Thursday, August 22, 2013

TWO WARRIORS




I have two friends who have fought their respective illnesses for many years.  Recently one lost his battle. 

Unfortunately both the way he died (suicide) and his illness (a mental illness) mean that some don’t see him as a successful warrior.  Common reception of the news of his death in the newspaper was “mrniceguy211  2 days ago− Sad stuff, don't know the dude but its sad when someone life is in such shambles that suicide as the only way out”. 

However, to those who have known this friend they realize that this sort of reaction is as facile as it is stupid. Both of these brothers are faithful Christian men.

We have known our friend who just died since college days.  He went out as a self-supporting missionary to an Asian country.  He met and married a Christian national there.  They have three sons.

While there in that country he suffered from his illness and eventually, since medication alone could not control it, he decided to return to the US with his family.  He had been an English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher in the Asian country.  He continued to work as an ESL teacher in a small community college in the US.

He was known by all as a kind, gentle Christian man whose heart to reach the world was huge.  He and his wife sponsored international student gatherings in their home.

Yet he often asked those of us who knew him to pray for him.  He suffered debilitating panic and anxiety attacks.  He tried many medications, therapies, counseling, etc, but nothing seemed to help.   

He had been weaned on and off various medications hoping to find one that would cure or at least contain his illness.

However, none was found.  When he was recently going through the process of being weaned off one medication he tragically did what many do: committed suicide.  Suicidal ideation, i.e. thoughts that one should consider suicide and how to commit suicide, is common during this phase of trying to get off one medication and onto another.1  Typically he didn’t go on a shooting rampage (which is extremely rare whatever the media might say), rather he took his own life jumping from a bridge.

That he was not “himself” when he did this is clear to anyone who knew him.  His illness drove him to do something irrational that he could not control.  It was his illness and NOT a volitional choice.   
He had no more control over this than a person who dies of cancer does.

Yet society does not judge him so, at least those who didn’t really know him and those ignorant of mental illnesses.  Those who have suffered from mental illnesses themselves and the relatives, of those who have, understand.

Unfortunately society still stigmatizes mental illness, so that those who suffer are either forced to guilty silence or held in contempt as weak or weird by others.  Our brother fought valiantly for 20 plus years, but he finally succumbed.  His brother, who wrote his obituary, said, “N ran into Jesus’ arms”.  Whether our friend was running from something in his head, which disease made seem real, or whether he was “unbalanced”, he was so because he suffered from an illness, which like many illnesses isn’t always completely or successfully treatable.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Our other friend has battled with a form of leukemia, known as hairy celled leukemia.  For 20 years or so he had given himself daily shots of interferon, a drug to suppress his immune system, so that his system would stop killing off his red blood cells.  As is the case with many medications eventually either they lose their effectiveness or in this case it was “too effective”, i.e. it killed his immune system.

Now our friend has no immune system.  Any simple infection could potentially kill him.

So, there was no option, but to go through chemotherapy and radiation.  He went through many debilitating rounds of chemotherapy.  After that he was matched for a donor for bone marrow cells.  
 When a donor was found, they “killed” his bone marrow and implanted the donor’s healthy cells.  The doctors’ hope is that the new bone marrow will “take” and that it will begin to produce healthy red blood cells and restore his immune system.

This friend has passed the 100 day mark, which is both a miracle and a cause for rejoicing, but he is not out of the woods yet.  He faces a lot more in the way of treatments and follow-up.

He recently celebrated his 65th birthday. We have known him now 29 years. (We met the year Beth was born.)

He has always been a cut up.  He loves corny jokes and laughing.  His outlook on life is always positive and he never seems to take himself seriously.

His humor has no doubt helped in his recovery at various times and his continued life among us.  We pray he lives 20 more years.

He has been an elder in the church where I was an intern many years ago.  He is a faithful husband and loving father.  He is avid supporter of world missions and shares his love for Jesus with everyone he meets.

Both brothers are warriors.  One sadly lost his battle.  The other battles on.  Both deserve nothing, but respect and commendation.

It’s too bad that ignorance and fear keep many from recognizing the courage of those who battle mental illnesses. Are those who battle mental illness the last lepers?  These days those who suffer from AIDS are considered valiant and heroes, while those who suffer from mental illnesses continue to be ostracized and pilloried.

