Religious Pluralism & The Social Sciences
January 30, 2009
Rublev: Rowan Williams
“One day, God walked in, pale from the grey steppe,
slit-eyed against the wind, and stopped,
said, Colour me, breathe your blood into my mouth.I said, Here is the blood of all our people,
these are their bruises, blue and purple,
gold, brown, and pale green wash of death.These (god) are the chromatic pains of flesh,
I said, I trust, I make you blush,
O I shall stain you with the scars of birthFor ever. I shall root you in the wood,
under the sun shall bake you bread
of beechmast, never let you forthto the white desert, to the starving sand.
But we shall sit and speak around
one table, share one food, one earth.”
My mom recently commented that I do not post as much as I used to. That is because I’m back in school and have substantially more homework than I did last semester and over Christmas break. But I wanted to throw in my initial two cents in on Jeremy’s posts so far on religious pluralism.
Unfortunately it will not be quite as thorough as I should like it to be, but I will still attempt to (very) briefly demonstrate why I believe the foundations for his pluralist position is in fact the “out-of-date” or “not-relevant” system.
It is not insignificant that Jeremy has thus far begun and ended his system not at all based on any religion, or even his own personal religious experience; but rather on the backs of social scientists. He gives us a grand and sweeping account of the “history of religions” and then turns to religious scientists to determine the definition(s?!) of religion.
“The problem of Meta-narrative in the “history of religions”
The large and sweeping problem off the bat is that the account of the history of religions is itself a meta-narrative of history. It says, in essense that religious history is going somewhere - “First there was primitive religion, then the axial age, then Islam emphasised compassion, now pluralism, etc…” – and that is not where it is now nor is it where it has been.
Part of deconstructing is attempting, insofar as it is possible and aparently truthful, to deconstruct even ones own presuppositions, and it is this tendency which has led me, though appreciating insights which have come of thinking in terms of the words “pre-, modern, and post-modern (even post-post-modern!)” to ultimately come to reject the notion that history is neatly divideable up into epochs where thought was broadly uniform and the presuppositions the same; whereby we are able to box people and ideas up for critique en masse. I have learned in reading some of the classic western philosophy lately, is that it is a myth to posit that it was only in the “Enlightenment” where “reason” became the base authority. A look at Socrates, Plato, and the many skeptics in our “history of thought” reveals that the same motivation for Socrates to reject the many gods of his native Athens is the same reason that led to “Enlightenment” thinkers to reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Plato was just as convinced as Rousseau that reason as opposed to revelation could be counted on to give an objective, ontologically-true account of the (uni)versal reality apart from intervening spiritualities and deities to explain the unexplainable.
Which is why I think that it is simply inaccurate to speak in terms of what religions were doing or saying during specific “eras.” The very idea of “eras” is so frustrating since it is nothing but an interpretive tool on the page. The closest we might get to an accurate account of thought over time might be to speak of “schools” but not “eras.” Especially when said “eras” become a tool of oppressive violence to another’s belief system.
“The problem of the secular in the “history of religions”
As Shawn Wamsley just asserted commenting on Jeremy’s second post, narratives cannot be universalized to be demonstrably true outside of their own meta-narratives. The bare fact of the matter is that the assertions of accouts of the history of religions are done amongst the intellectual elite in the houses of learning still living under the mistaken assumption that they can give an objective account both of history and of “religions”; of what it is, of where it is going, what it means, and what we should do about it. It defines religion, (which it cannot do succinctly enough so it must resort to multiple definitions of religion), it defines the distinguishing marks of religion, it defines the “eternal core” of those religions, and it decides what we as a society must do about it. If there is one thing I learned in Cultural Anthropology and Environmental Science, it is not a lot about other cultures or about anthropogenic global warming, but about the idealogical core of the social sciences and their own meta-narratives.
(I hope this does not to sound too nasty)
At the end of the day, I believe modern-western religious pluralism is nothing but the bastard child of secularism and its exultation of “reason” over the rest of the world.
(Lest that seem to make me a fundamentalist, consider that Walter Brueggemann himself, no conservative by any estimation, consistently says that it is secularism which is at the heart of the decline in the Mainline.) What it is is an account of the history and truthfulness of religions as critiqued by its own presumption. Though some social scientists might recognize the reality of “the trancendent (as defined by them),” ultimately it says to the great faiths “Thanks for getting us this far, we’ll take it from here. Moreover, we will personally decide what it is which actually counts for something from your religion, and in time, if you attend enough of our Universities, you will come to see it our way.” It says what “god(s)” (as we define or don’t define the term) really wants. But, religious pluralism bases this not on a belief in the revealing work of “god” but its own “objective” accounts of the faiths.
