Book Reviews

The Relevance of English: Teaching That Matters in Students’ Lives

The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God

The University through the Eyes of Faith

The Relevance of English: Teaching That Matters in Students' Lives

Edited by Robert P. Yagelski and Scott A. Leonard. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 2002. 441 pages, $25.00

The Relevance of English: Teaching That Matters in Students' Lives is a collection of eclectic narratives and essays by college and secondary English professors. It discusses the relevance of teaching methods and subjects in high school and college English classes. It also examines the relevance of these classes to students in the twenty-first century and discusses how to make English studies more important in the lives of students.

Probably one of the most thought-provoking essays in this collection is "The (Ir)relevance of English at the Turn of the Millennium" by Robert P. Yagelski. (Obviously, it inspired the title of the book.) In this work, the author states that he was impressed by a book called The Irrelevant English Teacher, by J. Mitchell Morse of Temple University, which eventually gave him enough ideas to begin this work. In his first chapter, entitled "The Case for Irrelevance," Morse observed that English classes were not relevant for the early 1970s. Students were burdened with thoughts of the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement rather than what was going on in the classroom. Morse brought into the classroom political life in which students could become interested. Morse wrote, "[As] a teacher of literature, I think it is vitally important for my students to develop some sensitivity to literary values." The lack of concern with such values by our society, Morse continued, "has had unfortunate effects on the whole quality of its life, including its moral quality and ultimately its political quality." Simply put, Morse argued that English teachers serve society best when they teach its children "to read carefully, speak articulately, and write clearly, because if [the children] can do these things, they can think clearly too. And if they can do that...they will be less susceptible to.political demagoguery" (1).

The authors in this anthology offer eclectic comments on the changing world at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Yagelski states, "It seems an appropriate moment to do so, as we begin a new millennium amid concern, both public and professional, that English as a discipline (indeed, institutionalized education in general) has not adequately responded to our students' needs as literate persons at a time of profound social, political, economic, and technological change" (3). Based on the ideas presented in The Relevance of English, one could also include faith as one of the political aspects taught in a classroom, thus the integration of faith and learning. In this sense, the book is most helpful in presenting methods of integrating the classroom with English and the relevance of life in the twenty-first century.

Another interesting essay in the anthology is "The Academic Language Gap" by Gerald Graff. One of the points that Graff makes is that students are encouraged to write from their personal experiences, yet they have no culture upon which to draw. He also feels that cultures separate students from the teachers: "On the one hand, students recognize the personal and cultural power that comes with mastery of the conceptual and communicative competencies the academy has to offer.... On the other hand, students still feel deep reservations assuming the role of self-conscious intellectualizer and contentious argument-maker that is demanded by academic courses, including basic composition" (23-24). This concern of cultural differences is later addressed in an article on comparative cultures.

Margaret J. Finders's essay, "Literacy, Gender, and Adolescence: School-Sponsored English as Identity Maintenance," opens with the narrative of fifteen-year old Angel, a European American mother of a two-year old who lives in the rural Midwest. Angel's response to English was: "Like I care!" (82). Obviously, Angel did not find the English classroom to have relevance in her life. Thus Finders began a literacy education program that could make relevant learning for someone like Angel. One of the interesting comments that Finders made is, "The teaching of English is always about power" (83). Of course, Finders is correct because by learning words and language, one can communicate and think. God created the world with words; words do have power. And political dialogues are also about power, thus the integration of culture and learning in the English classroom.

Paula Mathieu and James J. Sosnoski contributed the essay "Enacting Cultures: The Practice of Comparative Cultural Study." The main thesis is that the world is complex and interconnected. This essay discusses the advantage of cultural critique as a pedagogical technique: "We believe that to teach is to persuade someone else to do or think in a manner different from the one to which they are accustomed" (326). And in order to do this, they encourage students to read texts more closely: "Teaching students how to read more closely asks them to change the way they read. Getting persons to change their habitual way of doing things is always a difficult task.... As we begin the twenty-first century, many teachers like ourselves welcome a view of criticism that sees texts embedded in social and cultural contexts" (326). One technique is to have students read political texts and have them relate those to their lives.

Technological literacy is addressed by Richard J. Selfe and Cynthia L. Selfe in their essay entitled "Critical Technological Literacy and English Studies: Teaching, Learning, and Action." The Selfes claim that even in the twenty-first century, English studies or literacy programs do not significantly use computers or other technology as the principal means of communication. One of the key points that the co-authors make is, "Specifically, given the number of collegiate-level writing programs now operating with computer support, English composition teachers may be inadvertently involved in pedagogical programs that educate students to become technology-dependent consumers--without also helping them learn how to become critical thinkers about technology" (344). And this is an important point: students need to become close, critical thinkers.

