The "expert" phase of Progressive Education is dead, or at least dying. We have come to the end of the rope with regards to the idea that there are professionals out there who can and should do a better job at education than other, less professional folks. Well, there's a lot of double talk, but some of the more academic educators have figured this out even if the court system in California is a little behind. Instead of relying on the idea of a professional expert to show us all what we need to know to become Dewey's "knowledgeable citizens" the educators have shifted gears to Michel Foucault (1926-1984). Foucault was a French social theorist who taught that people learn through self-questioning and other-questioning, which eventually creates power. According to Foucault, "power and knowledge are joined together" because what we consider knowledge is created by those in power. The old "winners write the history books" argument comes into play here.
Foucault was a postmodern thinker who taught that in the realm of truth, there were "regimes of truth" generated by societies. Truth amounted to "the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true." Truth was, of course, relative, and was kept in place by those in power.
In Progressive education the standardized, testable, formal assessment is the only way to determine if anything is being done because the "experts" who wrote the curriculum are not present teaching the curriculum. The teacher is no longer the one who knows, but is instead a stand-in administrator for the all-knowing textbook. Foucault suggested that American education exercises a disciplinary role over children to the tune of a prison. “Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?” The challenge of Progressive education, in their own minds, is not to teach children anything, but to keep them where they are long enough so they don't leave. School systems regularly pass students from grade to grade, regardless of how they perform, because if students don't pass they will drop out. If a student drops out, the argument goes, the system has failed. So they keep the train moving regardless of the condition of those inside. So this aspect of Progressive education is dying because educators are figuring out that the plethora of tests and administrative controls actually devalue the teaching role. One author has asserted that "standardizing procedures and developing competency tests may actually create more problems than they solve."
So what is the pedagocial answer? Foucault argues that to have power, everyone must accept responsibility for knowledge. The teacher must hand over the seat of authority and become a student in the same idiotic state as the student. Both sit there sharing statements, responses, questions, and replies to enhance or argue the last reply indefinitely. "For Foucault, through these discourses or complex crisscross of thoughts and the social forces that support them, individuals come to know what is true about the world. Drawing on these created truths, they organize and control their lives." (Levitt, 47).
Levitt argues, "To encourage students to critically consider and even challenge their learning, teachers must develop their own self-images as knowledgeable individuals, interacting and learning with others. Educators’ contributions to this discourse are particularly important, as they have as much to offer as to gain."
Modern education is scary folks.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Uncle Tom's Cabin-Themes Part One
The first theme we want to consider is that of slavery. It seems almost ludicrous to discuss the theme of slavery in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Slavery would strike us as more of a subject or topic than a theme. But it is a theme. Stowe’s opinions on slavery and the institution of slavery form the very heart of this novel. As we have said before, much of Stowe’s experience with slavery came from people she met and things she saw from the North. She did not spend great amounts of time researching the various ways people kept or treated slaves. The novel itself was written from Brunswick, Maine, nearly 500 miles from Maryland, the most northern slave state in the Union.
That being said, how does slavery fit into the novel as a theme? It is obvious that Stowe thinks of slavery as an evil in the nation. Even as she recounts the gentleness of Shelby and St. Clare, she counters with the cruelty of Haley and Legree. With the exception of Tom, almost every slave we meet wants out of that circumstance in their life. They want to escape, to get to the North or Canada where they can be free. The cruelty with which Legree and Haley treat slaves overshadows the beneficence of Shelby and St. Clare because the latter are unable to make good on their intentions of freedom. Shelby and St. Clare have good intentions regarding Tom, but are incapable of carrying them out. In this way, Stowe represents every Southerner who is kind and gentle with their slaves as incompetent to do what they know should be done. No matter what good intentions a slave owner may have, the system itself is evil, and will inevitably lead to cruelty.
That being said, how does slavery fit into the novel as a theme? It is obvious that Stowe thinks of slavery as an evil in the nation. Even as she recounts the gentleness of Shelby and St. Clare, she counters with the cruelty of Haley and Legree. With the exception of Tom, almost every slave we meet wants out of that circumstance in their life. They want to escape, to get to the North or Canada where they can be free. The cruelty with which Legree and Haley treat slaves overshadows the beneficence of Shelby and St. Clare because the latter are unable to make good on their intentions of freedom. Shelby and St. Clare have good intentions regarding Tom, but are incapable of carrying them out. In this way, Stowe represents every Southerner who is kind and gentle with their slaves as incompetent to do what they know should be done. No matter what good intentions a slave owner may have, the system itself is evil, and will inevitably lead to cruelty.
