Searching for Ponies in the Hay: My Analysis

Posted on September 24, 2007
Filed Under Worldview |

I issued you a challenge to look at the article by Professor Kronman: “Why are we here?”, and I was delighted by your responses. You are thinking and you are thinking well! Here is my take on it.

First, we must admit that there is much to agree with:
–Presenting the key questions of life is a critical matter and it is important to our culture. The “stakes are high”;
–There is a growing student hunger for spiritual things and they are increasingly demanding that academia address it;
–I was pleasantly surprised to see the honest admission that our colleges and universities were originally deeply spiritual, which they were. Profoundly Christian, I might specify;
–The transition of our universities did primarily begin in the 1860’s and 1870’s. (Kronman fails to note this was following Darwin’s publication of “Origin of Species” in 1859, which I believe was a huge factor.)
–Religious beliefs have “lost their status as a source of authority in Higher Education” and I agree with Kronman’s assessment that this “is a mistake”;
–The traditional “religious” premises are now called into question on academic campus and our universities have become “secular”;
–And, I agree, our culture is “spiritually impoverished”.

But there is much to disagree with:
–Kronman states that university faculty no longer see themselves as “shapers of souls”. I disagree. The stories I hear from our Institute students, 88 who come each semester from academic campuses all over the country, make it clear that professors are vitally interested in “shaping the souls” of their students. At issue is what kind of shaping is going on and what kind of soul do they hope to create? Many of our Christian students are attacked shamelessly for their beliefs about these great questions of life. A recent survey showed that 53% of university faculty have an “unfavorable” outlook toward evangelical Christian students. I can tell you that “unfavorable” translates into classroom “hostility”.
–Kronman states that “fundamentalists” have the wrong answers. Regardless of your definition of “fundamentalist”, he is showing his hand. He doesn’t really want an “open” dialogue. He merely wants a broader “closed” dialogue. He states that our universities must become places they once were: spiritually serious and concerned with souls, but agnostic about God. This is nonsense. How can one be “spiritual” without acknowledging the argument that the “spiritual” exists?

What Kronman misses here is the reality that the humanities have become vacuous, not because of the emphasis on research, but because they have cut themselves off from the only possible source of the answers to the “big” questions of life. After the transition, they attempted to find them in the natural box, but couldn’t. So, they abandoned the effort all together. That is why it is no longer there. Extended research is not to blame.

Kronman wants to see students “allowed” again to examine the important questions of life. That is good. But he wants them to be examined within same old “group think” of the secular academic environment. What he fails to understand is that the reason we are in a “spiritual void” is because it was secular “group think” that led to the void. He wants a “richer, more open debate”, but he wants it within the confines of the same old boring naturalism box…excluding any viewpoint that includes a transcendent Being and, therefore, eliminating the Source of the answers to the questions. As long as we continue to deny that Source, the humanities will never emerge from their stagnation.

Kronman then hits us with an amazing statement. He wants to infuse the university with “a new and vibrant humanism”. What is this? “Secular Humanism” is a very well defined worldview. In fact, Noebel effectively documents that it is actually a “religion” (Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism). Is Kronman’s “new and vibrant humanism” just a new denomination of Secular Humanism? If so, Kronman’s desire is to infuse the university with his “religious” worldview. The discussions he seeks, though feigning a desire to keep “religion” out of it, will actually be a discussion in which only the religious tenets of a “new” humanism are allowed to be considered. And, since Secular Humanism is already entrenched in academia, this is nothing more than making the “group think” more vigorous. The conclusions are predetermined by the constraints of what is allowed on the table.

Let me return to some agreements with Kronman. He lists several assumptions that I agree with:
1. There are multiple answers to the big questions that have been proposed throughout history;
2. Those answers are limited in number;
3. Those answers are irreconcilable, therefore necessitating a choice; (which, by the way, affirms the law of non-contradiction, a law that post-modernism has refuted…this is refreshing to see Kronman embrace it);
4. A study of the “great works” would introduce students to this discussion (if the “great works” are not limited to humanism’s perspective);
5. We must introduce students to the great conversations in which these questions are dealt with (again, as long as those conversations are not prejudicially selected)

Kronman states well that America’s leadership primarily passes through the university. That is why he is also right in saying the stakes are high. I couldn’t agree more. The question before us is whether or not the biblical Christian worldview will be allowed to sit at the table.