It’s my privilege to have known both these brothers a long time.  I admire them both.  I know that those who have known them both do too.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 1.Second, weaning off the drug incorrectly can lead to severe withdrawal symptoms. These withdrawal symptoms are not unlike withdrawing from severe alcoholism, and may lead to increased anxiety, depression, psychosis, seizures, hypersensitivity, and possibly suicide.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Hasty Generalization

Have you ever been really hurt by a conclusion regarding your behavior that is absolutely false? You may have failed in one regard, or even in a couple, but it doesn't justify a blanket condemnation. You forgot someone's kind invitation and then you are told you are generally callous and lazy, and deserve to lose friends? 

What this shows is that the person is hurt that you forgot them and angry. Such a conclusion (that you are callous and lazy, and deserve to lose friends) is a hasty generalization (a conclusion drawn from insufficient statistical evidence). It is a formal logical error/ fallacy. 

"This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. ...

People also commonly commit Hasty Generalizations because of laziness or sloppiness. It is very easy to simply leap to a conclusion and much harder to gather an adequate sample and draw a justified conclusion. Thus, avoiding this fallacy requires minimizing the influence of bias and taking care to select a sample that is large enough. ...

Example:
Smith, who is from England, decides to attend graduate school at Ohio State University. He has never been to the US before. The day after he arrives, he is walking back from an orientation session and sees two white (albino) squirrels chasing each other around a tree. In his next letter home, he tells his family that American squirrels are white."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html

I'm fallible and I am not omniscient, but I'm definitely not callous or lazy. I hate to lose friends, ever for any reason. Perhaps for Boethius there was Consolation in Philosophy. For Phil there is Understanding in Philosophy, but often no Consolation. :(

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Schmod

Along the lines of any CD left in your glove box for any length of time turns into a Queen CD…

At any time of the day or night somewhere on cable TV they are showing the movie “Groundhog Day” starring Bill Murray and Andy McDowell…

Did Bill Murray hear or read Peter van Inwagen’s lecture on God and omnipotence?

Van Inwagen suggested that there could be more than one god.  God is traditionally thought of (by theists) as being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.  What if there was a second god, who was all three of these, only he couldn’t do everything instantaneously.  He could perform any feat only it would take him longer than God.

Bill Murray says to Andy McDowell, “Well maybe the *real* God uses tricks, you know? Maybe he's not omnipotent. He's just been around so long he knows everything?”[1]

I would have thought that Murray had listened to van Inwagen’s lecture I had heard in Oxford in, though he wasn’t there.  I didn’t have the audacity to object to van Inwagen’s lecture, but I was one of those who was convinced that this sort of analytic philosophy was incapable of discussing God seriously.  Murray, on the other hand, or his script writers seem to have thought of this idea earlier.  “Groundhog Day” came out in 1993.  Van Inwagen gave his lecture in Oxford at the British Society for Philosophy of Religion conference in 2007.  It’s possible that van Inwagen had written about schmod earlier.  It seems he mentioned him in an article which was incorporated in an anthology of his articles in 1995.[2]

Probably what all this proves is that some philosophy major found a job as a screen writer in California… It’s better than “Do you want fries with that?”




[2] Peter van Inwagen, God Knowledge & and Mystery: Essays in Philosophical Theology, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,1995 

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Of Super Bowls Past and Present


Terry Bradshaw still maligned


Terry Bradshaw of the Pittsburgh Steelers and Joe Montana of the San Francisco 49ers are tied with four Super Bowl wins each.

Accessed Feb 5, 2013

Bradshaw “played 14 seasons with Pittsburgh, won four Super Bowl titles in a six-year period (1975,1976, 1979, and 1980), becoming the first quarterback to win three and four Super Bowls, and led the Steelers to eight AFC Central championships.”  He also called his own plays. Source - His wiki

Yet Bradshaw doesn’t make the top ten quarterbacks.  Why?  Is it still that sports writers just don’t like him?  Arguably he should be ranked above many who had only one or two Super Bowls to their credit.  It shouldn’t be a popularity contest.  It should be argued on some basis of their performance, of which winning Super Bowls is what matters (in my humble opinion).  Performing when it matters is what sports is all about, not merely putting up impressive statistics.

