David B. Speaks

[_Cicero]

I agree with you Joe. I majored in History at BYU and worked for the department so I have met and discussed this with many of those involved (though never with Arrington himself sadly . . . but his autobiography pretty much tells the whole story). It still absolutely boggles my mind that members of the Quorum of the Twelve ever considered Arrington, Jim Allen, Ron Walker et al. to be threats to the church.

[_MrStakhanovite]

There is no need for us to bore everybody else by getting into a cat-fight about this, but I remain skeptical about the general applicability of the idea "Trained clergy - > loss of belief".

Okay. Sorry, didn't think we had taken that tone, but I'll drop it.

[_MCB]

Trained clergy>
well-informed+deep faith>
a mature set of beliefs about the nature of God>
a pragmatic and compassionate attitude towards people

For example, I believe that Biblical literalists are so because of a lack of faith.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Sweet Mary, I really can not believe how many people have erections for DCP.

[_lulu]

Roger Finke and Rodney Stark found that one of the single surest causes of denominational decline is a ministry with collegiate theological training. Other kinds of training don't have the same effect. Ministers with BAs in business or politics are actually healthy for religious institutions. But university degrees in theology or religion make bad ministers. Why? Well, partly because people trained in religion and theology are much more likely than average to lose their faith as a result of their education. And it's hard for an agnostic or theologically liberal pastor to sustain the interest of his congregation. Finke and Stark call this a "loss of product content".

Do you have any details on this, I would like to try and track it down.

[_RayAgostini]

Saw a link to this on Twitter this morning:

Catholics unwilling to fall into line with the magisterium on matters great and small should leave it. Keller writes:

Much as I wish I could encourage the discontented, the Catholics of open minds and open hearts, to stay put and fight the good fight, this is a lost cause. Donohue is right. Summon your fortitude, and just go. If you are not getting the spiritual sustenance you need, if you are uneasy being part of an institution out of step with your conscience—then go. The restive nuns who are planning a field trip to Rome for a bit of dialogue? Be assured, unless you plan to grovel, no one will be listening. Sisters, just go. Bill Donohue will hold the door for you.

Will the Catholic Church Split?

[_sock puppet]

In reading David B.'s post, quoted in the OP, it almost reads as though if NAMIRS wants ancient text scholars contributing, NAMIRS would have to keep the apologetic edge, ad hom's and all.

Are there not ancient text scholars who do not have such an apologetic bent? Or is it just part of the territory, that when one studies ancient text in inevitably follows he or she will acquire simultaneously that edgy apologetic bent?

[_MCB]

Or is it just part of the territory, that when one studies ancient text in inevitably follows he or she will acquire simultaneously that edgy apologetic bent?

You phrase that as a question? Or are you asking an apologist to tell you why that often happens?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Do you have any details on this, I would like to try and track it down.

Take a look at The Churching of America. I don't have my copy here in Provo, but my notes suggest that you may find this in either the chapter (2?) on the colonial era or the chapter (5?) comparing Baptist growth to Methodist decline after 1850.

[Guest]

Do you have any details on this, I would like to try and track it down.

Take a look at The Churching of America. I don't have my copy here in Provo, but my notes suggest that you may find this in either the chapter (2?) on the colonial era or the chapter (5?) comparing Baptist growth to Methodist decline after 1850.

Thanks, I may be able to pull a library copy on Sat.color]

In reading David B.'s post, quoted in the OP, it almost reads as though if NAMIRS wants ancient text scholars contributing, NAMIRS would have to keep the apologetic edge, ad hom's and all.

Are there not ancient text scholars who do not have such an apologetic bent? Or is it just part of the territory, that when one studies ancient text in inevitably follows he or she will acquire simultaneously that edgy apologetic bent?

So if the Religious Education Dept. does critical ancient scripture text without ad hom it destroys testimony but MI does it with ad hom and it promotes testimony. Is that what this is coming down to? Ad hom is the key?