I think I might actually have a 4.0 GPA for my MA. That would be very cool. Tonight the U of A notified me that I had received an A in my final MA course. Since the thesis itself is simply graded on a pass/fail, and I have received A's in every MA course I've taken, I think I might actually have a 4.0.
There were a few people who told me that at 37, I was getting too old to leave a good job, uproot my whole family, move to a new country, and go back to school after having been in the workforce for over 10 years. There were times, especially during some of my early classes, where I would sit in the classroom and listen to the discussions going on around me and wonder if I had landed on another planet because everyone was speaking a language I didn't understand.
Over time, however, I started to learn it too, and by the end of the first year, I was beginning to feel like I might survive grad school. I think my grades have proved one thing to me, and to those who said I was making a mistake; I belong here.
There have certainly been some changes in our lives as a result of this move.
I used to write songs and lead a band for a living. Now I study theory, write papers, and give presentations in class on alternative religions.
I used to make good money. Now I don't make any money (although I did get a grant last year).
I used to own a nice house with a pool. Currently we are renting a tiny piece of crap.
My wife used to own her own real estate appraisal business. Now she is a secretary.
We used to eat out all the time. Now, eating out is a rare treat.
I used to get bored really easily. Now I don't have time to be bored.
I used to waste my free time in front of the T.V. (O.K. I still do watch too much T.V.) Now I am learning to spend more of my free time with Jo and the kids. We go to the rec center together, we all bought bikes and have gone on family bike rides together, and when we do watch TV, we have a movie night as a family.
I used to dream about the day I'd write a #1 hit song. Now I dream about the day I publish my doctoral dissertation.
I used to live without much regard for how much something cost. Now I am learning to live more simply.
I used to collect stuff. Now I want to get rid of most of it (except for my custom guitar from Gene and my Taylor).
I used to have two cars. I have discovered that I can live with one.
Our whole family is learning to live more healthfully, to respect our environment more, to appreciate simple things, the enjoy spending time together.
We cook most meals at home and so we almost always eat together.
I don't know that we would have ever slowed down enough in our old lives, to appreciate what we have now.
Kyle never cared much for sports or his health. Now he is a football player and won the defensive lineman of the year award last year. He runs everyday, works out with me at the gym, and before long will be able to take me down.
After ten years of frustration, we now have a confirmed diagnosis for Skye and Braden's visual impairment. This has opened up new windows of opportunity for them, especially in the world of stem cell research and gene therapy. Hopefully in the next few weeks they will get the new glasses we ordered for them that contain specially tinted lenses that significantly help them.
I still dream about the future, but now that dream is based in reality, and if these grades are any indication, the dream is achievable.
In the mean time, I am continuing to write my thesis and prepare for my thesis examination and defense at the end of the summer.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Adventures in Academia
One of the reasons I chose to attend a public university, rather than a faith-based school, is my belief that faith-based schools ignore much of the controversial material or material that might make a student challenge their belief system, material that is presented in the public university.
Having attended a faith-based school for my undergrad, I know that there are certain topics that faith-based schools do touch on such as creation/evolution and questions of inspiration and biblical interpretation and authority. They also frequently offer courses in ethics and on religions other than Christianity. Yet, all of these courses are taught from the viewpoint that Christian perspectives and biblical authority are correct and therefore, these (and other) courses end up simply proving that the students' faith is the correct viewpoint from which to analyze the world. The professors who teach them are Christians and the majority (if not all) of the student body are also Christians. While discussions may take different viewpoints, all participants take for granted the assumption that God exists, that the Bible is the revealed word of God, and that religion (right or wrong) is the result.
It is quite a different thing to study from the viewpoint that Christianity is simply one of many faith systems, each with an equal claim on people's lives, and each with an inherent set of contradictions and problems that make it vulnerable to academic and scientific scrutiny. When creation is NOT the acceptable theory of beginning, when evolution or certain variations of it, are the accepted theory of how life began, the entire foundation upon which the study of beginnings happens, changes significantly. In a world that looks for scientific proof, despite what creationists claim, there simply are no definite proofs for many of the foundations upon which faith stands.
This is a fascinating and challenging world to enter, and one that I find completely engaging. The biblical account of any event is not considered to be proof of that event, nor is it considered a reliable historical document. This does not mean that a person who is an academic can not have faith in the bible (or any other religious document), only that this person can not use it as proof that their opinion or viewpoint is valid within an academic and scientific context.
The concept of spiritual beings such as God, Horace, Zeus, or Allah who created this world, began life on it, and delivered their will to its inhabitants through visionary and revelatory experiences is only one of many theories that explain the formation of religion. Other theories include animist, naturist, psychoanalytic, and social from the likes of Durkheim, Frazier, Tyler, Freud, and others.
My particular area of study, alternative religious movements (better known as cults), lends another level of skepticism to the validity of religious claims of divine origin. The field of textual analysis and criticism erodes confidence in the divine origin of the biblical text even further than the area that I am engaged in. And of course, there are always those damn republicans claiming that God told them to invade Iraq and find those weapons of mass destruction - a claim that has led many to scoff not only at Bush and his policies, but also at the God he invoked as authority for such outrageous claims. In the world of the conservative evangelical church, such things tend to be quietly ignored or explained away, but not in the world of academia, and not (I would premise), in the larger world outside the church doors. (Having been one of only two democrats on staff at a conservative evangelical american church during Bush's reign of terror, I know what I am talking about when it comes to blind acceptance of God's sovereign role in Bush's America).
Someone asked me recently if my adventures in academia have caused me to question my faith. The answer is yes. This answer, however, is not (in my opinion), a cause for either fear or celebration. It is simply a statement of where my spiritual journey is taking me. Everyone should, in my opinion, question what they believe and why they believe it from time to time. This applies equally to those involved in professional ministry and to those solidly embracing an athiest position. True faith has nothing to fear from an inquisition, and those who might hope that this questioning will erode faith do not understand the simple fact that for those who have faith, lack of scientific proof simply strengthens faith. Faith is, after all, belief in things not seen. If we could prove everything, there wouldn't be anything left to believe in. In the same way, if we don't challenge ourselves to honestly look at what we can and can not prove, we are in danger of becoming zombies, robots, brainwashed cult members who blindly follow whatever anyone tells them to believe.
In my adventures, I have met and become friends with Buddhists, Muslims, Athiests, Christians, and those of every religious persuasion in between. Discussions that happen around a table or in a classroom where all of these different viewpoints represent real and honest beliefs ( for now I will call athiesm a belief - belief that God does not exist) challenge me in ways that I have never been challenged before. Answers that I might have offered five years ago, I no longer feel are valid answers, and certainly do not stand up to academic rigor. So I am searching for better answers and better ways to express those answers....when and if I ever find them.
The adventure continues...
Having attended a faith-based school for my undergrad, I know that there are certain topics that faith-based schools do touch on such as creation/evolution and questions of inspiration and biblical interpretation and authority. They also frequently offer courses in ethics and on religions other than Christianity. Yet, all of these courses are taught from the viewpoint that Christian perspectives and biblical authority are correct and therefore, these (and other) courses end up simply proving that the students' faith is the correct viewpoint from which to analyze the world. The professors who teach them are Christians and the majority (if not all) of the student body are also Christians. While discussions may take different viewpoints, all participants take for granted the assumption that God exists, that the Bible is the revealed word of God, and that religion (right or wrong) is the result.
It is quite a different thing to study from the viewpoint that Christianity is simply one of many faith systems, each with an equal claim on people's lives, and each with an inherent set of contradictions and problems that make it vulnerable to academic and scientific scrutiny. When creation is NOT the acceptable theory of beginning, when evolution or certain variations of it, are the accepted theory of how life began, the entire foundation upon which the study of beginnings happens, changes significantly. In a world that looks for scientific proof, despite what creationists claim, there simply are no definite proofs for many of the foundations upon which faith stands.
This is a fascinating and challenging world to enter, and one that I find completely engaging. The biblical account of any event is not considered to be proof of that event, nor is it considered a reliable historical document. This does not mean that a person who is an academic can not have faith in the bible (or any other religious document), only that this person can not use it as proof that their opinion or viewpoint is valid within an academic and scientific context.
The concept of spiritual beings such as God, Horace, Zeus, or Allah who created this world, began life on it, and delivered their will to its inhabitants through visionary and revelatory experiences is only one of many theories that explain the formation of religion. Other theories include animist, naturist, psychoanalytic, and social from the likes of Durkheim, Frazier, Tyler, Freud, and others.
My particular area of study, alternative religious movements (better known as cults), lends another level of skepticism to the validity of religious claims of divine origin. The field of textual analysis and criticism erodes confidence in the divine origin of the biblical text even further than the area that I am engaged in. And of course, there are always those damn republicans claiming that God told them to invade Iraq and find those weapons of mass destruction - a claim that has led many to scoff not only at Bush and his policies, but also at the God he invoked as authority for such outrageous claims. In the world of the conservative evangelical church, such things tend to be quietly ignored or explained away, but not in the world of academia, and not (I would premise), in the larger world outside the church doors. (Having been one of only two democrats on staff at a conservative evangelical american church during Bush's reign of terror, I know what I am talking about when it comes to blind acceptance of God's sovereign role in Bush's America).
