12AR17-38
( - previous issue - )
Apologia Report 17:38 (1,130)
November 7, 2012
Subject: Reflections of a veteran cult-watcher
In this issue:
EDUCATION - Ron Enroth looks back over 47 years of cult-watching
PHILOSOPHY - the study of truth, a secular overview
POSTMODERNISM - a sympathetic, "helpful and understandable" source
------
EDUCATION
"Reflections of a Cult Watcher" by Ronald M. Enroth, Professor of Sociology at Westmont College - who just retired after 47 years -- he opens: "Theologian Ronald Sider published an article in the Christian Scholar's Review in 2007, 'Needed: A Few More Scholars/Popularizers/ Activists: Personal Reflections on my Journey' [www.ow.ly/f62F2], that described the various roles he's played in his career. ... Most of us know his book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger [1], but not his scholarly work on the 16th century reformer Andreas Bodenstein van Karlstadt. ...
"Sider describes himself as a popularizer, and that label fits me too, although I lack his stature. ...
"I've wondered if there is a role for a popularizer in Christian sociology....
"Some of my colleagues may look askance at combining popularizing with scholarly work and activism. But I'm convinced that such a role belongs in the academy, especially evangelical Christian higher education. I agree with Sider, who writes, 'Evangelicalism, especially, with its strong anti-intellectual strain, has often - whether one thinks of eschatology, science, family life, or politics - been badly served by popularizers and activists with simplistic ideas and superficial solutions. Nor will that change unless more people with good scholarly training become effective popularizers and successful activists.'
"A 'popularizer' is a person with traditional, graduate-level academic training whose work appears in non-traditional forms of publication (trade books rather than university presses) and who accepts invitations to appear in various media outlets. ... I believe that popularizing can be an aspect of public sociology. ...
"Professor Sider expresses frustration that popularization requires simplification: 'good popularizing demands that one set aside many complexities in order to offer a clear, coherent statement of the central issues. That easily frustrates the popularizer - who is also a scholar - not to mention the scholarly critics who are not popularizers!' He correctly notes that the popularizer 'runs the danger of losing touch with his or her field of scholarly expertise.'
"Not only is my popular writing on new religious movements and spiritually abusive churches far removed from my early work, but it took considerable time to read the relevant literature in the sociology of religion, an area in which I was not formally trained.
...
"Like Ron Sider, I discovered the general public has little interest in highly technical, detailed writing that doesn't apply directly to issues of great human need. But combining the roles of scholar, popularizer and activist isn't easy. As Sider said, 'I would discourage anyone from trying to do it unless you felt called, and both experience and friends confirm that you have the necessary gifts and thereby confirm that call. Not many people should do it! I do not mean for a moment to urge most scholars to abandon a life of extended, focused scholarly research in their specific area of professional expertise. What I have tried is not for everyone.'"
Enroth goes on to describe the hardships he has experienced as well as the fulfillment that has made it all worthwhile. He concludes: "Like Ron Sider, 'I hope that a few in each generation of Christian scholars will pray for the gifts, develop the skills, and pay the price of becoming far better popularizers and more effective activists than I have managed to be.'" Amen. Westmont Magazine, Aug 23 '12, <www.ow.ly/f0NRE>
---
PHILOSOPHY
Handling Truth: Navigating the Riptides of Rhetoric, Religion, Reason, and Research, by William Melvin Gardner [2] -- uncritical reviewer Richard Bond, retired professor of philosophy from Ramapo College of New Jersey, writes: "Gardner's book demonstrates a first-class intellect, careful research, unbiased judgments, and compelling insights in the author's analysis of the applicability of truth to social and political institutional arrangements.
"Traditionally, in philosophy truth has been discussed in terms of four basic categories," - namely, the Coherence, Correspondence, Performative, and Pragmatic theories of truth. Bond finds that while "the distinctions between these various theories are significant ... it is difficult for the average person to grasp" them. "Gardner makes that understanding possible in a way traditional philosophy does not in his distinctions between truth in the realms of rhetoric, religion, reason, and research. He has a unique ability to take a complex philosophical topic and make it clear and readily understandable."
Bond summarizes these "four distinct domains of intellectual inquiry" this way: thus; in rhetoric, "statements are advanced or discredited by the process of persuasion and debate;" in religion, "truths are articles of faith or beliefs arising from and tested by mystical processes such as spiritual revelation;" in reason, "truths are inferences or proofs that have been validated with the methods of logic;" and in research, "truths are empirical findings confirmed and documented.... The tests of truth differ among the four domains, and as a consequence the truths of one domain often contradict the truths of another. For example, spiritual revelation and scientific research take us along totally different paths to truth, and we arrive not just at different truths but at different types of truth. Understanding our differences in these terms helps make sense of the conflicts so evident in our contemporary society.
