Right Reason

The blog of Dr Glenn Andrew Peoples on Theology, Philosophy, and Social Issues

Christian employers and the hiring process

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

I wasn’t sure whether I would share this or use it as an opportunity for comment. I’ve decided to do so, albeit with some fear and trembling. Somebody has to say things like this. If you think I shouldn’t have done so, or if you’re personally (or professionally) connected to the circumstances I describe here, don’t use the comments section to point this out. If you’re concerned enough, contact me privately.

A while ago, I applied for an academic job at a Christian college of higher learning. I describe it vaguely that way so as not to give any clues which college this was, but I’ll say that it was in New Zealand. Reading the job description, it looked to me like I was ideally qualified for the role, and given the profile of the college, which was not as high as some, I thought I might even have stood a good chance. I was interviewed, but I didn’t get a the job. That was a bummer, but it happens. I figured I would just keep doing what I do, doing my time in my job that I had always said I would just keep doing until I landed the sort of job I was looking for, trying to squeeze out of the rest of my schedule the time and space to work very hard at raising my profile to improve my chances of getting this sort of job.

Episode 042: The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Episode 42 presents the “minimal facts” approach to the resurrection of Jesus.

This episode doesn’t just present the argument in order to persuade you, it’s also meant to show you what the argument is like so that you can use it yourself (if you find it persuasive of course). It starts out with four facts granted by the majority of New Testament critics, and then works towards an explanation of those facts.

In this episode I refer to other blog posts and podcast episodes, and as promised here are links to those:

Merry Mithras!
Episode 19: Osiris and Jesus
Is there No Evidence that Jesus Even Existed?
Is there No Evidence that Jesus Even Exited? Part 2
Is there No Evidence that Jesus Even Exited? Part 3

 

 

Why I like Rowan Williams a Little More than I Used To

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

I’m a bit late in noticing this. On the fourth of May 2010, Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, preached a sermon at Charterhouse, London (the text of that sermon is here). Charterhouse – now a boarding school – is a former Carthusian monastery in London (the Carthusians were a Catholic order), and that’s why Williams was speaking there. Now, why would the Archbishop of Canterbury speak at a Catholic monastery?

The cynical (and often correct) side of me says this: It’s just another case of feel good, watered down ecumenicalism, right up there with “inter-faith” prayer meetings. But it’s not. Williams spoke there because it was the 475th anniversary of the execution of John Houghton, the prior of the monastery, along with fifteen other monks who lived there. Along with a public acknowledgement of the evil of what was done here, Williams threw in this gem: “If Henry VIII is saved (an open question perhaps) it will be at the prayers of John Houghton.”

That’s right, the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested that perhaps the head of the English Church, the King, might in fact be lost after all.

Jesus Week 2011

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

This week I’m in Auckland taking part in a couple of speaking events as part of Jesus Week at the University of Auckland. On Wednesday the 4th of August I really enjoyed taking part in a panel discussion with Matt and Madeleine Flannagan, called “A Godless Public Square”? The broad subject area was the legitimate role of religious convictions in public life, law and politics – certainly a topical area of discussion today. Pat Brittenden did a great job as moderator/ facilitator of discussion, providing a relaxed and really open forum for conversation.

One reason why I’m not Catholic

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

I was raised in the Roman Catholic church. Now, I’m a Protestant. I am most definitely not one of those Protestants who believes that part of apologetics means telling everyone that the Catholic church is evil. I find that flavour of Evangelicalism frankly embarrassing. The truth is that I have a great respect for the Catholic intellectual tradition, in spite of the disagreements I have with the doctrines of that church. I would gladly work with Catholics, fellowship and worship with them, and in fact I’d rather like to work at a Catholic College/University. I wanted to get that out in the open right away. I am an ecumenical Christian, and I cherish the idea that I am part of the catholic (small c, meaning worldwide or universal) Christian faith. Disagreements that I have with Catholics are disagreements among family.

That being said, every now and then I am exposed to a reminder – quite apart from my doctrinal disagreements – of why I could not become a Roman Catholic again. I was having a discussion recently with a friend about the Canon of Scripture – the list of books that are included in the Bible. My friend – a Protestant – was under the impression that the “Apocryphal” books of the Old Testament (called the “deutero-canonical” books by Catholics, when means “second canon”) were actually part of the Hebrew Bible, and that is why they ended up in the Septuagint. I was able to point out for him that actually, the apocryphal books gained their separate status in part because they are the ones that appear in the Septuagint but which are not found in the Hebrew Scripture.

