Ideas

Mr. Jones

by

How does a piece of fruit describe a culture?

An orange represents the emptiness of socialism.

Watch our Truth in Two to discover why everyone should watch the movie Mr. Jones (full text & link below).

 

Subscribe to MarkEckel.com (here). Find the MarkEckel.com YouTube Channel (here). Mark is President of The Comenius Institute (website). Dr. Eckel spends time with Christian young people in public university (1 minute video), teaching at Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis, and interprets culture from a Christian vantage point (1 minute video). Consider becoming a Comenius patron (here).

FULL TEXT

An orange is the only color in the scene.

On a train bound for the hinterlands of the Ukraine, Gareth Jones sits among starving peasants. Stirrings of hunger prompt Mr. Jones to reach in his satchel for an orange. Every eye in the train car focuses on that piece of fruit. Mr. Jones, at this point in his journey, is unaware of the starvation being imposed on Ukrainians by Joseph Stalin.

One orange images a story Mr. Jones must tell. One courageous man. One cadre of self-serving Western journalists, covering the truth by silencing their pens. One megalomaniac dictator. One nation on the brink of starvation. One movie that will smash vapid idealistic visions of communism. If you want to know why history matters in the present, please watch Mr. Jones.

Mr. Jones displays exactly what happens when dictators subjugate a people and the journalists who are supposed to cover the story, silence their pens. Over one hundred million people died in the 20th century at the hands of despots. Many of these tyrants began their belief and practice based on atheism.

To understand the 20th century, one must begin with naturalism, materialism, and yes, atheism. YouTube abounds with testimonies about the horrors. There are stories of some who hid others from discovery by jackbooted thugs, and some were spared bloodshed by Providence. Pick a dictator: Mao Zedong, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Castro, they are all cut from the same cloth.

It is important for students to know history, especially this history. Why is it important to defend one’s beliefs, essential documents, country, or ideals? Why have people died in defense of freedom? To what lengths would we now go to stand athwart oppressors? These are questions that haunt me for my children and grandchildren; I hope they do for yours as well.

For Truth in Two, this is Dr. Mark Eckel, president of the Comenius Institute, personally teaching history so that we might have a future.

5,000 Books

by
5,000 books. That is the approximate number of volumes I own.
Stating this fact is not a matter of arrogance but one of humility. Every time I open one of these covers and turn the pages, I discover again how much I do not know. Often as I read, I shake my head not only at the supreme knowledge of those whose words I hold in my hand but also my own insufficiency. There is this drive within me toward knowledge. Every morning when I waken, I give myself to reading and writing; because I hear the ticking of the clock, the sense that time is so vaporous.
Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations agrees, “Since it is possible that thou mayest depart from life this very moment, regulate every act and thought accordingly” (Book Two, #11). This morning I am rereading Meditations and am reminded again both of the greatness of this Roman emperor but also his commitment to what in philosophy is called “Stoicism.” Among other ideas, the Stoics gave themselves to discipline. Stoics, as Aurelius says, regulated themselves. Further, they believed that a person was responsible first for herself. Emotion was tempered. Knowledge was esteemed.
And it was not as if Aurelius’ could sit around thinking great thoughts without interference. No, any brief history of the Roman prelate immediately explains he was confronted by enemies within and without the empire. Yes, he had a good upbringing and was in a position of privilege but reading his Meditations the reader knows if he only acted on half of his beliefs, Marcus Aurelius was one disciplined man.
In the same meditation, Aurelius questions the existence of “the gods.” A quick overview of his theological belief about Roman “gods” would show his and my own view of The Divine would diverge from the start. However, he does acknowledge a transcendence beyond himself, saying this “Providence” does “exist” and does “care.” The rest of Aurelius’ views of life’s intersection with this deity is very different than my Hebraic-Christian understanding. Yet, I find in the emperor’s words an appreciation that commends his spirit to my own. In short, I bear responsibility to discipline myself.
Since life is short “regulate every act and thought accordingly.” I wish that I could say I accomplish this effort without fail. Such would be a lie. I find constant weakness in my own person, a desire to quit, give up, or even create a bonfire of all my books in my back yard. But I know within me that I have been given a responsibility with the knowledge I have had the privilege to acquire, and then, to teach. My view of life arises from James chapter four where the half brother of Jesus declares, “your life is but a vapor, it lasts for a while, then vanishes.” Considering that common ground between Aurelius and James, the Scriptures also say, that I bear responsibility not simply to hear The Word, but “be a doer” of it (James 1).
I have always had the utmost respect for those whose views differ from my own; a practice begun decades ago in my public-school upbringing and the influence of Francis Schaeffer on my thinking. That respect for other’s beliefs continues today. No matter the voice from Marcus Aurelius two millennia ago or the great humanist Isaac Asimov in the 20th century, I am glad to learn from them. Our greatest difference – the worship of The God who has given all knowledge or the worship of human knowledge by itself – does not dissuade me from interacting with their thoughts, even in disagreement. My job within a Christian context is to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) practicing “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15) with “kind correction” (2 Timothy 2:24-25) with those who disagree.
I will continue to shake my head at how much I don’t know, respecting other voices, caring for their perspectives, contrasting my Christian thinking, reminding myself of the responsibility given me, passing on what has been my privilege to know.
5000 books is a burden, gladly carried.

