As a high church Protestant with a strong Calvinist upbringing and highly ecumenical leanings (how's that for a mouthful?), I found this parodical chatechism unduly hilarious.
Read the whole thing here: The Semi-Pelagian Narrower Catechism
Some personal favorites from the questions:
1. Q: What is the chief end of each individual Christian?
A: Each individual Christian's chief end is to get saved. This is the first and great commandment.
4. Q: At what time must thou perform this work?
A: I must perform this work at such time as I have reached the Age of Accountability.
5. Q: At what time wilt thou have reached this Age?
A: That is a trick question. In order to determine this time, my mind must needs be sharper than any two-edged sword, able to pierce even to the division of bone and marrow; for, alas, the Age of Accountability is different for each individual, and is thus unknowable.
9. Q: What is the assurance of thy salvation?
A: The assurance of thy salvation is, that I know the date on which I prayed the Sinner's Prayer, and have duly written this date on an official Decision card.
15. Q: What witness aid hath been given us as a technique by which we may win souls?
A: The tract known commonly as the Four Spiritual Laws, is the chief aid whereby we may win souls.
17. Q: What supplementary technique is given by which we may win souls?
A: The technique of giving our own Personal Testimony, in the which we must always be ready to give an answer concerning the years we spent in vanity and pride, and the wretched vices in which we wallowed all our lives untilthe day we got saved.
19. Q: What are the means given whereby we may save large crowds of souls in a spectacular manner?
A: Such a spectacle is accomplished by means of well-publicized Crusades and Revivals which (in order that none may be loath to attend) are best conducted anywhere else but in a Church.
20. Q: Am I a soldier of the Cross?
A: I am a soldier of the Cross if I join Campus Crusade, Boys' Brigade, the Salvation Army, or the Wheaton Crusaders; of if I put on the helmet of Dispensationalism, the breastplate of Pietism, the shield of Tribulationism, and the sword of Zionism, having my feet shod with the gospel of Arminianism.
25. Q: What doth the Lord's Prayer teach us?
A: The Lord's Prayer teacheth us that we must never memorize a prayer, or use one that hath been written down.
28. Q: Who is on the Lord's side?
A: He who doth support whatsoever is done by the nation of Israel, and who doth renounce the world, the flesh, and the Catholic Church.
29. Q: What are the seven deadly sins?
A: The seven deadly sins are smoking, drinking, dancing, card-playing, movie-going, baptizing babies, and having any creed but Christ.
30. Q: What is a sacrament?
A: A sacrament is an insidious invention devised by the Catholic Church whereby men are drawn into idolatry.
31. Q: What is the Lord's Supper?
A: The Lord's Supper is a dispensing of saltines and grape juice, in the which we remember Christ's command to pretend that they are His body and blood.
32. Q: What is baptism?
A: Baptism is the act whereby, by the performance of something that seems quite silly in front of everyone, I prove that I really, really mean it.
34. Q: What is the office of the keys?
A: The office of the keys is that office held by the custodian. [My personal favorite, although #37 gives it a run for its money].
37. Q: How long hath the Holy Spirit been at work?
A: The Holy Spirit hath been at work for more than a century: expressly, since the nineteenth-century Revitalization brought about by traveling Evangelists carrying tents across America.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Friday, March 25, 2005
Collegian Article on Hillsdale Politics
Finally located the article from our college newspaper that addressed similar concerns about Hillsdale (factional interests, inordinate political focus, etc.)
Gala Inaccurately Portrays Hillsdale
Gala Inaccurately Portrays Hillsdale
A Modified Rant on CCAs ("We're Schizophrenic in Multiple Directions up Here!")
I'm keeping the last entry up, mostly because I want to keep a record of my thinking (however reactionary) at that particular moment. But this is my slightly more reasoned analysis of the issue.
First off -- this is mostly an ideological objection to the current status of the CCAs. I've only attended two actual lectures, so I can't speak from personal experience to any great extent. I'm hoping Medved and Decatur are not representative of the general tenor of CCA lectures, but I'm not exactly encouraged.
Second -- before my fellow students crucify me for complaining -- yes, I chose to come to this college, knowing its political stance, and knowing, for the most part, what I was getting into. But in choosing to come here, one cannot assume that I was happily accepting every principle and philosophy of this institution. Hillsdale College is...unique, to say the least. Composed of a schizophrenic hodgepodge of ideals and visions. I've run into the "enculturator of conservative thought" ideal, the "broad, liberally-oriented education" ideal, the "good business school" ideal, and the "good general education" ideal. We have our mission statement, of course -- and we have radically different ideas about which implications and phrases of it are the most important.
I'm not sure what to call these conflicting visions. Facets? Factions? I'm leaning toward the less amicable term "faction," mainly because there exist active attempts by various individuals to shape Hillsdale toward their particular vision.
And I'm not saying that such action is a bad thing. I'm perfectly willing to grant the political and the business people the right to shape Hillsdale's mission in the direction they prefer. Provided I'm also extended the same right to shape Hillsdale toward the quite different ideals that attracted me.
Now -- CCAs. Their trouble is that they end up being a crux point of controversy in this issue. In themselves, CCAs are not intolerable. Just 2-3 hours of extra lectures per day, and a paper due at the end. But the extra work is really not the point. The point is their philosophical and symbolic significance. Drawing a rather provocative analogy, it's rather like the British tax on tea in the 1760s. A tax that was 1/16 of a cent (more or less) was nothing worth fighting a war over. But they ideas that lay behind it sure were.
In a somewhat similar matter, CCAs represent to a sector of students much more that a week of required lectures, a paper, and usually a good bit of political propagandizing. They represent an attempt to impose a specific vision of Hillsdale on Hillsdale. (Namely, the "political thinktank" vision). This, I believe, is also why there was such a hullabaloo over the "Constitution Class" becoming a part of the core curriculum.
Again, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Some vision is going to end up being imposed. Whether it's political or business of liberal arts or "why can't we all just get along." However, I can still be a bit upset about the current direction things are going. I can still try to change it. And I can still try to make the vision that I came to Hillsdale for a bit more prominent.
In regard to a final solution to the CCA dilemma...I'd suggest that the administration make them voluntary. In my perfect world, they wouldn't exist at all, or they'd actually be lecture series, and not a series of political diatribes (the CS Lewis and Tolkien one next semester looks promising in this regard). But CCAs (and their political bent) are going to keep existing as long as the "enculturator of conservative thought" and "political thinktank" visions exist here at Hillsdale. Lots of students come here for those reasons and visions. So keep the CCAs. Let any kid who wants to attend them and take them for credit do so. But let us people who could care less about politics ignore them.
First off -- this is mostly an ideological objection to the current status of the CCAs. I've only attended two actual lectures, so I can't speak from personal experience to any great extent. I'm hoping Medved and Decatur are not representative of the general tenor of CCA lectures, but I'm not exactly encouraged.
Second -- before my fellow students crucify me for complaining -- yes, I chose to come to this college, knowing its political stance, and knowing, for the most part, what I was getting into. But in choosing to come here, one cannot assume that I was happily accepting every principle and philosophy of this institution. Hillsdale College is...unique, to say the least. Composed of a schizophrenic hodgepodge of ideals and visions. I've run into the "enculturator of conservative thought" ideal, the "broad, liberally-oriented education" ideal, the "good business school" ideal, and the "good general education" ideal. We have our mission statement, of course -- and we have radically different ideas about which implications and phrases of it are the most important.
I'm not sure what to call these conflicting visions. Facets? Factions? I'm leaning toward the less amicable term "faction," mainly because there exist active attempts by various individuals to shape Hillsdale toward their particular vision.
And I'm not saying that such action is a bad thing. I'm perfectly willing to grant the political and the business people the right to shape Hillsdale's mission in the direction they prefer. Provided I'm also extended the same right to shape Hillsdale toward the quite different ideals that attracted me.
Now -- CCAs. Their trouble is that they end up being a crux point of controversy in this issue. In themselves, CCAs are not intolerable. Just 2-3 hours of extra lectures per day, and a paper due at the end. But the extra work is really not the point. The point is their philosophical and symbolic significance. Drawing a rather provocative analogy, it's rather like the British tax on tea in the 1760s. A tax that was 1/16 of a cent (more or less) was nothing worth fighting a war over. But they ideas that lay behind it sure were.
