Hey, there! Log in / Register
Here's what's wrong with Harvard: It's not Christian enough
By adamg on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 7:53am
It's a Harvard thing.
There's a two-day conference that starts tonight by some group that wants to restore Harvard to its 17th-century role as a Christian theology school.
Sure, sure, back then, Massachusetts office holders had to swear an oath that they were good Christians. But Hebrews and Muhammadans have nothing to fear from a revived Christian university on the Charles, even if, as the Crimson reports, one speaker says Muslims, along with gays and abortion, are proof of the coming Apocalypse and another wants Christians to "reclaim" government and the media. Because, see, it says right on their site that:
Many secular or non-Christian leaders have also successfully employed faith-based principles to better our society or to effect change without necessarily being believers themselves. We thus invite all interested in exploring the subject to attend this conference regardless of their current faith posture.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
if you wanna keep it white, male, and narrow-minded
Yeah, great idea for a university cause those Puritans really fostered intellectual discourse. Just ask Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams.
Wow
As a narrow-minded white male, I find this comment offensive.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
you're too easy
if that's all it takes. I love white males. Fundamentalist bigots, not so much.
Yeah, go backpedal. That's
Yeah, go backpedal. That's will fix the original comment. Changing it to calling their cause a bunch of fundamentalist bigots with no investigation really helps it.
affirmation, not back-pedal
You might want to add American Jezebel to all those other history books you've read.
Great sound bite.. Puritans
Great sound bite.. Puritans founded Harvard (they also required that every town provide free public education) and yes they did foster intellectual discourse,
Among Puritans who didn't deviate, they did
Their name gives you a hint of why they left England - it wasn't "pure" enough for them.
Mrs. Anne Hutchinson - Trial at the Court at Newton. 1637
The Puritans who gave us Harvard (and let's not forget one of its original missions was to Christianize the heathen natives) also saw nothing wrong with hanging people because they were Quakers.
and furthermore
Hutchinson wasn't even "deviant". She just wouldn't cave to the politically motivated and iron-fisted demands of the "Fathers" that she shut her articulate and clever girly mouth.
Williams, Hutchinson were TOO Puritan
Hutchinson, like other Puritans, read her bible and thought deeply about what God wanted from her, and discussed this and preached it with others. Then she pointed out that those who ran the colony were not living up to their public statements or their founding principles. She was treated fairly leniently because she was a very powerful woman and respected midwife.
Williams was a similar case - both he and Hutchinson were TOO Puritan for Winthrop and were pushed out because they made solid critiques of the authority figures of a growing colony. Williams was suspect because he also decided that the native peoples were people too, and deserved Christian treatment and respect.
A good resource for more information is Sarah Vowell's "Wordy Shipmates".
Puritans...not
Harvard was affiliated with and trained Congregational and Unitarian ministers, although the MA legislature technically "founded" it. It branched out from religious education and became secular. Puritans had nothing to do with it.
But in the 1600s, Congregationalists WERE Puritans
The Unitarian split-off didn't happen until the early 1800s.
And the Mass. Legislature
And the Mass. Legislature didn't found Harvard - the Great and General Court did long before there was a state Legislature, and before there was a state, for that fact.
Someone's been relying on Wikipedia....
True, Harvard came before the state constitution
But the fact that the constitution has an entire section just about Harvard shows the special place it held in the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the successor commonwealth. And the fact that the constitution as originally written contains a religious means test to hold state office is a holdover from the theocratic nature of the colony.
You're an idiot. Wikipedia's
You're an idiot. Wikipedia's entry on the history of Harvard University is more detailed, complete, and accurate than you could ever DREAM of being. Perhaps you should actually read it, Donkey Kong.
Highly debatable
Puritans did not have nor approve of a congregational ownership of the church and its assets, as well as the polity. They were also fundy when the Congregationalists were not.
Before the Councils of Nicea (325 and 787 AD) all Christians were unitarian. The trinity was an artificial and largely political construct to compromise among sects, leading to, among other outcomes, what is the Roman Catholic Church.
There were many small u and large U unitarians here, including the bulk of the Transcendentalists and hangers-on like Thomas Jefferson before William Ellery Channing defined the American version in a sermon in 1819. There was the bifurcation from the traditional Christians who believed in a unitary god without a separate divinity of Jesus.
The Harvard sorts were the unitarians who did not necessarily believe in a mystical trinity.
The Boston and other New England Puritan pilgrims were pretty much anti-papist Protestants who thought the English Protestant Reformation didn't go far enough. Neither the Congregationalists nor the unitarians fell in that lot of nasty Calvinist-leaning types.
By far, New Englanders were not largely Puritans. Puritans just had an outsized cultural impact.
