gregor

Don't take my word for Baylor's position, bother to read it's mission statement:

------------------------------
"Pro Ecclesia. Baylor is founded on the belief that God's nature is made known through both revealed and discovered truth. Thus, the University derives its understanding of God, humanity, and nature from many sources: the person and work of Jesus Christ, the biblical record, and Christian history and tradition, as well as scholarly and artistic endeavors. In its service to the church, Baylor's pursuit of knowledge is strengthened by the conviction that truth has its ultimate source in God and by a Baptist heritage that champions religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Without imposing religious conformity, Baylor expects the members of its community to support its mission. Affirming the value of intellectually informed faith and religiously informed education, the University seeks to provide an environment that fosters spiritual maturity, strength of character, and moral virtue. "

-------------------------------

See that part about "expects the members of its community to support its mission."

And again, if I believe in accuracy and near inerrancy of the gospels, I go to work at Baylor. If I believe in mythological origins of Xianity, I go to work at Clarmont.

Oh, and cite me some cutting edge evolutionary theory or anti-historical jesus publications from Baylor.


Thanks

gridleyjason

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gregor
[B]Don't take my word for Baylor's position, bother to read it's mission statement:

------------------------------
"Pro Ecclesia. Baylor is founded on the belief that God's nature is made known through both revealed and discovered truth. Thus, the University derives its understanding of God, humanity, and nature from many sources: the person and work of Jesus Christ, the biblical record, and Christian history and tradition, as well as scholarly and artistic endeavors. In its service to the church, Baylor's pursuit of knowledge is strengthened by the conviction that truth has its ultimate source in God and by a Baptist heritage that champions religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Without imposing religious conformity, Baylor expects the members of its community to support its mission. Affirming the value of intellectually informed faith and religiously informed education, the University seeks to provide an environment that fosters spiritual maturity, strength of character, and moral virtue. "

-------------------------------

See that part about "expects the members of its community to support its mission."

********
And see that part you seem to have missed that it's mission is to support, as other Baptist schools do not, "that champions religious liberty and freedom of conscience".

********
And again, if I believe in accuracy and near inerrancy of the gospels, I go to work at Baylor. If I believe in mythological origins of Xianity, I go to work at Clarmont.

********
Oh, and cite me some cutting edge evolutionary theory or anti-historical jesus publications from Baylor.

*******
I'm not sure why this last (anti-historical Jesus publications) is held to be the benchmark of intellectual honesty or rigour. That sort of skepticism is usually accompanied by an amazing credulousness.

Jason

gregor

If you would like to begin a thread whether Southern Baptists foster more "religious liberty" than say . . . all other religions, please feel free.

gridleyjason

Irrelevant thesis. The issue is whether you've read Baylor's mission statement correctly.

Jason

NOGO

"some" is of no interest here.

Let's go with the "all" of the above elements because that is what is being argued.

It is useless to ask how many. Tell me!
Please give me a list of all the stories which you know of with these five items.

leonarde

Well, if you don't know, then you have absolutely no basis for making a judgement about the likelihood of Oedipus Rex having influenced Sleeping Beauty or, for that matter, any fairy tale of Western Europe that was written down (but not necessarily originally formulated) 1 to 2 millenia after Sophocles wrote his play.....

Cheers!

gregor

GJ

Actually, the point was I've demonstrated that your position on this thread was incorrect.

Let's go to the tape, Bill. . .

1. Vork said (in essence) that one reviewer of MacDonald is a member of a very conservative school (Baylor) whose oath requires an orthodox view of scripture.

2. You responded with "what oath?"

3. I pointed to: (i) the conservative nature of the school (including its expulsion of a gay student) and (ii) the school's mission statement, which is roughly equivalent to an oath.

