Too intellectual!
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
discern
I think we need to be discerning.You feed a 2 year old differently than you feed a 17 year old.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I have found (to my surprise and disappointment) that most of those who enjoy my teaching are males. I don't mean to exclude those women who are exceptions to this general statement—it is just statistically true.
I have taught in YWAM schools for well over 20 years. The students are asked to rate their teachers at the end of the 12-week lecture phase. I consistently rate among the favorites among the men, and among the least favorite among the women! Both sat in the same lectures, but one gender seems to enjoy my style more than does the other.
Also, I have noticed that YWAM schools seem to attract about three women for every male. Despite the similarities in the two programs, the ratios were reversed in the applicants for the Great Commission School in the years I ran it. We would often have three-to-five males for every female applicant. Go figure!
Occasionally I run into someone who uses the word "intellectual" as a pejorative. I am not sure what they mean by the word. Since such persons rarely are the type who define their terminology (or even think about the technical meanings of words) I don't know what it is that they are using this term to criticize. I sometimes get the impression that they mean "someone who thinks carefully about things before forming opinions."
I hope that no one objects to some of us here engaging in some amount of mental activity. I realize that not everyone is accustomed to rigorous thinking, and some people prefer to allow their feelings or some other influence or person to make up their minds for them. I can see why such people would not enjoy this forum.
I have never thought to call myself an intellectual, but I do believe that God created the human brain for purposes higher than merely regulating the body's functions and registering visceral responses from the nervous system. I have always suspected that the most complex computer in the known universe was probably invented for the purpose of analyzing information.
Sometimes those who are called "intellectuals" (by those who should probably be referred to as "anti-intellectuals") are only acting upon this belief. I actually don't know the exact meaning of the word "intellectual," but I do believe in using those faculties that reflect the image of God in man for the purpose of knowing and glorifying Him.
Many people apparently view theology and ethics as "the lazy man's science." To be an engineer, a biologist, an attorney or a physicist requires a disciplined mind and careful study, but theology and ethics can simply flow from the heart. They think (but may not say): "Ultimate reality is whatever I get a cozy feeling thinking it is. God is the way I imagine Him to be and His will is whatever I feel I can justify at the moment." I don't mean to broad-brush all anti-intellectuals, but I have certainly encountered enough people who think precisely like this. To them, it is as if the spiritual world has not nearly the complexity of the material world, and the reality of "god" is delightfully simple, like a big bowl of jello—something to enjoy and experience, but not to think about very much.
The Bible gives me the opposite impression. The spiritual realm is full of beings as mysterious to us as are microbes and viruses to the ordinary person. Besides God (Himself a morally and existentially complex being), there are various ranks and species of heavenly creatures—and hellish ones as well! Without studying the things God has revealed about this realm, we would be as ignorant of these creatures as we are of the dark side of the moon, and as defenseless against those of them that may be hostile toward us as is a blindfolded man strolling in a minefield.
In the spiritual realm, there are moral laws and what we might call (for lack of a better term) "laws of nature." There is a "great deep" here to be explored, and much to learn about its depths, its rewards and its dangers—even if we feel quite satisfied to be splashing around in the shallows of our conception of the love of God. Sharks and venomous creatures have been known to venture into shallow waters.
The complexity of the spiritual realm existed before the complexity of the physical realm did, and the latter is, at best, a simplified reflection of the former (judging from such examples as the tabernacle, for instance). In talking about the complexity of the doctrine of the Trinity, C.S. Lewis wrote:
"There is no good complaining that these statements are difficult. Christianity claims to be telling us about another world, about something behind the world that we can touch and hear and see. You may think the claim false; but if it were true, what it tells us would be bound to be difficult—at least as difficult as modern Physics, and for the same reason." (Mere Christianity, p.137)
In the same book, Lewis tells of a man he met who said he had no use for complex theology because he had felt the mysterious presence of God in the desert and that was good enough for him. Lewis replied that one might experience the ocean at a certain enjoyable level while viewing it from the seashore, but if he wishes to navigate the ocean, he will need a map. The map is not as sensually satisfying as is the ocean breeze on the face, but it allows the explorer to experience much more of the ocean by guiding him far beyond the shoreline. Theology is like the map. Lewis wrote:
"Merely learning and thinking about Christian doctrines, if you stop there, is less real and less exciting than the sort of thing my friend got in the desert. Doctrines are not God: they are only a kind of map. But the map is based on the experience of hundreds of people who really were in touch with God—experiences compared to which any thrills or pious feelings you and I are likely to get on our own are very elementary and very confused. And secondly, if you want to get any further, you must use the map." (Ibid. p.136)
Thinking about theological truth is an activity for everyone, though hard thinking may be the vocation of a relative few. I admit that some people, due to native abilities and application of opportunities, are better thinkers than are others, just as some are better broad-jumpers than are others. However, even the less-intellectually-gifted must master some basic truths about the spiritual realities, just as the least-athletic among us occasionally needs to be able to jump over a puddle in the lawn.
