I should note ahead of time that I had initially intended to write this to one person, and then to a few people, to tell him/them about how things have been down south. The more I wrote, the more I thought it would be appropriate to just post it here. Enjoy!
Dear _____________,
Long time no see, no talk. It’s been about a month and half since I’ve been down here and correspondence is long overdue! I actually meant to write a long time ago, but I kept finding myself with something to do, somewhere to go, someone to see, and distracted by the comings and goings of life. So far it’s been a little bit of good and a little bit of bad.
I enjoy living in Whittier. It’s a smallish town about 4 ½ miles from campus. The house itself is close to most basic things: grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants, etc. The only thing that it isn’t close to is a freeway. While the town isn’t that far from where I was before, in Costa Mesa, it’s a 10-15 minute drive to a freeway to get to those places. Consequently, I’ve been trying to mix up where I go to church; i.e. the main Rock Harbor in Costa Mesa and the Rock Harbor campus in Fullerton.
One funny anecdote about where I live. My room stands on its own away from the main house. It used to be a garage of sorts but has been remodeled to house one person. A couple weeks after moving in I found that the door handle jiggled. A screw was starting to come loose. Initially I thought, “I’ll get a screwdriver and fix that later.” A few days went by and later never came. I came in late one Monday night, closed the door behind me and the handle fell off. At that point I was too tired to try and fix it so I went to bed intending to work on it in the morning. Well, morning came and I got up, tried to go out to go to the bathroom and realized: I was trapped. It took roughly an hour to get a hold of one of the owners of the house to come help me. I was two minutes away from e-mailing one of my teachers the following message, “Dear Professor, I regret to inform you that I will not be able to attend class today. I am currently trapped in my one-room-palace with no means of getting out.”
My feelings about Talbot have been a bit mixed. I maintain that the main reason that I chose the school was to get an education in philosophy while still getting basic theological training. I have to remind myself of that as I’ve found myself frustrated at times with the school and some of its students.
The first thing I noticed when I set foot on the Biola campus was that many of the stereotypes that I had heard about it were being realized before my eyes. For many years I’ve spent time just watching people: how they behave, interact, speak, etc. It really seems like Biola is a bubble. A few times every week I plop down at a table near the bookstore or in the Eagle’s Nest restaurants to study and observe. The students operate as if they were cut off from the outside world, yet still somehow egocentric. It’s kind of hard to explain, but it’s kind of like watching small circles (of people), cliques even, move about, hardly interacting with neighboring circles and holding what is going on in their own circle as if it is the most important thing. It makes for a very strange community. The other stereotype that is very true is how Christians go there to meet other Christians, date, and then marry. It’s been rather amusing to watch over the weeks how guys and girls slowly come together. In the first two weeks there was minimal interaction between the two. In weeks three and four, they began talking. And in the last two weeks I’ve noticed many more couples walking around campus holding hands. It’s a comical phenomenon to say the least.
You may be wondering if I have been so fortunate and/or have partaken in this “ritual practice”. But, no. I’ve found Talbot to be a bubble within a bubble. While Biola is a breeding ground for Christians, Talbot is 90% male. About half of the women in my classes are at least 15 years older than me. Facetiously, I say that I’ve gotten all of the stigma of going to Talbot/Biola, but none of the benefits. But hope is not lost! Ha. I’ve had the privilege of making a few new friends and realized that I know a few others there as well. For example, on my second day I saw a guy that I graduated with from UCI. While I didn’t know him well, I did have a few classes with him there. On my first Saturday class I found myself sitting with a fellow in the MA Philosophy of Religion and Ethics program. As it turns out we both went to the same junior college, DVC, at the same time, but did not know each other then.
I was able to get into the two Saturday classes that I wanted to. Both meet every third Saturday, staggered, from 9am-4pm for a total of 7 hours. Fortunately, both allow for frequent breaks. Still, they are mostly lecture and are not terribly interesting. My Bible Exposition class is probably the more interesting of the two. It’s taught by Benjamin Shin, but he emphasizes much of the work of another Talbot professor, Walt Russell. I’ve enjoyed the more casual of texts for that class, “Playing with Fire” by Russell, as it presents much of what is covered in class but in a more personal manner and really displays how Hermeneutics kind of mediates between Systematic Theology and Spiritual Formation. I’ll comment on the other text for the class later. The other Saturday class is Theology 1, Theology proper or Systematic Theology. Taught by Henry Holloman, it’s not terribly interesting. I’ve found it mostly thus far to be theory of the theory of systematic theology. I don’t think I’ve learned much actual theology in it yet, only how one might create a theory of systematic theology, if one were so inclined. The main text for that class is “Christian Theology” by Millard Erickson. Like the text for Bible Exposition, I’ll comment on that later.
