Spring Break
Poking holes in theology course opposition
Derek Muller '04 - Special to The Collegian
Issue date: 4/23/09 Section: Opinion
Although my GPA when I was a student was not nearly as high as Mr. Stolyarov's, I am compelled to respond to his curious editorial of April 16. I qualify that I am presently neutral in the debate about a mandatory theology course, although prudence, priorities or practicalities may weigh against such a proposal. But Mr. Stolyarov's critique is, at best, misplaced.
Mr. Stolyarov concedes, in somewhat obligatory language, that Christian theology is "interesting, has numerous elements which are useful and relevant to non-Christians and was developed by thousands of refined, intelligent thinkers who deserve universal respect." That, to me, sounds like a rousing defense of a theology course. One may be a non-republican (small r) and be compelled to read Aristotle. One may be a non-Catholic and be compelled to read Dante. One may be a non-utilitarian and be compelled to read Bentham. Yet all are interesting, useful, relevant and developed by refined, intelligent thinkers.
Mr. Stolyarov then counters that a compelled theology course is "religious compulsion." If, I suppose, one were required to sign a statement of faith agreeing with the articles of theology in the course, then one might discuss "religious compulsion." But I doubt Mr. Stolyarov has lambasted the republican, Catholic and utilitarian compulsion present in other core curriculum courses.
The author - shocked, shocked! - also discovers that professors may have biases. Yet one can learn Homer from Dr. John Somerville despite his obvious bias for Faulkner. He certainly cannot teach ancient literature impartially when there is Southern literature on the horizon. And Dr. Paul Moreno has difficulty restraining himself in teaching about the Supreme Court's decision in Lochner, knowing that a post-Lochner era is on the horizon. Mr. Stolyarov exaggerates the religious bias because it might result in that scary word, "indoctrination."
Finally, before Mr. Stolyarov degenerates to name-calling Hillsdale the next "Bob Jones" (we're just a theology course away from a ban on interracial dating, I guess), he provides his best counter-argument by showing his sheer ignorance concerning theology and the Constitution. He argues that the Constitution "contains not a single reference to God or Christianity" besides perfunctory phrases.
Of course, had Mr. Stolyarov spent a nominal period of time contemplating theology and the Constitution, he would see several theological influences upon that document. To name a few: Article III criminalizes the capital offense of treason only if two witnesses testify against the defendant, an acknowledgment of the Western legal adoption of Deuteronomy 19:15, which requires two witnesses to testify against a man. The "Sundays excepted" clause in Article I acknowledges the role that the Sabbath played in the Founders' days. The religious clauses of the First Amendment were developed from Christian theology concerning conscience and the role of the state.
Whether these bits of knowledge necessitate a full-semester theology course, or whether they could be incorporated into existing courses, is appropriate for vigorous debate. But they do illustrate that Mr. Stolyarov (a 3.993 GPA notwithstanding) may still have a little more to learn.
Mr. Stolyarov concedes, in somewhat obligatory language, that Christian theology is "interesting, has numerous elements which are useful and relevant to non-Christians and was developed by thousands of refined, intelligent thinkers who deserve universal respect." That, to me, sounds like a rousing defense of a theology course. One may be a non-republican (small r) and be compelled to read Aristotle. One may be a non-Catholic and be compelled to read Dante. One may be a non-utilitarian and be compelled to read Bentham. Yet all are interesting, useful, relevant and developed by refined, intelligent thinkers.
Mr. Stolyarov then counters that a compelled theology course is "religious compulsion." If, I suppose, one were required to sign a statement of faith agreeing with the articles of theology in the course, then one might discuss "religious compulsion." But I doubt Mr. Stolyarov has lambasted the republican, Catholic and utilitarian compulsion present in other core curriculum courses.
The author - shocked, shocked! - also discovers that professors may have biases. Yet one can learn Homer from Dr. John Somerville despite his obvious bias for Faulkner. He certainly cannot teach ancient literature impartially when there is Southern literature on the horizon. And Dr. Paul Moreno has difficulty restraining himself in teaching about the Supreme Court's decision in Lochner, knowing that a post-Lochner era is on the horizon. Mr. Stolyarov exaggerates the religious bias because it might result in that scary word, "indoctrination."
Finally, before Mr. Stolyarov degenerates to name-calling Hillsdale the next "Bob Jones" (we're just a theology course away from a ban on interracial dating, I guess), he provides his best counter-argument by showing his sheer ignorance concerning theology and the Constitution. He argues that the Constitution "contains not a single reference to God or Christianity" besides perfunctory phrases.
Of course, had Mr. Stolyarov spent a nominal period of time contemplating theology and the Constitution, he would see several theological influences upon that document. To name a few: Article III criminalizes the capital offense of treason only if two witnesses testify against the defendant, an acknowledgment of the Western legal adoption of Deuteronomy 19:15, which requires two witnesses to testify against a man. The "Sundays excepted" clause in Article I acknowledges the role that the Sabbath played in the Founders' days. The religious clauses of the First Amendment were developed from Christian theology concerning conscience and the role of the state.
Whether these bits of knowledge necessitate a full-semester theology course, or whether they could be incorporated into existing courses, is appropriate for vigorous debate. But they do illustrate that Mr. Stolyarov (a 3.993 GPA notwithstanding) may still have a little more to learn.
Be the first to comment on this story