All Christians were not unitarian prior to AD 325 and 787.
This is of course arrant, ignorant, primitivist nonsense.
The Council of Nicaea declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance (homoousios) and are co-eternal, against the Arian position.
Try Again, anon
Sorry, gal or guy. There's no direct or formal scriptural support for a trinity. It emerged as an artificial construct from dickering at those councils and at the First Council of Ephesus. Those were political compromises that various sects negotiated. The conflicts and contradictions inherent in the Creator/Messiah thingummy required some kind of alignment that was not in any of the forms of the early Bible.
Ask a theologian or study up on it.
I was a devote little trinitarian as a child. I got better.
three leaves, small and green...
As a seminary dropout I proclaim myself qualified to interject. True, the trinity was not adopted as a formal and orthodox doctrine prior to Nicea- because there had been no centralized and authorized creed prior to this. There were a variety of beliefs among various groups. The Trinity is not explicitly stated in the New Testament, but is inferred from the way the interactive relationships between the Son, Father and Holy Spirit are described, while holding on to the ancient Hebrew belief that there is ONE god.
The tension of trying to have it both ways, as 3 in 1, separate but the same, is a Paradox (at best).
Spectacles, testicles, wallet, watch
Awesome movie. I wish Robbie Coltrane would find more comedies to do these days.
Tendentious masmarrier should steer clear of Christian theology
massmarrier, sometimes only fisking will do the job.
It's spelled Nicaea. 787 was the anti-iconclastic council. It wasn't concerned with the trinity.
The church had to work out the relation of Jesus to God, first. That's what Nicaea did. Not much was said about the third person of the trinity.
Well, no they weren't. The divinity of Christ and the trinity weren't beliefs that popped up out of nowhere like spring crocuses. They were beliefs held by many Christians that were only later declared part of the faith.
While this is true, it is tendentiously beside the point that it is not true that "Before the Councils of Nicea (325 and 787 AD) all Christians were unitarian."
You say this like it's a bad thing. The doctrine of justice of 'an eye for an eye' is artificial, yet we modern humans prefer it as a merciful and proportionate punishment in preference to killing the offender and his entire immediate family.
Just about everything we humans do, including discerning the working of divinity in the created order, is political. Quelle surprise!
At Ephesus, the church was still wrangling with the natures of Jesus Christ, but this time it opposed Nestorius, not Arius.
Again, political compromise is how we humans do things. And, you are being pejorative to characterize the various bishops and their followers as sects.
Yes, there are conflicts and contradictions inherent in the dual natures of Jesus Christ. That's what the declaration of Chalcedon was about, to make a human-language statement about the God-man, that he is fully God and fully human.
Grow up. You don't have to agree. You don't have to like it. But, you don't have to call names like a school child.
Yes, the divinity of Jesus can't be firmly established on the basis of the canonical texts of the bible. There is no news here. That's why I accused you of being a primitivist. The church matures and advances in its understanding of who God is. There should be no scandal here.
As if there is some "later bible" that's different. The canon of sacred texts was established in the 4th century. There were some late entries, such as the Revelation to John, that snuck in under the wire. Even at that the canon accepted by the Roman Catholic Church is slightly different to that accepted by the Orthodox Church. That gnostic stuff you are probably alluding to was authored late and was kicked to the curb early.
I'm very happy for you. I'm glad you got better, though there is little evidence of it on this thread. Too bad you lost your manners and whatever church history you may have learned.
Not explicit but implicitly conveyed
I am not really contending with you, but as regards why they understood, while the N.T. make not be as explicit as one may like in this regard, it can be argued that based upon what it does say, Jesus own words and other texts require the conclusion that they claim an ontological oneness with God, that Jesus was Divine, versus created, in nature: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST...
One could say that the book of Esther does not support the idea of faith in God because He or even prayer is never actually mentioned, but i think it is implicitly conveyed.
Define "late"
Some scholars have put Thomas as early at 50 CE, which would make it contemporary with the "canonical" 4 texts. I can't lay my hands on my Mary books at the moment, but recollection is they date to not much later. Judas is a bit later at mid 2nd century.
Says here
Says here (http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0100_Christi...),
E.J. Kahn writes in Harvard, Through Change and Through Storm:
Other appraisers of Harvard have compared it to a tiny part of Europe – specifically, to the Vatican. Members of the Corporation, among whose responsibilities is the selection of Harvard’s president, have compared themselves to the College of Cardinals.
