For a more complete inside-view of Yale Divinity School (circa 1984)
see
Sam Todd: Fugitive from God, Country and Yale?
at http://yaledisappearance.blogspot.com/
Scholar-Believers (oxymoron?) searching for the truth of a Beyond (impossibility?)
Ordinarily I wouldn't give such a sophomoric comment ('stupidity') the time of day; but, I find myself being defensive about my alma mater, Yale Divinity School, even though I have been a thorn in its side (or crown) for three decades now.
The following exchange from the Yale Daily News posting-board for an opinion piece entitled "A misguided vote on minarets" by Lorenz Langer raises a larger question: What is Yale Divinity School FOR? Is it just a snooty, Ivy League propaganda machine for the Jesus of western capitalism?
Well, maybe.
However, it is not stupid. It is anything BUT stupid. My reply to this accusation will emerge below. And besides, just because we have raised a generation of secular solipsists doesn't mean we abandon 5000 years of history to their snide sniping of theology.
What if there is More (with a capital M) to us than meets the eye?
How about this as an answer to What's Divinity School at Yale FOR: It's about scholar-believers (oxymoron?) searching for the truth of a Beyond?
I am told that one Divinity School professor addressed its faculty meeting after I graduated with these words "We must never allow a student like Paul Keane to be admitted to YDS again."
As creator, editor and sole columnist for Holy Smoke: Opinionation from Holy Hill 1976-1981,I had been a gadfly and a Uncomfortable-Truth-raiser in my four years there, and my comportment did not fit the 'pious' stereotype which that faculty member thought requisite for entry into the school.
Thank 'heaven' her opinion was not widespread; although, come to think of it, the Divinity School has been unnervingly quiet since I left.
In fact,despite being one of Yale Divinity School's critics, I admire it precisely because it tolerated my dissent with patience and in some cases even grudging acknowledgement of its purpose and value.
And I admire it too because it does not compel adherence to the formulas of any faith; the quiet debate between competing belief systems ( even non-belief systems) is one of the most enriching aspects of the Divinity School.
Indeed, on graduation day,the YDS faculty presents awards which are voted on in secret , and I was astonished to receive The Charles S. Mersick Scholarship Prize for Effective Public Address, especially in Preaching. When I encountered Dean Leander Keck after the ceremony, I said to him, "I thought the faculty here hated me" and he replied (with a twinkle in his eye, I think)"They do, but they acknowledge talent."
So, when #27 Yale '08 (below) spouts off about the stupidity of YDS, I find myself in the unlikely position of coming to its defense, after decades of spouting off about YDS myself.
Consider then this exchange from the Yale Daily News posting-board for the 12/3/09 opinion piece entitled "A misguided vote on minarets" by Lorenz Langer :
#27 By Yale 08 December 3, 2009
Ahhh,Yale Divinity School the source and summit of 95% of the stupidity at Yale.
#28 By http://theantiyale.blogspot.com on December 3, 2009
Disentangling knowledge from faith and vice versa is precisely why one goes to an ACADEMIC divinity school as opposed to a DENOMINATIONAL divinity school. Yale is the former not the latter.
If I recall correctly the ridicule of Yale Divinity School and its students by Daily News posters named Hieronymus and Alum 2008 (in previous articles), the thrust of their "critique' was that Yale divines are mindless babblers of blind faith.
You can't have it both ways. Facts are facts. Jesus is a dubious HISTORICAL figure and an undeniable PSYCHOLOGICAL REALITY in people's lives, even mine---although you seem to believe that unless my reality is surrounded by unquestioning allegiance and muddy mysticism it is inauthentic.
Puzzling. Rigid.
___________________________________________
And in response to another Opinion piece on a 25-year-old sandwich-board evangelist named Morrell who spent a week preaching in front of Yale buildings, consider this defense of YDS:
#2 By Hmm...on December 4, 2009
Fi[r]st off: this "PK" actually reminds me of Mr. Morrell (Mr. Moral?) in certain ways . . .
#11 By Digital Sandwich Boarder on December 5, 2009
#2 In a way I agree with you, despite your crude opening: I AM a bit like the Sandwich Board preacher. . .
In fact,three of my blogs are digital sandwich boards (except they DON'T condemn anyone to hell and they DO hold a mirror up to the Hallmark-Greeting-Card version of Christianity which poses as religion in America).
One of the admirable things about Yale Divinity School is that they leave room for the dissenting ministry, the outsider ministry, the unauthorized ministry.
Or at least they did so when I was there ('76-'80). It may have all changed now, although the academic integrity of being a school at Yale means that scholarship will forever be eroding the territory of mindless fervor and blind faith.
Here are three digital sandwich boards I wear proudly without blocking traffic or imposing on anyone's eyes :
Willy Loman's Children http://lomanchildren.blogspot.com
Talking Turkey http://senatorsandbag.blogspot.com
The Anti-Yale http://theantiyale.blogspot.com
There are some overlapping posts in them.