Maverick

by

Everyone should know about Thomas Sowell.

No one can properly respond to any idea until they have read Thomas Sowell.

Find out why this public intellectual is so important by watching our Truth in Two (full text below).

 

Subscribe to MarkEckel.com (here). Find the MarkEckel.com YouTube Channel (here). Mark is President of The Comenius Institute (website). Dr. Eckel spends time with Christian young people in public university (1 minute video), teaching at Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis, and interprets culture from a Christian vantage point (1 minute video). Consider becoming a Comenius patron (here).

Picture Credit: Luke Renoe, Snappy Goat, 

FULL TEXT

Thomas Sowell’s ideas have taken root in the soil of the next generation. Sowell has written over thirty books, over forty years of weekly writings. Hundreds of Sowell’s interviews can be found everywhere on YouTube. Jason Riley, himself a prolific writer, has done the world a service by reviewing the lifetime impact of Thomas Sowell in Maverick: A Biography of Thomas Sowell.

Maverick should be read by everyone everywhere. Everyone in the sciences or the humanities needs exposure to the intellectual history and ideas that Maverick provides. Not only does Riley give an exceptional review of Sowell’s life and thought, but he also shows how the Hoover Institute fellow establishes the basis for how to think. Every person on the planet asks enduring questions about philosophy, knowledge, interpretation, and justice. Sowell always approaches his subjects with our views of human nature in mind. Summarizing Sowell, you either believe in the tension between human depravity and human dignity or you believe that you can make humans perfectible by human rules.

As a matter of full disclosure, I have been reading Thomas Sowell’s books and columns and watching his videos for decades. Sowell’s thinking has been influential to my own intellectual processing for most of my teaching life. As Hebraic-Christian thinkers know, it is important to weave biblical, doctrinal thinking through an explanation of Sowell’s visions. Essential to biblical understanding is the origin of ideas, acknowledging that The Personal Eternal Triune Creator of all things has set the stage for human understanding of everything.

Sowell’s concern should be the concern for all citizens of all countries everywhere,

“The most basic question is not what is best but who shall decide what is best”

Answering the question, “Who says?” should be at the center of our concern as well.

For Truth in Two, this is Dr. Mark Eckel, president of the Comenius Institute, personally seeking truth wherever it’s found.

