David Edwards

While reading through Becker's "What is evidence?" and Woodward's "On Believing What One Reads" I was presented with two fairly different views of history. On the one hand Becker defines history, in its most basic form, as memories of things said and done. He then goes on to illustrate how everyone is technically a historian (or at least goes through the same processes for analyzing history) and thoroughly breaks down what history is how all humans interact with it on a continual basis. On the other hand Woodward focuses primarily on how information found in history is used and abused, how things are twisted to fit agendas, and how history is always changing. Woodward also, towards the end of his article, makes known the "misgivings" he has toward Becker's relativist view of history and discusses the dangers he sees as being associated with it. Because of the differing views the two authors have on history in general and particularly in their articles, they seemed to emphasize different challenges, though it they still face the same challenges.

Despite their differences of opinion in regard to History, Both Becker and Woodward addressed the issue of misconstrued evidence.  The difference comes in with, Becker proposing that misconstruing of information is done unintentionally and results from having faulty information to begin with or memory failure. Whereas Woodward seems to present his information in such a way so as to lead the reader to believe that it is done intentionally to further an agenda. Both

Probably the biggest obstacle Woodward discussed in regard to using evidence to reconstruct the past was how people intentionally misrepresent the evidence to meet their own ends. This, of course, takes place on a daily basis on both large and small scale. In a school yard fight, both sides are going to want to present the information detailing what happened in the fight in such a way as to put themselves in a good light. Also, depending on the audience the way the information is presented and what information is shared changes. When talking to a teacher one boy may claim the other boy started the fight, while the other boy tries to justify his action by accusing the one boy of antagonizing him, both leaving out the fact that it was a fight for pride and neither side would back down until the fight was stopped or one was the clear victor. However, when the boys tell their friends about this past event they will undoubtedly try and make themselves appear as the victor, the "tough guy", neither admitting that they may have just been scarred so as to earn more respect from their friends. On the larger scale, this often takes place in politics. Woodward provides examples of numerous political parties, from Democrats and Republicans to the Progressives and the American Communist Party that claim famous American leaders as one of their own. Another of Woodward's examples is relations between France and the United states. When it suited America's need, they seemed to disregard France's past as being a much more absolute Monarchy than Britain and viewed them only as a powerful ally and used their aid to defeat the British. Yet, some years down the road when what was "good" for America changed, they viewed France as an enemy, conveniently forgetting that fact that France played a key role in British defeat. Becker though, in a sense, lets people in general off the hook, because he proposes that when someone provides false information it is a result of faulty memory or misinformation as opposed to an intentional act intended to help further one's agenda.

A challenge Becker addresses in his article more so than Woodward in his article, is the challenge of sifting through all the stored up information and finding what's relevant. Becker illustrates it by describing all the evidence, all the experiences Mr. Everyman has in his mind and how he subconsciously sifts through it all at some times and deliberately at other times to create a picture of the past. A point Becker makes, that Woodward would most certainly disagree with this that, it is not so important that the picture be accurate as long as it is helpful to Mr. Everyman.

Although different people view and define history in different ways, just as Becker and Woodward, we are all faced with similar challenges when trying to reconstruct the past. They do however, because of these differing views, address these challenges differently and focus on certain ones more than others, as I hope to have displayed in this essay. But, regardless of how one does or does not view history, this fact remains, history will continue growing whether we perceive it correctly or not and every day we are making history affording ourselves and others new opportunities to learn and grow.

Horace Bushnell was born in 1802 and lived until the ripe old age of 74. Bushnell "spent most of his adult life as a pastor of the North Congregational Church in Hartford, Connecticut. He held to the believe that children could "grow steadily in Christian love and did not have to sink deep into sin before a dramatic  conversation experience" (353). "Bushnell saw God's spirit at work in every aspect of both nature and history" (353), and in this reading he lays out his views and explains how "we are to know our callings" (353).  In response to the question "How do I simply live as a Christian?", Bushnell would probably respond with something along the lines of "find where God is calling you, and stay there". And in response to the question "Is my life's work a 'calling' or a 'job' " Bushnell would likely respond by saying it is much more than simply a job, but it is a divinely determined calling.    

