Friday, February 28, 2020

Celebrating the Value of Free Speech at Glendale Community College



Celebrating the Value of Free Speech!

With the recent release of Dennis Prager and Adam Corrolla’s documentary No Safe Spaces, the American public has again been reminded of the dangers threatening free speech on college campuses.  Considering the examples of BerkeleyMiddlebury College, and Evergreen State College, one might be forgiven for thinking that all college campuses are roiling with the desire to quench the free exchange of ideas that are deemed too controversial.  

There is, however, good news to be shared in that there are institutions that choose a different path from closing down free speech and, rather, pursue a path of reasoned discourse.  I participate at one such institution and wanted to share some of the events we sponsor which exemplify a free campus.  This exercise is useful for at least two reasons—celebration and emulation. The free exercise of speech and the open dialogue on complex cultural issues ought to be celebrated by those who long to see such things prevail.  Furthermore, by highlighting specific examples, this provides an opportunity for others to emulate and follow suit with similar types of events and opportunities.

Glendale Community College and Free Expression

Glendale Community College (AZ) in Glendale, Arizona has approximately 20,000 students and is part of the larger Maricopa County Community College District which comprises ten colleges in total. Being situated in Arizona is beneficial in that the laws of Arizona are very conducive and protective of free speech.  The Arizona Revised Statutes even have a bit of rhetorical flourish when they state:

“It is not the proper role of an institution of higher education to shield individuals from speech protected by the first amendment, including, without limitation, ideas and opinions that may be unwelcome, disagreeable or deeply offensive.”

GCC takes this admonition to heart and offers prime opportunities to engage in controversial topics in a civil manner.  Here a few examples from the past few years.

Glendale Community College broaches controversial topics every spring in their panel discussion series, “Critical Dialogues.”  In February 2018 this forum’s topic was entitled "Gender and Sexuality: Current Controversies and the Common Good" with a specific focus on the issue of Transgenderism. This was a controversial topic and it engendered (no pun intended!) a robust time of question and answer. However, at no time was there an attempt to shut down the discussion nor did the event devolve into the incivility of the “heckler’s veto.”  

Our last Critical Dialogues event examined the issue of religious freedom and civil rights in relation to the issue of gay marriage.  The 2019 Critical Dialogues panel was appropriately titled "Religious Freedom and Civil Rights: Balancing Competing Claims in the Courts and the Public Square".  In light of the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing same-sex marriage the issues surrounding religious freedom came to the fore in a number of cases around the country.  Glendale Community College invited participants from both sides of the divide on this controversial issue.  Alessandra Soler (the Arizona Executive Director for the American Civil Liberties Union) and Jonathan Scruggs (Senior Counsel and Director of the Center for Conscience Initiatives with Alliance Defending Freedom) were our featured guests with other faculty and staff filling out the panel. The timeliness of this topic was seen in that just the previous month prior to the panel discussion, Jonathan Scruggs had argued on behalf of religious freedom and artistic free expression before the Arizona Supreme Court in the case Brush & Nib Studio v. City of Phoenix.  The relevant issues were, again, discussed in a civil manner with no one attempting to shut down the dialogue.

It was ironic that the same month that GCC was holding its Critical Dialogue panel, the Yale Law School was experiencing controversy over a similar type of speaking event. The Yale Federalist Society had invited a lawyer from Alliance Defending Freedom to come and speak about the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights CommissionSupreme Court decision.  This caused a number of student groups to call for a boycott of the event.  This did not speak well for their commitment to free speech and the free exchange of ideas.  Glendale Community College has chosen a different path in approaching controversial cultural issues—a path of civil dialogue and freedom of expression.  

The promotion of free speech is found not only in what GCC promotes but also in what it allows on the campus from outside voices.  In October 2018 the Center for Bioethical Reform (CBR) came to GCC for two days sponsoring their Genocide Awareness Project.  This consisted of huge billboards of, at times, graphic photographs of the aftermath of abortions which are thematically linked to other acknowledged instances of genocide.  Although the display was controversial to many, the administration of GCC, under the leadership of the president of the college, Dr. Teresa Leyba Ruiz, upheld the right of CBR to be on the campus.  Nor was there any attempt to stipulate an artificial “free speech zone” like other campuses have done.  Rather, the most prominent place on the campus mall was used by CBR and there were two days of peaceful interaction and education.