Trust but Verify

by
WHAT DO I TRUST? [2 minute read] I am constantly bringing to my mind the classic, “What if?” My query is not a matter of doubt but of certainty. What will happen if I leave my garage door open all night long? Will people who want what I have be tempted to enter or will the person be stopped by some internal control? Would it be better for me to purchase a security system or trust the natural inclination of my neighbors or passersby to stay out of my garage, though the door is open?
For those who would point to my dogmatism, shaking their collective heads at my doubt of human goodness and reliance upon dead bolts, I would ask, “What is your dogmatism?” If I rely upon people to do what is right (whatever their definition of “right” may be) can I absolutely trust them when it comes to my person and property? And if I do trust in human decency, is that not now the new dogmatism?
But what if the very people I assume will stay out of my garage – the door open – decide instead to invade my home? Does not my assumption of goodness become my new hope, my new doctrine of anthropology, the bedrock of my ethics, or simply my desire to trust people? But what if, putting my belief in human integrity to the test, I discover not everyone will listen to their better angels? What if I find out that people, left to themselves, will use my property to better themselves?
If we were honest, we would have to question such an open-door policy. We put our money in banks for security. We lock our cars and our houses. We develop university policies such as FERPA for personal privacy. Doctor-patient privilege protects us from others knowing our physical information. Cyber-security has become a cottage industry to protect against fraud, identity theft, or hackers who want our money or desire a ransom to give back the flow of gasoline on the East coast.
No, I would rather live within the biblical tension of dignity and depravity. I know myself too well. Left to myself, I will always want what I want for myself. I will care for others only in so far as it benefits me. I have doubts, but I am certain about this: I am not to be trusted. Knowing what I know about me, I have to ask, “Can I trust others?” As a theologian, I can write pages of biblical warrant for my belief. But as a common, everyday person, I must use the famed phrase of President Reagan, “Trust, but verify.”
My certainty, my without-a-doubt commitment, is that to “verify” means I know we need laws, police, a judicial system, national defense, a strong military presence, and the will to employ not only locks on my doors, not only a closed garage door, but a response to wrongdoing that will keep my potential home intruder or our nation’s enemies at a distance, leaving the wrongdoer to wonder, “Am I ready for whatever I meet on the other side of that door?”
[First published on Mark’s FB page on 2 September 2021]

In the Shadow of 9/11, Prayers for Afghanistan

by

I remember like it was yesterday. Televisions were being brought to landings around the workout facility where I had just finished lifting weights. We all watched in horror as two planes destroyed the twin towers in New York City, another targeted the Pentagon. I remember the walk to the train station – I was living and working in Chicago at the time – as a city was being emptied of its people. The sound of a sonic boom erupted above me as fighter jets flew over Chicago, another potential, terrorist target. Arriving home all of America was glued to its television sets, wondering what had just happened.

We learned of another plane, Flight 93, downed in the hinterland of Pennsylvania; only later did we learn of the valiant sacrifice of the first patriots to die in what we would call “the war on terror.” A phone call came later that day from my brother-in-law to find out if I was OK; I was scheduled to speak in 25 cities that school year. My first trip was scheduled for later that month of September in 2001, O’Hare was a ghost town in comparison to its title at that time as America’s busiest airport. Being on planes in those days, I would overhear men tell the stewardesses ahead of takeoff, “If there is any trouble let me know.” A cab ride to my home after one of my trips found me in a car of a man who was celebrating the 9-11 attack. My response of righteous anger was not missed by the driver as he responded with wide eyes and silence, looking at me in his rearview mirror.

President George W. Bush joined first responders in New York City days after the attack, uttering those famous words, “The people who knocked down these buildings will be hearing from all of us soon!” Cheers and tears overwhelmed many of us. We were no longer hyphenated-Americans. A new slogan was born, “United We Stand.” Sometime soon thereafter Americans first heard the phrase “Horse Soldiers” as elite troops were ushered into Afghanistan on the only transportation available entering the country where the perpetrators planned the attack. Stories of sixty-year-old veterans wanting to reenlist were heard around the country. Toby Keith’s song “Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue” spoke the words that energized a nation and its military. The world changed on September 11th, 2001. Historians call events such as these, “hinges of history.” And today, twenty years later, the door has swung the other way.

I awoke this morning, sick to my stomach. My first prayers this weekend have been for the Afghan people, many of whom have, for twenty years been the beneficiaries of American military might protecting them from despotism. I have prayed for our veterans whose selflessness in sacrifice has been the deterrent against tyranny. I cannot begin to imagine their thoughts today as they see the results of their work eviscerated. As the stories of evacuation continue in the coming days, my prayers will shift to individual needs. But today, I also pray for America. I pray for the soul of our nation. I pray that we might remember our place in the world in God’s Providence. Proverbs 28 and 29 are peppered with statements that explain what happens to a people, depending upon those who govern. The universal ideals embedded in biblical theology are watchwords for this or any nation: “When the righteous triumph there is great joy, but when the wicked rise, people hide themselves” (28:12).

