I Love You but You Didn’t Do the Reading

Your humble editor has been doubly distracted this week. My book about evangelical colleges is entering its final stages and I’ve been poring over copy-edits. Plus, we got to spend time with some long-lost family members. In the meantime, the interwebs kept spitting out stories. Here are some we might have missed, with extra history added in so you can follow along at home…

More trouble at troubled Bryan College. Long-time faculty member fired, anti-administration petition makes the rounds.

What’s wrong with Frances FitzGerald’s new book? Neil Young says it misses the real point of being evangelical.Bart reading bible

Peter Greene: Don’t believe the talk about a “teacher shortage.”

Is evangelical support for Trump a good thing for progressivism? John Fea wonders if Trumpist evangelicals are making their “Pickett’s Charge.”

From the archives: What did progressives think of William Jennings Bryan in 1945?

  • A taste: “The man who had never been a bigot associated himself with the most narrow-minded religious fanatics. The man who had been the apostle of democratic freedom and of public education had become an advocate of governmental restrictions on the freedom of learning. . . . And it’s high time some serious study was given to the social applications of Bryanism rather than of Darwinism.”

Teaching religion in Chicago’s public schools. Is the answer “religious literacy?” I’m still skeptical.

What’s the latest scheme for predatory faux-profit colleges? Fake Latin names.

From the archives: Glenn Branch gets his hands on a rare 1925 anti-evolution pamphlet.

What’s so “classical” about Classical Schools? At National Review, John Miller gives a short history and endorsement.

Advertisements
Leave a comment

2 Comments

  1. Adam, at any time before 2014, did Bryan College insist professors believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve?

    Reply
    • As I understand it, in recent years (long before 2014, that is, back to the 1990s and before) faculty members felt pressure to project an image of a young-earth-friendly sort of creationism, but they didn’t have to explicitly say out loud that they believed in a literal Adam & Eve or in a young earth. It was something they were encouraged to do, but it wasn’t any sort of official creed. There was a sense of respect for all varieties of sincerely held creationist belief. And, to be sure, there were plenty of creationists on the faculty who sincerely believed in a historical Adam & Eve eagerly and for their own reasons. For those who didn’t, the pressure, I’m told, came from an administration anxious to remain attractive to conservative families who wanted their kids to go to a staunchly creationist (in their minds, that meant young-earth) institution. So it wasn’t totally out of left field for the school’s statement of belief to be altered, but many faculty members felt as if the creationist big-tent tradition had been unnecessarily trashed, and trashed in a particularly mean-spirited way.
      My source for this is only from faculty members and administrators (all former, by the way, people who have left Bryan at some point in the last five years) who feel strongly that President Livesay is a power-hungry egotist, so I must admit that I am only hearing one side of the story.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s