No president of Harvard is known to have invested himself publicly with Papal stature, but the analogy has its points. Harvard has traditionally operated like a small, powerful, and subjectively infallible political entity with a worldwide constituency…
The American Taliban
The American Taliban has now finally become intellectually honest and come right out in the open with their desire for 17th century, pre-revolutionary, pre-reformation religiously governed society. Good for them! I'm tired of hearing the AT's absurd moaning about how we need to "get back" to the Christian values on which the country is founded when what they really want is to get back to the values of the Puritains who spent about a hundred and fifty years here before realizing that maybe its better not to have a religiously governed country and came up with the Constitution. At least this intellectual arm of the AT comes at it from the right perspective. Burn the witches!
Cognitive dissonance
It's a shame that evolution hasn't gotten us to a point where saying something this dumb would cause the brain such excruciating pain that it renders the person unconscious or worse.
Person A acts a certain way and justifies his actions as an attempt to live up to God's demands/desires.
Person B acts the same way and justifies it by empathy and an attempt to act fairly with others.
Person B did NOT employ a "faith-based principle".
Kaz nails it again
Eloquently put.
I have no problem with ACTUAL faith-based principles
Actually, Jesus taught people to be accepting and not to judge. While Christianity is not my faith, I'm more than welcoming of people who want to draw these values from what Jesus actually taught.
Isn't this an April Fool's
Isn't this an April Fool's Joke?
Possibly to counter the American Humanist Association
Their Annual Conference is coming to Harvard soon.
First, Puritan was a name
First, Puritan was a name applied to them by their enemies. Would you label feminists femi-nazis?
Second, they were a minority of protesters in England, and the oppression against them was so great that they became refugees to the point that they left the civilized world as they knew it and risked their lives just to find a place to live in peace as they saw fit.
Third, when they got here, they didn't go out of their way to find other Christians to disagree with. When Anne Hutchinson told them that everything they believed was wrong, they didn't kill her - they asked her to leave. It was only when she insisted on coming back that the gloves came off. The truth is that Hutchinson was just as much a kook as they were to modern sensibilities.
And finally, the so-called Puritan culture evolved quickly, learning to accept orthodox believers (Anglicans/Episcopalians), Baptists and others. King's Chapel was founded in 1686, when some of the first-generation Puritans were still alive. And out of the Boston Puritans came Unitarianism, which was the basis for much of the progressive theology and political ideology of 19th Century America. Feminism, Abolitionism, and myriad social welfare institutions now considered secular all grew out of Unitarianism in greater Boston.
It is not an accident that Boston is known as a liberal city - to the degree that it's true, we owe it to the Puritans.
Groups sometimes adopt the names their enemies give them
See, for instance, "Methodist" and "Quaker".
Also
queer, dyke, fag, n-word...
(Yes, all are still slurs when applied that way, but so's "you stupid bench" in that case.)
Group Response
The student group sponsoring this has issued a statement:
http://socialtransformation2011.org/?p=901
You have to love this part of it:
"Harvard University has always been a center of informed debate, free speech and academic freedom. This campus has embraced intellectual diversity by inviting speakers representing a wide range of opinions and beliefs...
Comments are closed."
These people go to Harvard?
A "faith-based event" with "faith-based leaders"? What are those? Is that like Santa Claus or Peter Pan...where the event actually fades away if enough people don't believe in it to make it exist in real life? Are they only leaders if you choose to believe they're leaders of something?
(Ok, maybe that second one is accurate!)
What is a "Swamp Yankee" . . .
. . . and do they still exist? Just heard that expression - "swamp yankee". I think they are what I heard called "wombats" when I was growing up- Yankees from way back who were not rich- and moved away from Puritans because they couldn't stand them.
Edit- Well- I guess they do exist according to Wikipedia (does everything have a Wikipedia entry?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swamp_Yankee
My personal, non-wikified definition
A swamp yankee is someone whose family has been in New England for many generations and who lives in a rural, generally poorer setting. Usually used to refer to someone in the southern part of New England - I don't think someone from rural NH/VT/ME would could called a swamp yankee.
It used to be used a lot more as a slur, but nowadays very few "city" folk have ever heard the term, so you encounter it more often as a slightly self-deprecating term by people in SNE. Eg, you're a swamp yankee if you call corn bread "johnny cake" or drive your tractor to the grocerers.
Real swamp yankees get pissed if you use the term as a stand-in for "trailer trash'. A 'real' swamp yankee has more pride of place and common sense - isn't so much downwardly mobile as 'culturally fixed'.
Where I grew up in rural Sothern NJ, we called the same sort of folks "pinies". Again, considered a slur when used by outsiders, but ok when used without rancor by someone in the community.
Thanks . . .