Continue to pray for the people of Afghanistan.

– Written on 16 August 2021 after the awful images of Afghans fleeing the Taliban emerged on media around the world (Picture credit: Twin towers, Photo by Steve Harvey on Unsplash and Snappy Goat)

Lithuanian Legend

by

Lithuanian Legend: Two Different Stories

Read in the “Mindset” video in the KLAIM video series.

Find the full set of mindset notes for classroom use here: Mindset Notes KLAIM #5

Several centuries ago, a curious but deadly plague appeared in a small village in Lithuania.  What was curious about this disease was its grip on its victim; as soon as a person contracted it, he would go into a very deep, almost deathlike coma.  Most individuals would die within twenty-four hours, but occasionally a hardy soul would make it back to the full bloom of health.  The problem was that since early eighteenth-century medical technology was not very advanced, the unafflicted had quite a difficult time telling whether a victim was dead or alive.  This didn’t matter too much, though, because most of the people were, in fact, dead.

Then one day it was discovered that someone had been buried alive.  This alarmed the townspeople, so they called a town meeting to decide what should be done to prevent such a situation from happening again.  After much discussion most people agreed on the following solution.  They decided to put food and water in every casket next to the body.  They would even put an air hole up from the casket to the earth’s surface.  And a string attached to a bell above the ground was also created so that the grave could be dug up if need be. These procedures would be expensive, but they would be more than worthwhile if they would save some people’s lives.

Another group came up with a second, less expensive, right answer.  They proposed implanting a twelve-inch-long stake in every coffin lid directly over where the victim’s heart would be.  Then whatever doubts there were about whether the person was dead or alive would be eliminated as soon as the coffin lid was closed.[1]

Questions for Discussion:

Explain the difference between the two groups.

What slogan would summarize the mindset of each of the two groups?

From your Christian perspective, is either group right or wrong?  Why?

How does the Lithuanian situation relate to any current ethical issues?

The notes included here (Mindset Notes KLAIM #5) were first developed for high school teaching in the 1990’s and have been used in various venues since.

[1] Adapted from Ronald T. Habermas, Teaching for Reconciliation: Foundations and practice of Christian Educational Ministry, rev.  Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001, p. 60.

Words

by

Humpty Dumpty sneers at Alice for her use of a word.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty says, “It means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

Lewis Carroll, author of Alice in Wonderland, summarizes the problem with words. We ask good questions such as “Can I trust what you say?” or “How do you know that my words are true?” We have been arguing about words ever since the snake uttered the famous line about God’s Word, “Did God really say . . .?”

Near the beginning of one class I teach at public university, students use their phones to discover the etymology – the origin of a word – that we are studying that day. Why? I am anxious that my students understand that every term has a past which informs how the word might be used in the present.

Take, for example, the word “think.” When students discover the origin of “think” they find that the word meant “how something appears to oneself.” Whatever we think about, seems to us, appears to us, to be what we see, what we understand.

Do you see?! Even the word “think” suggests that our focus is on ourselves. We form our thoughts. We define our words. We originate meaning. And therein lies the problem. We become the final arbiter, the ultimate judge of what words mean.

Some will argue that words have a long human history and are not owed a Christian source. Surprising, perhaps to some, I agree. The origins, instead, are Hebraic, indeed from the origin of human history in Eden. The first twisting of words was appropriated by our adversary, the devil. And if horror movies are any indication, satan is not going away.

This summer I will concern myself with the appropriation of words. Cultural usages of Hebraic-Christian terms will be investigated (e.g. redemption, guilt, salvation, forgiveness). If ever someone wanted to call out cultural appropriation – which is the adoption of certain elements of another culture by the dominant culture – it should begin with the use (and abuse) of biblical words in American culture.

Both the snake and Humpty Dumpty have a point. As I’ve told my students for years, “Whoever controls the definition, controls the conversation.” Appropriate and reinterpret to your heart’s content. My job is to have you pick up your phone and look up the etymology, the history of words. Acknowledging the source of a word will display the intention of a word and the power that is lost when the dominant culture of the day uses and misuses the word.

Written for and published to Facebook on May 3rd, 2021. I have been teaching and warning about the cultural appropriation of words since 1983. Here is one of my first online essays about the importance of words in Christian history and the awful impact of book burning (from March 2009).

