The Emerging Scholars Blog

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to hear a professor/practitioner of family medicine share how to address errors in the medical profession.  Yes, the university hospital provides a unique environment for research, student-faculty-staff relationships, and connection with the world beyond the campus which it serves, but all members of the university community make mistakes (even sin).  Gasp!

As you journey through Lent, join me in meditating upon living out the Greatest Commandment by taking some time to

• consider how loving your neighbor fits in relationship to being/following Jesus the Christ in one’s vocation/discipline.
• acknowledge, confess, and release when/where/how you have fallen short … Note: we are not perfect.   We will err at times in our inter-personal interactions, spelling, presentations, research, articles, web posts/comments, patient care, advice, etc.  But when we purposefully hide mistakes to our own benefit, point fingers at others to avoid the consequences, or turn frustration with our self into agitation with others, we encounter sin and the evil one coming forth to destroy all it can.
• seek reconciliation in broken relationships.
• be intentional about blessing those whom you’ve been called to serve through the resurrection power of Jesus the Christ.

Would enjoy reading some comments from those outside of the Medical profession as to how you might translate these thoughts from a Medical professor to your place in higher education (Note: the below section is just an excerpt from a larger presentation which included much more material).  Also would you have any resources to recommend in addressing mistakes and/or offering apologies?  From those within the Medical profession, any points to add?

When we are at risk of committing errors

• Tired:  know your limits
• Under the influence (eg., alcohol, drugs, over the counter drugs)
• Competing demands
  • Work stresses
  • Family stresses (Note to those married:  open communication between family members is very important)
• Practicing outside the usual scope of practice/expertise or attempting a procedure after it’s been awhile since one’s regular practice of it Read the rest of this entry »

What are you reading, watching, thinking about this week? As usual, here’s a few which have been on our mind. Let us know your thoughts on any/all of them. If you have items you’d like us to consider for the top five, add them in the comments or send them to Tom or Mike.

1. Why Harvard Students Should Study More Religion (Lisa Miller, Newsweek): A look at Harvard’s (lack of) religion in its undergraduate curriculum, with special attention to Louis Menand’s attempt to include a course called “Reason and Faith” in Harvard’s revised education requirements. The article quotes a couple of very interesting, and very different, points of view;

“My colleagues fear that taking religion seriously would undermine everything a great university stands for,” the Rev. Peter Gomes, Harvard’s chaplain and a professor of Christian history, told me. “I think that’s ungrounded, but there it is.”Steven Pinker says his main objection to the 2006 proposal that students be required to take a course in a Reason and Faith category was that it seemed to make reason and faith equal paths to truth. “I very, very, very much do not want to go on the record as suggesting that people should not know about religion,” he told me. “But reason and faith are not yin and yang. Faith is a phenomenon. Reason is what the university should be in the business of fostering.”

2. More religion in higher education: Inside Higher Ed featured two opinion articles about the role of religion and theology in academic disciplines – “On Teaching Christianity” by Adam Kosko, who argues that religion classes need to spend more time studying the actual theology of religious figures and movements; and “Everywhere and Nowhere” by Kevin Schultz and Paul Harvey, which takes another look at the place of religion within historical studies.

More links after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

Two recent articles on the profession of education worth consideration:

1. In Search of Education Leaders, by Bob Herbert, NY Times Op-Ed, December 4, 2009
2. The Ph.D. Problem: On the professionalization of faculty life, doctoral training, and the academy’s self-renewal, by Louis Menand, Harvard Magazine, November-December 2009.  HT: Miller.

Anyone willing to take a stab at why the educational system is so leaky and how we find/develop educational leaders which serve their department, discipline, campus, education in the United States/beyond?

Questions which come to mind with the Harvard degree program, topic of In Search of Education Leaders, “Will this program include the philosophy, purpose, and joy of education? Or are these unable to be expressed in the pragmatic, secular context of trying to keep up because we need to?”  With regard to ‘residency’ models, these already exist in education, e.g., the undergraduate student teacher model. Stronger cross-grade & inter-generational mentoring with the potential for long term relationships would profit the whole educational system.