"Handling Truth should be of interest to anyone involved in psychology or politics, as well as those who have an interest in philosophy." Skeptical Inquirer, Nov/Dec '12, p58.
Apologia Report consulting editor Mark Hartwig offers the following counterpoint: "It doesn't surprise me that this review was published in the Skeptical Inquirer. They've been peddling this rhetoric about the absolute distinctness of other disciplines for ages.
"Perhaps the most well-known variant of this was Stephen J Gould's 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria' (NOMA), the view that Science and Religion address different kinds of truths.
"The California Science Framework of 1989, said that science differed from other disciplines in that it is 'testable, objective and consistent.' Which is malarkey, since testability, objectivity and consistency are characteristics of all good scholarship. They separate good scholarship from bad scholarship, not science from everything else.
"In fact, the so-called 'four distinct domains of intellectual inquiry' overlap considerably. For instance, research is done in all the domains - even if we restrict research to empirical research. What's more, research reports necessarily employ rhetoric and rhetorical forms. In fact, there's an entire subdivision of rhetoric devoted to studying the rhetoric of science. And to top that off, most scientists rely heavily on revelation - considering that no one has the time or resources to replicate every study they cite - let alone everything they learned in textbooks.
"The only way he could make the claims he does would be to use definitions that are normative rather than descriptive. That is, he defines them according to the way he thinks inquiry should proceed in each domain - not the way they actually do."
---
POSTMODERNISM
What Would Jesus Deconstruct?: The Good News of Postmodernism for the Church, by John D. Caputo (Thomas J. Watson Professor of Religion Emeritus, Syracuse University and the David R. Cook Professor of Philosophy Emeritus, Villanova University) [3] -- it is telling that Brian McLaren, one of the fathers of the Emergent Church movement, wrote the foreword to this volume. Reviewer Michael Gurney, professor of theology and philosophy at Multnomah, explains that this book "is an effort not only to elucidate the elusive and complex thought of Jacques Derrida [a French postmodern philosopher known for his advocacy of deconstructing literary texts, including the Bible], but to commend Derrida's deconstructive strategies and their attendant philosophical and theological implications as a benefit and aid to identifying and overcoming idolatrous tendencies in the Christian faith community. ... Caputo is widely respected by many scholars familiar with postmodern thought for his interpretation and analysis of Jaques Derrida, and Continental philosophy [a set of 19th- and 20th-century philosophical traditions from mainland Europe most commonly opposed by Analytic philosophy] in general. ... Caputo uses a creative and intriguing strategy, that of comparing Derrida with Charles Sheldon and his widely read classic In His Steps. The subtitle of Sheldon's popular book, What Would Jesus Do, which has furnished a pop culture manifestation of WWJD, creates a conduit for Caputo not only to introduce Derrida ..., but to suggest that Derrida's analysis has something to say to thinking Christians. Caputo contends that both Sheldon ... and Derrida have similar aims: to challenge our comfortable intellectual stance in the status quo.
"Much of Caputo's effort is directed towards explaining deconstructionism [where binary oppositions are used in the construction of meaning and values in texts] and connecting it with the 'kingdom of God,' a notion meant to resonate with the book's intended readers, evangelicals. ...
"While many will find Caputo's description of Derrida's deconstructionism illuminating, not all will appreciate the many junctures in which Caputo directs his Derrida-inspired deconstructive analysis and critique towards those whom Caputo labels 'the Religious Right.' [M]any of Caputo's criticisms seem more ad hominem than prophetic. Moreover, Caputo's own political predilections are usually assumed and asserted without argument, often appealing to Scripture in a decidedly question-begging manner that comes across as arrogant as any fundamentalist preacher on Sunday morning. ...
"[A]n even more troubling tendency in Caputo's arguments [is] his uneven use of both Scripture and leading Christian thinkers of the past, most notably Augustine. ...
"All this is unfortunate since Caputo's insights and exposition of Derrida and deconstructionism are quite helpful and understandable." Cultural Encounters, 8:1 - 2012, pp138-140.
-------
SOURCES: Monographs
1 - Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving from Affluence to Generosity, by Ronald J. Sider (Thomas Nelson, 2005 reprint, paperback, 368 pages) <www.ow.ly/f0Oc1>
2 - Handling Truth: Navigating the Riptides of Rhetoric, Religion, Reason, and Research, by William Melvin Gardner (Logica, 2012, paperback, 200 pages) <www.ow.ly/eZVuh>
3 - What Would Jesus Deconstruct?: The Good News of Postmodernism for the Church, by John D. Caputo (Baker, 2007, paperback, 160 pages) <www.ow.ly/eZYJk>
--------
( - next issue - )