Hank Aaron, Ozymandias, Memory, and Human Impermanence

by

WHO WAS HE? [2 minute read]

The great Hank Aaron died last week. There was a time when I would not have to say more than his name. Those two words together would bring a cluster of thoughts to any American’s mind. Baseball. Hammerin’ Hank. Atlanta Braves. Homerun king. All-star. Hall of Fame. Hero. For me, as a young boy, watching a great man play ball on grainy black-and-white television picture, Hank Aaron’s name inspired me. I would go out in my back yard and throw a rubber ball against a stone wall imagining myself catching fly balls in right field like Aaron. Then I would pick up a bat, toss the ball in the air, trying to hit it as far as I could, like Hank. All I had to do was read a sports page or hear that name and I knew immediately WHO HE WAS.

I happened to be in a barber shop when I heard the news. I watched and listened as commentators regaled Aaron and his accomplishments. “It’s a good thing we have ESPN,” I said to myself, “Otherwise folks today might not know who Hank Aaron was, why he was so important to so many.” Yes, other names matter to young sports minds now. We know a great deal about individual athletes in the 21st century. Information about them is available on every screen. But I wonder about those great names of yesteryear, whose personas and accomplishments may be lost without our knowing, without our caring.

“WHO WAS HE?” Is a question that stands outside identity, ethnicity, gender, heritage, or status. Wondering after the history of a person is a reminder to us all, a reminder that people make a difference. “WHO WAS HE?” marks a time, a past, a person who mattered to others before our time. And now that we know something of that person, place, and time, how will it impact us? Will we hear the news of someone’s passing and say, “That’s too bad,” not giving the moment another thought? “WHO WAS HE?” should play a part in our changing, in our maturation, in our respect.

As I awoke this morning thinking these thoughts about Hank Aaron, my mind recalled famous poetry entitled “Ozymandias.” Two 19th century poets, Percy Shelley and Horace Smith, in friendly competition, submitted renditions of the same idea: all die, persons and accomplishments lost to future generations. For those interested, it will take all of thirty seconds to read each of the poems; it will take a lifetime to grasp their importance. The title of the poem is the Greek name of an Egyptian king, Ramses II. The poet looks upon the ruins of colossal statues, covered by the sands of time. The poems should bring to mind our impermanence on earth and eternal questions about life.

“WHO WAS HE?” is a question some may ask about us years from now. No, our exploits will not be recorded in some Hall of Fame. Neither will there be an ESPN to remind others of our legacy. Nothing may remain of us save items for sale on a Goodwill shelf. “WHO WAS HE?” brings to mind a series of questions:

  1. Does what we remember, matter?
  2. Do we care enough about history to study it, care for it, apply it?
  3. Can we be certain of anything in this life, after death?
  4. Do we consider the impermanence of our own lives?
  5. If impermanence exists, is there anything permanent to depend upon?

Musings from 27 January 2021. The questions at the end of my thoughts are meant to prompt folks to think for themselves. My philosophy of life, of teaching, is not to force someone to believe what I do. I believe questions left to themselves are some of the greatest forms of evangelistic-apologetics. No one likes to be “preached at.” But open-ended discussion takes on new meaning when one considers a question.

Debt, Borrowing, Lending, Financial Planning: Biblical Proverbial Wisdom

by

Interest kills. Creditors bear responsibility. Borrowers need discernment.

Biblical directives are necessary in a world where indebtedness to build school buildings is common. The primary injunctions concerning indebtedness are directed toward the creditors—those who have the financial ability to abuse others by lending at interest (Ex 22:25-27; Lev 25:35-38; Deut 23:19, 20). Judgments against the lending-borrowing practice focused on exorbitant interest charged to those in need while “the rich became richer” (2 Kg 4:1-7; Neh 5:1-13; Ps 15:5; Prov 28:8; Jer 15:10; Ez 18:13; 22:12; Hab 2:7).

Borrowing is always viewed in a negative light (Prov 17:18), something one would want to avoid (Prov 22:7). However, borrowing is not altogether outlawed (Ex 22:25; Ps 37:26; Matt 5:42; Lk 6:35). It should be also noted that the original etymological range of the word “loan” meant to take a bite or consume. “Don’t bite off more than you can chew” or “be careful he doesn’t take a bite out of you” are common reminders. So borrowing is allowed though not advocated.

