Category Archives: Christian

New Lib Dems leader Tim Farron will face tougher attacks from other evangelical Christians than he will from his political opponents.

Christian

I don't write about politics except when it pertains to the world outside UK education policy, but I read this morning on twitter that the new leader of the Liberal Democrats Tim Farron is 'openly' an evangelical Christian, the first major party leader since Gladstone according to Gillan Scott writing on the Premier Christian website.

If being the leader of the Liberal Democrats at the present time isn't thankless enough, the people who will hurt him most will be other evangelical Christians. For the first time ever I actually felt moved to put God and politics into one post.

I admit I had to search the internet to check I'd spelt time Farron's name correctly and to see what what he actually looks like; this itself is a pretty miserable incitement of how disengaged from current politics I have become. I'm not sure if Tim Farron identifies himself as evangelical or that is a label given to him by others and I don't know the ins and outs of his voting record and theology. In fact I've written this blog post in deliberate ignorance of these things to keep my point as clear as possible.

As someone who identifies as an evangelical Christian ( details of what this might or might not mean are far beyond the scope of this article) I thought this post might provide an 'outsider guide' to the sorts of opposition he'll face from evangelical Christians and a warning to 'insiders' to think carefully about what they say. Those outside evangelical 'community' (community is far too strong a word) might not know what I'm taking about, but having been labelled an 'evangelical Christian', Tim Farron will face as many attacks from other evangelical Christians than he will from his political opponents. Emotionally, I suspect these attacks will hurt him a lot more than anything his political foes (or friends) in Parliament might say or do to him.

Here are some of accusations and scrutiny other evangelical Christians will level at him from pulpits, Christian websites, and newspapers: I'm not naming names, but to save time I'll write all this stuff down now. I've put evangelical in square brackets as the goal of many evangelical Christians is to ensure the label applies to as few people as possible. I've put Christian in square brackets as if he doesn't qualify as an evangelical Christian many Christians would say there is no other kind.

  1. He can't be an [evangelical] [Christian] because he voted for or against this or that bill.
  2. He can't be an [evangelical] [Christian] because he is a member of the Liberal Democrats who put, X, Y and Z in their manifesto.
  3. He can't be an [evangelical] [Christian] because he doesn't accept this, that or some other doctrine. Perhaps he's only a four point as opposed to five point Calvinist. Perhaps his theology is Arminien rather than Calvinist. Perhaps he agrees with infant baptism, female clergy, open theism or conditional mortality. Or not.
  4. He can't be an [evangelical] [Christian] because he didn't say X when asked about Y on Question Time.
  5. He can't be an [evangelical] [Christian] because he does or doesn't subscribe in full to the Westminster Confession, the Thirty-Nine articles, the doctrinal basis of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches etc.
  6. He can't be an [evangelical] [Christian] because he says nice things about Catholics, Muslims, gay people he's met.
  7. He can't be an [evangelical] [Christian] because he accepts evolution, believes the world's is more than 6000 years old etc. If he turns out to be a Young Earth Creationist just go back the top of the list and start again.


No doubt many of those giving him a hard time will say it is their responsibility to hold him to an exceptionally high standard or warn others about a wolf in sheep's clothing. Whether Farron makes his mark on history or lives on only in obscure footnotes, I suspect much ink and bandwidth will be spent in bad grace. Now I've written this post I've must make sure I heed my own warnings.

 

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Drinking the wisdom of the sage on the stage: the traditional lecture on iTunesU

Christian, learning, lecturing, OER

trueman170x170Over the past two weeks I’ve been making my way through a series of lectures on the Reformation by Carl Trueman of the Westminster Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania. I understand the lectures form part of a masters’ degree. They are available free through iTunesU.

The first thing I should say about the lectures is that I am enjoying them. They are well presented, full of interesting facts, contain some interesting and sometimes funny stories, and contain a great deal of Trueman’s own scholarly analysis. The course is also very broad covering the reformation from a historical as well as theological perspectives (not that Trueman would suggest the two approaches could be divorced). I’ve listened to the first seven lectures, which have focused not only on the person of Martin Luther himself, but also the geo-political situation of the German states and Holy Roman Empire in the early sixteenth century. Occasionally students ask questions which try to relate Luther’s experience and views to trends and movements in contemporary Christianity. While this may be expected in an evangelical Christian seminary where the students are in or are preparing for ministry, Trueman resists any attempt to draw such parallels and always falls on the side of constraint. Luther himself is a complex individual, his theological and political thought evolves over his lifetime and he lived five centuries ago.

However, I did not start this post with a view to discussing the Reformation, Martin Luther or Carl Trueman, but the nature of the traditional lecture. There are an astonishing 33 lectures in this series, most just under an hour long. I don’t know how the lectures fit into the Seminary’s (orthe accreditor’s) credit system, but 30 hours strikes me as a huge amount of the contact time for one ‘module’. The students ask occasional questions, all of which Trueman thoughtfully answers.