The Need for Vigilance

The culture of free expression and civil disagreement is healthy at Glendale Community College. This is partly a function of the laws enshrined in the Arizona statutes as well as the legal precedents handed down in defense of the Maricopa County Community College District.  For example, in a 2010 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—Rodriquez v. Maricopa County Community College District—these powerful words are found:

“Without the right to stand against society’s most strongly-held convictions, the marketplace of ideas would decline into a boutique of the banal, as the urge to censor is greatest where debate is most disquieting and orthodoxy most entrenched.  The right to provoke, offend and shock lies at the core of the First Amendment. This is particularly so on college campuses.”  

Laws and legal precedent are necessary but not sufficient.  There is always the need for vigilance.  There must continue to be a firm commitment to freedom on the part of individuals who inhabit our institutions of higher learning.  As Alan Charles Kors and Harvey A. Silverglate remind us, “Freedom dies in the heart and will before it dies in the law.”  It is for this reason that institutions like Glendale Community College with their commitment to the free exchange of ideas ought to be celebrated and emulated.

Richard Klaus is on staff with Ratio Christi.  He also works part-time as Student Engagement Staff at Glendale Community College in the Philosophy & Religious Studies Department.  The ideas articulated in this article do not necessarily represent the views of Glendale Community College or the Maricopa County Community College District.

Monday, February 17, 2020

Book Review: What Is Man? Adam, Alien or Ape? by Edgar Andrews


What Is Man? Adam, Alien or Ape?by Edgar Andrews (Elm Hill, 2018).
a review by Richard Klaus
February 2020

Edgar Andrews’ book, What Is Man? Adam, Alien or Ape? is a study from a Christian perspective on the nature of humanity.  Andrews brings a specialized background in science with advanced degrees in Physics.  This background allows him to speak with authority and precision to specific naturalistic alternatives to understanding humanity.

Andrews structures the book around three main divisions:

“Part 1: Man and the Cosmos” comprises five chapters.  The discussion is largely concerned with the larger issues of cosmology. I particularly enjoyed his discussion in chapter five where he examined in some detail the idea of a “multiverse.”  Andrews notes that “there are at least five different versions of the multiverse and they are by no means mutually compatible.” (p. 92)  He looks at a number of these variations and critiques each one. In general, he notes the following, which applies to all versions of the multiverse:

“What we shall see in this chapter is that the MV [multiverse] concept is a bit like a get-out-of-jail-free card in the game of Monopoly—an escape route or bolt hole from various unwelcome difficulties and implications thrown up by modern physics and cosmology.  Instead of struggling with the intransigent realities of the one universe we actually know, we can explain away these difficulties by invoking the MV.  It intrigues me that some of the MV’s greatest enthusiasts accuse theists of appealing to a ‘God of the gaps’ to account for things that science cannot explain, while they themselves claim that one or more inaccessible multiverses can explain otherwise inexplicable scientific observations… In reality, the MV is the ultimate speculation-of-the-gaps, being (almost by definition) that which lies beyond the reach of science.” (p. 93)

A nice touch for ease of following Andrews’ argumentation is that for each multiverse theory he appends a short summary of the problems at the end of each of the discussions. This would have been helpful for other topics in other chapters (e.g., chapter nine and its discussion of theories of human consciousness).

“Part 2: Man and the Biosphere” gets into the details of human uniqueness (ch. 6), the human genome (ch. 7), fossils remains (ch. 8), and the nature of human consciousness (ch. 9).  For the size of the book and the intended audience, the discussions on these issues need to be basic and concise.  This does not stop Andrews from tackling some difficult topics.  In his chapter on the human genome he has a number of pages devoted to the topic of epigenetics and helpfully explains how this is relevant to understanding the function of molecular genetics.

“Part 3: Man and the Bible” covers a number of biblical and theological topics.  He looks at the following topics: a basic Christian worldview primer (ch. 10), the historicity of Adam and Eve (ch. 11), the image of God (ch. 12), Jesus Christ as the perfect Man (ch. 13), and the resurrection of Jesus (ch. 14).  The discussions here were basic and, at times, bordered on simplistic.  His discussion of the resurrection of Jesus was too quick.

Overall the book was good with the occasional nuggets of brilliance.  There were, however, a few problems with the work—most of which stemmed from a lack of rigorous editing.  For example, the font shift from main text to endnotes was annoying.  Andrews’ continued usage of Wikipedia as a source was unprofessional.  For example, on page 19 he cites Wikipedia’s entry for “image of God” when a note with appropriate books or articles from Christian theologians would have been much preferable.  At other times the endnotes seemed incomplete.  For example, there were internet citations without author or title. I found this confusing. These kinds of errors were small but pervasive.  An attentive editor should have caught these (and other) literary indiscretions.