Bushnell's argument that everything in creation from a grain of sand, to a star in the sky to man, has a specific purpose and if that purpose is not fulfilled the "nicely balanced" (p.355) system would be thrown off completely, even "One grain, more or less, of sand would disturb, or even fatally disorder the whole scheme of heavenly motions" (p.355). I have trouble completely agreeing with his argument. I mean, it just seems like it would be incredibly difficult to keep everything in its absolutely proper place, unless of course, God predetermines everything that happens (which I from what I read, does not some like something that would be too far out for Bushnell to believe). I agree, that everything, more or less, has an intended purpose, and that when we humans mess with that, there are usually some ill-effects, but I very much doubt that cutting some trees (not to belittle deforestation) is going to through off the whole universe but...I could be wrong. If Bushnell's argument was completely true, it would be a very serious burden.  I suppose I can only speak for myself, but I think there would be a lot of worrying about making sure everything stayed in its proper place, and it would probably come to a point when I decided to either sit somewhere and never leave, or just go about life and not worry about throwing of the balance of the whole universe.

Basically, to try and some up his practical advice for finding one's calling I would say, go to God, look at the strengths you have, seek guidance from those close to you, and again go to God. I would say his advice is somewhat helpful. He seems to view things in a fairly pre-determinist way, saying that everything is absolute, and once one is called to a certain vocation they cannot veer from said vocation. The work I have been doing with my project this year has been work that people who know me well would probably say I am well suited for. It is in the realm of a ministry in which I am interested, and feel that God may be leading me to.    

The journal excerpt from George Fox, has been one of the most interesting readings I have had so far. He just seemed like such a crazy guy, not in a bad way He lived from 1624 to 1691. From a young age, as the son of a weaver, Fox "found all the church groups he encountered unsatisfactory in various ways.  Fox came to the conclusion that neither clergy nor buildings (he called churches "steeple houses") were necessary and that everybody had access to religious truth through the Inner Light of the living Christ inside of them. This Inner Light, Fox believed, spoke directly to him and revealed things to him through what he called "openings". George Fox was arrested repeatedly and persecuted, yet he continued to preach (I think that would be fairly accurate word to describe what he did) and founded the Society of Friends, or Quakers as they are commonly called. The Journal excerpt "shows how directly and immediately Fox understood himself to be directed by calls from God." If someone were to ask Fox, "To what particular work is God calling you?" I don't think it would be stretch to say he would respond with something along the lines of "I am being lead to show people how really to find religious truth and what the church really is." Fox and his family did not see eye to eye on what it meant to be a true believer.  From what he says in his journal, he parted ways with his family "I was a stranger to all, relying wholly upon the Lord Jesus Christ.

This excerpt from Fox's journal was full of odd happenings. The craziest one though, in my opinion was when he went to the city of Lichfield.  He had recently been released from prison and was traveling in the company of Friends. As they traveled he was directed to go to Lichfield, so he told his companions to go to the house where they were supposed to stay and not say anything about him going on to Lichfield. As he approached Lichfield he encountered shepherds with their sheep in a field outside the city. Fox felt directed by God to take off his shoes and give them to the shepherds, which would not have been so odd had it not been winter. Fox was kept warm though because "the word of the Lord was like a fire..." in him and he directed the shepherds not to give his shoes to anyone unless they paid.  Upon entering the city "the word of the Lord came to me again, to cry, 'Woe to unto the bloody city of Lichfield!'" so Fox went up and down the streets crying out "'Woe to the bloody city of Lichfield!'".  It was a market day so many people were out and about; even so, no one attempted to stop him.  As he was proclaiming, he saw what seemed to be a channel of blood running through the streets and market place. After doing what was his heart he was at peace, he left the city and bought his shoes back from the shepherds. It was not until afterwards that he came to understand why he had been led to speak out against the city. He had been lead so, because around the year 300, 1000 Christians had been martyred in the city, so he was to "raise up the memorial to the blood of those martyrs which had been shed above a thousand years before, and lay cold in the streets."

If I were to have a conversation with George Fox about religious freedom in America today, I think he would be disappointed. Although his believes were much different than those held by most of his contemporaries, I don't think he would approve of the wide spread acceptance of all the different beliefs. I don't know exactly what his stance would be on religious tolerance is in regard to other religions, but I know in his life time he was trying change what he was not trying to introduce a new religion, he just felt called to fix the one already there. On the other hand I think he would, at least in part, be in favor of the emerging church movement. I saw a presentation on the emerging church when I went on a trip to visit the seminary in St. Louis. Through discussions I was apart of following the presentation, I, along with others (one of the others being Kyle Sorkness) concluded that the emerging church may just be a part of the the church changing to stay true to the unchanging gospel. If I were to ask Fox about it, I think he would be intrigued and possibly even see what he was doing as that same thing, just helping the church stay true to the good word. 

Richard Baxter lived was a puritan living from 1615 - 1691. Baxter did not believe that the church needed bishops, this belief placed him among the "nonconformists", who were against the established Church of England. He supported the parliamentary forces who fought against the King of England, he later became dissatisfied the parliamentary government. His dissatisfaction caused him to support the return of Charles II as king in 1660. Baxter continued to oppose bishops in the church, thus causing himself to be persecuted by the church and he later supported replacing King James II. In response to the question "To what particular work is God calling me?"based on this excerpt Baxter would most likely have responded saying that God is calling you to wherever the gifts given you by Him are best being used, which would be measured in part by how hard you are working. In regard to the question "How can I serve God through family life?" one the ways Baxter would have responded would be for parents to raise their children well and encourage them to find a calling (which Baxter defines in his writing as a "stated, ordinary course of labor") where their gifts and abilities can best be used and not go into a calling for which they are not adequately equipped.

The whole excerpt was guidelines for how one is to find their calling. I have to say that I was a little troubled by the emphasis Baxter seemed to place on being "obligated" to do things for God. This emphasis was most clearly conveyed for me when Baxter said "Religion is our obligation (emphasis mine) to obey God. God binds us to do all the good we can for others." This bothered me because based on how I understand our relationship with God, we do good works not out of obligation or requirement but simply as a response to what he has done for us. I digress; the guidelines Baxter provides for choosing one's vocation primarily consist of knowing your God given abilities and using them where you might best serve God, those around you, and yourself. One of the ways Baxter proposes one fulfills those requirements is through action. According to Baxter "It is for action God maintains us and our abilities" and he says if we are not taking action but we are instead indulging in slothful behavior, our bodies "will quickly fall into mortal diseases", we will more easily fall into temptation, and "Idleness makes men fools and dullards..." I found one of Baxter's specific examples of the ill-effects of idleness particularly interesting "For want of bodily exercise and labor interposed, abundance of students and sedentary persons fill themselves with disease, and hasten their death, and causelessly blame their hard studies for that which was caused by their bodily sloth..."  In his sixth direction, Baxter specifically addresses the importance of one's calling serving the public good "that calling which is most conduceth to the public good is to be preferred"  and even goes so far as to list the "callings most useful to the public good" some of which were pastors, schoolmasters, physicians, etc. Baxter also alluded to the importance of choosing a calling that best uses one's God given abilities. Finally, following his discussion of finding a calling that best serves the public, Baxter provides a guideline for finding a calling that also best serves oneself. Although it is "next to public good, the soul's advantage must guide your choice." He says if it comes down to choosing between a lawyer and a schoolmaster, one should forgo the financial benefits of being a lawyer for the social and mental benefits of being a schoolmaster.

 All of our projects, are greatly influenced by looking at how we can best serve the public good through fulfilling our calling, the specific example in my project is the summer program I am developing for Kool Klub. In order to develop an effect and beneficial summer program I am having to learn what the needs of community are and take those needs into consideration and use them as may basis for how the summer program will organized. 

Dr. Meyer served Concordia University, St. Paul (Concordia College at the time of her arrival and until 1997) beginning in 1967 and continued to serve for the next 30 years or so. She served the university with the utmost dedication, including holding the positions of Director of Instruction, Dean of Faculty, Vice President for Academic Affairs, and Executive Vice President, "holding several of these positions simultaneously." Dr. Meyer holds two doctorates, one from University of California, Santa Barbara and the other from University of Minnesota and was also educated at Oklahoma State University. She is not only highly educated and capable, but was "Regarded by her students and colleagues with admiration, profound respect, and affection..."

