Archive - Culture RSS Feed

Christians did not burn the library at Alexandria and other things “Agora” gets wrong

June 4, 2010 in Church History, Culture with 7 Comments

David Hart has a great piece at First Things today, “The Perniciously Persistent Myths of Hypatia and the Great Library,” responding to the movie Agora and its depiction of Christians burning the library in Alexandria and murdering Hypatia, a non-Christian woman philosopher. Hart argues that there are problems with both parts of the story, beginning with the fact that the first never happened.

The tale of a Christian destruction of the Great Library—so often told, so perniciously persistent—is a tale about something that never happened. By this, I do not mean that there is some divergence of learned opinion on the issue, or that the original sources leave us in some doubt as to the nature of the event. I mean that nothing of the sort ever occurred.

He goes on to point out that the library was likely destroyed much earlier and that you find no evidence for Christian involvement in its destruction until the 18th century.

With respect to Hypatia, there is no denying that she was brutally murdered and that Christians did it. That absolutely remains a black spot on the record of early Christianity. But, Hart helpfully points out that she was killed for the reasons identified in the movie or in popular imagination. In other words, she wasn’t killed because she was a woman (female teachers being common in Alexandria), because she was a scientist of philosopher (both well supported by Alexandrian Christians), or because she was an enemy of the faith (she had a number of prominent Christian friends). No, Hart argues that she was murdered because she unfortunately got caught in a power struggle between Cyril of Alexandria and the city’s imperial prefect. So, he concludes:

In the end, the true story of Hypatia—which no one will ever make into a film—tells us very little about ancient religion, or about the relation between ancient Christianity and the sciences, and absolutely nothing about some alleged perennial conflict between Christianity and science; but it does tell us a great deal about social class in the late Hellenistic world.

The post is well worth reading, as are some of the comments, if you’d like to understand these events a bit better.

Brian McClaren and How Pluralism Can Lead to a New Christianity

May 31, 2010 in Biblical Studies, Culture, Theology with 5 Comments

I’m generally leery of things Brian McClaren writes and says because I don’t agree with him.  He uses evangelicalism as his whipping boy and at times attacks the cross and Christianity as too exclusive, voting rather for a watered down social gospel.   That being said, in a recent video clip I watched about his newest book, A New Kind of Christianity, he discussed a chapter in the book concerning the Christians engagement with religious others.  (Please note that I want to interact with the video clip and not the book.)   I was surprised that I actually agreed with what appeared to be the main premise of his argument: Christians, while maintaining their Christian identity, need to find ways to lovingly engage religious others.  I have absolutely no problem with that.  Admittedly, the stance of Christianity has at times been very cruel and unloving towards those who will not agree with us.

However, we must be clear about what is meant by “Christian identity” and the term, “loving.”  Definitions of love are varied and many times incompatible with Scripture.  To most people in religious circles today, love = tolerance.  We only truly love people when we accept what they believe as “true” (especially that of ultimate reality), and affirm it with as much validity as we do our own “truth.”  This simply is not what love is.   Furthermore, the engagement of Christianity with religious pluralism is not the collision of nice vs. mean people (although this is the way it is usually portrayed and which side of the debate you’re on will dictate whether or not you’re the nice or mean person), but of two completely different worldviews that CANNOT co-exist together no matter how hard one tries to make them.  The Christian gospel is that Jesus alone is King (as proven by his death and resurrection), and that salvation is found in no other name but Jesus.  It is an exclusivistic message.  In certain places, no matter how much love you preach this message with, it will be received with anger and persecution (i.e. Jesus – who was more loving than him).  Jesus says this in Matthew 10:5-42.  As Jesus sends the disciples out he warns them that persecution awaits them.  He tells them they will be handed over to courts and flogged.  In light of all of this, he tells them to be as “wise as serpents and gentle as doves.”  He then says in 34-39, that he hasn’t come to bring peace to the earth, “but a sword.”  This gospel concerning him is like a sword that will disrupt all human relationships, including the most intimate, those within the family.

Should Christians have a loving disposition towards unbelievers and those of other religious faiths?  Yes!  Absolutely!  Just because we are right does not give us license to be Jerks (and yes, I am aware of how arrogant that first part sounded…..but I say it in love.)  However, at times this will mean that Christian must say and do things that will be perceived by an unbelieving world as unloving.   As we preach the gospel message of Christ, we too will be wielding a sword.  A scalpel to those who recognize the sickness of sin and rebellion, and a weapon to those who hate the true King of this world.

Now listening to…The Black Keys

May 27, 2010 in Culture with 0 Comments

A few days ago I tweeted (twittered?, twat?) that I was listening to and enjoying the new album by the Black Keys, Brothers. In case you’re looking for some good, solid blues rock, this one’s worth checking out. And, Relevant Magazine has posted a good review of the album here.

Wired for distraction?

May 27, 2010 in Culture with 4 Comments

Nicholas Carr recent wrote a piece for Wired Magazine on the way that the internet is literally rewiring our brains. The article reports on a 2007 study demonstrating that browsing the internet for as little as five hours actually causes significant changes in the brain’s neural pathways. Given that our brains are constantly adjusting to sensory input, this really isn’t surprising. As Carr points out,

The real revelation was how quickly and extensively Internet use reroutes people’s neural pathways. “The current explosion of digital technology not only is changing the way we live and communicate,” Small concluded, “but is rapidly and profoundly altering our brains.”

So, Carr rightly notes that the real question is, “What kind of brain is the web giving us?” And, he thinks that the answer might be a little troubling.

Dozens of studies by psychologists, neurobiologists, and educators point to the same conclusion: When we go online, we enter an environment that promotes cursory reading, hurried and distracted thinking, and superficial learning. Even as the Internet grants us easy access to vast amounts of information, it is turning us into shallower thinkers, literally changing the structure of our brain.

The rest of the article goes on to point out concerns raised in several studies about the quality of learning in an internet environment – particularly the impact that hyperlinks have on reading comprehension.

Of course, this isn’t a new discussion. In a now famous Atlantic Monthly article, Carr asked the question “Is Google Making Us Stoopid?” Others have sounded a similarly negative tone, warning us about the cognitive dangers of constant web browsing (see esp. Mark Bauerlein’s The Dumbest Generation). But, many disagree. Don Tapscott’s Grown Up Digital is a great resource for arguments suggesting that the rewiring of the modern brain is actually increasing our cognitive abilities in some very important ways. And Curtis Bonk’s The World Is Open argues that web technology can and should revolutionize the way that we teach. So, like most debates, there are voices on both sides. And, it probably isn’t an either/or. I’m sure our changing cognitive context affects us both positively and negatively.

I’m highlighting all of this because most of the people who read this blog are either already involved in teaching  (whether in a church or a classroom) or hope to in the future. If that’s the case, this is a debate you definitely need to be following. Most experts are now convinced that the way people learn is changing, regardless of whether they agree about whether this is good or bad. The question, then, is how (or whether) this should affect the way that we teach. Many schools have taken the posture that the changes may be negative, but they’re inevitable. So, we should alter our teaching to be as effective as possible in the new environment. Other schools are resisting the changes entirely, arguing that one of the tasks of any educational institution is to resist developments that negatively impact people’s ability to learn. And, of course, some schools just think this is all great, and they’re excited to embrace the new opportunities.

I have not come to any easy conclusions on this issue yet. You can probably tell from this blog that I like the internet. I think it’s a tremendous resource. And I think it has great potential to facilitate learning. But, I’m also aware that it can change the way that people read and think in potentially negative ways. I’ve even seen this in myself. I notice that the more time I spend online, the more inclined I am to skim articles and draw conclusions very quickly. Indeed, I find that after an extended period online, it’s difficult for me to really dig into a challenging book. It takes awhile for my brain to switch gears and become effective in this different cognitive environment. And, apparently I’m not alone. The challenge for anyone teaching today, then, is how to tap into the strengths of the internet while avoiding or minimizing its learning pitfalls.

So, no easy answers here. The debate continues. I just wanted to make sure that you were paying attention to it.

Atheists and baptists agree?

May 10, 2010 in Culture with 2 Comments

I know that a couple of you are pretty interested in issues of church/state relationships, theologies of state, and social/civic engagement. So, I’d thought this post from Exploring Our Matrix might interest you. McGrath is basically arguing that atheists and baptists have (or should have) the same basic attitude on the relationship between church and state. Take a look at it and let us know what you think. There are really two questions here: (1) Do you think he is right about baptists and atheists have the same general take on this issue? And, (2) Do you think this is the correct stance that we should have toward church/state relations?

Policing the public square

May 5, 2010 in Culture, Uncategorized with 0 Comments

There’s not much that you can’t hear on a busy street in the UK. Pedestrian traffic is much higher over there, which means that you have more opportunities to hear what others are saying as they go about their business. They also have a long history of street preaching. Apparently, though, things are getting a little more challenging in that arena. The Telegraph reports that a street preacher was recently arrested in the UK for publicly saying that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible.

Whatever you want to say about the legitimacy of declaiming sins from the street corner, events like this raise serious questions about the continued direction of public discourse in western society. We seem to be picking up pace toward an understanding of the public square that renders off-limits any perspective that is overtly theological. This is, of course, simply the continuation of a centuries long trend toward secuarlized public spaces, but it is no less troubling for that fact. Like many, I worry about where this is going. We seem to be headed toward one of two possible outcomes. (1) We could capitulate and agree to shelve our theological convictions when we engage in public discourse. Basically, this means agreeing to “play by the rules” of public discourse by only using non-religious arguments. The problem here, of course, is that we will still have these theological convictions, and everyone will know it. So, try as we might to offer non-religious arguments, everyone will suspect that these arguments are actually drive by other (religious) arguments – and they’ll be right. The other apparent option (2) is to retreat into a theological ghetto where we continue to espouse religious reasons for public policy, but no one is listening.

Obviously, I’m not satisfied with either approach. Somehow we need to convince people of the legitimacy of religious (and, not just Christian) argumentation in the public square. Somehow, we need to revision the public square so that it is not viewed as a “secular” space, but as a space for legitimate, public discourse. And, that means a space where none need surrender his or her fundamental perspectives in order to participate in the conversation. Indeed, true public discourse should affirm the importance of these various perspectives for generating meaningful dialog. This won’t make the process any easier, indeed it will make it harder, but it will be significantly less shallow that what we have now.

Page 10 of 11« First...«7891011»