Cheating in and Disdain for Higher Education

As a professor who has graded many papers, I have done my best to evaluate the work of each of my students. Most of my students are honest, but unfortunately there are too many students trying to buy papers or copy other sources and have these accepted as their own work. The Chronicle of Higher Education has an excellent article, "The Shadow Scholar," published in 2010, which describes one process for cheating written by "Ed Dante," a pseudonym for a person who writes papers for students.

Some, perhaps most students cheat simply because they panic or have bad character. However, I have also encountered students who cheat because they disdain their professors and therefore feel justified to cheat in order to pass a class. This disdain for higher education is encouraged by many political commentators, and I have found most of these commentators to be political conservatives.

The effect of such attitudes towards higher education are disturbing. For example, I often read about so-called "scholars" in the popular media who claim to be scholars in politics and history, and yet have no academic training in these fields. They are usually dealing with politics and history, but I have also found such people to be in theology. They do not claim to be commentators, which would be honest and valid, but as scholars. This implies that they have completed formal training in a field in an accredited university. However, such men refuse to pay the price to go through the discipline of an academic program and complete a degree, and they succeed by preying on their readers and listeners (the Apostle Paul warned us about such men in I Timothy 4:3). The disdain these commentators have for higher education can encourage students to disdain their professors in college.

This is troubling because I take my profession as a calling from God, and therefore do not cheat or try to deceive people, and I do not try to claim to be a scholar in areas in which I have no expertise. Each degree I earned was from an accredited university. Furthermore, I wrote every paper for my undergraduate and graduate classes, and I always strove to give credit to authors by citing their works in my papers. Likewise, my wife edited my dissertation for grammar, and my dissertation committee (the professors who guided my research) also edited my dissertation for content. However, the work was original, which means I extensively researched the topic and wrote the book-sized dissertation (which took years to complete). As I went through my doctoral program, it seemed at times as if I did more things wrong than right given the amount of criticism I received on my papers, but I persisted. Eventually, I came to appreciate the criticism each professor offered because I realized they were helping me become a better scholar. It was a long and hard process, and very humbling, but it was worth it.

Yet, I find that pseudo-scholars have poisoned the hearts and minds of well meaning people to the point that I have had both family and friends openly show contempt for my profession. This is sad because there are many Christians who have paid the price by completing a challenging academic program in an accredited university, and thus, earning their respective degrees. Some are politically conservative, too, which means the issue is not about being politically conservative or liberal. The issue concerns disdain for higher education.

Is it no wonder, then, that many students cheat when they are taught to disdain the their professors?

Political, Ethnic, Socio-economic, Intellectual, and Moral Identities

"If we get our very identity, our sense of worth, from our political position, then politics is not really about politics, it is about us. Through our cause we are getting a self, our worth. That means we must despise and demonize the opposition. If we get our identity from our ethnicity or socioeconomic status, then we have to feel superior to those of other classes and races. If you are profoundly around of being an open-minded, tolerant soul, you will be extremely indignant toward people you think are bigots. If you are a very moral person, you will feel very superior to people you think are licentious.

"...Whatever you base your life on -- you have to live up to that. Jesus is the one Lord you can live for who died for you -- who breathed his last breath for you. Does that sound oppressive?"

- Tim Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.

What future is real to you?

"Isaiah, Amos, and many of the prophets wrote about what God wants to bring about in the future--the kingdom of God, the new heaven and new earth, a healed material creation......When John the Baptist sends a messenger from prison who says to Jesus in Matthew 11: 'Are you really the Messiah? Are you the one who is bringing the kingdom of God?' Jesus answers: 'The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor' (Matthew 11:5). That is the kingdom of God--shalom--complete healing of all the relationships in the creation. We will be reconciled to God; to nature; to one another; and to ourselves.
     "And to the extent that that future is real to you, it will change everything about how you live in the present."
- Tim Keller, King's Cross​: The Story of the World in the Life of Jesus, (Dutton, 2011), p. 221-222.

Only God the Son can redeem the world, and only God can bring us into fellowship with Him. Any other pseudo-Jesus is an anti-Christ (I John 2:22). Jesus is the "I AM," YHWH in the Old Testament (Exodus 3: 13-15 and John 8:58).

The future can be hopeful if we place our hope in Jesus. Putting our hope in anything else is only a phantom wish. Such idols will only disappoint us. This is something I need to remind myself over and over.

Do Not Allow Hate To Win

Please take the time to watch this video at The Gospel Coalition: VICTIMS’ FAMILIES FORGIVE THE MAN WHO MURDERED THEIR LOVED ONES AND CALL FOR HIM TO REPENT AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.

These families are hurting real bad. Yet, they extend God's offer of love and forgiveness to the killer.

That is Christianity in practice!

"Letter from Birmingham Jail"; Complete Text aand Outline

If you have not read this, Justin Taylor has posted Dr. Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" with an outline over at The Gospel Coaliton. I highly recommend reading this letter.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. not only wrote intelligently and on a foundation of Christian love, he wrote prophetically reaching the reader's conscience. It is an excellent work.

Praying doctrine...

"Doctrine cannot be understood unless it is prayed...And doctrine, if it is to be prayed, must also be lived..."
- Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, new edition, Penguin Books, 1997, page207.

That Dangerous "Slippery Slope": It runs both ways...

Recently, I have found the "slippery slope" argument being used quite a bit among conservative Evangelical Christians to argue that holding certain beliefs will inevitably lead to belief in a number of bad things, usually theological liberalism. Do you believe in: women in ministry; continuation of the spiritual gifts; or, a different interpretation of any passage in the Bible that threatens the status quo? Then, as the argument goes, you may be on the "slippery slope" towards liberalism.

Yet, there are several problems in using the "slippery slope" argument. For example, today's comic by Scott Adams (June 06th, 2015) shows how Dilbert's boss uses a "slippery slope" argument as a way to stop a conversation and avoid solving a problem at work. You can access this comic here. As seen in this comic, a "slippery slope" argument does not answer questions, resolve arguments, or provide solutions to problems.

Given this, why do people invoke this argument? It can be used to shut down debate. It is a conversation stopper! In using this argument, a person conveys the message that it is more important to control the argument than to answer questions or debate important concepts. 

A few other problems include:

1. The misuse of the truth is a slippery slope, itself. I have noticed that people invoking the slippery slope argument only see one slippery slope that leads to liberal doctrine and diluting the Gospel message. They do not see how their refusal to debate an issue on its own merits can be a slippery slope towards legalism and intellectual rigidity, even if they are doctrinally correct.

2. Those who invoke the "slippery slope" argument do not see how this argument can be used against them, as well. For example, I once had a Roman Catholic friend who argued that the Reformation was wrong because it put the Church on the "slippery slope" to disunity and opened the door to doctrinal heresy. Ironically, many of my friends today who invoke the "slippery slope" argument are Protestants who do not see how this argument can be used against them.

3. Invoking the "slippery slope" argument does not prove or disprove a proposition. Much like an ad hominem argument, if you cannot win with logic and facts, attack the man. That is, if you cannot win an argument, resort to the "slippery slope" to shut down debate. 

Indeed, I find it hard to refute "slippery slope" arguments because it shuts down the discussion. It suggests that no matter how correct my proposition may be, it must be wrong because it inevitably leads to something worse. This is why it is so important to understand that "slippery slopes" go both ways: they not only can lead to false doctrine and a dilution of the Gospel, "Slippery slopes" can also lead to legalism and rigidity.

One way to avoid the temptation to use the "slippery slope" argument is to check one's motives. Paul wrote, "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person" (Colossians 4:6 ESV). Are you trying to provide a proper answer, or are you trying to control the argument and control the other person?

Again, one can avoid the “slippery slope” argument by addressing issues each on their own merit. If something is true (for example, that salvation is by faith in Christ alone, and not by works - Ephesians 2:8-10), then we must argue for this truth and not be swayed that such beliefs may be "slippery slopes" towards Church disunity. Can you argue for a doctrine on its own merits?

Certainly, if a belief or doctrine is wrong, then one must persuade others of its error. In doing so, we must be like the Jews of Berea who “received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11 ESV). This is necessary because, as John Locke wrote,

All the Life and Power of true Religion consists in the inward and full perswasion of the mind: and Faith is not Faith without believing…true and saving Religion consists in the inward perswasion of the Mind, without which nothing can be acceptable to God.

- A Letter Concerning Toleration, edited by James H. Tully, 1983, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., p. 26-27.

Using the "slippery slope" argument does not effectively persuade someone about the truth of a belief or proposition. At best, this argument installs an unhealthy fear in a person rather than nurturing a living faith. At worse, it fails to refute bad doctrine or promote the message of Christ. It is an argument based on fear, and is motivated by fear. Therefore, Christians must seek to persuade others of the truth of a doctrine with the help of the Holy Spirit rather than shut the argument down with fear.

Where is Moral Decay Found: Government or Business?

