one bit.

Lewis would have to go to school all over again? To be taught by whom? Come on Ben, this is laughable, and it proves my assertion of arrogance. Are you saying that Lewis would lack the capacity to keep up without further schooling? You seem to be equating schooling with learning, I can assure you that you are quite mistaken.

[Jon Bemis]

I'm not sure either, but it's incredibly insulting. I was told just a few weeks ago that literally all my opinions have been formed by professors who told me what to think (and was told this by someone with the same exact degrees I have from the same institutions).

You must have disagreed with that person, who obviously thinks that to be scholarly means you need to think like them.

[Benjamin Burch]

Just an observation, not a big deal. Surely you have a right to your opinion.

It seems to be quite a lot more than "just an observation." You have held a disdain for higher education since I joined this site, and have been vocal about it for the entire 3 years now.

This seems to be a programatic belief about higher education for you.

Lewis would have to go to school all over again? To be taught by whom? Come on Ben, this is laughable, and it proves my assertion of arrogance. Are you saying that Lewis would lack the capacity to keep up without further schooling? You seem to be equating schooling with learning, I can assure you that you are quite mistaken.

(1) No, it says nothing of arrogance.
(2) This betrays a certain idea on your part, that no one else out there is smart enough to teach Lewis.
(3) I'm not saying he couldn't keep up without further schooling. What I am saying is that he'd have to learn it all. Whether he went to school for it or took the years to learn himself, he'd be starting at ground zero. The field has changed that much. He'd be a layman.

It seems you desperately want me to be saying something I'm not saying. I'm sorry to disappoint.

[Jim Chabot]

If it was the case for you, then I am truly sorry.

No need to be sorry, I got what I needed out of the experience and I'm happy for that. The way I see it I got an incredible discount both in dollars and in time. Depending upon the application, school is really only for those unable to learn on their own.

[Benjamin Burch]

I would have to disagree here Jim. I am a student at NTS right now and can say that none of the professors I have have made my grades dependent on agreeing or disagreeing with them. The name of the game is critial thinking. I can attest the same thing for my time at Olivet. In fact in my laziness as a college student, I often tried to get my professors to tell me what they wanted to hear, and fortunately, they would not. I did however attended a fundamentalist Baptist school for a year and can tell you that this was the case, for the most part, there. In my personal experience there, I had professors that wanted you to fit their theological mold and not even think about looking else where or analyzing anything contrary. I agree with you, that is dangerous and I had many students in my class who had succumbed to the "Stockholm Syndrom" you speak about. What baffles me is that most of the time I hear concerns such as yours, it is only leveled at a progressive lack of critical analysis, but never an ultra conservative lack of critical analysis. I agree with you that when professors displayed behavior which dictates students grades by agreement or disagreement, that is detrimental to learning to think critically. I just don't think it should be seen as somehow, less severe, when it comes to not thinking critically about 6 day creation vs.,say, open theology (for example). Sorry went off on a bit of a tangent there, but all this to say that in my experience with our Nazarene educational institutions, this has certainly not been the case. If it was the case for you, then I am truly sorry.

For those who push the idea Jim are pushing, "free thinking" is only possible when one arrives at the positions of 6 day creationism, etc. Anything else is just agreement with liberal professors.

[Hans Deventer]

The question of course in which direction has it moved. While I can see some forward progress, there has surely been a lot of movement off to the side. To consider Lewis as a layman in the field is simply arrogant, the fact that he would probably agree not withstanding.

Lewis had a doctorate in theology? This is new. For all I know, he was, when it comes to theology, mostly self educated. Not in his own field of linguistics, obviously. he certainly earned his title there.

[Billy Cox]

He has a far stronger doctrine and emphasis on the Holy Spirit.

Historically speaking, that should put him in conflict wit just about every religious organization in existence.

[Benjamin Burch]

Lewis had a doctorate in theology? This is new. For all I know, he was, when it comes to theology, mostly self educated. Not in his own field of linguistics, obviously. he certainly earned his title there.

One needs only to read his work to realize that Lewis falls into the category of what I have said before:

One does not need to be a Biblical scholar to read the Bible well. However, reading something like Mere Christianity shows that, on the whole, Lewis was clearly not a theologian, and wouldn't be the most helpful source for theology or apologetics today.

[Benjamin Burch]

Historically speaking, that should put him in conflict wit just about every religious organization in existence.

What do you mean?