Hermeneutics Part Four
Today we consider the fourth major principle of biblical hermeneutics.
Scripture must be interpreted in light of its historical context: This means that the first things that must be determined with respect to a passage of Scripture is what did it mean in the historical context in which it was written and to the people it was written to. In other words, what did Paul's letter to the Romans mean to the Roman congregations when he wrote it to them? This does not negate the fact that general principles contained in Scripture apply to the whole church at all times, but it helps to weed out those portions that do not. To use a blatant case, it would be similar to only reading Romans if there were someone named Priscilla around to greet. That part does not apply to the larger church, only to those congregations to whom it was written. On the contrary, when Paul wrote that all had "turned aside," that "they have together become unprofitable" (Romans 3:12), he was making a general, categorical statement about the human race. By the same token, are we to assume that the material after the 4th chapter of Revelation had no meaning whatsoever to the first century hearers? The likelihood of that being affirmed is slim. What meaning did it have then. In light of other Scriptural writings and historical writings it is clear that the material after the seven letters deals with the divine judgment of God on Israel (chs. 4-11) and Rome (chs. 12-29) as a vindication of His people and the final presentation of the future hope of judgment on the world (chs. 20-22).
Scripture must be interpreted in light of its historical context: This means that the first things that must be determined with respect to a passage of Scripture is what did it mean in the historical context in which it was written and to the people it was written to. In other words, what did Paul's letter to the Romans mean to the Roman congregations when he wrote it to them? This does not negate the fact that general principles contained in Scripture apply to the whole church at all times, but it helps to weed out those portions that do not. To use a blatant case, it would be similar to only reading Romans if there were someone named Priscilla around to greet. That part does not apply to the larger church, only to those congregations to whom it was written. On the contrary, when Paul wrote that all had "turned aside," that "they have together become unprofitable" (Romans 3:12), he was making a general, categorical statement about the human race. By the same token, are we to assume that the material after the 4th chapter of Revelation had no meaning whatsoever to the first century hearers? The likelihood of that being affirmed is slim. What meaning did it have then. In light of other Scriptural writings and historical writings it is clear that the material after the seven letters deals with the divine judgment of God on Israel (chs. 4-11) and Rome (chs. 12-29) as a vindication of His people and the final presentation of the future hope of judgment on the world (chs. 20-22).
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Uncle Tom's Cabin-Summary
A basic summary is all that is necessary here. The story begins at the Shelby plantation in Kentucky. Tom and Harry are the best slaves Mr. Shelby has. When Mr. Shelby cannot pay all of his debts, he is forced to sell some slaves. A slave-trader, Mr. Haley selects Tom and Harry both for selling. Harry’s mother, Eliza, cannot bear the thought of being separated from her child. Since her own husband has already made an escape, she decides to do the same. Eliza gathers Harry up and begins her escape. She stops at Tom’s cabin to try to convince him to go as well, but he decides he must be loyal to Mr. Shelby. The story then breaks into two plotlines, one following Eliza and Harry as they make their way north to Canada and another following Tom.
Eliza and Harry race up the Ohio River with Haley right behind them. They get across the Ohio River into northern territory and find shelter and sympathy from Senator Bird. Eliza and Harry are taken to a nearby Quaker community where they find Eliza’s husband George. The family finds a boat going to Canada and evades capture by men Haley has hired to find them.
Upset over losing Harry, Haley intends to sell Tom in New Orleans for the highest price he can get. Tom resigns himself to his destiny and reads his Bible as he is taken down the Mississippi River. While on the steamboat, Tom meets Eva St. Clare and becomes a guardian to her. He saves her when she falls off the ship. For this kindness, Tom is bought by Eva’s father and lives at the St. Clare plantation. Tom lives a fairly comfortable life at the St. Clare plantation, growing fonder of Eva. However, Eva becomes ill and dies leaving Mr. St. Clare in deep grief. He plans to free Tom for his many kindnesses to Eva, but never gets around to doing it legally. He is killed while trying to stop an argument between two drunken men. Once again, Tom is sold to pay debts at the St. Clare plantation.
This time he is sold to Simon Legree, a cruel plantation owner. Tom befriends Cassy, another slave on the plantation. Legree drinks heavily and beats his slaves when he is drunk. Tom often takes the worst of his beatings. Cassy and Emmeline, another slave, plan an escape from Legree’s plantation. As Tom is dying of the beatings, George Shelby, son of Tom’s original owner, appears to try to purchase Tom from Legree. Legree refuses and Tom dies in George Shelby’s arms. George buries Tom and returns to Kentucky by steamboat. There he is able to help Cassy and Emmeline, who have finally managed to escape from Legree’s plantation.