HT:  Nick who responded to my Facebook musings by referring to Diane Rehm’s discussion of Women in Science with

1. Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn, Morris Hertzein Professor of Biology and Physiology at the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Blackburn was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, along with Carol Greider and Jack W. Szostak.
2. Dr. Carol Greider, Daniel Nathans Professor of Molecular Biology & Genetics at The Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Greider was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, along with Elizabeth Blackburn and Jack W. Szostak.
3. Melody Barnes, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, and special assistant to President Obama

Yes, higher education is leaky pipeline for women in the sciences.  Any responses by those part of the system?

According to Louis Menand in The Ph.D. Problem: On the professionalization of faculty life, doctoral training, and the academy’s self-renewal, the educational system is leaky in quite another way for the Humanities, but with a particular internal end in mind. Can/should higher education in the Humanities add practical skills and develop a specific graduation time line?  What about those who went through the system? Will they allow such changes (Note: Reminds me of the reduction of hours in medical training)?  Will the motivation for students in the Humanities become the pursuit and exploration of knowledge for the rich or those seeking direction later in life?  Even though the article seems focused upon the Humanities, especially English, does the article apply to all (or let’s say most) of higher education?

Can followers of Christ play by the rules of the academic game and still follow Christ faithfully?

According to Stanley Fish (Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor and a professor of law at Florida International University, in Miami, and dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago) the answer is “No.”  Marsden summarizes Why We Can’t All Just Get Along (Stanley Fish, First Things, February 1996):

“Though secular himself, Fish cites the authority of John Milton to argue that true faith in God changes everything else.  Reason, says, Milton, following Augustine, is subject to prior faith.  That world will look very different to those who start with faith in God in contrast to faith in self or in material contingency.  It follows, Fish argues, that Christians, if they are serious about their faith, should not compromise with liberalism, which is built on antithetical principles:”

‘To put the matter baldly, a person of religious conviction should not want to enter the marketplace of ideas, but to shut it down, at least insofar as it presumes to determine matters that he believes have been determined by God and faith.  The religious person should not seek an accommodation with liberalism; he should seek to rout it from the field, to extirpate it, root and branch.’ — George Marsden.  The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship.  New York:  Oxford University Press, 1997. p.44.  [Update 10/22/2009, 12:40 pm:  The second paragraph is a quote which Marsden excerpts from Stanley Fish's Why We Can't All Just Get Along (First Things, February 1996)].

How would you respond?  Read the rest of this entry »

Our Week-in-Review feature has a new format. We know there’s way too much to read out there already, so we’re going to be highlighting the top five articles, books, websites, etc., that we’ve been reading or thinking about the past week. If you have items you’d like us to consider for the top five, add them in the comments or send them to Tom or Mike.

The Millennial Muddle (Eric Hoover, Chronicle of Higher Education, October 11, 2009) takes awhile to wade through but is worth it. Tom’s placing this topic on his to post about list ;-)  Anyone with research, reflections, or personal testimonies regarding how to understand/categorize/define/relate to (?) the Millennials?

Speaking of Speaking (Chronicle of Higher Education, October 15, 2009) by a Female Science Professor gives tips on public speaking, in particular how the type of introduction can have a significant effect, at least at the beginning of my talk, on my mood and presentation strategy. She gives several illustrations which you might find of benefit. Any illustrations of best/worst speaker introductions you’ve heard?

Tweed: Oh, You Lucky College Professors! Adjuncts, Too (Chronicle of Higher Education, October 14, 2009).  Do you agree with …

Memo to America’s college professors: You have the third best job in the country.

This is according to a list of “the top 50 careers with great pay and growth prospects” that will appear in the November issue of Money magazine. OK, so you’re behind systems engineers and physician’s assistants, but No. 3 wins you a red ribbon, right?

What Has Theology Ever Done for Science? – Quite a lot actually, writes Denis Alexander, Director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion at St. Edmund’s College, Cambridge, in reply to a question that Daniel Dennett has been fond of asking lately. (HT: Bede Journal and Faith-Science News)

More on Souls in Transition – Christianity Today has published an interview with Christian Smith about his new book, Souls in Transition.  Smith and his fellow researchers followed up with the teens from Soul Searching to learn how their religious lives changed as they entered their early to mid-20s.  Overall, says Smith,

Most of what happens in emerging adulthood works against serious faith commitments and putting down roots in congregations. Most emerging adults are disconnected from religious institutions and practices. Geographic mobility, social mobility, wanting to have options, thinking this is the time to be crazy and free in ways most religious traditions would frown upon, wanting an identity different from the family of origin—all of these factors reduce serious faith commitments.