“The irrelevency of the social sciences, broadly conceived”
Jeremy posited that given the nature of our knowing about the world and about religions; and given that we are in an unavoidable pluralistic context, “exclusivist” religion is “no longer relevant” This seems to be an important phrase for Jeremy since he will not assert that “exclusivist” faith is itself “wrong.” This allows him a greater shield against the critique often leveled against religious monists and pluralists alike that their own system is “exclusive in its own way.” Yet, the foundations for his pluralism is based on the violent exlusivism of the western social sciences.
Oddly enough, given the post-modern critique, and especially the “radical orthodox” critique continually developing in post-liberal anglo-catholicism (with which I continually find myself agreeing), it is Jeremy’s intellectual foundations which are “irrelevant” as they have been crumbling since at least the time of Derrida, Focoult, Rory and Gadamer among others.
Now all of this is not to say anything negative about Jeremy. Jeremy is actually one of the most compassionate and generous people I know (that is not an exageration); but as long as his reasoning for religious pluralism is dependent on the social sciences and not on the revealing love and activity of the Holy Trinity, then I am going to have to remain unconvinced.
Beer II.I – Beers of the Former British Empire – Pale Ales
January 30, 2009
|
“How very good and pleasant it is when kindred drink together in unity!
It is like the precious ale on the head, running down upon the beard, on the beard of Aaron, running down over the collar of his robe.
It is like the India Pale Ale of Hermon, which falls on the mountains of Zion.
For there the Lord ordained his blessing, beer forevermore” – Psalm 133:1-3 – NRSV (with my changes in light of the original Hebrew text)
Beers can be divided at their broadest into two types…Ales and Lagers. This is due to the different kinds of yeast used and how they are fermented. Ales use a “top fermenting” yeast. The yeast mostly floats on top and is usually ferments between 70 and 80 degrees. Lagers use, you guessed it, “bottom fermenting” yeast. They are generally fermented between 50 to 65 degrees, often for longer periods of time.
We will examine some beer families, discuss flavor profiles, and in keeping with our commitment to break down the sacred/secular divide, we shall also discuss theological pairings as James did in his series on the sweet weed.
British Isle Beers: Ireland, Scotland and England
When describing “BSI (British, Irish, Scottish) beers” I like to imagine a number line where Pale Ale is 0 and the other beers go either positive or negative, indicating increasing and decreasing amounts of ingredients and complexity. Not that beers to the “left”( ie-Bitters, Milds, et al) are not complex in their own right, but they tend to feature less ingredients and so there are less waves of flavors to draw from. Let us also imagine there being blurry borders between beer styles, for instance it can be difficult to describe the distinct difference between a mild Pale Ale and an Extra Special Bitter, but we shall do our best.
Starting from the left of this imaginary beer line we can begin with the “Mild Ale” “Milds” are generally a deep maroon color from slow roasted malts. They are “mildly” hopped so that the predominate flavor is the sweet malt. “Milds” tend to have a low alchohol% and so can be drunk with abandon without becoming abandoned of ones wits. This pairs well anything by or about St. Francis of Assisi or St. Thomas Aquinas, those gentle genius’s…An Ox and an apostle- to-the-animals. . . so mild
Enter the Bitter! The “Bitter” ale is a paradox, much like The Trinity, much like good theology. You see, it is not actually bitter at all! Well, it is in comparison to Milds and Scots, wherefrom came its namesake, but a “Bitter” can usually be counted on to go down easily, be warm in the malt – malts that are neither too smooth, nor too bright – and have a fruity but gentle hop flavor. A true “session” beer, a Bitter can go well with many kinds of food, from Asian stir-fry to Fish and Chips, and it can be drunk several pints over without being put-over a bar stool. If you should find an “Extra Special Bitter,” you should know that “Extra Special” refers to more hops and more malt. It is the same for an “Extra Pale Ale.” A Bitter will be less acidic than a Pale Ale but not as fruity as an India Pale Ale. I tend to contemplate a Social Trinity with a good Bitter, especially if you are contemplating it with a Southern Baptist, who, for all their bitter fundamentalism, have never been able to be teetolaters.