Bear in mind – the point that I am getting to has nothing to do with which books actually do belong in the canon of Scripture. For my purposes here, it doesn’t matter to me what you think about the answer to that question. This issue just provides the backdrop for what I’m about to say.

Internet Sceptic Meets Real World: Reginald Finley and Bart Ehrman

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Reginald Finley is an internet sceptic. There are many such sceptics, who see themselves as part of a thriving community of thought, which in actuality amounts to a (virtual) crowd of usernames at internet forums who perceive themselves at the cutting edge of the genuinely critical approach to biblical studies. They are strident non-believers, they know that Jesus never existed, and they know – they are absolutely certain – that this is what the evidence shows. People who disagree are simply ignoring the evidence or are unwilling to challenge tradition.

Bart Ehrman is a New Testament critic. By that I mean that he’s a qualified, professional scholar who has expertise in textual criticism. In the past I’ve criticised Ehrman over what I take to be his rather sensationalist work, especially in the podcast episode Sexing Up Early Church History. I say that lest anyone think that I’m a fan of his. I’m not. As I explain in that episode, I think some of his theories about the way the church suppressed alternative books of the Bible are more at home in The Da Vinci code than in the classroom. Perhaps banking on the fact that a fellow non believer, and someone with a few degrees to boot, would come to the aid of the “Christ myth” theory, the fringe view that Jesus never existed, Finley broached the subject with Ehrman. You can tell from Finley’s reaction that he was unprepared for the reply.

 

Jesus: The Cold Case

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Like a number of others tonight I have just watched Jesus: The Cold Case on TV One, presented by Bryan Bruce. Here are my thoughts on what I have seen. First off, who is Bryan Bruce?

Kant: There is no such thing as coincidental righteousness

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

A short, sweet lesson: Being a morally good person involves doing your moral duty. If you don’t at least accept that, then I think you’re basically mistaken about morality in theory (I say “in theory” because I’m comforted by the fact that you probably live as though I’m right).

But how does being morally good involve doing your moral duty? Here’s is where Kant has something important to tell you. Being a moral person is not just acting in accordance with your moral duty. You might live your whole life in accordance with your moral duty and yet in some really important sense still not be a morally good person. How so? Here;s how: It could be a very unlikely coincidence that your life is lived in accordance with your moral duty. Or maybe you are doing what you do because you’re getting paid to do it, and you don’t really reflect on what your moral duty is. Or maybe you, perversely, think that what you’re doing is really contrary to your moral duty and yet you desire to do it anyway. Or maybe you have some other motivation – you might not take advantage of a woman because you fear that it will harm your reputation with women, for example.

This is what Kant tells us, and he is right: Doing the morally right thing  is where you act, not just in accordance with your moral duty, but you also act out of duty. Nobody is worthy of moral esteem for doing a thing that, as it turns out, is in fact morally right. You are only worthy of moral esteem for doing the right thing, whatever that might turn out to be.

And that is the gift that Kant has given you today!

Glenn Peoples

Can God create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it?

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

NO!

God also cannot dig a ditch that’s so wide he can’t jump over it.

God also can’t make a burrito that’s too hot for him to eat.

God also can’t build a skyscraper that’s so high that he can’t jump over it.

These are not clever, profound or interesting objections to the doctrine of God’s omnipotence,1 and if you think they are, kill yourself.

That is all.

 

  1. Omnipotence is the property of being all-powerful []

A Godless Public Square?

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

A Godless Public Square: Do “private” religious beliefs have a place in public life?

On Wednesday the 3rd of August 2011 I’ll be taking part in a panel discussion on religion in the public square, tackling the issue from the standpoint of theology, philosophy and law. Joining me will be my good friends Matthew Flannagan (theology) and Madeleine Flannagan (law).

The kind of questions that we’ll be exploring will include:

Is it ever right for Christians to impose their ‘private’ religious beliefs onto others?
Is it really religiously neutral to insist the public realm be secular?
How does the idea that religion should be private mesh with freedom of religion and expression laws?

The evening will be held at the University of Auckland. It’s free to the public, and although all three speakers will be bringing their own areas of expertise to bear on the issues, this is not an academic lecture, and it will be aimed at a broad audience. For more details (including the precise location on campus), check out the Facebook page for this event, which  is HERE (at the time of writing, this page was still private, but will be public soon).

If you’ll be in the Auckland area on the 3rd of August, mark this event on your calendar. I hope to meet you there, and spread the word!

Glenn Peoples

Page 29 of 78

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén