Interesting. "The case for Christian Schools" seemed ready to set up a divide between schools run by the church, and schools that teach Christianity ("Bible Schools" in US parlance). But the problem being addressed soon slid into the metaphysical philosophical quandry over what is reality, and what is good. For some reason, I set those problems outside schools run by churches and schools that focus on Christianity.
"Everything which cannot be empirically verified is just a matter of opinion", "just being true to oneself", and a deep antipathy toward anyone claiming to have or know any "truth" that is beyond opinion are all luxuries of thought, not seen in much of history, and not entertained even today in the nations being stressed by war, famine, flood and bad governments. It is difficult to devise a rebuttal in the heat of the moment, when it's an unexpected quip in a classroom.
But thinking on it, when there's a bit more space & time available.. In some senses, electricity is not empirically verifiable. Neither is gravity. "Show me a picture", "How much does it weigh?", etc. are useless, these are things we do not verify through direct access, but through the effects observed. "The existence of a higher, metaphysical being" is similarly not empirically verifiable, but the 12-step programs like Alcoholics Anonymous insist on its members accepting the existence as they participate in the program. That existence, as well as belief and trust in that existence, have an effect. And noting that "individual results may vary" is not saying that there is no effect, and no cause.
Standing in front of a Religous Studies class is a very brave place to be. It's the sort of front-lines engagement that armchair philosophers strenuously avoid, on peril of their souls and their sanity.
I am 'awful' in that I'd be itching to ask, what is the result of saying "it's all just your opinion"? What advantages or disadvantages does that stance confer? I suspect one advantage is it enables the stance of superiority over mere mortals and people like parents & teachers. That's their loss.
Thank you as ever, Meg. Over the series, I will be trying to give teachers and leaders of Christian schools the metaphysical ammunition to defend their position from attacks by the prevailing relativism of secular culture. I mean to show the inconsistency of the latter and the urgent need for schools grounded in a clear and rationally defensible articulation of truth.
I've been working on an article on the work of the NSKK Harassment Prevention Committee. They outlined the various types of harassment that they wish to address in their Diocesan Synod #108 report, in March 2009. One was "moral harassment", something associated with evangelical Christians, but more commonly seen today in secular culture.
Your comment has stayed with me, and I wonder if you know how the HPC has been set up to work, or is your view based more on conversations with someone who has experienced it? "Targeted" is an interesting choice of word.
There is a concrete precedent involving an actual person whom I won’t name here, and I think that targeting is an entirely accurate word in this case, but witch-hunt might be more accurate still. I’ve read through the material the NSKK have given us, and it seems to me that theological heterodoxy is being sneaked in through the back door, without any theological discussion, via legalistic means. My fear, which experience so far suggests is founded, is that clergy who uphold what the Church officially teaches are liable to become victims to the spirit of the age, and that the church will not defend them. Happy to discuss this further in private and offline!
Interesting. "The case for Christian Schools" seemed ready to set up a divide between schools run by the church, and schools that teach Christianity ("Bible Schools" in US parlance). But the problem being addressed soon slid into the metaphysical philosophical quandry over what is reality, and what is good. For some reason, I set those problems outside schools run by churches and schools that focus on Christianity.
"Everything which cannot be empirically verified is just a matter of opinion", "just being true to oneself", and a deep antipathy toward anyone claiming to have or know any "truth" that is beyond opinion are all luxuries of thought, not seen in much of history, and not entertained even today in the nations being stressed by war, famine, flood and bad governments. It is difficult to devise a rebuttal in the heat of the moment, when it's an unexpected quip in a classroom.
But thinking on it, when there's a bit more space & time available.. In some senses, electricity is not empirically verifiable. Neither is gravity. "Show me a picture", "How much does it weigh?", etc. are useless, these are things we do not verify through direct access, but through the effects observed. "The existence of a higher, metaphysical being" is similarly not empirically verifiable, but the 12-step programs like Alcoholics Anonymous insist on its members accepting the existence as they participate in the program. That existence, as well as belief and trust in that existence, have an effect. And noting that "individual results may vary" is not saying that there is no effect, and no cause.
Standing in front of a Religous Studies class is a very brave place to be. It's the sort of front-lines engagement that armchair philosophers strenuously avoid, on peril of their souls and their sanity.
I am 'awful' in that I'd be itching to ask, what is the result of saying "it's all just your opinion"? What advantages or disadvantages does that stance confer? I suspect one advantage is it enables the stance of superiority over mere mortals and people like parents & teachers. That's their loss.
Thank you as ever, Meg. Over the series, I will be trying to give teachers and leaders of Christian schools the metaphysical ammunition to defend their position from attacks by the prevailing relativism of secular culture. I mean to show the inconsistency of the latter and the urgent need for schools grounded in a clear and rationally defensible articulation of truth.
I've been working on an article on the work of the NSKK Harassment Prevention Committee. They outlined the various types of harassment that they wish to address in their Diocesan Synod #108 report, in March 2009. One was "moral harassment", something associated with evangelical Christians, but more commonly seen today in secular culture.
I fear that the precedent for who will be targeted by their harassment rulings has already been set.
Your comment has stayed with me, and I wonder if you know how the HPC has been set up to work, or is your view based more on conversations with someone who has experienced it? "Targeted" is an interesting choice of word.
There is a concrete precedent involving an actual person whom I won’t name here, and I think that targeting is an entirely accurate word in this case, but witch-hunt might be more accurate still. I’ve read through the material the NSKK have given us, and it seems to me that theological heterodoxy is being sneaked in through the back door, without any theological discussion, via legalistic means. My fear, which experience so far suggests is founded, is that clergy who uphold what the Church officially teaches are liable to become victims to the spirit of the age, and that the church will not defend them. Happy to discuss this further in private and offline!
Looking forward to your next post: this is such an important subject!
Thank you as ever!