In the “0″ position we have my “center” beer. . . The Pale Ale. The “pale” refers to the color and roast of the malts. A Pale Ale will have a heavier malt and hop load than a Bitter; it will have more malt than an IPA but less hops. In the Twin Cities we are blessed enough to have one of the single greatest examples of this style: “Summit Extra Pale Ale” Its widespread popularity means that even if you are in a dive’iest of bars, where they have an “assortment” of american lagers, they are bound to have Summit EPA on draft. This beer, as I said, is a massively influential “transition beer,” many a domestic drinker has been exposed to the wonders of hops by this beer, which also pairs well with many foods, and is available for $20 for 2-12 packs at Costco. Consider this a beer for all occasions and thinkers. From Origen to Volf, one always needs a “standby” to fill in for occasions where everyone can be happy.
Further now to the right of center, one of my favorite styles, the India Pale Ale. Historically speaking this was an ale light on the malt, but massively infused with hops in order to be able to withstand the journey from England to India (hence India Pale Ale). Though many American brewers experiement (quite well) with varying levels and roasts of malts, one should expect the beer to be a bright orange and have bright malt flavors. This beer is all about the hops. The huge amount of hops make this beer rather high in alcohol content, and many a sailor has lost the north star because of this. Now American and English versions do differ in certain respects. If American beers are good at anything (and they are good at everything), they are the world champions of understanding and utilizing hops. We have singularly turned the IPA into a transcultural phenomenon. More than a few beer snobs count this style their favorite. While the flavor can of course be spectacular, it is the aroma that make this ale the King of american craft beers. Depending on the hop variety it can be grapefruity, pineappley, always citrusy, always fruity, and not a little bitter. In the drinking, one often has hints of orange and spices. One of the worlds greatest beers (no I am not exagerating) is the IPA, Bell’s Two Hearted Ale, from the Kalamazoo Brewing Co. Have it with asian food, have it with fish, have it on a hot summer day, have it always; but especially when reading Voyage of the Dawntreader, Moby Dick, contemplating the early creed ICTHUS, or anything else fish related.
Related is the DoubleIPA, sometimes called an Imperial IPA. That’s right, a double. Basically you take the same pale malt base, add the amount of hops for a normal IPA, and double it. Thus squeezing your balls in a rapturous vice of hop-heaven. This is not a beer to be trifled with or to be take lightly. Again, Bell’s does not disappoint, check out their Hopslam and hope you survive the encounter. One should read post-critical theology as this beer can highten your mental capacity: try Jean-Luc Marion, John Milbank and Rowan Williams
The Evolution of Religion: Toward Religious Pluralism: Part 2
January 29, 2009
|
Part 2: Definitions
In my last post I laid out a brief history of religious thought. The purpose of doing so was to show that religious thought is an ever evolving process. I also wanted to show that there can be seen broad trends in the way that religious thought evolves. More specifically, I wanted to show that the evolution of religious thought is reactionary to the culture at large. I believe it is best to see religion as an aspect of culture rather than transcendent of culture.
In this second post I would like to expound on the argument by giving shape to the definition of religion. Furthermore, I would like to discuss the terms “pluralism” and “exclusivism” in a more detailed and nuanced way. Before, one can move to the discussion of religious pluralism vs. religious exclusivism, there must be a consensus as to what definition of religion will be used. It is a common mistake to assume that ones working definition of religion is universal. There are, however, many different ways from which to approach a definition of religion. Most broadly, religion can be categorized as anything which is a wisdom tradition. In other words, anything which seeks to instruct mankind on how to live while simultaneously attempting to give a purpose to life. By this definition any philosophical perspective can be seen as religious. This, of course, would include anti-religious movements such as atheism and agnosticism.
The Definition of Religion
While there is no doubt that being a wisdom tradition is vital to every religion, there seems to me far more to religion than simply wise instruction. Thus, I believe, it is necessary to define more narrowly what one means when they speak of religion. The definition of religion which I will use for the premise of this discussion is one given by my favorite author Marcus Borg. Borg argues for a six fold definition of religion. Each of the six aspects are broadly accepted by experts in the field of religious studies. In this post I will list each of the six aspects of religion and discuss each briefly.