But – good news! – attending college is no longer the “faith killer” that it was in years past. Smith:

If anything, college is no different in terms of the faith corrosion outcomes on youth. It may even strengthen the faith of some. We think this is partly about a growing number of evangelical faculty at secular colleges. Another factor is the increasing presence and legitimacy of campus religious groups and ministries [InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Campus Crusade] that provide support systems—not just fellowship, but also intellectual engagement that may have been lacking in past decades.

The culture has also changed: “spirituality” is more acceptable now than in past decades. Most faculty know you cannot say stupidly anti-religious things in the classroom and get away with it.

Can we imagine a day when the college experience becomes known for introducing students to the spiritual and historical depths of the Christian faith?

Did you catch last week’s New York Times article on Francis Collins?  Here’s how it begins:

He drives a Harley-Davidson, wears a black leather jacket on his back and his religion on his sleeve, and plays a custom guitar with big-name rock stars.  All that would seem to have nothing to do with Dr. Francis S. Collins’s day job as the new director of the National Institutes of Health. Except that at the institutes, such things do matter. …

First, there is the God issue. Dr. Collins believes in him. Passionately. And he preaches about his belief in churches and a best-selling book. For some presidential appointees, that might not be a problem, but many scientists view such outspoken religious commitment as a sign of mild dementia. … (Gardiner Harris, For N.I.H. Chief, Issues of Identity and Culture, NY Times, October 6, 2009)

As I’ve posted in other places, I find this charge of dementia of particular interest.  Why? I recently participated in a discussion regarding how a physician might diagnosis Jesus’ mental condition based upon Mark 3 and dementia had been raised. What is dementia?

Deterioration of intellectual faculties, such as memory, concentration, and judgment, resulting from an organic disease or a disorder of the brain, and often accompanied by emotional disturbance and personality changes. — “dementia.” The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Company. 13 Oct. 2009. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dementia>.

In this case, it appears to be an off-handed manner of name calling, i.e., declaring Collins mentally ill, even insane for his outspoken religious commitment in order to discredit his leadership.  What do you think?  Part of our exploration of The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship involves wrestling with how one responds to such comments, note:  this case highlights the war between science and religion/faith.

Have you ever faced such challenges?  If so, how have you responded?  How should Collins respond?  Should he stop wearing religion on his sleeve and just get his job done at the N.I.H., should he cut back on public declarations of faith, or should he keep on keeping on the way he is?

Cover of "The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship"

George Marsden, Notre Dame’s Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History Emeritus, wrote The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1997) to take a step toward clarifying what the ancient enterprise of relating faith and learning might mean in the academy today (preface).  How can this be accomplished in a time when the university has lost the ability to have substantive conversation regarding not only religion, but also anything that goes beyond the practical to the larger issues of life?  Marsden boldly asserts that the assumptions of our hollow contemporary university culture must be re-examined, in particular our rejection of ancient religious learning and its bearing on what one thinks about (p.4).  Over the course of The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, Marsden delineates guidelines for religiously informed scholarship; guidelines that he believes will lead to scholarship that can be accepted as legitimate in the mainstream academy.

Is that outrageous?  What do you think?  Note:  If you haven’t already done such, time to pick-up the book and begin reading ;-)

The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship emerged from Marsden’s responses to the critiques and questions raised by his provocative Concluding Unscientific Postscript to The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1994).  His Concluding Unscientific Postscript digs into

1. higher education’s a priori rejection of all religiously based claims as unscientific
2. pluralism as a basis for imposing uniformity
3. academic freedom
4. relationship between church and state.

Marsden wraps up with this challenging summary:

In many of the American colonies all the citizens were taxed for the support of the established religious group, regardless of the citizen’s religious affiliations.  In the nineteenth century the Protestant establishment became informal and declared itself nonsectarian.  Today nonsectarianism has come to mean the exclusion of all religious concerns.  In effect, only purely naturalistic viewpoints are allowed a serious academic hearing.  As in earlier establishments, groups who do not match the current national ideological norms are forced to fend for themselves outside of the major spheres of cultural influence.  Today, almost all religious groups, no matter what their academic credentials, are on the outside of this educational establishment, or soon will be, if present trends continue.  Americans who are concerned for justice ought to be open to considering alternatives (440).