Scripture indicates that a borrower is a slave to the creditor (Prov 22:7) and debts must be repaid (Ps 37:21; Rom 13:7-8). So, a person or institution should follow these guidelines when considering indebtedness:

(1) Prayer—According to His sovereign will, God will meet His peoples’ needs (Matt 6:33-34; Ph 4:19; 1 Jn 3:21-24; 5:14, 15);

(2) Prudence—Believers should ask wise questions. Is the purchase necessary? Is it a need? Will the purchase further the purpose of Kingdom building without inhibiting the total program of the school? (cf. Prov 17:1; 27:23-24);

(3) Planning—God’s people should be shrewd (Lk 16:1-9), reaping eternal benefits. Budgets, collateral, etc. should be mapped out taking every practical precaution (Prov 21:5);

(4) Petitioning—Christians must grant people the opportunity to be blessed in giving by allowing the need to be known (Acts 4:32-37; 2 Co 8, 9; 1 Tim 6:17-19). Willingness to lend was a sign of righteous graciousness (Ps 112:5), debt repayment might be dropped (Prov 19:17), and a “loan” might be transferred to “gift” status (Ps 37:26) making creditors, contributors.

On the surface, numerous passages of Scripture seem to mitigate against the pledge (“striking the hand in pledge”; Prov 6:1-5; 11:15; 17:18; 20:25; 22:26-27; Ecc 5:4-5). However, our 21st century vocabulary does not correspond to the original writer’s language. The word in Hebrew “to take or give in pledge” refers to a security or deposit, what is referred to now as “collateral.”

The application of these verses to life had much more to do with a ‘vow’. Both Old and New Testaments emphatically state that once a promise had been made it must be kept (Ecc 5:1-7; Jas 4:17). People who pledge ought to be instructed that this financial promise to God’s work must not be taken lightly. Better not to pledge and bear no responsibility than to pledge and bear a penalty.

The Hebrew idea of “pledge” is a warning against a blind fiscal guarantee which may lead both creditor and borrower to ruin. Scripture considers this practice to be gambling—the pompous belief that monetary responsibility can be put off until tomorrow (Prov 27:1; Jas 4:13-17).

The bottom line about the bottom line?

  1. Live within your means.
  2. Purchase only what you need.
  3. Put off desires for more, better, or different.
  4. Be accountable with another person or other people about your money.
  5. Remember that the money we have is not ours: we are simply stewards of what has been given (1 Chronicles 29:11-17).

The statement was originally written for a project in 1987 and has since been included for the “School Wide Biblical Integration,” a presentation in 2002, used in various venues since.

 

How to Think! (Review: Alan Jacobs)

by

Read this book!

Research is the deliberation of the owl. Research is the spider’s methodical construction of her web. Research is the beaver building his dam, branch by branch. Research is the cat surveying her territory, still, silent, awaiting the opportunity to pounce. Masters and doctoral work demands these and other zoomorphic metaphors of care, craft, and concision in research. Yet, while processes are taught and rubrics followed in creating dissertations, what is often missing in the research process is the training of the mind or How to Think. If there were one book that every Christian educator should read in advance of and during any research, Alan Jacobs has written a small, power-packed engagement for those who care about mindset construction.

Book introductions tend to be throwaway pages since writers tend to simply give an overview of their thinking. But Jacobs breaks the mold using the introduction as the precis for not only the book’s purpose but for construction of human thoughtfulness. The reader is familiarized with names which should inhabit research habits: Kahneman, Haidt, Ariely, Fried, Robinson, and Eliot. Thinking processes are also introduced: anchoring, Dunning-Kruger effect, cognitive biases, Refutation Mode, and pejorative naming (e.g., “Puritanism”). Alan Jacobs’ fine introduction for How to Think is stacked with insights, ideas, innovators, and intellectuals whose thoughts should be considered ahead of any research process. In fact, How to Think will generate so many outside connections that the reader will be spending money on many more books.

