An interesting read on fundamentalism, Kevin Bauder put this together. Intriguing to see where I'm pigeonholed... Although as a postmodern, I'll deny it. :)
Very interesting chart, although I can't see its benefit. No matter where someone is pigeonholed, he is most likely going to be proud of it and see the others as the corrupted bad guys. Your thoughts, Matt?
I agree, even in putting it together there does seem to be some bias showing through. As an outsider I'm sure I'd be able to tell you which position the author holds. :) Anyway, I think it's interesting because I like when people tell me why I'm doing what I'm doing because they often can identify motives or blind spots I cannot.
For what its worth, the author himself doesn't even fall in perfectly with any of the categories. I can think of a few Detroit profs and Faith profs who don't fall in perfectly as well. FWIW, I don't fall neatly into any of the categories either.
As far as bauder - he would be more in line with the progressives on education. He doesn't like bible colleges at all.
The Detroit profs that I've heard wouldn't fit neatly into any of the "Social Ethic" categories.
I think Bauder would consider both Detroit and Faith (and Central) to be mostly in the middle column, while branching out in some aspects.
I think I see faith as struggling to be more in the central column than it has been...and to keep it more in the central column from where some would like to take the school.
You guys know that there is a wide range of these types within a single college, seminary, and even church...especially when you get more towards the middle. Some of the groups won't allow for that variety. Anyway...
The author was incorrectly broadbrushingly pigeonholing himself too.
4 comments:
Very interesting chart, although I can't see its benefit. No matter where someone is pigeonholed, he is most likely going to be proud of it and see the others as the corrupted bad guys. Your thoughts, Matt?
I agree, even in putting it together there does seem to be some bias showing through. As an outsider I'm sure I'd be able to tell you which position the author holds. :)
Anyway, I think it's interesting because I like when people tell me why I'm doing what I'm doing because they often can identify motives or blind spots I cannot.
For what its worth, the author himself doesn't even fall in perfectly with any of the categories. I can think of a few Detroit profs and Faith profs who don't fall in perfectly as well.
FWIW, I don't fall neatly into any of the categories either.
As far as bauder - he would be more in line with the progressives on education. He doesn't like bible colleges at all.
The Detroit profs that I've heard wouldn't fit neatly into any of the "Social Ethic" categories.
I think Bauder would consider both Detroit and Faith (and Central) to be mostly in the middle column, while branching out in some aspects.
I think I see faith as struggling to be more in the central column than it has been...and to keep it more in the central column from where some would like to take the school.
You guys know that there is a wide range of these types within a single college, seminary, and even church...especially when you get more towards the middle. Some of the groups won't allow for that variety. Anyway...
The author was incorrectly broadbrushingly pigeonholing himself too.
interesting, thanks
Post a Comment