4. You responded with the unsupported: Baylor supports religious liberty unlike other Baptist schools.

I think people can read the Baylor mission statement for themselves and conclude whether Baylor encourages "religious liberty" and whether its mission statement is the equivalent of an oath. And, next time your in Dallas, Texas stop by. We'll drive the 45 miles down to Waco, and I can show you the school. But don't try and get a drink, dance, or talk evolution on campus.

gridleyjason

Overlooking the fact that you've equivocated with your "rougly equivalent" AND over looked the words in the mission statement about how Baylor will not impose religious comformity on it's members AND not provideded any documentation for your claim about a student's expulsion for being gay, you've still not provided any real or had evidence that faculty members must take an oath before they can teach at Baylor or that this "oath", let alone what this oath actuall is. Suppositions about what is the case given certain premises are nothing more than suppositions.

In any case, I've decided to write directly to both the dean of the religious studies and to Sharon Dowd hhereself to find out what is the case. My letter is below.

In the meantine, please remember that the "oath bound" claim also extended to Margaret Mitchell and to Morna Hooker. Please show me your evidence that Cambridge or the University of Chicago requires an oath from its faculty to tow a particular theological party line.


Jason

+++++++

Dear Professor Dowd,

A dispute has arisen on a list to which I belong about whether you have
written what you have written in your review of MacDonald's book on Mark
and Homer because you are "oath bound" by Baylor to come to the
conclusions you mooted in your review.

That is to say, a claim is being made that there is a theological and
exegetical party line to which Baylor requires all of its religious
studies faculty to adhere, that you have taken an oath of some sort to
tow this line, and that in the end all of your exegesis is in the
service of proving as true something you are required by this oath to
say.

I have pointed out not only that if anyone actually knew you, let alone
read the other things you have written, they'd know how absurd this
claim is; but also that since, as its mission statement says, Baylor
has committed itself to religious diversity and freedom of conscience,
the whole idea of faculty having to swear some kind of oath and to tow a
party line is nonsense.

But since certain members of the list in question persist in doubting
all of this, it struck me that it would be best to get the word "from
the horse's mouth", so to speak. So I'd be grateful if you'd clarify the
matter.

Does Baylor require any kind of "oath" from its faculty that they will
profess in what they teach and write a particular set of theological
views?

Have you taken any such "oath"?

And, as absurd as I know this question is and as ashamed as I am to ask
it of you since it implies that you do not have the courage of your
convictions -- were the conclusions that you came in your review of
MacDonald in any way predetermined by feelings on your part of what you
would have to say to be "true" to this "oath"?

I'm ccing this to David Garland for his comments.

gridleyjason

I wrote:

Here's professor Garland's response:

+++++++
This is total nonsense. Baptists by definition, if they are true
Baptists and not fundamentalists or papists, would never require such a
thing. True Baptists have also been consistent advocates of academic
freedom. If there would be any restrictions at Baylor, it would be at
the seminary (and Sharon is not on the seminary faculty), and we have
none. I say categorically that no one has placed any restrictions on
any one about their scholarly work or conclusions.

I do not know the review, but my guess is that sometimes somebody needs
to say that the emperor has no clothes on. My knowledge of Sharon is
that she sees through all the tomfoolery and calls a spade a spade. To
argue otherwise, is, imho, slanderous.

++++++
Jason

Toto

Let's not take this to an absurd off-topic direction.

Layman originally listed the 3 reviews in an attempt to show that scholars have not accepted McDonald's work. Vork pointed out that all of the scholars seem to be associated with Christian Universities or have ties to organized Christianity, so their views may be *a bit* biased.

We don't actually have all of Dowd's review; from what I could read of her work, she sounds like a reasonable scholar. (I was even tempted to buy her book on Amazon from the excerpt that I read.) This does not mean that her confessional stance does not give her a particular viewpoint, and I think that is the only point that Vork was trying to make. There is no need to read into that a charge that she has been tied down by the Baptist Inquisition and forced to speak words that she would not have otherwise uttered. </sarcasm>

gridleyjason needs to calm down and practice more Christian charity and less confrontational politics. And if you're going to bother Dowd on this issue, I'd rather see the full text of her review if it's available than quibble over whether she has to follow a party line.