"In this growing -- we fear it must be said rapid -- decay of virtue and integrity in legislative halls, in some quarters even in courts of justice, and in leading financial circles, the most portentous evils are opening before us. Can they be arrested? The answer to this question depends upon another. Have we vital Christianity enough among us to check the progress of moral decay? Is there that fear of God and love of truth and right among our countrymen, which will insist on honesty and integrity in the administration of public affairs and in the conduct of financial corporations and commercial enterprises?"

- William Henry Green, Conflict and Triumph: The Argument of the Book of Job Unfolded (1999, Banner of Truth Trust), p. 17. William Henry Green (1825-1900), a linguist and Old Testament scholar, and was the chair of Biblical and Oriental Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary from 1851 to 1900.

I like in this quote because Dr. Green applies the need to have virtue and integrity in both government ("the administration of public affairs") and business ("the conduct of financial corporations and commercial enterprises"). It has been rightly said before that politics is downstream from culture, and Dr. Green notes the need for vital Christianity in our culture.

Too often, contemporary politics distorts the Christian message, such that conservatives decry big government and liberals decry big business. Each is a biased view. Dr. Green properly applies the standards of honesty and integrity to both government and business, and notes that all individuals need the eternal foundation of authentic faith in Christ.

The Church's Destructive Power

"God has put into his church, when he is in it, a most wonderful, destructive power as against spiritual wickedness. A healthy church kills error, and tears in pieces evil. Not so very long ago our nation tolerated slavery in our colonies. Philanthropists endeavored to 
destroy slavery; but when was it utterly abolished? It was when Wilberforce roused the church of God, and when the church of God addressed herself to the conflict, then she tore the evil thing to pieces. I have been amused with what Wilberforce said the day after they passed the Act of Emancipation. He merrily said to a friend when it was all done, “Is there not something else we can abolish?” That was said playfully, but it shows the spirit of the church of God. She lives in conflict and victory; her mission is to destroy everything that is bad in the land."

- Charles Spurgeon, "The Best War Cry."

Who was Seth's Wife?

Conservative theologians believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or at least someone wrote his words down in these first five books of the Bible. This means Genesis had the same author as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Therefore, whatever is written in these books came from the same human being, Moses, who was inspired by the Holy Spirit (see I Timothy 3:16).

This means Moses wrote both about the sons of Adam and Eve, and also about the law contained in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. What was written? Specifically, “Cain knew his wife…” (Genesis 4:17), and “Seth…fathered Enosh… (Genesis 5:6). Cain and Seth were the sons of Adam and Eve. Who were the women they married if Adam and Eve were the first and only human beings created? I was taught these men each married one of their sisters, respectively.

Yet, Moses also wrote the following about marrying one’s sister:

Leviticus 18:9 – 11 “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, brought up in your father's family, since she is your sister.”

Again,

Leviticus 20:17 “If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity.
“

And finally,

Deuteronomy 27:22 “‘Cursed be anyone who lies with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’”

Now, I was taught that brothers and sisters marrying was ok until human DNA was corrupted, and then it was prohibited. Notice, however, that the same author who wrote about Cain and Seth being married did not indicate that each man married his sister. This is adding something to scripture that is not implied. Rather, the same author made it clear sexual relations between a brother and sister was prohibited. Likewise, nothing is mentioned about a brother’s and sister’s offspring bearing the iniquity. Review the above scriptures and you will see that the man who commits this act bears the iniquity. Nothing is mentioned about the children being cursed.

Also, nothing is mentioned in these passages that while men at one time could marry their respective sisters, now God is prohibiting such practices. Indeed, Leviticus chapter 18:1-6 begins as follows:

“And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the LORD your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. You shall follow my rules and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the LORD your God. You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.

“None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the LORD.”

From this passage we see that marriage between brothers and sisters had been ongoing in the lands around Israel. From the sense of these passages, God always prohibited this act.

So, who was the woman Seth married? She cannot be Seth’s sister because Moses, the author of Genesis, noted in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that this was prohibited. We do know that God created her. Likewise, I do not conclude that Genesis contradicts Leviticus and Deuteronomy, as is implied by some theologians and clergy.

Rather, these must have been other people created by God, as were Adam and Eve, for Moses wrote,

“Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

“So God created man in his own image,    

in the image of God he created him;    

male and female he created them.”

- Genesis 1:26-27

God creating “them” may have a plural meaning going beyond one man and one woman. Clearly, to claim that God later changed his mind about brothers and sisters marrying goes against the clear intent of scripture, and is reading into scripture words and meaning that are not there. Clearly, Adam and Eve are real people, as were Seth and his wife. Clearly, God is the Creator.

Much more could be written, but that is enough to think about for now. May the Holy Spirit guide our understanding of scripture.

(Scripture passages, above, are quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Good News Publishers/Crossway Books. Kindle Edition).