The Professor's Notes

I recently have had several opportunities to talk about, and think about, what it means to be “an adult.”

Here is my opinion:

It’s not a magic age (“I am 18, and an adult” usually followed by “why won’t you let me…”). It’s not a magic formula or convergence of events in a life (mortgage, marriage, move, or any such thing.) Turning 18 just means you alone are legally responsible for your mistakes, and I have seen plenty of childish husbands, wives, and so forth.

It is the point where one takes on responsibility for “things” great and small in their life, and takes responsibility for one’s own actions. When one gets to the point where one can do that, one has begun the lifelong journey to and through adulthood. And guess what–we will slip, and revert, and blame others, and shy away from rather, than step up to, our responsibilities. That too is part of the journey. It is how we recognize our failings, and whether we step forward and accept responsbility, that helps us determine whether we are still climbing the path to maturity, or slipping down the slope of childishness.

Did I mention yet, God? Spiritual maturity actually, to some extent, is the reverse. As one grows in Christ one finds (as I had to over a recent weekend–Thanks to all that prayed, and please continue!) that while we need to accept responsibility for our actions, we must recognize that we can do nothing, and Christ can do all things. It is the recognition of the role of Servant to our Lord, the subjugating of self so that Christ can live through us, that shapes and provides definition to spiritual maturity.

So where do we stand? Do we blame others for not recognizing us or allowing us to serve, rather than stepping up and stepping in? Or do we acknowledge that God has called us to serve, and we are to serve in whatever capacity He has made for us, and serve joyfully. “To whom much is given, much is expected.”

P.S. I realize that I have to some degree stepped outside the bounds of this BLOG’s construct. If this were a state school, I suppose I would find myself in trouble for talking about God at all. Oh, well.

The Chronicle: 1/28/2005: Choosing Their Flock

This article, from the Chronicle of Higher Education, poses an interesting question–should religious organizations on college campuses be able to restrict their membership to only those who adhere to that faith? I say this is an interesting question, because as a question it is targeted only at religious groups. I would venture to say that only religious groups have people beating down their doors to join, that share in no way a common set of values for that organization. For instance, when was the last time you heard of someone who hated chess seeking to join the chess club? How about a Republican (and for the sake of argument, a compassionate conservative) seeking to join the College Democrats? Generally speaking, those organizations are able to self-select, because only like-minded people join them.

That now sets up the interesting predicament that was faced at “The Ohio State University.” According to the article in the Chronicle (dated 28 January 05) “In the fall of 2003, two law students at Ohio State University’s main campus complained to the administration that the campus chapter of the Christian Legal Society, a student group, was violating the institution’s nondiscrimination rules… Yet the two students said the society would not let them join because one of them was not an evangelical Christian and the other was gay. The group said it would not accept students who did not share its religious views, or those who engaged in “homosexual conduct,” which, it held, is condemned in the Bible.”

Interestingly, these two students never actually say whether they attempted to join the organization, or they simply inquired as to requirements for membership. So, at the face, we have a charge of discrimination but there is no evidence of any actual harm being done.

Now, let’s deal with a few things. First, we have a group that has people trying to join it, that actually do not believe in the organization’s view. They are taking Marx’s statement to the extreme. Remember, Groucho had sad that he wouldn’t want to belong to any organization that would have him as a member. Apparently, these folks prefer to belong to organizations that would NOT want them as a member. That, in and of itself, strikes me as “odd.”

Of course, the purpose to “join” the organization most likely was simply to force their hand–to show that this organization wasn’t playing fair.

I suggest that every Religious organization (Certainly every Christian one) should encourage all to join. But I would also encourage them to continue to hold to, and preach, their ideals. If as a tenet of your faith you believe that sin is to be fled, and that righteousness is to be pursued, then preach that, teach that, and don’t hesitate to call sexual immorality on college campuses, well, WRONG. If that makes the membership uncomfortable, because of their lifestyle, then so be it–they didn’t HAVE to join.

Hopefully it will have the alternate effect of convicting, and converting, and allowing God to work in their lives.

Let em in–it just might change a life!