Friday, January 17, 2020

A Big View of God, Sin, and the Gospel: A Presentation to Christian Challenge

* Notes from a talk I gave to a group at Christian Challenge.

A Big View of God, Sin, and the Gospel

Christian Challenge Presentation
January 17, 2020

1.    Motivation for talk tonight: 

a.    Scottsdale Community College classrooms over the past year

b.    Questions about afterlife and judgment (hell)

c.     Doesn’t seem to make sense

                                               i.     Part of the problem: seems like God is overreacting to sin

                                              ii.     Judgment from God seems unbecoming to God

                                            iii.     Almost like God is irrational for his wrath

2.    Issues before us tonight

a.    How are we to understand the nature of God, the nature of sin, and the appropriateness of God’s wrath?

b.    How can we best communicate these ideas to others?

3.    Romans 1.18-24 as an entry point for tonight’s discussion

a.    Verse 18: “wrath of God” is revealed “against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness”

                                               i.     Wrath of God is a reality—it is a New Testament reality!

                                              ii.     Romans 2.5-6; Ephesians 5.5-6

b.    Verses 19-20: General Revelation[1]

c.     Verse 21: The nature of sin in this passage—people did not…

                                               i.     Honor him as God

                                              ii.     Give thanks

·     Conversation back in 1988/89 in a van traveling from GCC to California for a speech tournament: “How about I tell you what I think the primal sin is from which all others come?”

4.    Honor him as God: treat God as his “God-ness” deserves

a.    Proper recognition and proper response

                                               i.     “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.”  A. W. Tozer[2]

                                              ii.     “For we ought to think of God even more often than we draw our breath.”  Gregory Nazianzus in Theological Orations[3]

b.    Not just any “god” is good enough!

c.     Nature, Significance, and Value of God

5.    Nature of God—He is utterly unique!

·     This is where the thoughts I shared from Acts 17 back in November 2019 really come into focus.  See the notes from that talk online: http://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2019/11/acts-1716-34-and-our-mission-to-our.html

b.    Unique Creator and Sustainer of all that exists

                                               i.     Creator: defining point in God’s self-disclosure—Isaiah 44.24; Jeremiah 10.10-12

                                              ii.     Sustainer: Colossians 1.17; Hebrews 1.3

c.     Aseity: God’s complete self-sufficiency—Psalm 50.10-12; Isaiah 66.1-2; Job 41.11

1.    Acts 17.25—“… as though he needed anything…”

2.    a se= Aseity

“The term aseitycomes from the Latin phrase a se, meaning ‘from or by oneself.’  In the theological literature, the term designates a divine attribute by which God is ‘what he is by or through his own self.’  Since God is a se, he does not owe his existence to anything or anyone besides himself, nor does he need anything beyond himself to maintain his existence.  He is not like the idols that depend for their existence on select materials, skilled craftsman, and ritual offerings (Isa. 40:19-20; 44:15-17; Ps. 50:8-15).  Indeed, he has no needs at all (Acts 17:25).  So the terms self-contained, self-existent, self-sufficient, and independent are often used as synonyms for a se.”[4]

3.    Everything else depends for its existence on God but God depends on nothing for his existence.

6.    Significance—His existence affects everything else!

a.    Everything is else is created and dependent (contingent) upon the power and presence of God!

b.    Consider, in contrast, the Loch Ness monster or Big Foot

                                               i.     Little significance hangs on their existence

                                              ii.     Intriguing and some media coverage but no impact on our everyday lives

c.     “Not so with God.  If God exists, that affects everything, simply because of who God is.  If God exists, everything else depends for its existence and nature on God.  If God exists, the ultimate reality is personal and rational and moral in nature.”[5]

d.    “The question about the existence of God, likewise, is not just a question about whether one more thing exists in the inventory of reality.  It is a question about the ultimate context for everything else.  The theist and the atheist should see everything differently.”[6]

7.    Value—God is supremely valuable!

a.    Texts:

                                               i.     Deuteronomy 6.4-5  “Hear, O Israel, …”

                                              ii.     Psalm 73.25-26  “Whom have I in heaven but you…”

                                            iii.     Philippians 3.7-8  “… the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ.”

                                            iv.     Isaiah 42.8  “I am the Lord, that is my name; I will not give my glory to another, nor my praise to graven images.”

b.    Sin is a condition in which we persistently fail to recognize and respond rightly to the Nature, Significance, and Value of God!

c.     Example: Burning house with a 3-month old baby girl in it.  Mother rushes into the house and “saves” the last piece of leftover pizza, bypassing her daughter.