My own practice as tutor on the Postgraduate Certificate course for new lecturers could not be more different from the traditional lecture. My own input is generally short, activities tend to be group and discussion based, and assessments are varied. I’m well aware that some new lecturers would quite like to come to an hour long lecture where they could take notes, not be called upon to discuss as a class or in groups and write an essay and/or a traditional exam for the assessment, but such passivity goes against what I believe about learning.

My own undergraduate study was very lecture-based assessed mainly by unseen two-hour exams at the end of each module. There was some ‘coursework’, but the exams probably made up around 70% of the assessment. Most of those lectures were actually very interesting, but it was the small group tutorials which encouraged me to learn think independently and develop intellectually into the sort of person who could undertake postgraduate study.

Listening to and enjoying Carl Trueman’s lectures has presented me with an intriguing dilemma about teaching in higher education. Trueman lectures are incredibly detailed. Each time I listen to one I look forward to the next. I almost feel I am walking in Luther’s shoes. However, I really need to ask myself whether this is the best way for Trueman’s students to learn? It is tremendous that I can sit in East Sussex listening to fascinating lectures from Pennsylvania, but I will not be taking the exams and writing the essays. If I had to write an essay, a project or exam I would be somewhat overwhelmed that I could possibly produce anything interesting or original. If I taught about the reformation (which I don’t and never will as it’s not my area) I would be very tempted to tell students to listen to these lectures., and use my own time in the classroom differently.

Perhaps it is the enthusiastic amateur (like me in the case of the reformation) who benefits the most from freely available online lectures like these. I listen to ‘sage on the stage’* drinking his wisdom in a way I could not possibly comprehend if he was in my area of expertise. Trueman relates stories of email arguments he’s had the various (named) individual scholars. He tells of how one of his book reviews exposed so many factual errors it led to a whole edition getting pulled.** This is a teacher and colleague to fear!

Note: I’ve picked on Carl Trueman because that is what I’m listening to at the moment. I’m sure my feelings would be the same of a lot of other publically available online content.

*King, Alison. ‘From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side’. College Teaching 41, no. 1 (1 January 1993): 30–35. (Not open access).

**Carl Trueman (2012) You Cannot Judge This Book by its Cover: A Review of Evans, G. R. The Roots of the Reformation: Tradition, Emergence and Rupture. IVP Academic, 2012. The publisher brought out a second edition with corrections.

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Taxpayers' cash should not be used to fund faith schools, say voters (But what did the survey really ask?)

Christian, Islamic Studies, questionnaire design, school, statistics

headline

Taxpayers' cash should not be used to fund faith schools, say voters. Labour wants talks on teaching of religion as poll shows 58% of the public urge abolition or axing of state funds

The above headline in The Guardian intrigued me so I thought I would take a look at the actual questions asked. The survey was carried out by a company called Opinium on behalf of The Observer. On Twitter I tried to find out what questions were actually asked; interesting Richard Adams, Education Editor at the Guardian did not know, but said he would do some digging. I eventually found a pdf of the survey results on Opinium’s website.

In the interests of full disclosure I am a Christian with two children, one of whom is pre-school and the other attends a non-faith primary school. I did not attend a faith school myself. I’m not that interested in faith schools per se, but headlines such as the above invariably lead to debates about the relationships between religion and society that I feel duty bound to take an interest in.

The reason I’ve written this post is that I am very interested in questionnaire design. Questionnaire design is harder than most people think, but one would have thought a company which does surveys in its day to day work would be quite good at designing questionnaires. This one is so lousy I can only think it was politically motivated. It fact it is so bad I’m not entirely clear what the political motivation might have been.

Let’s start from the very beginning and take a look at Question 1. Respondents are asked to choose the opinion which is most like their own—note carefully -- not their opinion but the one that “best describes” their view of faith schools.
There are only three possible opinions plus a ‘Don’t know/ No opinion’ option.

The three available opinions are:

1. I have no objection to faith schools existing and being funded by the state
2. I have no objection to faith schools existing but they should not be funded by the state (i.e. private schools may be faith schools but not state schools)
3. Faith schools should be banned entirely

The best describes bit might be some sort of attempt to meaningfully take into account some of the nuances involved in such arguments but how views such as the following, which I suspect are widespread, fit into these three options.

1. I have no objection to faith schools existing and being funded by the state as long as they are only Christian/ CofE/ Catholic/ Muslim etc. (delete as appropriate)
2. I have no objection to faith schools existing and being funded by the state as long as they are NOT Christian/ CofE/ Catholic/ Muslim etc. (delete as appropriate)
3. I agree with faith schools but don’t agree with private faith schools because I don’t agree that there should be private schools.
4. I agree with faith schools as long as they don’t take their faith aspect too seriously.
5. I think all schools should be faith schools.
6. I agree with taxpayer funded faith schools as long as it’s not a really weird religion like…

As 1 and 2 above indicate there is really no such thing as a faith school, merely schools which are in one way or another connected to a specific faith, religion or belief system. Faith schools vary of course within faiths —Oasis academies, CoE voluntary aided village primary schools and ‘fundamentalist’ Christian private schools could all be described as Christian faith schools but they are certainly not the same in their ethos.