It appears, from Kronman’s view, the answer to that question is still “no”.

Comments

13 Responses to “Searching for Ponies in the Hay: My Analysis”

  1. Carrie Hutchinson on September 26th, 2007 9:05 am

    I gave The Truth Project set to a friend last night who I could see being a strong leader within our college and career class getting started here at FUMC Cookeville. He watched the first DVD last night, and is watching the second today.

    I enjoy your blog and read this entry to my friend J. He said he would call these ideas in Kronman’s article like putting a bandaid on a bullet wound.

  2. Bob Bodman on September 26th, 2007 9:55 am

    Dr. Tackett,
    I reached much the same conclusion early on in Kronman’s article. He quickly defines the discussion as one that must exclude God. It struck me quickly that he is trying to introduce his own “new” world view using “research” as his basis. What was obvious was that his proposal seeks to encourage research to go where it will, as long as it doesn’t lead to Christ. With that, there is absolutely nothing new to his position and proposition. He has already seen the outcome he wants and the outcome he doesn’t.

    After the Truth Project, I find myself dissecting what I see and hear. My instinct afterwards, however, has been to first “discern” and then “discount.” I now realize that what was next for me was to “disconnect” from the article and author. Sort of like: “Aha, there it is, there’s the ‘deception,’– click,” like watching the Animal Channel and hearing a reference to a reptile as “our distant ancestor.” When I see through to the intent of the author or sponsor, I have been simply turning it off.

    What I am now learning, what is now sinking in, after more and more of these challenges and your subsequent analysis, is to stay connected to it and to take it on. Discernment has a second part.

    I see now that Satan’s objective is not just to get me to adopt the author’s view, but it also includes getting me to turn it off and to let the author slide.

    -RDB

  3. Steve Christen on September 26th, 2007 11:15 am

    The unregenerated mind can agree with one of the following…
    Plato’s presupposition was that the “universals” give meaning to the “particulars”.
    Aristole’s presuppostion was that the “particulars” give meaning to the “universals”.
    The Abyss of post-modernism is the abandonment of both of these position…which is illogical, unrational and completely closes down the possibility of open dialogue because logic and the law of non-contradictions is no longer the foundation of discussion.
    It seems to me that the postmodern mindset is the only “logical” next step, when one decides to abandon logic as a foundation for discussion.

    The presuppositions of Plato and Aristotle cannot both be true at the same time…and here is the KICKER… both cannot “find” the way to truth…because “the way” to truth is not through a philosophical system of thought…but is through the person of Jesus Christ.
    This is what the unregenerated mind will not and cannot grasp - 1 Cor. 2:14 - The natural man DOES NOT (will) receive the things of the Sprit of God, for they are foolishness to him; NOR CAN HE (cannot=ability) because they are spoiritually discerned.
    I pray that God uses me in other people’s lives, to point them to the abyss of Plato/Aristole debate, and to the One who came to “testify to the TRUTH”…the One who brings the REBIRTH we truly need to see the TRUTH. (John 1:10-13)

  4. Carol Craig on September 26th, 2007 8:20 pm

    Dr. Tackett, I couldn’t agree more with your response. I am a member of Indian River City United Methodist Church in Titusville, FL. We have a day and evening class going on “The Truth Project” and we all agree it will become as popular as the Disciple Bible Studies we have done for years and ususally have about 130 people graduating from each year.

    Thank you so much for making us use our brains as well as our mouths and let us begin to use our arms and legs more too, in Christian service.

    Carol

  5. Michael Hickey on September 29th, 2007 4:15 pm

    From the creation of man until today, thoughtful people have sought for the meaning of life. Around 500 BC, Heraclitus coined a term which encompassed the meaning or purpose or great scheme of life — the Logos. He and many others searched all their lives for the Logos but never found it. Of course, many still do today. Ironically, without the Spirit of God, man “can’t see the forest for the trees”. The meaning is staring him in the face but he can’t see it. They thought they might find the meaning of life inside man (physio-logos) or in his mind (psycho-logos) or how man lives in community (socio-logos) or perhaps in the stars (astro-logos). And so on and so on.