Jacobs first explodes the fallacy of thinking for oneself, saying simply “it’s not a good idea” in chapter one. Thinkers have problems with their own thinking because they tend to think by themselves. Researchers (1) are whole people who must consider every aspect of their person invested in the research and (2)  live in relationship with others whether they are met face-to-face or not. Of course, the flip-side of others-centered research is “group think” well documented in chapter two. Jacobs’ watchwords concerning posture, prudence, approach, and disposition are not to dismissed. Cultural maxims such as “tolerance” are often paid lip service in research but are woefully lacking in practice throughout chapter three. Assumptions, word-choice, online speed, and true versus false prejudices are a few of the “repulsions” Jacobs’ chapter denotes.

Words are the stock-in-trade of any thinker-writer-researcher yet can create their own problems. Metaphors, dichotomizing, “terministic screens,” and “in-other-wording” are just a few of the problem areas met in chapter four. Taxonomies and categorization are a continuation of the problems found in chapter five, rightly entitled “lumping.” Open minds – a fallacy explained and taken to task in chapter six – create fanatics and echo chambers rather than competent scholars. Understanding others’ minds is the short, impactful chapter seven where the reader learns the importance of code-switching: learning another’s cultural, linguistic dialect so as to enter into cultural conversation with forbearance (1 Cor 13:7; Eph 4:2; Col 3:13). The surprise of seeing that biblical word applied to thinking humanizes other thinkers and their thinking.

The power of Jacobs humanizing others is the strength of his book. He forces readers to see their reflections in the mirror. The “us versus them” mentality is too easily a substitute for thinking even in higher education. Over and over Jacobs calls attention to partisanship, polarization, and tribalism as the driving force behind unfair assessments. Applied to Christian higher education, words like “fairness” and “equity” should be readily observed; but that is not always the case. In a rush to demonstrate the wrong of another position or another approach there is a tendency to pillory the person, seeing research as adversarial if it does not fit within the scope of an accepted position or presupposition. But when we see ourselves as the corruptible persons we are, we are much more ready to identify with this centerpiece statement:

Over the years, I’ve had to acknowledge that some of the people whose views on education appall me are more devoted to their students than I am to mine; and that some of the people whose theological positions strike me as immensely damaging to the health of the church are nevertheless more prayerful and charitable, more Christlike, than I will ever be. . . . Being around those people forces me to confront certain truths about myself that I would rather avoid; and that alone is reason to seek every means possible to constrain the energies of animus (76-77).

I would offer three Greek concepts as summation of Jacobs’ concern here and throughout the book. Chronos carries with it the expanse of time not only to be dutiful to the amount we spend in our studies but the time we spend with others. It is one thing to interact with words on a page, quite another to converse face-to-face. Spending time with others in pursuit of truth is the essence of incarnational education. Logos sets our sights on words, the very delivery system for which academics depend. Yet we are not always honest with our words, definitions, or interpretations of others’ words. Jacobs makes us come to grips with our sometimes lack of honesty in our reportage. Ethos suggests the disposition, mindset, or attitude with which we approach our subjects or our students. Our approach born of our internal outlook necessitates a pruning for which we are incapable of wielding the shears. We need what Jacobs calls “the thinking person’s checklist” (155-56); that which keeps us “right-minded” so we can be “fairest-minded.” The summation of How to Think in three words gives an overview of a book which should be read and reread for all who care to think or teach others the discipline.

Spiders, beavers, cats, and owls give animalistic characteristics to their designed work in creation. Researchers would be well served to appropriate not only their characteristics for research processes but the pace with which life is achieved. One of the key concerns in thinking is the need to slow down. In a rush to produce and publish there is a need for reflection, for what the Psalmist calls selah: to pause, consider, deliberate, ponder, and think. Thinking takes time (chronos) to correctly assemble words (logos) to create from a faithful mindset (ethos). For the Christian educator our salvific regeneration should produce a sanctified restoration of How to Think. [See bibliographic reference below.]


Picture credit: snappygoat.com

How to Think: A Survival Guide for a World at Odds. By Alan Jacobs. New York, NY: Currency. 2017. 157 pp. $23.00. hardcover. Reviewed by Dr. Mark Eckel, Capital Seminary and Graduate School, Published in Christian Education Journal, July, 2018.