Being a teacher has taught me to want to be the type of student that teachers love to have in their class. After experiencing the receiving end of a students attention and effort, I've begun to see what my high school teachers and my college professors really want(ed) for and from me.
Now I try to come to a class attentively listening for the mission the professor wants me to accomplish. Previously, I'd almost thought of myself as a leech or a sponge sucking up the professor's knowledge and experience and having to complete the course work to get a good grade. Now I feel like the task of "being a student" exists in a different dimiension than before. A teacher who so badly desires their student to understand their point, be impacted by the coursewok, and truly understand its importance is rewarded and encouraged by the apparent effort of a student to do so.
After being in their shoes, I understand how it feels. After setting a mission in front of my students that I saw was so important and would truly impact their lives, I was so encouraged by those who responded. I want to be a student that encourages her professor. Not to get a good grade, not to be liked or favored, but to truly give back to them what they're giving to me, and to catch the vision they so desire for me to see.
On a practical level, working to fulfill that mission oftentimes means going beyond the course work. In order to accomplish this, a student must understand how the course work accomplishes the mission. Giving a little extra effort and doing something that's not required but that furthers the teacher's mission for you as a student confirms that you understand the mission and have caught the vision. It communicates that the teacher has succeeded.
Aug 27, 2010
Aug 19, 2010
Old-Earth vs. Young-Earth: "Oh Look, There's an Elephant in the Room"
Young-Earth Creationism and Old-Earth Creationism have battled themselves out inside my head ever since I was in eighth grade. My science teacher in my physical science class stood up and wrote something to the effect of "God created the world 14.1 billion years ago" on the white board, turned around, and proceeded to lecture for two hours on arguments for OE Creationism. That experience scarred me for life. I dare say I'm better for it, but it did leave a mark. That mark is a constant reminder of the day that I finally figured out that there was an elephant in the room.
Up to that point, I never even knew that that the controversy existed. The Creation/Evolution controversy was all that I knew about the debate concerning earth's origins and development. There really is a debate within the debate.
And then, as if the situation wasn't complicated enough already, I come to find that there is debate about the importance of the debate within the debate. There are those who believe that it doesn't matter how long it took God to create the world. The fact that He did it is satisfactory, and it sufficiently fulfills doctrinal necessity. Then, there are those who believe that OE creationism is complete heresy. Not taking Genesis 1-2 literally destroys the innerrancy of the Bible, the foundation of the gospels, and the basis for morality and salvation.
All of this controversy sometimes makes me wish that Genesis 1:1 was the only portion of Genesis 1-2 that existed. After reading Genesis 1:1 part of me wants to shut the book and call it a day. However, such an action is rather foolish considering the fact that God wrote Genesis 1-2 into the Bible for a reason. I don't know why, but I'm not one to make that call.
From a layman's perspective, it says "day". That's just what it says. When I say "day", I mean a 24-hour day. When I hear the word "day", I think of a 24-hour day. And then I read things like this and this, and I have to concede that they have a very good point.
All I can do is look at what the Bible says, always keeping in mind what my worldview teacher so rightfully drilled into my head during class. "Where revelation stops, I stop." I end up reading through Genesis 1-2 asking a ton of questions. "Wait, so this means...and that there....but what if.... and how can.... if that then...." I reach the end of Genesis 1-2 a bit befuddled and not quite sure which end is up. Then I have to wonder, "If it really mattered as much as some say, why isn't it more clear?"
What makes me incredibly uncomfortable is when, in the midst of my internal struggle, someone comes along and tells me that "the authority of the Scripture, the character of God, the doctrine of death, and the very foundation of the gospel" depend on a specific exegesis of this passage. God knew how controversial this would be. I can't help but wonder why God would base His entire plan for the salvation of mankind on a certain (and very controversial) passage at the beginning of the Pentateuch. Hanging your proverbial hat on Genesis 1-2 feels like dangerous business.
So, those are my ideas about the elephant in the room. My conclusion at this point? I've employed the tactic used many a time by actors on a stage. I've built a "fourth-wall" in front of the elephant. I don't think it matters. However, I'm still very ready to listen.
Up to that point, I never even knew that that the controversy existed. The Creation/Evolution controversy was all that I knew about the debate concerning earth's origins and development. There really is a debate within the debate.
And then, as if the situation wasn't complicated enough already, I come to find that there is debate about the importance of the debate within the debate. There are those who believe that it doesn't matter how long it took God to create the world. The fact that He did it is satisfactory, and it sufficiently fulfills doctrinal necessity. Then, there are those who believe that OE creationism is complete heresy. Not taking Genesis 1-2 literally destroys the innerrancy of the Bible, the foundation of the gospels, and the basis for morality and salvation.
All of this controversy sometimes makes me wish that Genesis 1:1 was the only portion of Genesis 1-2 that existed. After reading Genesis 1:1 part of me wants to shut the book and call it a day. However, such an action is rather foolish considering the fact that God wrote Genesis 1-2 into the Bible for a reason. I don't know why, but I'm not one to make that call.
From a layman's perspective, it says "day". That's just what it says. When I say "day", I mean a 24-hour day. When I hear the word "day", I think of a 24-hour day. And then I read things like this and this, and I have to concede that they have a very good point.
All I can do is look at what the Bible says, always keeping in mind what my worldview teacher so rightfully drilled into my head during class. "Where revelation stops, I stop." I end up reading through Genesis 1-2 asking a ton of questions. "Wait, so this means...and that there....but what if.... and how can.... if that then...." I reach the end of Genesis 1-2 a bit befuddled and not quite sure which end is up. Then I have to wonder, "If it really mattered as much as some say, why isn't it more clear?"
What makes me incredibly uncomfortable is when, in the midst of my internal struggle, someone comes along and tells me that "the authority of the Scripture, the character of God, the doctrine of death, and the very foundation of the gospel" depend on a specific exegesis of this passage. God knew how controversial this would be. I can't help but wonder why God would base His entire plan for the salvation of mankind on a certain (and very controversial) passage at the beginning of the Pentateuch. Hanging your proverbial hat on Genesis 1-2 feels like dangerous business.
So, those are my ideas about the elephant in the room. My conclusion at this point? I've employed the tactic used many a time by actors on a stage. I've built a "fourth-wall" in front of the elephant. I don't think it matters. However, I'm still very ready to listen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)