A third class I have is Theological Research Methodologies. It’s a once a week class, less than an hour long. I don’t have much to say other than that I find it pointless. Some of the things, like how to cite sources, might be useful for those who are coming back to school after a long time off (there are quite a few of them) but not as much for me.
One of the more interesting and challenging classes, thus far, is Introduction to Spiritual Theology and Formation. Initially it was the one class that I was not thrilled that I had to take. It’s the one class that every Talbot student, regardless of program, has to take. The first week in it brought a few surprises. First, it’s not just one class that I have to take. It’s a three course program over the first three semesters at Talbot. Second, I found a mandatory “lab fee” to pay on my student bill for the class. Only after that were we told that we have to attend a mandatory retreat for a weekend that is pre-assigned for your group. On top of all of that, every person in the class is mandated to take a psychological evaluation, the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) and then attend a follow up counseling session.
It’s the psychological evaluation that is the most distressing to me. I do believe that, if they could get away with it legally, Talbot would mandate the test prior to granting admission. But seeing as when you apply, you check a box recognizing that Talbot does not discriminate against you based on ethnicity, disabilities, and so on, they probably could not do it. Consequently, they make initiate students take a class that requires the test as a requirement for getting a grade. Discriminatory qualms aside, the test itself was a bit concerning. It is composed of 568 statements for which you answer true or false based on how you agree with it (3 hours long). It then measures your answers against 10 different scales—personal health, depression, emotionality, need for control/rebellion against control, masculinity/femininity, paranoia/trust, anxiety, cognitive/perceptual/emotional experiences, energy level, and sociability. On the outside of the packet the copyright said 1948 and then revised in 1975 and again sometime in the 80’s. This is a test that is 20-30 years outdated. I found that most evident with the statements that were obviously indicative of supposed masculinity. For example, the first statement was “You read mechanics magazines.” I’ve never touched a mechanics magazine, but does that make me not masculine?
A couple of my favorites:
- You enjoy teasing animals. (I worked in a pet store for almost 5 years, half of the toys we sold were for teasing animals)
- You want to be a park ranger. (This one made me think of Seinfeld, Uncle Leo is really proud of Jeffrey for being a park ranger)
- You have spit up blood. (I had to answer true to this one as on 2 occasions in Jiu-Jitsu I was kicked in the mouth or headbutted causing me to spit up blood)
- You have a healthy sex life. (I thought single Talbot students weren’t supposed to have sex lives)
- You are always being followed. (I actually looked over my shoulder after reading that one, causing my friend next to me to laugh hysterically)
I’m curious about my results. I’ll be getting them in my counseling session on October 20th. I pity the grad student who has to evaluate me.
My favorite class thus far has been the one philosophy class I am taking. But it is also the most frustrating. The full title of the class is Contructivism: Postmodernism and Naturalism. Basically the aim is to look at how both postmodern and naturalist philosophers are contructivist (how they piece reality together). The material is fascinating to me. Most of the classes that I took at UCI as electives were focused on early 20th Century metaphysics and analytic philosophy. I’ve found myself several times, in class or doing the readings, recalling some of the most confusing concepts that I had encountered in those classes. But there have been a number of frustrations that have come out in this class but I’ve also found in other classes. Simply stated, my frustration has been the manner in which many of the students in the classes, as well as the two texts for Bible Exposition and Theology that I mentioned early, refer to, describe, consider, and evaluate the philosophers/theologians that are presented in class.
