Quote from Noll on "Christian Thinking about the World"

Mark Noll on christians thinking about the world from his book "Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" (pg.130) 

"For Christian thinking about the world, the key question is what happens to a community when it tries to work out a Christian orientation to, say, the conundrums of modern nuclear physics, to the complexities of health care reform, to the meaning of traditional legal principles for a pluralistic society, to the interpretation of classic texts, to efforts at evaluating Communism in the twentieth century, to the issue of how music reinforces or subverts traditional morality, to the debate over which books should be assigned as the literary canon- that is, to the whole range of modern questions in which it is absolutely essential to exercise sensitivity concerning the interpreter's stance over against the data being interpreted, criticism about the way pre-commitments influence conclusion, and critical awareness of the symbiotic connections between methods and results. If that community's habits of mind concerning those things to which the community pays most diligent attention and accords highest authority- that is, to the Bible and Christian theology- are defined by naive and uncritical assumptions about the way to study or think about anything, so will its efforts to promote Christian thinking about the world be marked by naivete and an absence of rigorous criticism."

A few blogs on Higher Education and Scholarship

Surfing the blog world today and came across a few blogs with the same subject and all of them good.


1. James K.A. Smith on Courageous Scholarship http://forsclavigera.blogspot.tw/

2. Michael Bird's Advice to Christian Scholars

3. Roger Olson on Academic Freedom, Statements of Faith and Christian Universities



I will include below the full text of James K.A. Smith's blog...it's shorter and really good...as well as the video from Michael Bird.

James K.A. Smith:

On "Courage" in the (Christian) Academy

[a few thoughts composed on my iPhone on the shore of Little Platte Lake]

Someone has said that academic squabbles are so nasty only because they are so unimportant. Nonetheless, many academics like to see themselves as "courageous"--exhibiting intellectual heroism, taking stands that are unpopular, leading to some kind of "martyrdom."  This is the kind of "courage" you claim when you've dodged the draft and type with hands never blemished by a callous. 

This self-understanding of academic "courage" takes specific forms among Christian scholars, and is perhaps ramped up by adding religious stakes to the mix. Again, the scholar likes to imagine himself or herself as "courageous" for saying unpopular things, for speaking truth to power, for questioning the status quo. 

There are "progressive" versions of this in which the courageous scholar-martyr is marginalized by evangelicalism for taking unpopular stands that are nonetheless supported by "science" or "justice" or "democracy" or "experience" or what have you. As a result s/he is critcized, bullied, rejected, ostracized, ignored, excluded, etc. But the courageous scholar is willing to endure such sacrifices for the sake of Truth, Justice, Science, Progress, Diversity, etc. 

But progressives don't have the corner on the courage market. There are conservative Christian scholars who tell themselves the same story: they are willing to risk marginalization, exclusion, derision, even appearing the fool in order to stand up for The Truth against academic trends, intellectual fads, and the temptations that roll into the university under the guise of Progress.

But when one looks at these scenarios more closely, I think one will see that, in fact, neither is risking very much. Those "courageous" progressives don't really value the opinions or affirmations of conservative evangelicalism anyway. What they really value, long for, and try to curry is the favor of "the Enlightened"--whether that's the mainstream academy or the progressive chattering class who police our cultural mores of tolerance. Sure, these "courageous" progressives will take fire from conservative evangelicals--but that's not a loss or sacrifice for them. Indeed, their own self-understanding is fueled by such criticism.  In other words, these stands don't take "courage" at all; they don't stand to lose anything with those they truly value.

Similarly, "courageous" conservatives who "stand up" to the progressive academy aren't putting much at risk because that's not where they look for validation and it's not where their professional identities are invested. They are usually "populists" (in a fairly technical sense of the word) whose professional lives are much more closely tethered to the church and popular opinion.  And in those sectors, "standing up to" the academy isn't a risk at all--it's a way to win praise. When your so-called contrarian stands win favor from those you value most...well, it's hard to see how "courage" applies. 

But here's what we don't often see: Christian scholars who have vested their professional lives in the mainstream academy willing to take stands that would be unpopular at the MLA or APA or AAR. Conversely, we don't see many conservative scholars willing to defend positions that would jeapordize their favored status with popular evangelicalism. 

Now both of those options would require courage.

"Forced to Choose"

I have posted a video from the collossian forum website before, and I really like how they handle the questions of science and faith. Here is another short clip from them about the integration of science and faith...it makes me wonder about how I am presenting the issue to my students in SBS when I teach Genesis.

Prediction of What Education Will Look Like in 50 Years

Here is a prediction about what education will look like in 50 years by Sal Khan, the founder of khanacademy. His predictions are bold, but I think they are not too far off from what it could look like in reality. And honestly as he describes the classroom of 2060, I wish I could go to school there! I hope to implement some of those future elements of education into the bible school I teach in and the inductive bible study course I am working on developing.

The Facebook Philosophy

I enjoyed reading this article written by Mark Zuckerberg, before his startup social media group became a public company to be invested in about a year ago. It is really insightful and revealing to what are the actually motives and hopes behind facebook, as well as there innovate "hacker way" that helps run the company. Here are some highlights from the article, but I personally think the whole thing is worth a read- it is good insight into what the inventors of todays technology are actually hoping to accomplish, and it is also a contrasting way of working compared to past "prussian models" of industrial labor. Industrial workers have now turned into computer programmers following the "hacker way".


Facebook was not originally created to be a company. It was built to accomplish a social mission — to make the world more open and connected.

 We’re inspired by technologies that have revolutionized how people spread and consume information. We often talk about inventions like the printing press and the television — by simply making communication more efficient, they led to a complete transformation of many important parts of society. They gave more people a voice. They encouraged progress. They changed the way society was organized. They brought us closer together.

Today, our society has reached another tipping point. We live at a moment when the majority of people in the world have access to the internet or mobile phones — the raw tools necessary to start sharing what they’re thinking, feeling and doing with whomever they want. Facebook aspires to build the services that give people the power to share and help them once again transform many of our core institutions and industries.

we hope to rewire the way people spread and consume information. We think the world’s information infrastructure should resemble the social graph — a network built from the bottom up or peer-to-peer, rather than the monolithic, top-down structure that has existed to date. We also believe that giving people control over what they share is a fundamental principle of this rewiring.

We think a more open and connected world will help create a stronger economy with more authentic businesses that build better products and services.

The Hacker Way is an approach to building that involves continuous improvement and iteration. Hackers believe that something can always be better, and that nothing is ever complete. They just have to go fix it — often in the face of people who say it’s impossible or are content with the status quo.

Moving fast enables us to build more things and learn faster. However, as most companies grow, they slow down too much because they’re more afraid of making mistakes than they are of losing opportunities by moving too slowly. We have a saying: “Move fast and break things.” The idea is that if you never break anything, you’re probably not moving fast enough.

We believe that a more open world is a better world because people with more information can make better decisions and have a greater impact



HIgh Hopes and interesting way of doing business, I hope facebook actually accomplishes what it wants to do and not just provide another avenue for people to waste time and feed fake fish!