Those who have applied themselves to understand biblical truth are not to be scorned by those who have no taste nor aptitude for the exercise—just as he who barely has the energy to step over a fallen branch in his path should not object to the man who can readily jump across a broad chasm. The more adept and agile man, in both cases, may sometimes even be able to perform a service for the lazy or the less-skilled one.
If I have no interest in athletic contests, I don't spend my time watching television sports and then complaining that those people who play at games are not meeting my entertainment needs. I simply change the channel. The internet provides forums of all kinds, for all tastes. It is not my opinion that everyone must enjoy ours.
I have taught in YWAM schools for well over 20 years. The students are asked to rate their teachers at the end of the 12-week lecture phase. I consistently rate among the favorites among the men, and among the least favorite among the women! Both sat in the same lectures, but one gender seems to enjoy my style more than does the other.
Also, I have noticed that YWAM schools seem to attract about three women for every male. Despite the similarities in the two programs, the ratios were reversed in the applicants for the Great Commission School in the years I ran it. We would often have three-to-five males for every female applicant. Go figure!
Occasionally I run into someone who uses the word "intellectual" as a pejorative. I am not sure what they mean by the word. Since such persons rarely are the type who define their terminology (or even think about the technical meanings of words) I don't know what it is that they are using this term to criticize. I sometimes get the impression that they mean "someone who thinks carefully about things before forming opinions."
I hope that no one objects to some of us here engaging in some amount of mental activity. I realize that not everyone is accustomed to rigorous thinking, and some people prefer to allow their feelings or some other influence or person to make up their minds for them. I can see why such people would not enjoy this forum.
I have never thought to call myself an intellectual, but I do believe that God created the human brain for purposes higher than merely regulating the body's functions and registering visceral responses from the nervous system. I have always suspected that the most complex computer in the known universe was probably invented for the purpose of analyzing information.
Sometimes those who are called "intellectuals" (by those who should probably be referred to as "anti-intellectuals") are only acting upon this belief. I actually don't know the exact meaning of the word "intellectual," but I do believe in using those faculties that reflect the image of God in man for the purpose of knowing and glorifying Him.
Many people apparently view theology and ethics as "the lazy man's science." To be an engineer, a biologist, an attorney or a physicist requires a disciplined mind and careful study, but theology and ethics can simply flow from the heart. They think (but may not say): "Ultimate reality is whatever I get a cozy feeling thinking it is. God is the way I imagine Him to be and His will is whatever I feel I can justify at the moment." I don't mean to broad-brush all anti-intellectuals, but I have certainly encountered enough people who think precisely like this. To them, it is as if the spiritual world has not nearly the complexity of the material world, and the reality of "god" is delightfully simple, like a big bowl of jello—something to enjoy and experience, but not to think about very much.
The Bible gives me the opposite impression. The spiritual realm is full of beings as mysterious to us as are microbes and viruses to the ordinary person. Besides God (Himself a morally and existentially complex being), there are various ranks and species of heavenly creatures—and hellish ones as well! Without studying the things God has revealed about this realm, we would be as ignorant of these creatures as we are of the dark side of the moon, and as defenseless against those of them that may be hostile toward us as is a blindfolded man strolling in a minefield.
In the spiritual realm, there are moral laws and what we might call (for lack of a better term) "laws of nature." There is a "great deep" here to be explored, and much to learn about its depths, its rewards and its dangers—even if we feel quite satisfied to be splashing around in the shallows of our conception of the love of God. Sharks and venomous creatures have been known to venture into shallow waters.
The complexity of the spiritual realm existed before the complexity of the physical realm did, and the latter is, at best, a simplified reflection of the former (judging from such examples as the tabernacle, for instance). In talking about the complexity of the doctrine of the Trinity, C.S. Lewis wrote:
"There is no good complaining that these statements are difficult. Christianity claims to be telling us about another world, about something behind the world that we can touch and hear and see. You may think the claim false; but if it were true, what it tells us would be bound to be difficult—at least as difficult as modern Physics, and for the same reason." (Mere Christianity, p.137)
In the same book, Lewis tells of a man he met who said he had no use for complex theology because he had felt the mysterious presence of God in the desert and that was good enough for him. Lewis replied that one might experience the ocean at a certain enjoyable level while viewing it from the seashore, but if he wishes to navigate the ocean, he will need a map. The map is not as sensually satisfying as is the ocean breeze on the face, but it allows the explorer to experience much more of the ocean by guiding him far beyond the shoreline. Theology is like the map. Lewis wrote:
"Merely learning and thinking about Christian doctrines, if you stop there, is less real and less exciting than the sort of thing my friend got in the desert. Doctrines are not God: they are only a kind of map. But the map is based on the experience of hundreds of people who really were in touch with God—experiences compared to which any thrills or pious feelings you and I are likely to get on our own are very elementary and very confused. And secondly, if you want to get any further, you must use the map." (Ibid. p.136)
Thinking about theological truth is an activity for everyone, though hard thinking may be the vocation of a relative few. I admit that some people, due to native abilities and application of opportunities, are better thinkers than are others, just as some are better broad-jumpers than are others. However, even the less-intellectually-gifted must master some basic truths about the spiritual realities, just as the least-athletic among us occasionally needs to be able to jump over a puddle in the lawn.