 The main focus of Dr. Meyer's presentation was the integration of faith and learning, and this main theme covered other main points she made throughout the presentation. One of her main points was that Concordia has seen significant change over the past four decades. The changes ranged from logistical things such as the addition of new buildings to spiritual matters based on the decrease of the students getting into Church work. Even with these changes and many, many more the university is still being called to integrate faith and learning. Another main point of her presentation was all the changes to come. In discussing the future, she focused a lot on technology and how it is affecting the way education is done, with online classes for example. She also incorporated the mission statement, emphasizing the importance of staying true to it, and continuing to integrate faith and learning.

Being that the title of her presentation was "Change: Integrating faith and learning" it is easy to see how many connections could be made with the Honors Program in Faith and Learning. One of the points she made was the influence technology has on educating now-a-days. She touched on how many of the technologies today serve not only to connect people, but also to disconnect them. She spoke about online classes and how not having that real, face to face interaction makes a significant difference. In the first semester of Honors this year we addressed a similar issue while reading through "Religion and Cyberspace," though as the title suggests, it was focused mainly on religion as opposed to education.  Some of the points we made during our study of the book, however, are related. One of the topics we addressed was the differences between and difficulties of participating in a virtual worship service versus traditional (and by traditional I mean in-person interaction).  One of the conclusions we came to was that nothing could replace that human, face to face interaction; without it, we can and often do become disconnected from one another, losing that sense of community that should be found amongst Christians. Dr. Meyer also spoke about cultural pressure to go a certain way, and do certain things. This struck me because we have also spent a lot of time discussing vocations and gaining a deeper understanding of what it really means. Certainly we all have different callings, but our callings are where God wants us to be, not where the world thinks we should be going, and I just appreciated when she reminded the audience that accumulation of wealth IS NOT the primary goal, something difficult for people to remember and believe in general, and in particular college students finding themselves steeped in debt. One of the most important connections I made between Dr. Meyer's presentation and the Honors program was Dr. Meyer's main point of integrating faith and learning. Integrating faith and learning is one of the most important parts of the Honors program, it is what makes it what it is. Through her presentation she spoke as if faith and learning are two different things, when we should be viewing them in their true light, as one in the same. This point, I think was made most clearly by Dr. Bunkowske when he stood up and said almost those very words (he is where I really got the idea), and that our faith should be shining through the work we do and the education we have.

De La Cruz was born into hardship and continued to face it throughout her life. She was "born into the most uncompromising of circumstances, the illegitimate daughter of a Spanish soldier in a small town in colonial Mexico." Continuing through her life she continued to face hardships that were seemingly beyond her control. These hardships were primarily due to the conflict that arose between the culture she lived in and her deep passion to learn. She entered a convent because of the socioeconomic status of her family she was without a dowry, therefore without any prospects for marriage. While in the convent she wrote poems plays and essays, which caught the attention and consequently the disapproval of the Archbishop of Mexico. This disapproval led De La Cruz to defend her sense of calling in a letter she sent to her friend the Bishop of Puebla, in 1691. She wrote the letter as if writing to fellow nun, because again the culture restricted her, it was not appropriate for her to write of letter of this type to a man. She was eventually forced into public repentance, silenced and died "a few years later of the plague, contracted when nursing her sick sisters in the convent." Throughout our studies of callings we have concluded that a couple of the fundamental questions for Christians after the reformation (1500-1800) were "To what particular work is God calling me?" and "How can I serve God through family life?". The answer to the first question in De La Cruz's life seems fairly apparent, God was calling her to learn, and through that calling He led here in directions she probably would not have otherwise gone and did many things through her. The second question however, does not seem to pertain as much to De La Cruz's story. She, as was afore mentioned, entered a convent at a young age (I assume she was fairly young, because she was still at marrying age but since she had no dowry she had little choice otherwise) so she did not develop a "typical" family life after she left home. However, if one were consider this as her "family life", the close knit community within the convent, she served God by showing her love and care for her sisters, through serving them, and often putting them before her love of learning.