. . . for the clarification. From the "Urban Dictionary"- "Swamp Yankee" used in a sentence:
I immediately noticed the unmistakable scent of pot after the swamp yankee drove by me in his rusty Dodge Monaco with a rotting muffler.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Swa...
Flatlander?
Sounds like a synonym for what people in the White and Green mountains call a Flatlander.
I thought that was kind of the opposite thing...
Isn't a "flatlander" typically used for someone from outside the region - typically an urban tourist?
From the Vermont perspective,
From the Vermont perspective, from what I've been told by residents, flatlander includes anyone from a non-rural area including urbanites AND suburbanites, especially from out of state. Of course the wealthy are particularly despised since they buy up land as second homes, build McMansions and drive up property taxes. If you're from NY then that's another strike against you.
What's in a name?
First I think it is worth pointing out that the group's name includes Harvard Extension Service. Perhaps the folks who established the group are naive and didn't realize that a name which resembles an official name suggests both affiliation and official sanction (i.e., Harvard Extension School). If I was skeptical about motives then I might think that the organizers of this conference about bringing "God" back to Harvard are maintaining a falsehood by using a name which dishonestly implies an official association. Nothing says God and religion as well as a lie. But it's just kids who organized the conference and so what do they know?
I looked over the roster of speakers. The blog of one speaker is "The Life and Living Legacy of Bishop Rodney Sampson I." Will he teach faith based humility in academia? Jerry Anderson is quoted on his website with "God made man and beast as male and female for reproductive purposes. It is only the human that practices homosexuality." Is his PhD in sexuality in nature?
Look behind the curtain of the conference's introduction and what appears is a cabal of egotistical power motivated folks who ride the religion train to create the world in their image. The introduction sounds pious and holy and concerned with putting faith and love of God and humankind back on campus. But reading the biographies of the speakers makes me think that the real draw is about how to make that delicious drink of power and religion.
It IS an official Harvard Extension School student club
though apparently one that has migrated far away from its intended purpose, and which has now embarrassed the Harvard Extension Student Associaton.
The name should be parsed as (Harvard Extension [School]) (Service & Leadership Society).
"one speaker says Muslims,
"one speaker says Muslims, along with gays and abortion, are proof of the coming Apocalypse and another wants Christians to "reclaim" government and the media."
Replace Muslims, gays, and abortion with Republicans, conservatives, and tax cuts, and Christians with (so-called) progressives and it would sound just like the equally-inane hyperbole that emanates from some on the Loony Left!
Ill-informed hyperbole and stereotyping knows no ideology.
You're point?
What does anything being discussed have to do with your post?
Also, name one "Loony Left" person who has said that the Republicans are proof of the coming Apocalypse (the biblical event...which is exactly the context the initial statement was made, not your run-of-the-mill downfall or collapse).
Finally, there is an absurd hyperbole of wanting Christians to reclaim anything in our society, let alone government, since an overwhelming percentage of our politicians are Christians. There is no absurd hyperbole in someone on the "Loony Left" wanting progressives to reclaim government since you can count on one hand the number of truly progressive politicians that are currently elected.
Also, there's nothing in what you quoted that's insultory. So, whatever misguided and lost point you were trying to make is further distracted by the fact that you can't make it without characterizing someone as "loony" just to ratchet up the verbal noise and denigration while trying to make it.
Of course
you wouldn't understand. From you I would expect nothing more.
(BTW; it should be "Your point..." not "You're.")
Kaz' indignation would be meaningful if...
he had also expressed outrage over some of the other characterizations in the thread. But he- and his ilk- have no qualms about derogatory comments toward Right-leaning people, only when they are made about their favored groups.
Just another self-serving, hypocritical Lefty.
Right-winger lunatics are the
Right-winger lunatics are the scum of the earth and the enemy of civilized society.
Why does that need to be balanced out with some made up "politically correct" statement?
Aren't you the good little Nazi!
You sound as if you'd be quite comfortable in Germany, circa 1938.
Ooh zing
Nobody who's ever played the Nazi card way too early has ever lost an argument, ever.
Uh...
You said that like you were completely unaware of the fact that Germany in 1938 was much more like the Republican Party platform of 2010 than anything he had to say.
I mean, the way you wrote it...it's almost like you're completely unaware of the irony in having tried to use it to label him with it instead of some of your own complaints in this discussion.
You are a lunatic
Yes Kaz, you are.
Ah, decoration over substance
Had my only response been about "loony left", then you might have a point.
However, since I had to correct the stupidity in the first comment (and isn't being refuted by you or the other anonymous poster), I added the fact that "loony left" is useless rhetoric.
So, congrats on attacking a minor point and avoiding the obvious key points in my post. The ad hominem attacks are cute too. They make you seem so big and tough.