This anthology provides an interesting pedagogical perspective. The idea of making the classroom relevant to students should be applauded. Of course, one question that most pedagogues run across is, "What is relevant?" Students come to college with diverse backgrounds: what is relevant to one student may not be relevant to the next. Therefore, one concludes that key political and social points from society need to be addressed in a composition and literary classroom to make students think and question for themselves. Indeed, independent thinking is the goal of every essay in the anthology.

For an institution of higher learning such as Missouri Baptist University, faith should also be integrated into a writing and literary classroom. For literature, the integration is easy since most secular and Christian universities study the Bible as literature and many classics include the philosophy of the Christian God. But for composition, the integration of faith is not quite as easy. Some students who attend a Baptist university may be of neither the Baptist nor the Christian faith. For example, they come to MBU as Moslems, Buddhists, atheists, Jews, and of other religions. Some of them have not read the Bible, so to expect all students to be familiar with a narrative in the New or Old Testament may not be possible unless the students are given the reading assignment of a scriptural narrative. Then the pedagogue must explain to the students how this scripture can be relevant to their lives. For Christian students, this is not a problem. But for non-Christian students, the professor has a rougher time trying to integrate faith and learning.

Overall, The Relevance of English is an interesting book that presents problems from eighteen teachers from diverse backgrounds and shows how these problems are solved. Perhaps the essay by Paula Mathieu and James J. Sosnoski is the most helpful since it encourages comparative cultural study. This also allows the Christian pedagogue to introduce the Christian faith in a church-affiliated institution while allowing students to compare it to their own cultural faith.

Mary C. Bagley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Missouri Baptist University

The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God

Edited by Clark Pinnock, et al. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994. 441 pages, $16.00

In their book The Openness of God, Clark Pinnock and his colleagues attempt to articulate a view of God liberated from the strictures of classical theism on the one extreme and yet distinct from the dependency of process theism on the other. While the basic concepts of the openness view that distinguish it from classical theism are readily apparent, the lines of demarcation between free-will and process theism are not as finely drawn as Pinnock, et al. would have their readers believe. Indeed, when critically examined, the openness of God reveals itself to be an artful refinement of process theism, albeit by another name.

In each chapter of The Openness of God, the contributing authors implicitly acknowledge the evident proximity of their position to process theism by the lengths to which they go in their efforts to maintain a conceptual distinction between the two. For example, in his systematic treatment, Pinnock advances the notion of social trinity as superior to the God in process who is dependent upon the world "to make up for a love and mutuality lacking in his nature" (108). According to Pinnock, however, this internally social and self-sufficient God is in partnership with human agents in the determination of the future (116-17). Pinnock appears to rebuff the charge of a process-like God inherent in the mutual dependency of partners by contending that this partnership arose out of God's voluntary self-limiting choice rather than out of a necessity of his nature. But such a necessity becomes an essential element of the openness view when Pinnock posits God in time and asserts that "[t]he future does not yet exist and therefore cannot be infallibly anticipated, even by God" (123). It is only by God's responding to events as they happen (by the choices of men) that "his purposes for the world are realized" (125) (emphasis added). Yet, the critical observer would conclude that without the ability to determine, God has no true purposes-only wishful thinking.

Not only does Pinnock's systematic treatment reveal the process premise of the openness perspective, David Basinger's explanation of its implications also demonstrates that an effort to distinguish free will from process theism produces distinctions without a difference. In his discussion of divine guidance, Basinger characterizes the position of process theism as believing "that God is at every moment presenting to each of us the best available option and attempting to persuade us to choose it" (166). To differentiate the openness view of divine guidance, he asserts that "we also believe.that God does at times break through to give specific, conscious guidance to individuals-for instance,.with respect to marriage or career options" (166). Yet, that individual to whom such specific guidance is imparted must still choose to heed it. Thus, the distinction between "presenting the best option" and "giving specific, conscious guidance" fails when the human respondent may equally disregard either the option or the guidance.