A blog from the Denver Post [Now who would they root for?] “Ranking the NFL’s top quarterbacks of all-time: Montana vs. Elway” rates the top quarterbacks of all time as below. 

Accessed Feb 5, 2013

[I have added comments of my own or from their Wikipedia articles.]

No. 1 Joe Montana 47 [votes] [I could argue Joe Montana with four Super Bowls is no more impressive than Bradshaw’s four, but OK, there are other factors than just winning Super Bowls.  Perhaps Joe was better… Sports writers think so…]

No 2. Elway 38 “led his teams to six AFC Championship Games and five Super Bowls, winning his last two.” His wiki

No. 3. Johnny Unitas … 34 [votes] [I won’t argue here]

No. 4. Peyton Manning … 30 [votes] “From 1998 to 2010, he led the Colts to eight (seven AFC South and one AFC East) division championships, two AFC championships, and to a Super Bowl championship (Super Bowl XLI).They won.” His wiki

No. 5. (tie) Tom Brady … 22 [votes] “In Brady's ten seasons as a starter, the Patriots have earned trips to the Super Bowl in five of them, winning three.” His wiki

No. 5. (tie) Otto Graham … 22 [votes] “taken the Browns to league championship games every year between 1946 and 1955, winning seven of them.” His wiki

No. 7. (tie) Roger Staubach … 17 [votes] “He led the Cowboys to victories in Super Bowl VI and Super Bowl XII.” His wiki

No. 7. (tie) Bart Starr … 17 [votes] “One Super Bowl II” His wiki

No. 9. Brett Favre … 12 [votes] “He has led teams to eight division championships …, five NFC Championship Games …, and two Super Bowl appearances (Super Bowl XXXI, Super Bowl XXXII), winning one (Super Bowl XXXI).”  His wiki

No. 10. Dan Marino … 11 [votes] “Despite never being on a Super Bowl-winning team, he is recognized as one of the greatest quarterbacks in American football history … Marino led the Dolphins to the playoffs ten times in his seventeen-season career.” His wiki

Terry Bradshaw 9 [votes]

Joe Namath  9 [votes]  “During his thirteen years in the AFL and NFL he played for three division champions (the 1968 and 1969 AFL East Champion Jets and the 1977 NFC West Champion Rams), earned one league championship (1968 AFL Championship), and one Super Bowl victory (Super Bowl III).” His wiki

Why do Peyton Manning, Bart Starr, Bret Favre and Dan Marino or even Roger Staubach deserve to be ahead of Bradshaw or even Broadway Joe Namath?  Are the sports writers voting too young to remember Bradshaw or are they old enough and still bear animus against him?

I watched Montana, Bradshaw and Staubach play.  Yes, Bradshaw wasn’t often particularly pretty to watch, but when he connected he beat these other two.

I argue that Bradshaw at least, and perhaps Namath, ought to be in that list of the top ten quarterbacks of all time.  I doubt Marino should. I’m not sure that Starr or Favre should.

And that friends, is of more importance to me than the last [yawn] Super Bowl. [Why did they turn the lights back on? ;-)]

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

A fool for Christ, but no man's fool!


Remembrance of Dr. Stuart C. Hackett, beloved professor



My first brush with philosophical thought was reading Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, as well as other Russian novelists, while I was studying Russian Language and Literature at Penn State.  The Russians love the “eternal questions”.

In the summer before I graduated from Penn State, I read just about all of Francis Schaeffer’s books.  He was my first taste of Christian apologetics. 

But my first real taste of philosophical rigor was under the tutelage of Dr. Stuart C. Hackett at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.  I just saw that Apologetics was required for my Master of Divinity and signed up for his class, knowing nothing about him.

You only had to meet Stu once to either love him or be repelled.  He was at once a ridiculous (I say that kindly) and a magnificent character.  Stu loved to “mug up”.  He would open his brief case and extract with exaggerated care a bamboo back scratcher and luxuriously scratch his back and make a very loud sigh of contentment.  All the while his eyes sparkled beneath and above the Hackettian “rational haircut”: beard and hair all two inches long. He always had a joke or two to start.  Philosophy was too serious not to begin with nonsense.

This exchange below exemplifies Stu’s sense of humor:
During a discussion of Hegel, Küng, and the nature of God:

Dr. Hackett:"If I talk about it, it's because I think it's important, otherwise I wouldn't talk about it...that's except for the nonsense I give out from time to time. It's just an ineradicable aspect of my personhood, if I may put it that way. Well, you know, it's just that I thrive on nonsense."

Student:"But there is, of course, a metaphysical distinction between you and your nonsense."

Dr. Hackett:"Absolutely. It is an accidental quality. However, sometimes I fear it is also invading my essence." 
Accessed October 30, 2012

I won’t go on quoting Stu’s silly quotes, but they always had a point.  I urge readers to go to the link above and enjoy!  That would be one of the greatest acts one could do to remember Stu.  Philosophical fun!

If Stu’s exterior was silly (he tended to dress in a rather unconventional way, e.g. orange trousers, a shirt with bell sleeves and a cravat with a gold ring or a bolo tie), he was nonetheless a formidable philosopher of the first rank.

Stu’s trilogy is still a magnificent achievement by any standard: The Resurrection of Theism (free here http://www.cheapersunglasses.com/docs/stuarthackett.html ), The Reconstruction of the Christian Revelation Claim: A Philosophical and Critical Apologetic, and The Rediscovery of the Highest Good. A Philosophical and Critical Ethic.

Stu was a philosophical apologist.  He was interested in answering serious, academic philosophical challenges to Christian belief and specifically to theism.

Stu was not everyone’s cup of tea. He was definitely not a Calvinist.  When asked how many of the “Five Points” he held, Stu would say, “I’m a Whisky Calvinist. … I only hold a fifth.” (Perseverance of the Saints, if I recall rightly.)  While Stu was interested in philosophical rigor he was suspicious of answers that were too neat.

Stu’s philosophical rigor sometimes repelled students, who were not so interested in philosophy.  Thankfully for these students, Dr. Paul D. Feinberg, gave a more popularly aimed apologetics course.

For many, though, Stu was an example of evangelical scholarship and excellence in academics.  Stu inspired among others, Dr. William Lane Craig, a well known Christian philosopher and apologist.  Though I do not consider myself to be on the same plane as Bill Craig, I am glad to be able to trace the beginnings of my philosophical career to Stu’s encouragement and thought.

Stu’s original work had been on Mahayana Buddhism and his book Oriental Philosophy is still in print and widely used.  He is recognized for his academic excellence, even outside of evangelical circles.

Once a semester, Stu would invite his students round to his house for an evening of food and fun.  He would pull out his banjo and his guitar and sing both country songs (he loved Johnny Cash) and gospel hymns.  His dog would lie there at his master’s feet content.  Stu would tell his jokes and everyone would have a great time.

As a student in a seminary you sometimes think your professors are akin to the gods on Mt. Olympus. Stu wanted to make sure that we weren’t under any such delusions, but he was nonetheless our professor and a formidable one at that.

While Stu’s thought was anything but easy to understand, as a person he was approachable and warm.  He was a great teacher and mentor.

He asked me if I would stay around and do an MA at TEDS in 1984. I was headed to Communist Yugoslavia to learn Serbo-Croatian and teach at the Eastern European Bible Institute of Greater Europe Mission.  He didn’t object or try to change my mind.  He was a passionate supporter of world missions.

I’m thankful for Stu’s teaching and example.  I’m thankful to for the MA and PhD I got later in Leuven, but I sometimes wish I had stayed around to write an MA with him.  Maybe I could have learned a few new chords!

Below is Stu's Obituary

Saturday, October 6, 2012

honesty and humility – respect

One of my students suggested that I ought to write about the flip side of the blame shifting and pride.

To be fair most of my students show me respect.  Only one or two have ever really been disrespectful.

Most of my students are from Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia.  They have a very highly developed sense of rank and order.  They usually address me as “Professor” or “Dr. Gottschalk”.  They may disagree with me, but they are almost always respectful.

Unfortunately, some students feel that they can humble me into agreeing to something, which is inappropriate, by using an exalted sense of respect.  Using exaggerated terma of respect is in fact showing disrespect.

I don’t mind if students are familiar with me.  Still, I prefer to be “Dr. Gottschalk” because I am Dr. Gottschalk.  I worked for many years to earn the right to be addressed as Dr. Gottschalk, and practically it is just good to keep some distance between myself and my students.  I love them, and I think they know it.  However, I do have to grade them, and there are always times when we disagree about something and there has to be order.