[Hans Deventer]

No need to be sorry, I got what I needed out of the experience and I'm happy for that. The way I see it I got an incredible discount both in dollars and in time. Depending upon the application, school is really only for those unable to learn on their own.

The problem seems to be that you think that your own experience applies everywhere. That makes no sense, Jim. I recall Ben telling me (he can correct me if I got the details wrong) that there recently was a student who wrote a defence of Calvinism at Point Loma. Still got a good grade because it was a good defence.

[Benjamin Burch]

The problem seems to be that you think that your own experience applies everywhere. That makes no sense, Jim. I recall Ben telling me (he can correct me if I got the details wrong) that there recently was a student who wrote a defence of Calvinism at Point Loma. Still got a good grade because it was a good defence.

Peter Sammons, Olivet Nazarene University, May 2007. For Carl Leth's Christian Theology II. I still have my paper for that class, somewhere. Oh, if I could re-write that now. lol!!!! I'm scared to read it!

[Paul DeBaufer]

While still a neo-atheist someone gave me Mere Christianity, it was okay. I honestly do not understand the high praise it gets. Oh yeah, it gets that praise from those who started off agreeing with the premise, those of the faith. Could it be it is thought so good because it confirms your beliefs? As far as I can see that's all apologetics is about and for anyway. No apologist, no work of apologetics moved me from unbelief to belief. Some, like Mere Christianity were interesting reads, most weren't.

[Todd Erickson]

I'm not sure either, but it's incredibly insulting. I was told just a few weeks ago that literally all my opinions have been formed by professors who told me what to think (and was told this by someone with the same exact degrees I have from the same institutions).

Now, beyond the general problem with that statement (basically anyone who is out to form students in a specific mold has no business teaching anywhere) - anyone who knows me personally, knows I'm about the most contrarian person on the planet. Half the words out of my mouth are either "why" or "yeah, but..." The idea that I would just accept what people tell me is laughable.

Actually, that's precisely what most of our public schools are now for. They teach them content so that they can pass benchmark tests. You probably mean "higher learning" facilities like colleges.

[Benjamin Burch]

While still a neo-atheist someone gave me Mere Christianity, it was okay. I honestly do not understand the high praise it gets. Oh yeah, it gets that praise from those who started off agreeing with the premise, those of the faith. Could it be it is thought so good because it confirms your beliefs? As far as I can see that's all apologetics is about and for anyway. No apologist, no work of apologetics moved me from unbelief to belief. Some, like Mere Christianity were interesting reads, most weren't.

Apologetics misses this point right here:

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.’
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.

There is no such thing as arguing someone to faith. As we proclaim in the Liturgy, "the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ has risen, and Christ shall come again."

The Orthodox Church calls the sacraments "Holy Mysteries."

One will never be able to make faith in Christ "rational." It is inherently irrational. Love your enemy? Take up your cross? Die, rather than kill? No, this is not a religion of rationalism. This is a religion of reckless faithfulness.

The Church's apologetics is our mission. We feed the poor. We cloth the naked. We watch after the widow and the orphan. We love our neighbors. We love our enemies. We proclaim peace while making it a reality. We are made peace through the sacraments. I believe it is only through one's encounter with this - the presence of the risen Christ, made present by the Church - can one come to faith.

Apologetics are cheap and worthless.

[Hans Deventer]

Peter Sammons, Olivet Nazarene University, May 2007. For Carl Leth's Christian Theology II. I still have my paper for that class, somewhere. Oh, if I could re-write that now. lol!!!! I'm scared to read it!

Oh dear, my memory...........

[Billy Cox]

What do you mean?

By nature, organizations operate by establishing bylaws, rules, structures, mechanisms of control, core principles and hierarchy. That's neither good nor bad, but is simply the nature of organization. The Holy Spirit does not speak to organizations, but to individuals, so even a "Spirit-led organization" collectively acknowledging the Spirit's direction is still one step removed from the Spirit's leading. The best they can hope for is a high level of consensus as to what the Spirit's leading is.

If a religious organization survives long enough, they will encounter a situation in which a substantial minority of the group testifies to a word from the Spirit that is at odds with the testimony of the majority. At this point, the majority rules. Organizationally speaking, that is perfectly normal, but I wonder whether the Spirit is willing to defer to our parliamentary procedures.

[Hans Deventer]

There is no such thing as arguing someone to faith.