Basinger makes another attempt to distinguish between the open model and process theism with regard to their respective implications on our evangelistic responsibility. He begins with a point of common agreement: "Individuals can fail to appropriate consciously all that God has to offer and, hence,.we should encourage each other in this respect" (175). As a point of departure from the process view, Basinger acknowledges "a significant initial separation.between God and humans-an initial inability for God and humans to interact to the extent possible-that can be bridged completely only when we choose freely to enter into a relationship with God" (175). Yet again, we are left with the human response. Whether man's choosing arises out of an already existing relationship, or he must have as his first choice to enter into that relationship, we still begin and end with the human agent rather than the divine.

Pinnock, Basinger and their fellow proponents of the openness view have undertaken a valiant effort to propose a new theism freed from the alleged philosophical constraints of specific sovereignty. Their liberating endeavor, however, has resulted in a view of God that is as dependent upon human agency to accomplish his purposes as the God of process himself is subject to man's determination. Making the existence of this mutually dependent partnership between God and man the result of God's initial, voluntary choice, rather than necessitated by God's nature, does not alleviate the consequences of such a choice. In the open model, God makes the first choice and then becomes dependent upon man to make every other choice. And so, while God may freely enter into process, it is no less process, only process by other name.

Cordell P. Schulten, JD

Associate Academic Dean
Chair, Social & Behavioral Sciences Division
Assistant Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies
Missouri Baptist University

The University through the Eyes of Faith

Edited by Steve Moore. Indianapolis, IN: Light and Life Communications, 1998. 167 pages, $10.99

This book offers nine essays on faith and learning integration at the Christian university. The correlation between faith and learning is not a new topic. It has been discussed since the days of early Christian thinkers such as Origen and Augustine; it has received particularly intense attention from Christian scholars and educators in the United States for the past several decades. What is unique about The University through the Eyes of Faith is that it was published on the threshold of the twenty-first century and includes essays that deal with not only age-old issues-such as the uniqueness of the Christian university and faith versus reason-but also newer issues-such as cultural diversity and multiculturalism. The book celebrates the accomplishments of Christian higher education and identifies the challenges that lie ahead. As David McKenna mentions in his foreword, Christian universities in America have been major players in higher education and have reached a defining moment. The contributors to the volume are generally well-known leaders in Christian higher education and write from conservative or moderate theological angles. Overall, the essays are written in a semi-scholarly or conversational style.

The editor Steve Moore, Vice President for Campus at Seattle Pacific University, has two essays in the volume. In "The University as a Place for Spiritual Formation," he contends that the fundamental mission of Christian higher education is spiritual formation. The Christian university offers "conditions, valuable resources and experienced companions" to accomplish the mission (25). Spiritual formation, however, cannot be fostered by the university alone; it requires participation of all the Christians in the world who seek to "take every thought captive unto Christ" and to "challenge one another to do so in all we do" (27). In his second essay, "Understanding the Culture of American Higher Education," Moore identifies two values within the American academy: those affirmed by most professionals in higher education and those that cause considerable tensions. He finds more tensions than shared values in the academy. The tensions arise because of the diminished "discourse of civility," the declining sense of community among the members, and the ideas of political correctness (PC) and multiculturalism, among others. Those tensions, however, "provide the grist for higher education's future" (118). Recovering the sense of purpose and hope of higher education necessitates "[reclaiming] the dialogue and discourse which have provided the framework within which the academy's values have been and could be shaped" (118).

William E. Hull's essay, "Christian Education: A General Retrospective," reflects on Christian higher education during the past half century and envisions its future. The author is former Provost of Samford University, which he now serves as University Professor. According to Hull, during the past fifty years Christian higher education "emerged as a national force and became a significant player in the field of higher education" (29). He finds three challenges inherited from those years. The first is the "governmentalizing" of the educational enterprise. Schools and their supporting churches are suspicious of each other and do not always share the same sense of mission. Many evangelical churches today cling to "the revivalism, fundamentalism and pietism of the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries" (34). The Christian university, meanwhile, tenaciously clings to "the Enlightenment paradigm of Cartesian objectivity" (34). The second challenge is the "secularizing" of the surrounding culture. Churches generally take a "Church against culture" approach while the majority of Christian schools adopt a "Christ in culture" posture. Regarding the ideological direction of Christian schools, churches tend to be separatist, homogeneous, and marginalized while schools tend to be inclusive, multicultural, and mainstream (35). The final challenge is the "fundamentalizing" of the supporting churches. Denominational support for Church-related schools has decreased rapidly, which has forced them to find financial resources from non-denominational sources. Despite these three challenges, the author believes, Christian institutions of higher education have been largely successful and have a bright future. They have proved to be "tough," and the fittest will endure hard times because they know how to adapt to changing times (41).