                                               i.     Irrational—Mother failed to place the correct value on her baby in relationship to pizza

                                              ii.     Immoral—She ought to have known better and acted in accordance with that knowledge

·     These ideas of irrationality and immorality are found in Romans 1

8.    Rejecting the Nature, Significance, and Value of God leads to Idolatry

a.    “Idolatry dethrones God and enthrones creation.  Idolatry is the attempt to limit, reduce and control God by refusing his authority, constraining or manipulating his power to act, having him available to serve our interests. At the same, paradoxically, idolatry exalts things within the created order (whether natural objects in the heavens or on earth, or created spirits, or the products of our own hands or imagination).  Creation is then credited with a potency that belongs only to God; it is sacralized, worshiped and treated as that from which ultimate meaning can be derived.  A great reversal happens: God, who should be worshiped, becomes an object to be used; creation, which is for our use and blessing, becomes the object of our worship.”[7]

9.    Give Thanks—a key proper response to the Nature, Significance, and Value of God

a.    Consider these truths…

                                               i.     God “gives to all people life and breath and all things” Acts 17.25

                                              ii.     “for in him we live and move and exist” Acts 17.28

                                            iii.     “he did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.” Acts 14.17

                                            iv.     Jesus speaking about the Father… “for he causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”  Matthew 5.45

b.    We live in a pervasive atmosphere of God’s presence every moment of every day! 

                                               i.     (And God upholds us even in our rebellion against him!)

                                              ii.     And yet we do not say, “Thank you!”  We ignore the gift-Giver.

·     My conversation at Costco with plumber—looking at the sky and asking who it is he says “thank you” to for such beauty.

                                            iii.     We assume and presume on these good gifts like we deserve them.

                                            iv.     Application point: How often do you say “thank you” for your existence, breath, the sun shining, rain, food, the peace we have in our streets?

1.    Try beginning your prayers with “Thank you” before you ask for anything else!

c.     More than a failure to live thankful lives… we take the good gifts of God and use them to rebel against God—we go into idolatry

10.Ezekiel 16—a vivid picture of idolatry!

a.    Read verses 1-26 together (with my commentary)

b.    Picture of Israel as God’s special covenant people committing idolatry

c.     Same dynamic is seen in Romans 1.18-32.

11.Where does this leave us?

a.    We have small views of God and small views of sin

b.    People to whom we are sharing the gospel have small views of God and sin

c.     Small views of God and sin leads to a small view of the gospel—the good news of what God has done for us in Christ Jesus.

d.    Part of what the gospel message is that Jesus Christ delivers us from the wrath to come

                                               i.     1 Thessalonians 1.8-10

1.    “turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God”

2.    “and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come”

                                              ii.     Romans 5.6-11

1.    Verse 9—“saved from the wrath of God through him”

2.    The love of God shines brighter against the backdrop of his utter majesty and the depth of sin

3.    Not simply saved from wrath… saved to reconciliation.

·     We are in relationship with the majestic, living God

·     Our sins are gone and there is only peace!

12.What do we do with all this?

a.    Christian

                                               i.     Worship with thankfulness!

1.    Worship

2.    Prayer

3.    Swim in the ocean of God’s glory safe from destruction

·     Don’t be content to play around in the kiddy pool—think and feel the depths of God

                                              ii.     Speak of the greatness of God and help others to see the reality of his greatness and the depth of their sinful response of unthankfulness

b.    Non-Christian—those who do not follow Jesus right now

                                               i.     Great and glorious God who holds your life in his hands

                                              ii.     Offers you terms of peace… you can know him and be forgiven of all the moments of ungratefulness and neglect.

                                            iii.     I invite you to that peace.



     [1]This is a huge topic.  For some brief thoughts on this see my blog post “Romans 1.18-20: Interacting with Bill Vallicella’s Thought”—online: https://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2015/02/romans-118-20-interacting-with-bill.html
     [2]Quoted in Matthew Barrett, None Greater: The Undomesticated Attributes of God(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2019), 13.
     [3]Quoted in Matthew Barrett, None Greater: The Undomesticated Attributes of God(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2019), 231.
     [4]John M. Frame, “Divine Aseity and Apologetics” in Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologeticseditors: K. Scott Oliphant and Lane G. Tipton (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2007), 115.
     [5]James N. Anderson, Why Should I Believe Christianity?(Christian Focus, 2016), 97.
     [6]Thomas Morris Making Sense of It All  (Eerdmans, 1992), 25.
     [7]Christopher J. H. Wright The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative(Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2006), 165.