In following Christ we are presented with many obstacles from the enemy, and De La Cruz was no different. In one section of her letter, she addresses an obstacle we can all relate to, that obstacle being our own selves or more precisely, I think, our old sinful nature. Early on in her letter De La Cruz mentions how not only others but she herself attempted to cause her to "abandon this natural impulse which God has implanted in me", she admits having even prayed to God "to extinguish the light of my mind..."and though she may have been misguided in her prayer, De La Cruz still recognized the importance of behaving in God pleasing ways asking him to leave enough of the "light of her mind" to do so. All these attempts though, were unsuccessful of course, as are all our attempts to fight God or take control, "neither the reprimands or others...nor my own considerations - have succeeded in making me abandon this natural impulse which God has implanted in me." Another obstacle she faced in fulfilling her vocation was simply having to teach herself. She was limited to "a mute book as teacher, an unfeeling inkwell as fellow student..." and instead of instruction and exercises she was faced with completing her daily tasks instead. Later De La Cruz again mentions the obstacles presented by other people in her life. One example she gave that caught my attention in particular was people that have the right intentions but still cause you to stumble "Those must harmful and painful to me are not the persons who have pursued me with open hatred and ill will, but those who, while loving my and wishing me well, have mortified ant tortured me much more than the others...". This was of particular interest to me because it is so easy to see those who apparently impede your pursuit of the your vocation as "out to get you" or just being mean, instead of seeing their good intentions and working with them from there, something I personally have struggled with. The beauty of all these obstacles is that none of them were successful at completely derailing De La Cruz, God just kept guiding her and keeping her going, just like does in our lives, something I am experiencing right now especially in my project.

One of the biggest obstacles I am facing at my project is learning how to get the children's respect. It has been difficult for me to know how far I can or can't go with disciplining the children, even though my on site project supervisor has made it pretty clear, I guess I should just be a little more purposeful with my efforts not just make excuses, be my own obstacle. Another obstacle I am facing, again coming from within myself, is my time management. A lot of the work I am doing for Pastor Raddatz I am doing is outside work, stuff I have to do on my own time, when I'm not at the church. This has proven to be difficult for me because of, one, so many other things going on with classes and everything, two, my often poor time management skills, and three, stressing myself out so much with all that I have to do, that I don't do anything. So in recognizing these obstacles I suppose it would be beneficial for me to do something about them, or realize that there things I can't do anything about and except that and leave it in God's hands, which seems to be what is ultimately what we are supposed to do.

Please feel free to leave comments, whether it be thoughts, agreements/disagreements, questions whatever, and I'm sure my fellow honors students would appreciate them too!

Dr. Raheb is a Palestinian Arab Lutheran Christian pastor serving in his home town of Bethlehem. Dr. Rahed was born in Bethlehem on June 26, 1962.  The development of his identity was greatly influenced by the fact that he was born in Bethlehem, the birth place of King David and of Jesus. His birthplace of Bethlehem and the land of Palestine are very important to Dr. Raheb he says "My self-understanding of a Palestinian Christian has a territorial dimension" and the city of Bethlehem and the land of Palestine "do not merely help me live, they are part of my identity".  His ancestors were Greek Orthodox, until "his orphaned grandfather was taken to a German Lutheran school to be raised.

One of the main points I found in the reading and which I believe he discussed in the Convocation (although my memory is a bit foggy, I'll admit, due to the fact that I did doze just a little bit, while he was speaking) was the significant suffering and tribulations Arab Christians faced, and still face today. Their history of being an oppressed minority has not and does not weaken their faith or resolve. Arab Christians being minority, also are generally in the side of progress, where as Western Christians tend to stick with the "status quoe (I think that is misspelled, but I'm sure you understand what I am trying to say)". This makes working with Palestinian Christians much different than working with Western Christians, and I would venture to say, even sometimes more effective, due to the fact that they are used to oppression and hardships caused by their faith and continue to go forward. Another main point I believe Dr. Raheb made was that Palestinian Christians work not only with other Christians but have a close connection with Muslims and involvement in their lives. This of course for different ministry opportunities, while at the same time I'm sure presents unique challenges, though I would have to gain a better understanding of the relationship before I could really speak about it too much in depth.

Now I don't know if this link will work, but if its worth a try, so here is a link to reading we did in Dr. Rahebs book, so that you can read it for yourself and compile your own thoughts on it and possibly share them. The reading. If the link doesn't work here is what the reading was if you want to google it or something, becaue I would encourage you to read it.

l AM A PALESTINIAN CHRISTIAN

Mitri Raheb

TRANSLATED BY Ruth C. L. Gritsch

WITH A FOREWORD BY

Rosemary Radford Ruether