In his entry "Education as Sabbath," Earl Palmer finds inspiration from the fourth commandment of the Decalogue in which God stipulates that the Sabbath be set apart from the other days: "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy" (Exodus 20:8, NIV). Palmer, who serves on the boards of Princeton University Divinity School and Whitmore College, calls the stipulation "a Commandment for the Christian University" because it concerns "the rhythm between work and rest within seven days" (48, 49). A Christian university's primary task is the work, that is, to train students to become prepared for a lifetime of work. The second mandate is to help one find rest; the Sabbath prevents Christian faculty, students, and staff from becoming burnt out. The third mandate is to help students "remember" God the Creator and Redeemer. A church-affiliated schools that aspires to true greatness should help its members learn to work, rest, and remember God.

Harold Heie's essay, "Integration and Conversation," discusses two primary ideals for Christian higher education: integration and conversation. According to Heie, Director of the Center for Christian Studies at Gordon College, integration is an antidote to fragmentation, and conversation a remedy for polarization. Integration requires three steps. The first is to integrate two worlds of knowledge-"the search for interrelationships between biblical and theological understanding and knowledge in the academic disciplines, the quest for a coherent of thought that establishes connections between these two worlds such that each illuminates, complements and enriches the other" (62-63). The second step is for church-affiliated schools to "provide the time and resources that faculty need to do first-order scholarship informed by Christian presuppositions and perspectives" (62). Such institutions need to foster a viable middle ground between two unacceptable extremes: overemphasis on research, as is common in large secular universities, and excessive responsibilities in teaching, advising, and institutional service, as is common in Christian colleges. The second step of integration involves spirituality. True spirituality lies not only in Bible study, prayer, and singing spiritual songs, but also in "serving other people as an agent of reconciliation in a broken world" (67). The third step of integration lies in personal integration. Christian educators should teach students how to view a person holistically, "as one who thinks, feels, worships something, plays, relates to others and has a body that needs caring for" (67). Unfortunately, the Christian community today suffers from polarization which happens when one refuses to solve critical issues through dialogue. Christian higher education must create structures that will withstand the fatal assaults of monologue and contestation. Christian institutions of higher learning should create a "middle of the road evangelicalism," somewhere in between fundamentalism and liberalism (68).

In his entry "Redemptive Learning," Philip W. Eaton examines the way Christians learn and the need for a renewal of learning in the church. According to the author, President of Seattle Pacific University, the Christian life calls for a different kind of learning, that is, broad learning. Christians think differently about the natural world, about the texts of literature and history, and about the complex issues that affect their political and social environment. Eaton finds a clear direction for Christian education in I Corinthians, especially the first two chapters. Christians cannot help but learn differently from non-Christians because Jesus Christ fundamentally transforms their way of viewing the world and their way of knowing. Importantly, Christian thinking can provide viable answers to questions posed by the postmodern world.

Perhaps the most thought-provoking essay in The University through the Eyes of Faith is "Getting It Together: The Role of Cultural Diversity in a Christian University," written by Richard T. Hughes. Distinguished Professor of Religion at Pepperdine University, Hughes declares that "cultural diversity" and "academic rigor" are the two backbones of a solid university (126). Cultural diversity is fundamental to "the Christian's moral and spiritual life" as well as to academic rigor (127). Hughes envisions a broader perspective on cultural diversity: it involves not only race and ethnicity but also economic and social concerns. He points out that "the Christian commitment" and "the commitment to cultural diversity" are not mutually exclusive. On the one hand, a church-affiliated university should be committed to Christian faith in teaching and all the other aspects of its existence. At the same time, a Christian university must be committed to "serious exploration of the culturally diverse world in which we live" because "without a healthy dose of diversity, there can be no university at all" (134, 135).

In "Struggling to Manifest the Sacred," Robert Wuthnow focuses on three issues regarding the future of Christian higher education: securing financial resources, manifesting the sacred, and envisioning the future. The author, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society at Princeton University, observes that resources affect the "shape," not merely "strength," of the Christian institution. He divides the resources into two categories: the resources that contribute to the general goals of colleges and universities, and the resources that affect the specific place of religion within these organizations. The former have largely increased during the past century or more, while the latter have shown a mixed pattern. Regarding the way Christian colleges manifest the sacred, Wuthnow notes, "Church-related campuses may preclude some of the freedom to explore from all possible angles because of their loyalty to particular traditions, yet this limitation may be more than compensated for by the seriousness with which the religious life itself is taken" (151). According to Wuthnow, the biggest challenge for Christianity in America to which academic knowledge can respond positively is the "growing level of religious and cultural pluralism." Although pluralism has sometimes been linked to an accelerated secularization of American society, the future of Christianity in pluralistic societies is "probably more indeterminate than that view would suggest." Indeed, pluralism can foster competition among religious traditions, and it can be "layered into deeper personal religious convictions as well" (152).