Well, my memory my be failing me again but I do remember that this was exactly what happened to Lewis. And Tolkien was quite instrumental in this. Now I'm more than ready to grant you that it doesn't happen often. In fact, I think it is rare. But for Lewis, the road from atheism to Christianity was a pretty rational one.

[Benjamin Burch]

Oh dear, my memory...........

Dates, names, and institutions were hardly important. I bet all I ever said was "when I was at Olivet, someone...." From there, you remembered all that was actually important, and you articulated it perfectly fine! Your brain (rightly) saw no need to remember that it was at Olivet. That was insignificant to the point.

[Dan Henderson]

Now I may be totally mistaken, but I thought that Lewis, like Tolkien, was a linguist. And remember having read he specialized in medieval literature, and lectured in that area.

Compare Lewis' Credentials to that of Brian McClaren. On my initial look, it apared to me that McClaren modeled his academic career on Lewis. Comments that you would make about Lewis would also need toapply to McClaren. With Lewis, I mostly agree, with McClaren, mostly not.

[Jim Chabot]

It seems to be quite a lot more than "just an observation." You have held a disdain for higher education since I joined this site, and have been vocal about it for the entire 3 years now.

This seems to be a programatic belief about higher education for you.

Three years! My time flies. I don't have a disdain for higher education, I just see it for what it's worth. Am I really that vocal about it, or do I just irritate you, cause in reality I don't get exercised about it. I will admit to taking guilty pleasure exercising folks who seem to worship the experience making it the end all.

Now I suppose if someone has an inflated view of higher education, then it would look like disdain. Hey I even threw a hundred grand or so at a school for my oldest son, because I thought that it would help him and it has. I'll be willing to do the same for my younger boy as well. At the same time, I'm not a fool, there must be an adequate return on investment.

http://news.yahoo.com/1-2-graduates-...140300522.html

Check out the genius with the creative writing degree who is making just over the minimum wage. And he's thinking that graduate school is the answer? As a dog returns to it's vomit.

Cal it disdain if you want.

(1) No, it says nothing of arrogance.

Yep, textbook example. You make presumptuous claims while assuming that you have the knowledge to make them.

(2) This betrays a certain idea on your part, that no one else out there is smart enough to teach Lewis.

Au contraire. I have no idea where you would have gotten that idea. My thoughts are of need, you cannot demonstrate an need, perceived or otherwise. While there may be folks who could teach Billy Graham or Rick Warren, I don't think that either one needs to return to seminary. Unless they were invited to lecture.

(3) I'm not saying he couldn't keep up without further schooling. What I am saying is that he'd have to learn it all.

Your missing something rather important here. When you are actively involved in a field you tend to keep up without even realizing it. Sometimes when you look back you can be amazed at how you survived having so little knowledge back then. But then you have no idea where the increase came from.

I wonder when was the last time that Donald Trump took a real estate class? He seems to keep up rather well.

Whether he went to school for it or took the years to learn himself, he'd be starting at ground zero. The field has changed that much. He'd be a layman.

Your making the assumption that he would have been recently resurrected? Cause my starting point would have been that he just hadn't died yet. It's not normal for someone to come back from the dead you know.

It seems you desperately want me to be saying something I'm not saying. I'm sorry to disappoint.

No disappointment at all. No need to apologize.

[Benjamin Burch]

By nature, organizations operate by establishing bylaws, rules, structures, mechanisms of control, core principles and hierarchy. That's neither good nor bad, but is simply the nature of organization. The Holy Spirit does not speak to organizations, but to individuals, so even a "Spirit-led organization" collectively acknowledging the Spirit's direction is still one step removed from the Spirit's leading. The best they can hope for is a high level of consensus as to what the Spirit's leading is.

If a religious organization survives long enough, they will encounter a situation in which a substantial minority of the group testifies to a word from the Spirit that is at odds with the testimony of the majority. At this point, the majority rules. Organizationally speaking, that is perfectly normal, but I wonder whether the Spirit is willing to defer to our parliamentary procedures.

You seem to be articulating the difficulty of being the Church together.

Most of the time, the need for some level of consensus is important, because it protects the group from the individual and their individualistic interpretation.
However, sometimes, a by-product can be that the group is held back from following the Spirit's leading.

Essentially, progress is slow, but there is protection from freaks.

AKA, the CotN might not ordain homosexuals for 15 more years, but we don't have to worry about the CNs winning any battles soon. (being facetious!!!!)

In larger institutions, these effects are magnified. The RCC still doesn't ordain women, but they've had nowhere near the amount of division and strife Protestants have had in such a short history.