Those who have applied themselves to understand biblical truth are not to be scorned by those who have no taste nor aptitude for the exercise—just as he who barely has the energy to step over a fallen branch in his path should not object to the man who can readily jump across a broad chasm. The more adept and agile man, in both cases, may sometimes even be able to perform a service for the lazy or the less-skilled one.
If I have no interest in athletic contests, I don't spend my time watching television sports and then complaining that those people who play at games are not meeting my entertainment needs. I simply change the channel. The internet provides forums of all kinds, for all tastes. It is not my opinion that everyone must enjoy ours.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:26 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hi Steve.
Since I was the one who mentioned you being an "intellectual" to begin with - although not in a negative sense - I thought that I might as well explain the term.
An intellectual is someone who focuses a great deal on things which can be reasoned out intellectually, and usually much more than on things in the emotional, social or physical arenas. I'm somewhat of an intellectual myself, although I'm making an effort to develop the other aspects of my life as well.
Damon
Since I was the one who mentioned you being an "intellectual" to begin with - although not in a negative sense - I thought that I might as well explain the term.
An intellectual is someone who focuses a great deal on things which can be reasoned out intellectually, and usually much more than on things in the emotional, social or physical arenas. I'm somewhat of an intellectual myself, although I'm making an effort to develop the other aspects of my life as well.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Damon,
I didn't think you were the one using the term as a criticism. God bless.
I didn't think you were the one using the term as a criticism. God bless.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
I'm never very good at being a girl. 
I like Steve's teaching and I like reading the discussions here.I'm in agreement, Michelle. I have been tremendously blessed by Steve's teachings and my husband and I have both benefited from his teachings more than any other teacher we have heard. I'm actually very shocked that there are people who don't really enjoy Steve's teaching and his style of teaching. Maybe it's because most of us are used to "preachers" who don't really teach through Scripture, but just use verses to make points that they want to make.
I have always been more comfortable being friends with guys, though, and typically enjoyed guy conversations more than girls. And I have seen a general disinterest in a lot of my girl friends in theological issues. I really don't understand why that is. I am always encouraged when I find another girl who wants to hash through issues with me.
I have always been more comfortable being friends with guys, though, and typically enjoyed guy conversations more than girls. And I have seen a general disinterest in a lot of my girl friends in theological issues. I really don't understand why that is. I am always encouraged when I find another girl who wants to hash through issues with me.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"How is it that Christians today will pay $20 to hear the latest Christian concert, but Jesus can't draw a crowd?"
- Jim Cymbala (Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire) on prayer meetings
- Jim Cymbala (Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire) on prayer meetings
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Whew. Rae, thanks. At least I'm not the only one.
I sort of think that most women are more tuned into the emotional. (stereotype! I know.) I guess I enjoy emotions as much as anyone else, but preaching, church services, and the like that play upon emotions usually make me feel manipulated. I prefer to stretch my mind and I like to dig into things, especially scripture.
Ok, I'll slip back into lurker mode now and read more about Calvinism.
I sort of think that most women are more tuned into the emotional. (stereotype! I know.) I guess I enjoy emotions as much as anyone else, but preaching, church services, and the like that play upon emotions usually make me feel manipulated. I prefer to stretch my mind and I like to dig into things, especially scripture.
Ok, I'll slip back into lurker mode now and read more about Calvinism.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
For all you "intellectuals" out there who may feel that there is a bit of an attempt to shame you, may I say that our Lord Jesus was the greatest "intellectual" of all!
John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was Deity."
"Logos" is a word which has many shades of meaning, one of which is "reason" or "rationality". Our English word "logical" is derived from it.
John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was Deity."
"Logos" is a word which has many shades of meaning, one of which is "reason" or "rationality". Our English word "logical" is derived from it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Hi friend/guest,
I don't think that either Rae or Michelle were responding to or referring to you when speaking about those who dislike my teaching style. I had the impression that they were reacting to my observation that, historically, women have responded favorably to my teaching style in smaller numbers than men have. You clearly did not say anything negative about my teaching, and I don't think that they were suggesting that you had done so. My guess would be that you might enjoy a different style of teaching over mine, but that is not a bad thing...just a difference in taste or learning style.
I don't think that either Rae or Michelle were responding to or referring to you when speaking about those who dislike my teaching style. I had the impression that they were reacting to my observation that, historically, women have responded favorably to my teaching style in smaller numbers than men have. You clearly did not say anything negative about my teaching, and I don't think that they were suggesting that you had done so. My guess would be that you might enjoy a different style of teaching over mine, but that is not a bad thing...just a difference in taste or learning style.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve