Colleges seeking to make degrees more relevant-what about churches?

[James Nored]

I recovering from a nose job that I had last week. Ha, ha. :) Actually, I had surgery to correct a deviated septum. They removed my stints today-yikes! I hope to be back to full strength in a few days. Thanks to everyone for your thoughts and prayers.

I really have been trying to rest, but I came across an article today in the New York Times entitled, Making College Relevant. The article cites various examples of colleges increasingly seeking to be directly "relevant" in the majors that they offer. The University of Louisiana, for instance, is eliminating their philosophy major, and the University of Michigan is eliminating American Studies and Classics majors. The reasons? Decline of students majoring in these fields.

Increasingly, students--and their parents who are paying exorbitant tuition rates--are asking, how will this major help me get a job? No one can afford $100,000 to get a degree in Sand Script and then work at StarBucks. The loans cost too much. So economic reality is driving this shift in part.

However, there is another cultural force driving this shift--the collapse of Western thought and the rise of pragmatism. Western philosophy was built upon thinkers such as Rene Descartes. Descartes doubted everything until he could find the one thing which he could not doubt--that he thought. Upon this absolute foundation, he then built additional thoughts and conclusions. This led to the rise of "foundationalism," deduction, and rational thought.

In case you had not noticed, no one is buying anyone else's deductions these days. Deductions are viewed to be a way of manipulating and controlling arguments. Not only is there skepticism of the deducers, but we are moving into a post-literate, narrative, image based society where deduction and logic are rarely the primary forms of communication. For instance, when was the last time you saw a TV show or movie where the form was people making statements and then seeking to prove them? Purely deductive sermons--once the norm in churches--are now death for communication. No speaker comes in to an audience--even a Christian audience--with enough clout to pull this off consistently. People are already skeptical.

At the same time, people are skeptical of induction to form conclusions as well. Science claims to be inductive, based upon emperical evidence. But as the recent scandal on global warming shows, data can and is often manipulated by humans--whether scientists or other mere mortals--to fit pre-conceived conclusions.

What are we left with, then, if both deduction and induction are viewed skeptically today? Pragmatism. What really works. People don't have time or patience for theories or knowledge for knowledge's sake. Give me something that works, and that I can see that works.

This has huge implications for "how we do church."

• Sermons need to have practical application and inspire people to actually take action.
• Bible classes need to be much less about knowledge--which can be found anywhere on the Internet--and more about real life issues - marriage, relationships, child raising, friendship, Christianity in the workplace, how to reach out. And because people are dealing with different issues, we need all kinds of "classes" in all kinds of places.
• Elders need to spiritual life coaches, not board of directors. Younger people are dying for mentors, role models, marriage examples, and people who care about them.

People today say, don't tell me about the doctrine of grace. Tell me how grace can help me forgive my wife or husband. Or make me not beat myself up. Or be kind to my children when they are acting like little rebels!

Many college administrators are bemoaning the fact that college students are not that interested in philosophy and are so pragmatic. They want college students to receive a broad based foundation that goes beyond an immediate job and helps them learn how to think. There is value in this. But if no one signs up--whether for a major or for something church related--then this thinking does no good. A more integrated "curriculum" that provides broad based thinking while emphasizing practical application may be a necessity for today's pragmatic society.

And, after all, shouldn't Christianity "work?"

What do you think of the pragmatic emphasis in culture? How should this be applied in the church? What should be avoided? What is good about this?

[Walter R Smith]

I'm a little unclear on exactly what "truth being centered in a person" means. And, my initial reaction to many of the either-or choices presented by postmodernism is that they seem to be false dichotomies....it's often not either-or, but both-and...unless one or both of the choices are presented as straw men (I'll say more on this topic when I get around to commenting on "The Next Reformation.")

Jesus' statement that "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." seems to have many threads running through it. At the very least, it does appear to be a set of propositions. But, propositions seem to become meaningful only when they change motivations, decisions, actions, narratives, etc. And, they only can change these things if they have some sort of meaning that is generally the same across all narratives.

My impression from various postmodern writers is that they see truth as being more about narrative than propositions. As a aside, this appears to be a proposition. Regardless, I think of the relationship of narrative and proposition as being two sides of a single coin...propositions constrain, focus, and shape narrative; and narrative puts flesh on the bones of the decontextualized and abstract propositions that inform it.

If you're aware of any philosopher who's tried to tease apart this interdependency, I'd be interested to see what they say. I find it interesting that the best case I've read for the value of PM is by Don Carson in his "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church."

Finally, a key value of both modernism and PM seems to be that they help us better understand the possibilities and the limits of a human-centered epistemology. Both, however, assume that the ultimate knower is the individual, an assumption in conflict with the Biblical picture of God as the ultimate knower whose knowledge created, shapes, and sustains all that we, as fallen & finite images of God, know.

It is nice to find folks who have some interest in the topic

[James Nored]

Hi Walter. It's great to hear from you! You have shared some good thoughts here. Clearly, you are well read and versed in modern and postmodern philosophy.

1. You are correct that knowing "what works" means that one must have some type of end goal in mind--even if it is not well formed. What do you think most people mean by this in the broader culture? Are there any trends?

2. I have always said that neither postmodernism nor modernism are wholly right. There is good and bad in both. As a Gen Xer, however, I am more attuned to postmodern thought, despite a Biology degree and being raised in churches of Christ.

3. As to sermons, perhaps it is my own tendency to stay in the conceptual, if I do not watch myself, rather than dealing with the very, very practical. Theological concepts must become real to people. What is the daily application of the doctrine of justification by faith, for example?

4. Truth is important. A postmodern emphasis on Christian truth would say that truth is centered in a person, Jesus Christ, rather than a set of propositions. What do you think of this.

5. I'll seek to re-read Psalm 119 in the context which you bring up here.

Looking forward to meeting you, Walter. Thanks for joining the discussion. I appreciate your thoughts!

3.

[Walter R Smith]

James,

You've referenced a number of threads related to an important topic...here's a few snap reactions:

1. Pragmatism is silent on ends. "What works" begs the question of "what is your goal?". It also raises questions of "how do you know (a) what works, and (b) what your goals are." Answers to these questions would vary depending on the nature of your assumptions & worldview.

2. We live in interesting times regarding our ability to know (epistemology). Modernism's naively optimistic rationalism ("I can know everything exhaustively" and "right knowledge inexorably leads to right action") has been eclipsed by postmodernism's pessimistic subjectivism ("I can't know anything" and "all understandings and actions are contextual, relative, and grounded in an ongoing narrative"). Neither extreme reflects a Biblical understanding of our ability to know and act, or of how the two are intertwined (see I Cor. 1-2, for example).

3. Regarding sermons....I'm not clear on how to separate an understanding of grace, for example, (as grounded in Christ's sacrifice and communicated via the Bible in both narrative and proposition) from a practical living out of grace. "How to" is necessary, but needs to be grounded in understandings that empower an individual to act effectively across a broad range of contexts. And, a living out of those principles yields a deeper understanding of their beauty and wisdom.

4. A more fundamental question than "does it work" is "is it true?". I hasten to add that I'm using "true" in the Biblical sense, not in the modern sense or the postmodern sense. Some folks seem to struggle with epistemology when it comes to knowing "what's true", but it seems to me that the same kinds of issues arise in knowing "what works", as I mentioned above.

5. One Biblical description of knowledge that inspires action that I find inspiring is Psalms 119...it's not a dry slice-and-dice rationalistic list of concepts, nor is it a list of "how to" items, or a subjective narrative...instead, it's a celebration of the beauty and wisdom of God's verbal communication to us in all of its literary forms.

BTW, I attend BRCC, know Lawrence V., and am looking forward to your seminar. At a more conceptual level, I would be curious to hear your opinion of Don Carson's discussion of these cultural currents in "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church." I just noticed your book reviews...having read Grenz's "Primer" and Raschke's "Next Reformation" several years ago, I'll post comments on them later.

[Tanner King]

Ok. Thanks for the post!

[James Nored]

Tanner, I usually use the term missional comprehensively, so I understand your point. There may be a better language to describe what I am referring to.

[Tanner King]

James, I agree with your last statement about the gifts described in Eph. 4:11 (and the many more gifts not specifically detailed in this verse) being necessary to fulfill our collective mission. That's why I disagree with your first statement in that it references a competition between missional and prophetic. Missional, in my opinion, is an encompassing identity...one in which the prophetic voice can (and should) still be heard (whether inductively or deductively), but may be marginalized in favor of the now more attractive priest's.

[James Nored]

William, these are interesting thoughts. We are a bit shocked to find persecution in the US, whereas Jesus told us to expect persecution. What kind of persecution do you foresee happening Christians in the US in, say, the next 10 years?

[James Nored]

Scott, glad you are enjoying the dialogue. We are definitely enjoying your thoughts and passion. I like what you say about people not wanting to read about the Good Samaritan, but want to be the good Samaritan.

This brings up an issue on the role of preaching and worship. In worship, we proclaim not only what God has done in the past, but what he is doing in the present. When Christians are out being the good Samaritan, then the stories of God at work in the present--through modern day good Samaritans--are easily told. This in turn encourages and inspires the church in its mission and daily missional living.

[James Nored]

Tanner, the balance--or tension--that you are describing could be put in missional vs. prophetic impulses. The missional impulse is to connect with culture and affirm the positive wherever it is found. The prophetic impulse is to correct and call back to God. While the missionary impulse gives direction to all that we do, all five giftings of Eph. 4:11--missionaries, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers are necessary to fulfill our mission.

[Tanner King]

This post correctly describes the shift in our culture from primarily deductive to inductive reasoning. As a vocational minister, I think the best response to this shift is to simply appreciate and promote the good in inductive reasoning, but don't forget the good in deductive reasoning or turn a blind eye to the potential for bad in inductive. In other words, be a priest (have a relevant word for God's people), but don't forget about the role of the prophet...