In a somewhat similar matter, CCAs represent to a sector of students much more that a week of required lectures, a paper, and usually a good bit of political propagandizing. They represent an attempt to impose a specific vision of Hillsdale on Hillsdale. (Namely, the "political thinktank" vision). This, I believe, is also why there was such a hullabaloo over the "Constitution Class" becoming a part of the core curriculum.
Again, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Some vision is going to end up being imposed. Whether it's political or business of liberal arts or "why can't we all just get along." However, I can still be a bit upset about the current direction things are going. I can still try to change it. And I can still try to make the vision that I came to Hillsdale for a bit more prominent.
In regard to a final solution to the CCA dilemma...I'd suggest that the administration make them voluntary. In my perfect world, they wouldn't exist at all, or they'd actually be lecture series, and not a series of political diatribes (the CS Lewis and Tolkien one next semester looks promising in this regard). But CCAs (and their political bent) are going to keep existing as long as the "enculturator of conservative thought" and "political thinktank" visions exist here at Hillsdale. Lots of students come here for those reasons and visions. So keep the CCAs. Let any kid who wants to attend them and take them for credit do so. But let us people who could care less about politics ignore them.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
A Rant on CCAs
I'm agreeing with the generally negative student opinion concerning the "Center for Constructive Alternatives." Admittedly, I've only attended two lectures -- but at the rate they're going, I really don't care to give them the benefit of the doubt anymore.
Non CCA lectures have only disappointed me once or twice (ala the "Deconstructionism" talk given a week or so ago, which was a mile wide and an inch deep). But CCAs seem to be a consistent intellectual disgrace. No sense of nuance, no sense of subtlety, and no depth. Just people getting on their soapboxes, and repeating their nice sound-bite arguments for the 103rd time.
Sound bites, however much I dislike them, have a semi-acceptable place in political positioning and posturing. But for God's sake PLEASE don't bring them into what is supposed to be an institution of higher learning.
I'm willing to tolerate the existence of the CCAs. We apparently need them to keep the donors happy. And I'm glad for my scholarship, given, evidently, by such a donor. But I'd appreciate it if they kept the political part of this college somewhat separate from the educational part of it. Most students, I would think, come here for a liberal arts education. That's what a college -- at least this one -- is for. But as CCAs are mostly shallowly political, not liberally educational, I do not understand why students are required to attend them. Sure. We have a good number of adamant College Republicans here. Let them attend if they want to. But don't make the rest of us sit through these second-rate speeches.
People wonder why students look so zoned out and bored and uninterested? I've several theories.
Non CCA lectures have only disappointed me once or twice (ala the "Deconstructionism" talk given a week or so ago, which was a mile wide and an inch deep). But CCAs seem to be a consistent intellectual disgrace. No sense of nuance, no sense of subtlety, and no depth. Just people getting on their soapboxes, and repeating their nice sound-bite arguments for the 103rd time.
Sound bites, however much I dislike them, have a semi-acceptable place in political positioning and posturing. But for God's sake PLEASE don't bring them into what is supposed to be an institution of higher learning.
I'm willing to tolerate the existence of the CCAs. We apparently need them to keep the donors happy. And I'm glad for my scholarship, given, evidently, by such a donor. But I'd appreciate it if they kept the political part of this college somewhat separate from the educational part of it. Most students, I would think, come here for a liberal arts education. That's what a college -- at least this one -- is for. But as CCAs are mostly shallowly political, not liberally educational, I do not understand why students are required to attend them. Sure. We have a good number of adamant College Republicans here. Let them attend if they want to. But don't make the rest of us sit through these second-rate speeches.
People wonder why students look so zoned out and bored and uninterested? I've several theories.
- A number of students are like this about any lecture.
- CCAs are somewhat compulsory, and we intoxicated-with-freedom college kids do not like having our choices limited, regardless of whether the compulsory thing is good or not.
- For me personally, it's because I've heard 1000 times better stuff in CLASSROOM lectures. Dr. Birzer's talk on prudential vs. ideological politics, Dr. Kalthoff's presentation of the definition of "liberty" as understood in various American colonies, Dr. Westblade's lesson on "Why the God-man." All with great depth, breadth, and an underlying understanding of multiple positions. And an openness to discussion about the topics brought up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)