    The Holy Spirit, through John clarified, for all time, what, or rather who, the Logos was and still is…..”In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God…..and the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us…. full of grace and Truth” But if one denies “The Beginning”, then the very thing he searches for will, of course, only end in futility. No surprise to us who are believers.

    Dr. Tackett, this topic could not be more pertinent, and your analysis is right on the money. There is a battle for the mind taking place on the campuses of our nation’s colleges and universities, and let’s not think that this isn’t happening in both secular and “Christian” schools and seminaries as well. That’s why The Truth Project is so vital. Chuck Colson said that the greatest failure of the Church is in not raising up enough critically thinking believers, to stand toe to toe in the marketplace of ideas and be conversant with the issues of the day, and proclaim the Truth found in Jesus Christ.

    How important is this right now? ACSI, the Association of Christian Schools International, the largest Christian school organization in the nation with 5500 member schools, has been in a lawsuit with the University of California (10 Universities) because they will not accept students whose course work in based upon textbooks written from a Christian worldview. These are not just biology books regarding Intelligent Design either. Literature, history and physics courses have been denied as well. (Lawyers for UC stated that they had no problem with the material facts of the Physics book but rejected it because each chapter of the book was introduced by a verse of Scripture. This lawsuit will come to trial in November of this year. California State University (23 Universities) has the exact same curricular requirements and is waiting and watching on the sidelines to see what happens. It is the faculties at these institutions, the “shapers of the souls of the students”, which have rejected these texts

    In addition, the College Board, which is comprised of 90% of the colleges and universities in the country, and owns the SAT and AP programs, recently required all AP teachers to submit a detailed curriculum of exactly what is taught in the classroom in order to retain the AP label. At a meeting in June one of the heads of the AP program stated that any biology curriculum which includes Intelligent Design will be rejected. This has far ranging implications to all Christian schools in the country. Clearly they want to exert control over what is taught in the classrooms of America! And Kronman says people with religious convictions present a “disturbing and dangerous development”?

    Once again, the dissemination of The Truth Project to high school students along with programs that build critical thinking skills is imperative to change the culture in the academy. And, as the academy goes, so goes the culture of the nation. However, it can be changed, by the power of God!! As early as the 1790’s Christians at Ivy League schools and other universities were driven underground by persecution. In 1806 the famous Haystack Prayer Meeting was held in a field at Williams College by 5 committed, godly young men who were exercised over this persecution and, at the same time, desired to fulfill the Great Commission. Not only was the culture at these New England institutions change by the power of prayer, these men established the American Foreign Missions Board, the first in the United States and one of the greatest missionary movements in history. We can do the same today, the power of the same risen Lord is at work within us!

    God Bless you Doc,

    MGH

  6. Rod Lowell on October 2nd, 2007 9:33 pm

    Thank you, again, Dr. Tackett.

    In producing The Truth Project you have allowed us to use our brain to desern our surroundings in a Biblical viewpoint. There are, as you well know, other battle fronts as well. A recent publication by John MacArthur, The Truth War, is also helping me in understanding the surrounding of the battle fronts.

    Thank you Mr. Hickey for you comments.

    Growing in the Lord,
    Rod

  7. Ronald Everett on October 3rd, 2007 1:03 pm

    I thoroughly enjoyed the articles by Dr. Kronman and Dr. Tackett’s response, but need to comment on the fifth item Del writes that “we must admit that there is much to agree with.” The item states, “Religious beliefs have ‘lost their status as a source of authority in Higher Education’ and I agree with Kroneman’s assessment that this ‘is a mistake.’” Kroneman’s assessment is not that the loss of status is a mistake. What he is saying is that the mistake is that some people doubt that the meaning of life can be studied idependent of religion. He not only thinks it can be studied this way but advocates it.

    Of course, Kroneman is right that one can study the meaning of life without involving religion. Many philosophers, particularly those who lived before Christ and those in the past hundred years, have investigated the meaning of life without religion, as defined in it’s common understanding. The problem with doing so today is to eliminate full consideration of all possibilities, hardly consistent with proper research techniques.