Eliza and Harry race up the Ohio River with Haley right behind them. They get across the Ohio River into northern territory and find shelter and sympathy from Senator Bird. Eliza and Harry are taken to a nearby Quaker community where they find Eliza’s husband George. The family finds a boat going to Canada and evades capture by men Haley has hired to find them.
Upset over losing Harry, Haley intends to sell Tom in New Orleans for the highest price he can get. Tom resigns himself to his destiny and reads his Bible as he is taken down the Mississippi River. While on the steamboat, Tom meets Eva St. Clare and becomes a guardian to her. He saves her when she falls off the ship. For this kindness, Tom is bought by Eva’s father and lives at the St. Clare plantation. Tom lives a fairly comfortable life at the St. Clare plantation, growing fonder of Eva. However, Eva becomes ill and dies leaving Mr. St. Clare in deep grief. He plans to free Tom for his many kindnesses to Eva, but never gets around to doing it legally. He is killed while trying to stop an argument between two drunken men. Once again, Tom is sold to pay debts at the St. Clare plantation.
This time he is sold to Simon Legree, a cruel plantation owner. Tom befriends Cassy, another slave on the plantation. Legree drinks heavily and beats his slaves when he is drunk. Tom often takes the worst of his beatings. Cassy and Emmeline, another slave, plan an escape from Legree’s plantation. As Tom is dying of the beatings, George Shelby, son of Tom’s original owner, appears to try to purchase Tom from Legree. Legree refuses and Tom dies in George Shelby’s arms. George buries Tom and returns to Kentucky by steamboat. There he is able to help Cassy and Emmeline, who have finally managed to escape from Legree’s plantation.
Hermeneutics Part Three
Today we consider the second major principle in biblical hermeneutics.
Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture: This principle is often referred to as the "analogy of faith." The Bible itself says that all of its parts are inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), who is not a God of disorder (1 Corinthians 14:33). Since Scripture cannot contradict itself, we are to interpret the less clear passages in light of the more clear passages. A concrete example of this is the teachings of Jesus on divorce. Mark records only that people may not divorce (Mark 10:2-12). Matthew, on the other hand, clarifies the teaching to include circumstances where the general rule may not apply (Matthew 19:3-9). It is not as though Matthew contradicts what Mark has recorded, but only that Matthew records information that Mark did not feel his readers needed to know. A contradiction would require that Mark recorded that people may not ever divorce while Matthew would have said they must divorce in all cases. Contradictions in the true sense are not present in the Bible, contrary to popular opinion. Also there is a paradigm of interpretation that informs us concerning the understanding of the parts of the Bible. The Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the New Testament. This is required for both literary and theological reasons. In a literary sense it informs the reader of qualifications or added information to something which has come before it. Scripture is one continuous revelation from God. It is a collection of sixty-six books, but they make one book. That one book is consistent throughout and tells a singular story of redemption from cover to cover. It should not surprise us to find that God told those in the Old Testament things which were to be expounded upon and added to as the times drew to a close. Hebrews tells us that God spoke many times in diverse manners before, but now, in the New Testament, He has spoken clearly through His Son (Hebrews 1:1). A literary example of what we have been discussing would be the statement "she sang before the Queen." The word "before" is somewhat ambiguous until the writer adds "on her throne," such that the full statement reads "she sang before the Queen on her throne." To appeal, therefore, to Scripture as we must, we see the message of redemption unfolding a bit at a time until all is clear in consummation. The ambiguous "offspring" (one or many?) in God's promise to Abraham (Genesis 22:18) becomes focused on Christ (Galatians 3:16). The unidentified maiden and Immanuel of Isaiah 7:14 are seen to be the Virgin Mary and her Son (Matthew 1:23), and the anonymous Servant in Isaiah (42:1-4; 49:1-6; 52:13 - 53:12; 61:1, 2) is revealed as Jesus, the suffering and yet triumphant Savior (Matthew 12:18-21; Luke 24:44-49; 1 Peter 1:11). But the rule has a theological basis as well. We know that the revelation given by Christ is superior to that given before Him (Hebrews 1:10). We also know that He gave power to His apostles to speak for Him and to remember everything that He said (John 15:27; 14:26). We understand that the revelation of the Old Testament period was incomplete. John the Baptizer testified that He, the last of the Old Testament prophets, was merely preparing the way for one who was far superior to him (John 1:27). By this we understand that the newer revelation of the New Testament completes and is superior to the Old Testament. If the Old Testament appears to say one thing, and the New Testament says that it says another, the New Testament must be preferred. Scripture must interpret Scripture in all cases. The Old Testament must be thought of as the less clear text in all cases.
Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture: This principle is often referred to as the "analogy of faith." The Bible itself says that all of its parts are inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), who is not a God of disorder (1 Corinthians 14:33). Since Scripture cannot contradict itself, we are to interpret the less clear passages in light of the more clear passages. A concrete example of this is the teachings of Jesus on divorce. Mark records only that people may not divorce (Mark 10:2-12). Matthew, on the other hand, clarifies the teaching to include circumstances where the general rule may not apply (Matthew 19:3-9). It is not as though Matthew contradicts what Mark has recorded, but only that Matthew records information that Mark did not feel his readers needed to know. A contradiction would require that Mark recorded that people may not ever divorce while Matthew would have said they must divorce in all cases. Contradictions in the true sense are not present in the Bible, contrary to popular opinion. Also there is a paradigm of interpretation that informs us concerning the understanding of the parts of the Bible. The Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the New Testament. This is required for both literary and theological reasons. In a literary sense it informs the reader of qualifications or added information to something which has come before it. Scripture is one continuous revelation from God. It is a collection of sixty-six books, but they make one book. That one book is consistent throughout and tells a singular story of redemption from cover to cover. It should not surprise us to find that God told those in the Old Testament things which were to be expounded upon and added to as the times drew to a close. Hebrews tells us that God spoke many times in diverse manners before, but now, in the New Testament, He has spoken clearly through His Son (Hebrews 1:1). A literary example of what we have been discussing would be the statement "she sang before the Queen." The word "before" is somewhat ambiguous until the writer adds "on her throne," such that the full statement reads "she sang before the Queen on her throne." To appeal, therefore, to Scripture as we must, we see the message of redemption unfolding a bit at a time until all is clear in consummation. The ambiguous "offspring" (one or many?) in God's promise to Abraham (Genesis 22:18) becomes focused on Christ (Galatians 3:16). The unidentified maiden and Immanuel of Isaiah 7:14 are seen to be the Virgin Mary and her Son (Matthew 1:23), and the anonymous Servant in Isaiah (42:1-4; 49:1-6; 52:13 - 53:12; 61:1, 2) is revealed as Jesus, the suffering and yet triumphant Savior (Matthew 12:18-21; Luke 24:44-49; 1 Peter 1:11). But the rule has a theological basis as well. We know that the revelation given by Christ is superior to that given before Him (Hebrews 1:10). We also know that He gave power to His apostles to speak for Him and to remember everything that He said (John 15:27; 14:26). We understand that the revelation of the Old Testament period was incomplete. John the Baptizer testified that He, the last of the Old Testament prophets, was merely preparing the way for one who was far superior to him (John 1:27). By this we understand that the newer revelation of the New Testament completes and is superior to the Old Testament. If the Old Testament appears to say one thing, and the New Testament says that it says another, the New Testament must be preferred. Scripture must interpret Scripture in all cases. The Old Testament must be thought of as the less clear text in all cases.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Hermeneutics Part Two
Today we will look at the first concept of Biblical Hermeneutics, Sola Scriptura
Only Scripture has the authority over the Christian’s faith and practice. Those men who sought to reclaim the Church for its central task recovered this during the Reformation of the 16th century. Scripture is the very breath (2 Timothy 3:16) and word (Hebrews 4:12) of God and should be treated with the utmost respect and honor. In the Old Testament the example is given that when the prophet speaks he speaks "Thus saith the Lord." He speaks for God. Scripture teaches that all of Scripture is to be interpreted in that manner (2 Timothy 3:16). If Scripture says something, it has been said for our benefit (Romans 15:4) and should be understood as nothing other than the very words of God himself to us (1 John 5:9). As such it carries the same weight as a direct revelation from God. A simple understanding of the nature and character of God would prove that when God speaks, as our creator, He has the right to hold us accountable to his decrees. Disobedience is sin, punishable by eternal death. We ignore sola scriptura to our own peril.