Question 5: In your view, how serious a risk is there of some predominantly Muslim schools encouraging their pupils to adopt extremist views?

1.Very serious
2.Quite serious
3.Not very serious
4.Not at all serious
5.Don’t know/ no opinion

The only specific religion mentioned in the survey is Islam. I’m not sure how one could answer this question in any meaningful way. This is in the context of the recent ‘Trojan Horse’ controversy of course, the full facts of which have not really emerged. The ‘Trojan Horse’ schools are not faith schools, or Muslim schools, but schools in which most children (and their parents) identify as Muslims. Overall 74% of those questioned thought there was a serious risk (i.e. very serious or quite serious), but what do we mean by extremist views? Extremists, however defined do not need extremist schools to incubate their views and activities. A lot of teachers would probably feel they are being credited as having far more influence on young people than they actually have.

The footer from the pdf of the report.
The footer from the pdf of the report.

A couple of further points: Although the findings are available there is a statement of confidentiality in the footer of each page. This may have been an oversight, or it might be a case that this data was never meant to be made public. I’ll assume the former until I have evidence to the contrary. It is also unclear how the survey was carried out, though it is possible to register with Opinium as a 'survey filler in' and I suspect people who fill in surveys are less likely to be in the ‘No opinion’ camp.

Whatever the truth the 58% figure does not strike me as particularly likely or unlikely—I’m not even sure if this is higher or lower than what I suspect would be the percentage of people disagreeing with schools having a religious ethos or culture. The Observer is evidently trying to influence the Labour Party on the matter of faith schools. I just wish they had designed a better survey.

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Review of "The Shack" by Wm Paul Young (written 2009)

book reviews, Christian

I wrote this review of the The Shack just over three years ago to share on Facebook. It was causing quite a stir in Christian circles back then. Opinion was divided between those who saw the book as modern day Pilgrim's Progress and those who saw it as voice of the Devil himself. I've not heard so much about it recently so perhaps its influence was fleeting. Whatever the case I've decided to publish my review here.

The Shack by Wm Paul Young.

The Shack largely passed me by until about four weeks ago, but once I had heard of the hype surrounding it I decided to give it a go. Unusually for a contemporary Christian fiction book I (or rather my wife Michelle) found the book in Waterstones on the 'three for two' table. This was enough to convince me that this book was not just for the Christian market. Online reviews are divided –this book is either the greatest work of Christian fiction since Pilgrim's Progress or it has been penned by the hand of Satan himself to deceive God's people. Christians I know personally are divided, many taking the view that they shouldn't read it at all. So having made the decision to read it, what do I think?

Firstly, its literary merits. The storyline is fairly compelling, it has a good plot, and its perfectly readable. However, it is not a great book and certainly not a Pilgrim's Progress for our generation. It does not come close in the depth of allegory of Bunyan, nor that of C S Lewis. I cringed somewhat at some of the prose. I found that the depiction of God the Father as an African-American woman as much a literary problem as a theological one. Of course that's the point though-- the depiction of God in this way is supposed to challenge our preconceptions. I suppose that if this is a starting point that this is no bad thing. However, if we change our view of God from an old white man like Gandalf to a black woman who likes cooking, then we merely exchange one misconception of God for another.

This leads me onto the book's theological merits. Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church unpacks the unbiblical view of the Trinity depicted in The Shack. Driscoll is more qualified than I am to explain these points, so I'll leave my readers to consider his views for themselves. Many reviewers on Amazon claim that The Shack helped them to understand the doctrine of the Trinity [better], though I'm surprised that a work of literature can succeed where pastors and theologians have not. I suppose that my point here is that I, personally, don't seek to learn theology from a work of literature, not even Langland, Bunyan, Tolstoy or CS Lewis. I discover deep truths (and errors) in them of course, but them again, I should never assume that other people think in the same way as me.

So where does this leave us? Like Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life this book is both over-hyped and over-demonised. From both the literary and the theological point of view there are a million worse things to read than The Shack, many of them for sale in Christian bookshops. However, there are also many greater works of Christian fiction-- the Chronicles of Narnia and the Pilgrim's Progress for starters. When I next set foot in an North American Christian bookshop, I fear that I will see Shack notebooks, Shack pens, Shack mugs and Airfix model shacks in the 'holy hardware' section. Anyway these are my thoughts. I know many will disagree. I say if you needed to read The Da Vinci Code to see what all the fuss was about, then you'll need to read this too.

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon