Truth?

What is this “truth” of which the previous author from “Univ. of Bible” speaks? If it were so apparent, wouldn’t everyone just agree and never discuss it? We haven’t found the absolute truth because it isn’t within our capabilities. The constant expansion of our understanding and misunderstanding is far more vital to our survival than clinging to a broad and vauge image of “truth". That is the task, and I dare say the God-authored mission, of Mercer. Can we get things right? yes. Can we get things wrong? Far more often than we get them right. But if we never invest those talents, we become a lazy and worthless slave, sitting on what the master gave us until it is time to give it back. You can keep your “truth". I don’t want it.

D. Fuller, at 9:55 am EDT on August 24, 2007

The New Mercer

Three cheers for Bill Underwood, a president who really gets it. And Baylor let him get away! Baylor’s loss is certainly Mercer’s gain.

MDS, at 8:25 am EST on January 26, 2006

Bill Underwood

Mercer’s new President Bill Underwood is highly respected and loved at Baylor and in the Waco community. He is a gifted leader and “walks the walk” of the teachings of Christ. The faculty, staff, and board at Mercer can rejoice. They have made a brilliant choice.

Mary Darden, at 11:15 am EST on January 26, 2006

Amen

Reading this story, it is hard not to think of Jonathon Edward’s words on the “sanctification of reason.”

All the best to the folks at Mercer, from another Baptist scholar.

Cicero, Professor of English, at 2:41 pm EST on January 26, 2006

Huh?

SP,

You have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t know how even to begin to address such ignorance. Many of the best schools in America and around the world are religious. Learning and the advancement of truth has, in fact, been under the exclusive care of religious institutions throughout most of the history of the west. If it wasn’t for the church there would be no such thing as scholarship. Furthermore, I assure you that secular institutions are no less “biased” than religious ones; they simply make different assumptions. It takes a very academically isolated and historically ignorant person to react with indignation to the idea of religious education. Who do you think founded Princeton?

Cicero, Professor of English, at 10:00 am EST on January 27, 2006

I am no expert on the early history of US universities, having only taught in large American publics (for 4 yrs) and getting a PhD at a smaller private one there. At no time was I questioned about my religion when I was hired, despite being in 2 very Republican states. Of course many universities have religious origins, but today, they don’t require tests of faculty loyalty like the private christian colleges, which are the ones I regard as being far from credible in academic terms. There is widespread disquiet about the policies of such places — see on this website, the reaction to Mercer College’s policies on gays and other matters — and that fact that Oklahoma Christian University can actually kick out faculty who suffer the pain of a divorce, whatever the cause of that divorce: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/11/17/baptist. Then there are the extraordinary policing efforts at Wheaton College, where they kicked out a prof. who converted to catholicism, http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/01/12/faith , and the equally severe tests of faith and general policing going in all the other colleges mentioned in those articles. These are not credible academic institutions, since they do not accord with basic principles of academic freedom. Theological experts without faith, for example, will not get hired, even if the know the bible inside out. Mark Noll’s The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind dealt with the dangers of doctrine, while Robert Wuthnow (of Princeton) deems that “American evangelicalism is an intellectual embarrassment". Several commentators have noted the AAUP disapproves of the hiring policies of such places — I asked earlier if this is so, and several replies elsewhere on the site suggests they do.

SP, at 10:55 am EST on January 29, 2006

MORE APPLAUSE

Many congratulations to the Mercer president, who seems to be laying out a quite visionary proposition of how a ‘religious’ university can operate as a prestigious, high quality university that obtains the respect of serious Baptist and secular scholars alike. The goal of a university with a religious affiliation should not be to teach faith (indeed, even the Baptists disagree over what to believe at the margins) but to allow for the free discussion of these faith-derived views in coordination with other faith-based perspectives and those with support from the standard tools of Western scholarly thought. As the new president has discussed, a religious university (one not over-run by religious fanaticism) permits such an open dialogue in a way that public universities can not given their associations to a society that has decided, by mutual consent, to separate religion from the government (in principle, at least).

Incidentally, SP, you need to do your home work. Mercer is a prestigious university with a curriculum not dominated by religion in any respect. This is not one of these universities with chapel requirements and silly social regulations. The role of a religious associated university (if any) is a serious one and the discussion is not advanced by secular fanatics with no tolerance for the entire subject matter

Moreover, Porkchop, though I am a little rusty on my mythology, I am not certain that the Bible assigns a role to universities in spreading the Good News. I would suggest that the Church stick this role and the University be permitted to get on with its comparative advantage…teaching students to practice the examined life (I do not see, ex ante, why such a life should be incommensurate with the Baptist way of life and I hope that you agree).

John Silence, at 10:45 am EST on February 17, 2006