    I have always been fascinated with philosophy and have read the works of over a hundred philosophers. Each had something to offer in terms of better understanding the environment in which we live but what I found most amazing is that I can’t picture anyone of average intelligence believing that any of them really got it right. Whether you are looking at the meaning of life or simply a description of the human condition, only Christianity seems to hold logical and effective answers to these questions.

    REE

  8. LSteveTaylor on October 3rd, 2007 5:07 pm

    Brother Tackett,
    Thank you very much for teaching the Truth Project, I am in it now for the second time, God bless you, and I contiue to pray for God’s work through you
    LST

  9. Jacob Thielman on October 5th, 2007 5:00 pm

    A very interesting point of view. I would like to know more about what you think of postmodern thought, and the notion that this may be the first time that Christians are given a place at the table. I think that would be very beneficial for this audience, as many consider the word “postmodern” to be synonymous with “relativist.”

  10. Dr. David Norbeck on October 7th, 2007 7:47 am

    Dear Dr. Tackett,

    Have you read “Kingdom Triangle” by J.P.Moreland? He argues that Christians have abdicated the aspect of “knowledge” to the scientific fields and relegated Christianity to beliefs which the post-modernists equate to relativism. He believes we need to reclaim the ground that the Christian faith has a true knowledge, equally valid with the scientific fields. What do you think? I highly recommend the book.

    Dr. David Norbeck

  11. Dale Wickizer on October 8th, 2007 5:27 pm

    Very good analysis based upon my reading of the article. So, when do we challenge the “good” professor to open up the dialog? Have you or any of the others responded to his article yet? Perhaps an influx of thoughtful responses to his article would get his attention :)

  12. Tom Remein on October 9th, 2007 9:54 am

    C.S. Lewis in his classic book “The Abolition of Man” correctly identified where modern education was taking us; our society would produce “men without chests”. Professor Kronman understands that we are producing generations of technocrats, well trained proficients capable of efficient production and consumption in a materialistic culture, but experiencing a deep famine of the soul. The arts express our postmodern angst with such films as the deeply disturbing “American Beauty”, books like “The Kite Runner” by Khaled Hosseini. After engaging them, we are left with questions only.

    Professor Kronman extols the virtues of the humanities as the answer to the problem of meaning, by giving students tools for synthesis and evaluation of the many ideas available. That’s commendable, but only if the deck isn’t stacked. And Professor Kronman ought to keep in mind the kind of society the students will move into. It’s difficult to find communities of inclusion in a meritocracy.

    One thing I love and appreciate about the Bible is its diagnostic and prescriptive ability. It provides the framework for understanding the causes of our faults and frailties, and then gives us a solution. And the solution engages the full person; mind, spirit, body! Not only that, it prescribe communities of inclusion, where individuals can become whole. It is encouraging to me that secular professors are recognizing the problem of meaning. We should pray that more and more of them will be open to all points of view. To help the dialogue develop, Christians need to find innovative ways of expressing their faith, such as that described by Donald Miller in his book “Blue Like Jazz”. While auditing courses at Reed College in Oregon (mentioned by Professor Kronman in his article) he and a small band of christian students set up a confession booth on campus and confessed their own sins to any who would listen, during the most pagan night of the year on campus. That was a bold expression of faith, competing in the market place of ideas. The results were remarkable, and the deck was certainly stacked!

  13. Dennis Ensing on October 18th, 2007 2:59 pm

    Hey Dr. Tackett;

    I wasn’t sure where to draw this website to your attention (see http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/). Its quite possible you’ve already come across it.

    The movie at this web site is an antithesis of The Truth Project. It is breathtaking to see the extreme positions being taken. if you get a chance, let us know what you think.

    Dennis & Debbie Ensing
    The Truth Project small group leaders
    London, Canada

Leave a Reply

Comments are moderated and will not appear until they've been approved. While we are eager to facilitate conversation by publishing most comments, we may withhold one from time to time if we deem it to be inappropriate, i.e. offensive, vulgar, overly personal, cynical, disrespectful, irrelevant, redundant or unnecessarily contentious (what a list, huh?). Check it over for spelling and grammar before you submit so that nothing will hinder your eloquence!