Yahoo! News – ‘Survivor’ Winner Arraigned on Tax Evasion

Okay, read this story over. But in case they take it off–let me excerpt:

“he failed to declare the $1 million he earned for beating out all other contestants on the hit reality TV show in 2000. ”

“Hatch, a corporate trainer and consultant, is also charged with failing to declare the $10,000 prize he earned for appearing on the series’ final episode and more than $300,000 he earned the following year from radio appearances. ”

Now here is my question: What made him think they wouldn’t notice? If I remember correctly, he won the money on NATIONAL TV, and most likely had international coverage. Did he think that IRS employees don’t watch TV at home? Did he think that someone winning over a million bucks wouldn’t be flagged?

I cannot wait to hear what he has to say in his defense, however, that may not happen since he has agreed in a non-binding agreement to plead guilty.

Too bad–it would be more interesting than many of the murder trials we have seen lately.

.: Corvallis Gazette-Times :. News

Perhaps it is time for me to return to my roots. I have spent many an hour reminiscing about my days in what was then known as “The Future Farmers of America” (now, officially known only as “The FFA”). At the time, I remember being proud to be part of a family-centric tradition. Family farmers, passing down land, and practices, from generation to generation, and instilling in each generation a love for the land and for what it can produce.

Of course, I also remember the discussions about how “corporate farming” was taking over, and driving the family farmer to extinction. If left to their own devices, the agri-business folks would control the world. I, of course, scoffed.

My how times have changed. We still have family farmers, and agribusiness has contributed greatly to their success, and their ability to produce significantly more than ever before–feeding hundreds of people per farmer, where before the average farmer would feed 25, to 75, people.

But now we face a new challenge–seed as technology.

Monsanto’s claim that saving some seed, and replanting it, is the moral equivalent of bootleg copying music, would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious. Let me explain.

Stealing software, music, or movies generally requires one person making a copy, and then giving or selling it to another. Generally speaking, we have allowed (through the courts) for people to make copies for their own enjoyment and use. It’s why we have MP3 players in the first place, and why Apple is able to sell music through iTunes. People want to be able to listen to their music. But also, we understand that these items are truly technology. They are collections of machinery combined to provide a capability that didn’t exist before. essentially they are “things” that did not exist.

It seems to me that this is somehow fundamentally different. Soy Beans have always existed. Scientists have adjusted the DNA perhaps, and somehow twisted it to kep it from responding to “round up” herbicide, but it’s still “Soy beans.” Soy beans are natural, but somehow if you start with something natural, and you perform experiments on it, you gain “rights” to it that weren’t there before.

Perhaps God should consider suing Mansanto. After all–he owns the original rights, don’t you think?

Yahoo! News – Judge Rejects School Board Evolution Stand

Welcome back to class. I realize we have taken a rather long break for the semester, but it’s time one again to put our thinking caps on, and start analyzing the news.

So what has me jumping back into the fray? Perhaps it is the obvious lunacy of the US Court system. As the article cited above notes, the court has declared that a sticker must be removed from textbooks, as it in some way violates the (and I quote) “Ban on the separation of church and state.” Let’s forget, just for a moment, that the way the article is written makes it appear that the separation is banned. Let’s even forget for the moment that there is no actual ban in the constitution. (If you don’t believe me–go find the “separation” clause–it’s not there.) Let’s look at the sticker.

The sticker, according to the article, reads: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

So let me see–where are the issues that favor religion? What words here even HINT at the notion that one should/must believe in God (especially God in a particular way) such that one would see it as an encroachment on the separation of church and state?

Wait–it’s not there! The words as written actually encourage being open-minded, and having a critical mind. Typically those are things that we encourage in people, especially in education. We want you to be open to new ideas. We want to challenge–to question the status quo. How many times have you heard how scientific revolutions came about through paradigm shifts, driven by someone challenging the accepted concepts? In fact, isn’t that exactly what Darwin himself did?

I suspect there is something deeper, something more sinister here. Apparently the judge believes that motivation should be considered when determining if religion has played too great a role, and if your beliefs, motivated through some means of faith, drive your actions, then it cannot be allowed.

Seriously, consider this. The words just remind us that we are to remain scientific–we are to remain critical. The fact that a school board did this based on their religious convictions is enough to declare it an infringement, or breach if you will, of the barrier.

Let me leave you with this question: If Jimmy Carter’s humanitarian actions while President were grounded in his understanding of the calling he received from Christ–to care for the needy, clothe the naked, and feed the hungry–if that was driven by his religious convictions, should they have been stopped?

Are we to only allow actions motivated purely from self-thought?