1. Ancient Wisdom
The first aspect, which I have already mentioned, is wisdom. Every religion seeks to impart wisdom of how to live and why the way we live is important. Each religious tradition has nuanced aspects of wisdom for life. None the less many of them teach very similar things. The often pointed to aspect of moral teaching applies here. While every religion has a somewhat different definition of what exactly it is to be moral, all of them agree that morality is important.2. The Intersection of Culture and Language
The second aspect of religion that Borg points out is that religions are cultural-linguistic traditions. Put more simply, every religion is a product of a culture and a language. Islam is a shining example of this in the sense that much of the tradition is linked to the Arab culture and language. It is, however, important to point out that any religion which lasts for an extended period of time will eventually become its own cultural-linguistic tradition. This, of course, is prevalent in the culture and language of Christianity which cannot be ascribed to a single ethnic culture or language.3. A Human Creation
The third aspect of religion is that it is a human product or creation. This self explanatory point is quite controversial. As is seen by the responses to my last post, most religions cannot agree on this. In fact it is also a common trait of religions to deny human authorship and ground their tradition in divine creation. This fact, however, seems to disprove that notion if for no other reason than every religion, at some point, has claimed to be divinely produced. Many see this point as somehow degrading to religion. After all, if religion is a human construction then how can it have authority? The reality, however, is that authority is something which is given by humanity. Also, it is important to understand that accepting the human production of religion does not remove the role of God from the equation.4. A Response to the Experience of God
The third aspect of human production must also be understood in light of the fourth aspect which is that religion is a response to the experience of God. It is not enough to simply say that religions are human creations. It is obvious that religion is an inherent aspect of humanity. The very fact that the majority of mankind affirms some form of religion means that it must be in response to something. Religious scholar William James put it this way, “religion says that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in rightful relations to it”. It is in the response to “the more”, as William James coined it, that the language of religion finds its meaning. Thus it is in the experience of the unfathomable God that humans find the need to create some form of response.5. Means of Transformation
The fifth aspect of religion is that it is a means of ultimate transformation. There are two aspects to this which must be understood. The first is that religion affirms the need to be transformed. No religion desires for people to remain the way they are. If this were the case there would be no need for religion. Rather, every religion affirms that there is a correct response to the experience of God and that response requires a form of ultimate transformation. The second aspect is that religion is a means not an end. Religion is the tool that is used to bring about the end desired, which is transformation. Interestingly, most religions affirm that compassion is one of the core fruits of transformation.6. The Mediator between God and man
The sixth and final aspect of religion is that it is a sacrament of God. In other words, religion serves as a mediator between God and man. This again affirms the divine authority which religion holds. God is mediated to man through the sacrament of religion. Again, another interesting comparison is that most religions incorporate the sacraments of prayer and meditation, in some form, as aspects of mediating God.
Using this six fold definition of religion, I now move onto the discussion fo pluralism and exclusivism. Before I do, however, I would like to make one quick point about God that will be expounded upon in my last post. One thing that people often get hung up on, when discussing the comparison of religions, is that there is no universal definition of God. In fact, some religions like Buddhism refuse to even speak of God. I offer that the reason for this ambiguity about God, the transcendent, the sacred, the divine, or whatever you want to call it, is that the experience of this reality is beyond human conception.
The Nuances of Pluralism and Exclusivism
Moving onto the discussion of pluralism, it is important to understand, when speaking of the divide between pluralists and exclusivists, that there are many definitions that can be applied to both. Speaking of pluralism, there are two aspects for which it is vital to understand the distinction. Broadly, pluralism is simply a fact of the modern world. To say that we live in a world in which there are a plurality of religions is not a theory but a fact. More importantly, as the world has become smaller, because of human innovation, these religions have been forced to interact with each other. This interaction has created a multiplicity of responses. However, all of these responses can be divided into two ideologies. Those ideologies are “pluralism” and “exclusivism”. Thus in one sense both “pluralism” and “exclusivism” are ideologies which can be directly attributed to culture, be it modern or post-modern. Broadly, of course, the reality of pluralism and exclusivism have coexisted for much longer. For thousands of years there have been a plurality of religious expressions. Likewise, for much of that time religious ideologies have been seen in an exclusive light.
This distinction is important in moving forward. It must be understood that when one is dealing with the specific ideologies of “pluralism” and “exclusivism” that they are dealing with religious reactions to the circumstances of culture. More importantly it is necessary to understand that neither position argues from a place of normativity. This is a mistake that is often made on both sides of the aisle. While broadly it is obvious that each religion is founded in the heart of one of these ideologies, that is not to say that any religion is inherently “exclusivist” or “pluralist” by modern definition.