[Billy Cox]

While still a neo-atheist someone gave me Mere Christianity, it was okay. I honestly do not understand the high praise it gets. Oh yeah, it gets that praise from those who started off agreeing with the premise, those of the faith. Could it be it is thought so good because it confirms your beliefs? As far as I can see that's all apologetics is about and for anyway. No apologist, no work of apologetics moved me from unbelief to belief. Some, like Mere Christianity were interesting reads, most weren't.

In my view, apologetics is not about moving people from unbelief to belief, but is about shoring up those who might be vulnerable to being talked into a different way of believing/acting. It's customer retention.

[Ryan Scott]

Compare Lewis' Credentials to that of Brian McClaren. On my initial look, it apared to me that McClaren modeled his academic career on Lewis. Comments that you would make about Lewis would also need toapply to McClaren. With Lewis, I mostly agree, with McClaren, mostly not.

Absolutely. Lewis' credentials are much better. I believe McLaren's advanced degree is a Master's in English from a middling US institution. Overall, Lewis' credentials are better - when it comes to theology they're pretty even - although Lewis tends to be a bit more humble when talking theology. Maybe its a sign of the times?

[Jim Chabot]

The problem seems to be that you think that your own experience applies everywhere. That makes no sense, Jim. I recall Ben telling me (he can correct me if I got the details wrong) that there recently was a student who wrote a defence of Calvinism at Point Loma. Still got a good grade because it was a good defence.

Actually a pretty simple and pretty universal observation. Folks who cannot learn on their own need to invest in education. Not so difficult of a concept.

I do also realize that there are other reasons for an education, such as meeting minimum requirements for employment, but this is outside of the purpose of education. More of a glass ceiling sort of thing.

But the thrust of my response is still in the direction of Ben's arrogant comments toward Lewis.

[Jim Chabot]

Well, my memory my be failing me again but I do remember that this was exactly what happened to Lewis. And Tolkien was quite instrumental in this. Now I'm more than ready to grant you that it doesn't happen often. In fact, I think it is rare. But for Lewis, the road from atheism to Christianity was a pretty rational one.

Absolutely!! I myself was argued to the faith. I don't believe for a minute that I would have come to faith by any other way.

[Benjamin Burch]

Three years! My time flies. I don't have a disdain for higher education, I just see it for what it's worth. Am I really that vocal about it, or do I just irritate you, cause in reality I don't get exercised about it. I will admit to taking guilty pleasure exercising folks who seem to worship the experience making it the end all.

Now I suppose if someone has an inflated view of higher education, then it would look like disdain. Hey I even threw a hundred grand or so at a school for my oldest son, because I thought that it would help him and it has. I'll be willing to do the same for my younger boy as well. At the same time, I'm not a fool, there must be an adequate return on investment.

http://news.yahoo.com/1-2-graduates-...140300522.html

Check out the genius with the creative writing degree who is making just over the minimum wage. And he's thinking that graduate school is the answer? As a dog returns to it's vomit.

Cal it disdain if you want.

You're right. Not all higher education. Just theological. I should have been more specific, so as to be accurate.

Yep, textbook example. You make presumptuous claims while assuming that you have the knowledge to make them.

Whatever, Jim.

Au contraire. I have no idea where you would have gotten that idea. My thoughts are of need, you cannot demonstrate an need, perceived or otherwise. While there may be folks who could teach Billy Graham or Rick Warren, I don't think that either one needs to return to seminary. Unless they were invited to lecture.



Your missing something rather important here. When you are actively involved in a field you tend to keep up without even realizing it. Sometimes when you look back you can be amazed at how you survived having so little knowledge back then. But then you have no idea where the increase came from.

I wonder when was the last time that Donald Trump took a real estate class? He seems to keep up rather well.



Your making the assumption that he would have been recently resurrected? Cause my starting point would have been that he just hadn't died yet. It's not normal for someone to come back from the dead you know.

We were never talking about a hypothetical Lewis who had continued to live for the last 34 years and learn along the way. We were talking about Lewis qua Lewis, the man who lived when he lived, with the knowledge and scholarship he had.

The learning he had, and the scholarship he had in terms of Biblical studies as someone who didn't major in the field, and was never a serious student of the field, who barely lived through the seismic shifts in the field, would be a layman by today's standards.

Thus, "your starting point" seems totally at odds with the conversation actually being had.