Only Scripture has the authority over the Christian’s faith and practice. Those men who sought to reclaim the Church for its central task recovered this during the Reformation of the 16th century. Scripture is the very breath (2 Timothy 3:16) and word (Hebrews 4:12) of God and should be treated with the utmost respect and honor. In the Old Testament the example is given that when the prophet speaks he speaks "Thus saith the Lord." He speaks for God. Scripture teaches that all of Scripture is to be interpreted in that manner (2 Timothy 3:16). If Scripture says something, it has been said for our benefit (Romans 15:4) and should be understood as nothing other than the very words of God himself to us (1 John 5:9). As such it carries the same weight as a direct revelation from God. A simple understanding of the nature and character of God would prove that when God speaks, as our creator, He has the right to hold us accountable to his decrees. Disobedience is sin, punishable by eternal death. We ignore sola scriptura to our own peril.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Another video from Requiem for a Dream
OK. The other day I blogged about NarrowGate Studios overlaying Requiem for a Tower on top of The Stupids. Messing around on YouTube can be hilarious at times. While playing around today, I found another guy who has done the same thing with Ferris Beuller's Day Off. This guy has done a fantastic job with this. It is a real joy to watch.
So, without further ado, have a peek at Requiem for a Day Off.
So, without further ado, have a peek at Requiem for a Day Off.
Uncle Tom's Cabin-Date and Context
Like so many other novels of the time, Uncle Tom’s Cabin was published as a serial novel. It was released over the years 1851 and 1852 in installments. The first single volume publication was done in 1852 and sold 3,000 copies on its first day in print. The book is reported to have sold 50,000 copies in the first 8 weeks and within a year, sales were around 300,000 copies. Uncle Tom’s Cabin was translated into 37 different languages and made Stowe a celebrity all around the world.
Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote several other novels after Uncle Tom’s Cabin, but none were quite as popular as this one seminal work. Upon meeting Stowe, Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said, “So this is the little lady who started this big war!” While the Civil War had many causes, Stowe’s writing had called a great amount of attention to what many in the North perceived as the great injustice of humanity, slavery.
It is no small matter to consider the context within which Stowe wrote this major work of American literature. The great Compromise of 1850 was the last major effort at conciliation between the two major sections of the country, the slaveholding South and the abolitionist North. While it is not fair to oversimplify the regions this way, it was consistent with the thought of the day in which Stowe wrote.
A major portion of the Compromise of 1850 was the Fugitive Slave Act. Passed to calm southern fears of northern plans to eradicate slavery from the South as well, the Fugitive Slave Act made it illegal for anyone to give assistance to a runaway slave and required that they be returned to their owners upon apprehension by any northerner.
Stowe’s own experiences in Cincinnati from 1832-1836 must have played a major role in her consideration of the institution of slavery. There she witnessed race riots and met people involved in the Underground Railroad. It must be remembered that Stowe only visited Kentucky once in her life. Her direct knowledge of the condition of slaves and the temperament of slave owners would have been minimal, at best.
Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote several other novels after Uncle Tom’s Cabin, but none were quite as popular as this one seminal work. Upon meeting Stowe, Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said, “So this is the little lady who started this big war!” While the Civil War had many causes, Stowe’s writing had called a great amount of attention to what many in the North perceived as the great injustice of humanity, slavery.
It is no small matter to consider the context within which Stowe wrote this major work of American literature. The great Compromise of 1850 was the last major effort at conciliation between the two major sections of the country, the slaveholding South and the abolitionist North. While it is not fair to oversimplify the regions this way, it was consistent with the thought of the day in which Stowe wrote.
A major portion of the Compromise of 1850 was the Fugitive Slave Act. Passed to calm southern fears of northern plans to eradicate slavery from the South as well, the Fugitive Slave Act made it illegal for anyone to give assistance to a runaway slave and required that they be returned to their owners upon apprehension by any northerner.
Stowe’s own experiences in Cincinnati from 1832-1836 must have played a major role in her consideration of the institution of slavery. There she witnessed race riots and met people involved in the Underground Railroad. It must be remembered that Stowe only visited Kentucky once in her life. Her direct knowledge of the condition of slaves and the temperament of slave owners would have been minimal, at best.
Hermeneutics Part One
Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. Applied to the study of Scripture it gives us the rules or principles of interpretation to go by so that we do not misunderstand Scripture of misinterpret it. The rules are simple. They begin with the Bible itself and move to more abstract principles deduced from the Bible. They have been used and tested throughout the 2000-year history of the Church. They have been argued over and debated, but have come to stand for the conservative evangelical method of understanding Scripture as opposed to the liberal, neo-orthodox, analogical methods. These principles make up the work of the exegete of Scripture. He is one who attempts to draw out of Scripture what is there through many different tools. An exegete only draws out, he never reads into to Scripture what is not there. This contrasts the exegetical method of interpretation with the eisegetical method. The only thing we must be wary of is to assume that exegesis forbids the informing of a passage of Scripture by another passage of Scripture. This will be treated more below though. The most important of these will be listed and a short summary of their appropriateness will be given as we go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)