The Onset of the Enlightenment
Having clarified the inherent nuances of this debate between “pluralism” and “exclusivism”, it is now possible to move onto an understanding of the value that each of these ideologies has had for religious thought. As was previously expressed, the innovations of modernity removed the distances, both geographically and informationally, between the religions of the world. This removal of barriers caused each religion to evaluate itself in a new light. Previous to the enlightenment, religious diversity was seen as simply an ethnic issue. The Chinese had their religions, and the French had theirs (sort of), and the Germans theirs, etc. While there was still an egocentric aspect to religious life, it was seen very differently. One might affirm that their own religion was better than another, but this was seen as a comparisons of culture.
However, with the enlightenment came the creation of the terms scientific method and empirical data. Suddenly, religion was forced to prove its validity in the arena of empirical proof. This new attack, from culture, created the need for religion to answer to the questions of science. The inherent mythological truth of religion was seen as invalid. Because of this shift in the language of truth, religion began to change its definition of God. God could no longer simply be mystically experienced. Those experiences must be proven to be true. This created the language of absolute truth. If religious experience must be proven to be true, then counter experiences must be proven to be false. This dynamic completely changed the way religions saw each other. They were now competing for one truth and this left no room for variances. A side note, it is no coincidence that during the modern period there was more splintering from within each of the religions than any other time in history.
Under this new attack came the need for religions to defend their exclusive claim to truth. Thus, the modern ideology of exclusivism was born. It was no longer a question of superiority but one of exclusivity. Exclusivism allowed for each religion to remain valid in a time when culture was determined to move them to the periphery. It also allowed them to incorporate some of the critiques of modernism without losing validity. Things like racism and bigotry, which were normative when religion was seen as an ethnic locality, were now seen in a more logical light. Things like black skin were no longer seen in the mythological light of a divine curse, but rather seen in light of the scientific explanation of melatonin. This cleansing, in many ways, allowed each religion to remove the mythological hurdles which had hindered them from expressing their core values such as compassion.
Much the same way that modernism created the ideology of exclusivism, post-modernity has begun to create the ideology of pluralism. Post-modernism has reintroduced the value of mythical truth to the world of religion. With this introduction came the removal of the logical imperative of faith. Religions have begun to be freed from the competition for truth. This has created, yet another way for religions to understand each other. No longer are they hindered by the need for superiority that pre-modern culture required. Nor are they hindered by the need for exclusivity that modern culture required. Instead, they are free to validate the unique experiences of other religions while still holding to the value of their own. Thus;
the debate between pluralism and exclusivism is not one of validity. Rather, the debate is one of relevancy.
I believe that the push for religious dialogue has shown that a pluralistic approach to religion is far more valid in today’s culture than an exclusivistic one.
In my final post, for this series, I will look to better define a way forward. There are many hurdles which modernism has left in its wake. While culture has been moving in a post-modern direction for some time, the religious world is lagging behind in many ways. In fact some of the worlds religions are still dealing with the issues surrounding modernity. I will attempt to show that there remains value in both factual truth and mythological truth. Furthermore, it is only in the merging of both that religion will find its relevant voice in today’s culture.
Continue on to Part III
John Updike: Seven Stanzas At Easter
January 28, 2009
John Updike: March 18, 1932 – January 27, 2009
Make no mistake: if He rose at all
it was as His body;
if the cells’ dissolution did not reverse, the molecules
reknit, the amino acids rekindle,
the Church will fall.It was not as the flowers,
each soft Spring recurrent;
it was not as His Spirit in the mouths and fuddled
eyes of the eleven apostles;
it was as His flesh: ours.The same hinged thumbs and toes,
the same valved heart
that–pierced–died, withered, paused, and then
regathered out of enduring Might
new strength to enclose.Let us not mock God with metaphor,
analogy, sidestepping, transcendence;
making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the
faded credulity of earlier ages:
let us walk through the door.The stone is rolled back, not papier-mâché,
not a stone in a story,
but the vast rock of materiality that in the slow
grinding of time will eclipse for each of us
the wide light of day.And if we will have an angel at the tomb,
make it a real angel,
weighty with Max Planck’s quanta, vivid with hair,
opaque in the dawn light, robed in real linen
spun on a definite loom.Let us not seek to make it less monstrous,
for our own convenience, our own sense of beauty,
lest, awakened in one unthinkable hour, we are
embarrassed by the miracle,
and crushed by remonstrance.
—John Updike, “Seven Stanzas At Easter,” 1964
Repent, Recycle, Reuse
January 27, 2009
First of all, read about this New Report: Global Warming is Irreversible.