This takes two forms. The first is that they fulfill the fallacy of Appeal to Authority. That is, they take to a philosopher or thinker and then treat everything that they say as if it were gold. An argument is true, not by the validity or truth of the premises, but by virtue of the person who said it. The biggest ones that I’ve found here at Talbot are Dallas Willard and JP Moreland. (Also of note, I think Christians do this with CS Lewis very often as well). Three of the four classes with actual content that I’m taking have readings by Dallas Willard. I’ve heard some students refer to him as St. Willard. One student somehow managed to say the full name, Dallas Willard, four times in two sentences.
The other side of this is the use of ad hominem arguments. While many students idolize Willard, they demonize philosophers that they disagree with and/or, worse, don’t understand. This has happened a few times with regard to David Hume, Frederich Nietzsche, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. I may not agree with some of their theories or ideas, but that does not mean that they have no value or that they are crazy. Some students have commented on how one has to be crazy or ludicrous to hold the views of these philosophers. I found this very discouraging as I continued on to other classes. In the texts mentioned, philosophers and theories characterized as existential or postmodern are displayed within a very negative light. Anything that is postmodern is instantly liberal, and liberalism and freedom in thought will not be tolerated.
To quote one student last week, “I haven’t read the Murphy article yet, but I can’t see how she (Nancy Murphy) can be a physicalist and call herself a Christian. Physicalism always leads to atheism.” This statement is wrong on three levels: metaphysical, logical, and ethical. The belief that the physical dictates the mental (a major tenet of physicalism) says nothing about belief in God, theory about God, or how there cannot be a God. There is no direct logical link between the physicalism and atheism, other than that it would be possible to have a worldview that included both. On what ethical grounds can one declare another not to be of Christian faith for holding a particular metaphysical view, without actually knowing how or why the person came to this view?
One note I want to state explicitly. The professors I have had should be vindicated of the accusations made. They do not encourage the students to take such views. At the same time, the students have not been corrected for doing so.
The narrow view in which philosophy is presented here at Talbot had me worried for a while. Many of the students in the class are in the MA Apologetics program. A few are in other programs. A number of the students in the Philosophy program, in the one class and in others, attended Biola for their undergrad. Not to say that this is an expressly negative thing. I want to merely contrast the majority of students with my own secular philosophical training at UC Irvine. I have been taught to examine each philosopher and theory with an open mind for anything and everything that they might be saying or meaning. This approach may be characterized by some as postmodern, which is a frightening thing at a school where postmodernism is largely (but not entirely) bastardized.
These things had me frustrated and worried for a few days. Even now I encounter frustrations. But I’ve resolved to push through it. It was very appropriate for God to allow me to have such troubles, not two days before entering Seek Week at Rock Harbor. Seek Week is a time that Rock Harbor as a church set aside to seek God and find what He is calling it to. There was fasting. Services were held in the mornings and evenings for prayer and worship. The building itself was opened up and reserved for giving and receiving prayer. Many stories emerged over the course of the week. Some people receiving callings to one ministry or another, some to resolve a pending issue, some to simply seek God more eagerly.
As for me, I fasted from certain forms of media for the week. Consequently, I had one of the most productive weeks in my life. Had I not fasted as such I would not have finished all of immense preparation for my Saturday class. It also opened me up to what God wanted me to do about the problems I was having with Talbot. At this time I was also bothered by being mandated to take a psychological exam and go away on a retreat. Disillusioned and discouraged with Talbot, I went to 3 of the 4 evening services. I found an openness, an intensity of worship and prayer, that I had not felt in a long time. One of the songs really resonated with the problems I was having, “Christ be the center of our lives…”
God brought me to an important realization. That is that my thought and argument need to be honoring to God. In anything that I write or say, even this letter, my hope is that it may honor God. If I am cast aside as a liberal or postmodernist for taking a different approach or view of a thinker or theory, then so be it. As long as I aim to glorify God in thought and deed then I can rest peacefully with clear conscience, fully confident in the faith that I have and the insight that God has granted me. Talking through these things with my friends, John Clanton and Lacey Cooke, has helped me to come to this conclusion. I expect much criticism and further frustration, but also to glorify God.
And so I carry on, or at least try to do so. As Kierkegaard (another philosopher cast in a negative light by Christians) writes, “Oh, where heart-room is, there is house-room always to be found. But where was there ever heart-room if not in His heart?” God calls all to him. I’ve found the heart-room and am trying to take hold of the house-room.