All of the entries in The University through the Eyes of Faith inform readers and challenge them to think seriously of the complexities involved in faith and learning integration. Their arguments are generally reasonable and persuasive. In his discussion of "secular institutions," however, Philip W. Eaton perhaps commits overgeneralization. According to Eaton, secular schools "have shown us their potential for moral bankruptcy. Most certainly they languish in the confines of a radical political agenda and a strategy of specialization that threatens to render them worthless and irrelevant" (86). Although the author's main point is well taken, it would be a stretch to insinuate that all the scholarship at non-Christian schools is morally bankrupt, promotes leftist agendas, and is almost "worthless and irrelevant." As a matter of fact, there are numerous scholars at secular institutions who work tirelessly to expand the intellectual horizons in their fields. Much of the knowledge pursued by "secular" universities is morally neutral. No one would refute the fact that the heliocentric theory is an amoral (not "immoral") truth. Knowledge itself is not evil; the problem rises when fallen human beings distort and abuse it. Christian schools should pursue recognition from society by modeling a solid, faith-based scholarship, not by antagonizing or downgrading their non-Christian counterparts.

Two other issues deserve further reflections: cultural diversity and academic excellence. Cultural diversity, a hotly debated topic on many Christian campuses today, is the main concern of Richard T. Hughes's essay. The author, who grew up as an admittedly sheltered evangelical Christian and later earned his Ph.D. at the University of Iowa, does a superb job discussing how Christians should live in an increasingly multicultural society. In his essay of narration and argumentation, he contends that diversity is not something evangelical Christians can brush aside; Christians should be willing to put their belief system to the test. On the other hand, Philip W. Eaton condemns diversity as a postmodern phenomenon. He considers it along the lines of "pluralism, relativism, [and] perspectivalism" although he also claims that he does not advocate "arrogant, closed claims of the truth" (85). Eaton stresses "unity in Christ," quoting from 1 Corinthians 1:10: "I appeal to you, [my friends], in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ: agree among yourselves, and avoid divisions; [let there be complete] unity of mind and thought" (NEB, emphasis added by the author). Regrettably, this verse does not shed much light on the issue of diversity as found in today's society because Paul stresses the unity among Christians, not among people groups who do not share the same values and worldviews. In the article introduced above, William E. Hull rightly suggests that Christian institutions need to adopt a centrist position, located somewhere between the far right and the far left. The problem with his suggestion is that it is easier said than done to strike a balance between the two extremes. How Christian schools should deal with non-Christian culture is a complex matter and thus deserves further discussions.

Finally, academic excellence is what all Christian schools should pursue actively and conscientiously. As William E. Hull notes, many Christian colleges and universities have proved that Christian commitment does not conflict with academic excellence. Indeed, America's Best Colleges, published annually by U.S. News and World Report, and other college guidebooks place well-known Christian schools-Notre Dame, Wake Forest, Pepperdine, and Wheaton, to name a few-among the best in the nation. However, the America's Best Colleges listings of the top 50 national universities and of the top 50 liberal arts colleges clearly show that the overwhelming majority of those schools are non-Christian institutions. Several questions should be asked regarding the uneven academic reputations of Christian schools. Why is there a perception that secular colleges are more prestigious than Christian colleges? Why do some Christian students go to a secular college, not to a Christian college? Teaching is of prime importance at a Christian liberal arts institution, but does it mean that faculty members at such a school are exempt from first-rate research? Does their workload allow them to engage in sustained, in-depth research? Is it possible to pursue teaching excellence without engaging in scholarly research? Can large Christian universities produce as many Nobel laureates as do secular institutions like the University of Chicago? Despite our many accomplishments, we cannot remain complacent, patting ourselves on the back. We have come a long way and are called to continue, or find a way, to deliver academic excellence-in the name of Christ, with the empowerment from the Holy Spirit, and for the glory of God.

John J. Han, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of English
Missouri Baptist University