PK
#12 By ? 8:22p.m. on December 5, 2009
"Or at least they did so when I was there (76-80). It may have all changed now, although the academic integrity of being a school at Yale means that scholarship will forever be eroding the territory of mindless fervor and blind faith."
what are you talking about?
you spam these boards way too much.
#13 By Sky God on December 6, 2009
#12
And you, earth god, poison them way too much with glib vitriol.
Expect me to defend the Divinity School whether you like it or not.
Nobody forces you to read what I say.
PK
#14 By Decidedly fresh on December 6, 2009
SPAM is canned. Anything I write is fresh. Decidedly fresh.
PK
#15 By LIBERATION AND PROCESS THEOLOGY on December 6, 2009
#12
Apologies. My initial reaction to your comment was impatience. But maybe you honestly don't know what I'm talking about.(Divinity is such an "insiders" game.)
LIBERATION THEOLOGY (for example)--created in the last century--has forced christianity to confront its own sexism and racism with major results. Two significant scholarly liberation theologians taught and published at YDS for decades: Letty Russell and Sr. Margaret Farley.
PROCESS THEOLOGY--created by Alfred North Whitehead and others --has forced a consideration of the possibility that
whatever the "Divine" is, it is in process of evolving, much like humanity: in fact that the two evolutions are dependent on one another. Randolph Crump Miller , who taught and published at the Divinity School for fifty years, was a nationally recognized exponent of Process Theology.
The whole concept of what God IS, is actually an open and ongoing debate. It isn't settled at all, just because folks in sandwich boards on sidewalks think it is.
Sorry I was grumpy. Ate too much SPAM.
PK
#16 By Recent Alum on December 6, 2009
Jesse Morrell >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul Keane.
#17 By I <3> satire December 6, 2009
I'm still waiting for it to come out that this was an elaborately awesome Pundits prank. I mean come on - a sandwich board with "Obama Voters" and "Feminists"? That's something they would do on the Colbert Report. Way too ridiculous to be taken seriously - this has satirical mockery written all over it.
#18 By PK on December 7, 2009
#16 Quite accurate continuum.
#19 By Recent Alum on December 7, 2009
Liberation theology is to legitimate theology what critical legal studies is to legitimate legal thought.
#20 By Lib on December 7, 2009
Liberation theology may not be "legitimate" to the creedalists, but without it Martin Luther King Jr. would never have translated his beliefs into non-violent civil disobedience; women would not be ordained; and Bishop Robinson would not be a Bishop. PK
PS Without Process Theology (also not "legitimate" to the creedalists) human kind would still be labelled "sinners" and the self-improvement movements (from 12-step programs to transcendental meditation)would be their bastard offspring. Obeisance to the arbiters of "legitimacy" is a form of intellectual enslavement. PK
#21 By Yale 08 on December 7, 2009
@#20, Did Liberation Theology also make MLK cheat on his wife? Women are ordained like dressing up in leotards makes me a ballerina. "Bishop" Robinson is only a spiritual leader in the insane asylum in which Paul Keane dwells.
#22 By PK on December 7, 2009
Childish. Beneath the dignity of a Yale undergraduate
#23 By @PK's original comment on December 7, 2009
Dear Mr PK,
I found your first comment rather unfair. To bring up the long, complicated, and admittedly political creation of the modern New Testament and point to two random verses to demonstrate a so called self righteousness and intolerance was not at all intellectually responsible. It was akin to bringing up the now infamous sacrifice of Isaac or the "hardening" of pharoahs heart to say that God himself cares not for human will or love. Some things require significant work to interpret correctly and I would wager that you have done that work and do not wholly believe your own words. If your idea of the Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were entirely defensible, would the Catholic church not have chosen different gospels to dispel it long ago when they assembled their bible? There are many different systems of relating to problematic passages within the bible, and I firmly believe neither of the passages you quoted demonstrate the negative qualities you claimed. And I am equally sure you were aware of alternate interpretations when you listed them. That doesn't seem entirely kosher, if you would allow me to mix metaphors.
# 24 By De-saccharinization on December 7, 2009
#23:
I accept your criticism.
I have a trouble with the saccharinization of Jesus and I guess I go overboard to point out the opposite. I randomly googled those quotes under "angry Jesus" BTW.
I think if Joshua ben Joseph could have been tape-recorded he would have sounded more like the yakkity,abrasive, incessantly,insistant Yasir Arafat (in tone and volume, NOT in content) than the Mr. Rogers velvet voiced version of Jesus modern American christians seem to want. Remember Arafat? His voice was like fingernails on a chalk board.
And speaking of Arafat: if you look at the Shroud of Tourin (sp?) it is clear that Jesus (AKA Joshua ben Jospeh)looked more like Arafat than he did Mel Gibson's strong jawed, high cheekboned savior in The Passion. In fact, the Jesus of history (which Albert Schweitzer had so much trouble locating anywhere ,textually or archeologically) probably had browner skin than Barack Obama's. Of course even if the Shroud is a forgery, the forgers portrayed jesus as a short, slack-jawed, oval faced
bown skinned semite.