The old tired argument about whether global warming is a reality (and whether or not its human caused) has always been directly related to whether you watch Fox News or listen to NPR. I’m sure it doesn’t have to do with the fact that one is tyrannically controlled by a billionaire who stands to lose much (like all billionaires do) if people started being more conscientious about how their everyday lives affect the environment (not to mention funded by multinational corporations who are in the same position), while the other has always been donor-funded and exists solely in the public interest. But I digress, the arguments and the “proof” matters less when you think about it in terms of consequences for being right or wrong. Thus, Pascal’s Wager. I am sure I am not the first to make this adjustment to Blaise Pascal’s famous Wager…
Pascal’s Wager Applied to Global Warming
1. If global warming is false, and you don’t do anything about it, you have not lost or gained anything in relation to the environment.
2. If global warming is false, and you do whatever you can to slow it down, you’ve lost nothing, and gained a healthier, greener planet.
3. If global warming is true, and you have done nothing about it, you’ve contributed to the greatest human catastrophe of all time.
4. If global warming is true, and you do everything in your power to slow it down, you may (along with the concerted effort of the rest of the human race) stop unimaginable suffering and loss.
This new study seems to indicate that we need to hurry up and make the intelligent wager now, before the stakes (counted in human lives) get higher than they already are.
What I Want to Be When I Grow Up: Astronaut, Shepherd, or Dr. Barnes
January 25, 2009
The following essay first appeared in Spring 2008 in the North Central University Newspaper. It was part of my regular opinion column.
When I grow up, I either want to be an Astronaut, a Welsh Shepherd or Dr. William Barnes. As I see it:
Astronauts are the only humans beings that get to fly. As we all know, flying is the single most desirable trait found in the animal kingdom not available to humans. (That and hibernating) So it’s only natural that the astronaut be my first choice. Sure, pilots kind of, sort of fly things but they’re always sitting down surrounded by boring knobs and switches and blinking things. Hang glider operators pretend they’re flying but they’re still restricted to their apparati. Only astronauts float and soar in weightlessness the way God designed us to. If I were an anal astrophysicist, I might admit that any body in orbit is not technically floating but merely falling at a high enough velocity to maintain an angle of descent matching the curvature of the earth. But an anal astrophysicist is not one of the things I want to be when I grow up.
Welsh Shepherds are another strong choice because they hang around in fields all day. For those of you who don’t know, I lived a year of my life in a small town in the UK—this being an area of the world where there are a lot of sheep. One day while riding the train to work I was staring out the window into the green and gray British countryside when something unexplainably remarkable happened. I saw some sheep. Now, I had seen plenty of sheep before in my life, but these particular sheep were special. They were just standing there. And they were extremely good at it.
At this point I need to make it clear that the Bible contains a lot of imagery of Jesus or God as being a good shepherd over the people of the earth. He knows all of the sheeps’ names and loves them and is willing to look out for them and a bunch of really good stuff like that. Because of this, the illustration of being a shepherd is often used with being a good pastor or counselor.
That’s not what I’m talking about at all.
There is no imagery here—no deep philosophical thoughts or stingingly clever metaphors. I want to be a shepherd. A cane staff touting, pie eating, harp playing, wolf killing, sheep dog training, wassailing, field rocking, Welsh Shepherd. Perhaps I’d bring a good book or my notepad, but for the most part I would just hang out in the field and watch the sheep. I could pick a new field every day and I wouldn’t stop until I’d spent a whole day in every field in the UK. If I needed a nap, I’d grab a sheep, set ‘em down under a tree, lay my head on his back, and tip my cap over my eyes. It’s ok, they don’t move.
Dr. Bill Barnes knows everything in the world that there is possible to know. This in and of itself is a great reason to want to be Dr. Barnes when you grow up but it’s not the only reason. I must preface this by saying it is more than likely that Dr. Barnes has no idea who I am. I had one class with him a while back (got a B I think), and I basically did my best to say “Yahweh” instead of “The LORD” as best I could and not stick out too much. Thus, I have nothing to gain in terms of a reward from Dr. Barnes by revealing my dream.
To be completely honest, the main reason I want to be Dr. Barnes when I grow up is my admiration for his incredible beard. Dr. Barnes’ facial hair is trimmed enough for the academic institution yet rustic enough to encourage a healthy sense of intellectual adventurism. It’s the kind of beard you’d expect to see at the corner pub with Lewis and Tolkien discussing ancient things and enjoying a pint. It’s a beard that demands respect and attention to its bearer. It’s a beard I’d like to have some day.
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