As we begin our on-line conversation of The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, please share your thoughts on some/all of the below questions.

1. What’s so outrageous about Christian scholarship?  Why does the term Christian scholarship stimulate a negative knee-jerk reaction by some Christians and non-Christians?  Do nonreligious viewpoints receive special privilege in higher education (24)?
2. Has a negative knee-jerk reaction to Christian scholarship (or religiously informed scholarship in general) receded in higher education over the past decade?  Is Christian scholarship (or religiously informed scholarship in general) now accepted through the lens of pluralism?  If so, please share some examples to bless one-another.
3. In your experience, how do you find Christian faith and scholarship to helpfully (and possibly unhelpfully) relate?
4. Do you agree with Marsden that faith precedes and conditions understanding? (p. 9)
5. Any particular points/quotes in the introduction or first chapter which you desire to draw our attention to and possibly even discuss?

Note:  as mentioned in a previous post, if you’d like to host a face-to-face book club coinciding with our online discussion, we recommend that you download the ESN discussion guide.

Do schools fail democracy, as argued by E.D. Hirsch Jr., in How Schools Fail Democracy (The Chronicle Review, 9/28/2009)?  Personally, I have been frustrated by public education’s emphasis on skill development for check-lists, competitions, and test-taking with low reference to exposing students to common culture, core values, and must reads (i.e., classics).  As a parent, I have slowly come to own the counter-cultural responsibility of intentionally teaching our common knowledge, but ironically it demands a lot of effort to share who we are (and our roots) while still maintaining ties to the larger culture!

Stepping back to look at the big picture, how do educators come to agreement upon the truths/reality which are to be imparted by schools in the United States of America, e.g., what books are to be read over the course of one’s fifteen minutes of reading per day at home?*  Do Education degree programs have a shared culture on which they can agree and impart to their students as the foundation from which our future direction emerges?  Can they, along with concerned parents/communities, challenge the common cultural definition of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness before the consequences run over us (if they already have not done such)?

Too many Americans are in the linguistic shadows now—possibly close to a majority. Despite intense efforts driven by the No Child Left Behind Act, the language abilities of our 17-year-olds have remained stuck at the steeply declined levels of the 1970s, while the language gap between white students on one side and black and Hispanic students on the other remains distressingly and immovably large. Read the rest of this entry »

One form of Christian presence on campus.

A few different strands of thought came together for me this morning in the form of a question. Let me throw out the question first, and then elaborate.

Is there a public Christian intellectual presence on your campus?

Here are the threads that came together for me. First, in our recent book discussion of John Stott’s Your Mind Matters, Stott describes a kind of intellectualism that is very public. For example, in chapter 3, he “examines six spheres of Christian living, each of which is impossible without the proper use of the mind”: worship, faith, holiness, guidance, evangelism, and ministry. These have internal and private aspects, but also external, public aspects. I’d be willing to bet that, on your campus, there are at least two or three of these which are very public indeed. Picture the sidewalk evangelists who roam through each year, or campus ministry student outreach events. On some campuses, worship or holiness might have similar public aspects.

Image credit: falonyates via Flickr.

Read the rest of this entry »

Would you agree with my idealistic enthusiasm for My Freshman Year:  What a Professor Learned by Becoming a Student, the story of a professor of anthropology at a large state university who realized that she no longer understood the behavior and attitudes of her students and returned to the classroom?  And my uneasiness when reading that some Online Professors Pose as Students to Encourage Real Learning (Chronicle of Higher Education, 5/29/09), in the class which they’re teaching?  Can you offer testimonies, tips, or sources regarding what it takes to stimulate an on-line learning community?  We would love to have specific suggestions regarding how to direct the conversation of the ESN Book Club: Your Mind Matters.

Note:  If you don’t have a copy of John Stott’s Your Mind Matters, I’d encourage you to borrow/purchase so you’re ready to go on Tuesday.  If you’d like a head start on reading but don’t have a copy of the book, visit InterVarsity Press’ website for PDFs of the Foreward and Chapter 1.