As for content: I tend toward Bertrand Russell: "Any religion which introduced the notion of eternal damnation into the world is evil and I cannot subscibe to it." I might soften that from "evil" to
"has caused incalcuable anxiety and suffering". In a way, my blog post on "Bring Hell Back (on Steroids)" aknowledges that the secularization of christianity has all but abolished hell as a reality. Nobody really fears it any more, at least not until three minutes before death.
ETERNAL HELLFIRE! That's pretty serious stuff.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Sorry I'm so apparently non-negotiable on this matter of "saccharinization."
Happy Reading Week, whether faculty or student.
PK
#25 By http://boundandunbound.blogspot.com on December 7, 2009
PS to #23:
I have written a serious, thoughtful paper on the Abraham/Isaac story. It is called The Bound and the Unbound: Oedipus, Isaac and Jesus. It can be found at http://boundandunbound.blogspot.com/
You are the first respondent in dozens of YDN go-arounds, who I think might actually care to read it. I do not recommend it to everyone. Indeed it has been in my papers in Sterling's Manuscripts and Archives "Kent State Collection" for 30 years. I just exhumed it last year.
PK
#26 By Atheist 2:12p.m. on December 8, 2009
To the original authors, thanks.
#27 By Alabaster9 8:57p.m. on December 8, 2009
Ugh.
If you, the members of YCF and YSC, truly believe that belief in Jesus Christ is necessary to salvation (as I know many of you do from personal conversations), then I submit that it is YOU who are acting in a decidedly un-Christian manner by not doing everything you can to turn your fellow Yalies towards God.
Instead, you pen an editorial criticizing an honest man for saying openly what you think in silence - that the wide majority of Yalies practice sin without remorse or regret.
As for shouting down, I only saw Yale students shout down Mr. Morrell, not vice versa.
I know some of you authors, and I'm sad to say that this article is a piece of intellectual cowardice.
#28 By jglc 9:13p.m. on December 8, 2009
Thanks for taking the time to read.
#29 By SAVED? 10:35p.m. on December 9, 2009
Salvation? Saved from what? The hell created by writers in the first or second century to help launch a fledgling religion?
There are christian religions today which do not include this concept of eternal damnation in their belief system. Try Unitarianism for one.
Please don't tell me Unitarians are not christians because they do not believe in the trinity, another political compromise in the early centuries of C.E. to incorporate polytheism and monotheism simultaneously into one (and three!).
If you want to subordiante your mind to Doctrinalists or a Creedalists then you can spend your life in terror of eternal damnation.
Most people prefer to go into therapy and emancipate themselves from such masochistic choices.
In fact, a cynical (and anti-semitic) view of the entire post-freudian world is that psychotherapeutic movements are a Jewish conspircy to undo the damage which 1900 years os self-flagellating christian hellfire has done to the human psyche.
Why would anyone use his or her own mind to enslave themselves to fear and anxiety and call that being saved?
PK
http:theantiyale.blogspot.com
#30 By jglc 11:51a.m. on December 10, 2009
Alabaster9;
I do believe that belief in Christ is necessary to salvation. But what I distinctly disagree with is the idea that the way to "turn [my] fellow Yalies to God" or to demonstrate His love for others on this campus is to shout accusations and labels at random pedestrians. I can't say whether this approach is effective or not; but I know that, when I examine my most dearly-held beliefs about the person of Jesus Christ, such a way of drawing others' attention seems inconsistent with the heart of how he engaged with others to demonstrate love and change lives.
"I know some of you authors, and I'm sad to say that this article is a piece of intellectual cowardice."
I'm sorry that you think so; I still stand by it, though. Whether I know you already, or don't yet, I would appreciate hearing more feedback on the piece on a personal level. You can contact me through facebook, in the Yale alumni network.
#31 By Re saved 4:08p.m. on December 10, 2009
While JE stands as a monument to a man who made believers quake in their boots through the fear of hell, modern faiths ( most notably the Catholic church) after Vatican II have tried to show that love not fear should motivate. That forgiveness comes perfectly when one is penitent for having failed to love properly and only imperfectly when one turns from evil because of fear some Gehenna or punishing hell. Yet hell, pain, and sin remain as the inexorable consequence of our free will. There is clearly evil on earth. If we have an eternal soul, it is a tragic necessity that we be free to choose evil forever. That choice is necessary for without choice there can be no love and without that, it is not worth existing
#32 SAVED AGAIN on December 10, 2009
#31
Hell was man-made by writers of the NT in the first century C.E.
It isnow and has been for centuries a tool of Doctrinalists and Creedalists to bolster the populations of flocks and to thereafter keep flocks in order.
I have no objection to this cosmic Skinner-Box behavior modification system. It may even work in deterring murder, adultery, theft etc.
To give this scorching Skinner-Box a divine or supernatural reality is a leap of faith. It has nothing to do with knowledge.
If one CHOOSES to believe in a triple decker universe with hell as the lowest level, it is a BELIEF not a fact.
There are however psychological states which give the word "hell" real, personal meaning, which can be called "knowledge" and "fact".
Frightening people with religion is cruel (un-christian).
No comments:
Post a Comment