Some students misunderstand the nature of a graduate school and a church.  They think that because we are Christians and they live together in a dormitory, we are all equals.  That is not true.  Yes, we are all equal before Christ as regards salvation, but we are not all equals in the classroom.  Giving a poor grade to a student and criticizing a project or paper should never be a question of favoritism or dislike.  Students earn their grades by their performance.

Some students seem to think that since they have been pastors or church executives in their home countries they should be treated with special deference.  Basically the culture of Tyndale is the same as most evangelical American seminaries:  we are friendly and open, but we try to maintain order. 

I sat in classes at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School with guys who were medical doctors and had PhDs in physics.  Intellectually they were every bit of a match for our professors, who were Cambridge and Harvard PhDs.  Yet, I don’t recall any of them being impolite or rude to a professor.  In fact just the opposite they were more deferential than others, since they knew what the professors had done to reach this position.

When a student is criticized his character shows immediately.  If he or she begins to become defensive or argue, it generally means he or she has a pride problem.

Some students have had very impressive ministries before coming to Tyndale and others have pretty impressive ministries while they are at Tyndale.  But whatever they did in terms of evangelism or church planting has no bearing on how they performed on a particular assignment. 

Sometimes a student who was a very well respected preacher is offended that their grammar, diction and writing are criticized.  “I speak well!  I have published books!” That may be true, but very likely, certainly your English (which is your second or third language) is not as good as your professor’s.  Humility is accepting criticism in the spirit in which it is given (i.e. with a good intention of improving your performance).

I am always amazed when a student opens up a bit and I see something I didn’t know.  I generally see applications for admission, since I am on the admissions committee.  Still there is much we do not know about one another.

One student was a model student his entire three years at Tyndale.  He was a married student, a pastor.  He got up at 0400 every day to deliver newspapers, so that he could send some money home to his wife.

He was from a village in Myanmar.  He was always respectful and soft spoken.  He always did all of his community duties (e.g. vacuuming, cleaning bathrooms, cutting grass…) without complaint.  He never objected to a grade he was given.  He did very well, but not stellar.

Just before he graduated he told me a story…

“Professor”, he said, “we went to the next village to evangelize.  While we were evangelizing the police came.  They arrested us. They held us for ten days.  They made us build the pagoda (Buddhist temple) in that village.  Then they beat us and told us never to come back to that village to preach again… So, we went to the next village instead and started to evangelize.”

Little wonder he was such a godly man. It was a privilege to be his teacher.

Friday, October 5, 2012

Blame shifting and Pride...

Why is it when someone doesn't fulfill requirements they shift blame to the rule keeper. 

No one is prepared to say, "I failed. I am to blame."  The reason is pride.  No one wants to be wrong.  

No one wants to admit they shirked their duty or waited until the last minute and produced an inferior product.  The person who was helping them was at fault or the system is unfair. 

Some of us aren't cut out for certain jobs.  I am red green color blind.  It kept me out of the Navy; was that fair?   Fair or no; that was the way it was.  Was the Navy at fault?  No, I just didn't have the genes.

I am average at mathematics (69% SAT).  I wanted to be a theoretical physicist (Big Bang Theory sitcom type dude [hopefully without the neuroses]), but my mathematical aptitude was not good enough.  I got Cs in calculus.  Was it the professor's fault?  No. Was it the Teaching Assistant's fault?  No.  It was my fault. 

Sometimes we don't get what we want and we can't do what we want.  Wisdom is embracing what we can do well and doing it with all our might as unto the Lord. 

For me, that meant changing my college major to Russian language. (My verbal aptitude was 96% SAT)  I did well! Surprise, surprise! I went on to seminary and studied OT Hebrew and NT Greek.  I learned German and Serbian while connected to Yugoslavia.  I don't speak Dutch well, but I have learned a lot of Dutch in Belgium and Holland. 

I also moved my area of interest to philosophy and apologetics and have done very well, as they are language related fields. 

Some people are great church planters.  I am not.  Some people have gifts to allow them to be executives.  I do not. 

We must accept our limitations as God's direction in our lives and MOVE ON!  Blaming someone else is a cheap and lazy way to avoid one's own responsibility to use one's talents wisely.