Someone asked me recently if my adventures in academia have caused me to question my faith. The answer is yes. This answer, however, is not (in my opinion), a cause for either fear or celebration. It is simply a statement of where my spiritual journey is taking me. Everyone should, in my opinion, question what they believe and why they believe it from time to time. This applies equally to those involved in professional ministry and to those solidly embracing an athiest position. True faith has nothing to fear from an inquisition, and those who might hope that this questioning will erode faith do not understand the simple fact that for those who have faith, lack of scientific proof simply strengthens faith. Faith is, after all, belief in things not seen. If we could prove everything, there wouldn't be anything left to believe in. In the same way, if we don't challenge ourselves to honestly look at what we can and can not prove, we are in danger of becoming zombies, robots, brainwashed cult members who blindly follow whatever anyone tells them to believe.
In my adventures, I have met and become friends with Buddhists, Muslims, Athiests, Christians, and those of every religious persuasion in between. Discussions that happen around a table or in a classroom where all of these different viewpoints represent real and honest beliefs ( for now I will call athiesm a belief - belief that God does not exist) challenge me in ways that I have never been challenged before. Answers that I might have offered five years ago, I no longer feel are valid answers, and certainly do not stand up to academic rigor. So I am searching for better answers and better ways to express those answers....when and if I ever find them.
The adventure continues...
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Late at Night
I am usually up late at night these days. I used to stay up late at night because I used to be a musician and I was most creative late at night. These days I am up late because I am writing a Master's thesis and need to finish it and defend it before September, 2009. I have been accepted into the PhD program in Religious Studies (alternative religions) program at the University of Alberta and don't want to be starting the PhD while still worrying about defending the MA thesis. I was never really good at multi-tasking and this just seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
So I find myself up late most night sitting by myself at the dining room table with my laptop open, several books open around me, my project playlist in my headphones, and several half finished chapters in front of me.
Tonight I have just finished taking notes on a book on the theory of cognitive dissonance, and although I am planning on applying parts of this theory to my analysis, I can't help but feel as if I am a victim of cognitive dissonance. Briefly, cognitive dissonance theory states that when a person holds two dissonant beliefs or ideas in his or her head, or when a person believes one thing but outwardly acts in a contrary manner, that person will do whatever is necessary to resolve that dissonance. There are many dissonance reducing strategies, however the two that I find most relevant to my own situation are either to abandon one or both of the dissonant beliefs, or to rationalize one or both of them (this means coming up with new or alternative explanations about what these beliefs 'really' mean).
I wonder how often I say things that I do not necessarily believe are true. I am not saying that I lie, although from time to time I do, but rather that I say things that I know I should believe or that I really want to believe, yet I do not. So, by my actions (saying I believe something), I am creating a type of dissonance in my head (because I do not fully believe or adhere to the belief or principle I am affirming). This most often happens when I tell people that I am a Christian.
I have tried calling myself other things, like 'a follower of Jesus', or 'a believer', or one of many other things that all eventually lead back to the person I am talking to saying 'oh, you're a Christian'. Now, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with this statement if Christianity didn't have such a (well deserved) shitty reputation in most places, and if by identifying myself as a Christian I didn't have to accept so many preconcieved notions or ideas about what defines a Christian. I am not saying that I do accept them, but more often than not, the person or persons with whom I am having this discussion will have certain preconceived ideas about what a Christian is or isn't.
I believe in the Bible, but I believe there are many ways to interpret it.
I believe in God, but I don't know much about Him (see above sentence).
I believe in mercy and justice and peace, but I don't agree with how Christians (and many other people who call themselves religious) use religion as a pretext to commit attrocities around the globe.
I believe in helping those less fortunate than myself, but I rarely ever do it.
I believe in extending grace to everyone, but I find it difficult to extend grace to myself and therefore I do not extend it to others very often.
I believe in forgiving others, but I do not always forgive people and I struggle with concepts like the Lord's prayer where it says' forgive us as we forgive others'.
I believe in living a good life, but I don't really know what that looks like.
I believe in prayer (although what I believe it actually does remains a mystery), but I can go for days or weeks without it.
I believe in heaven and hell, but some days I seriously question which one I am closer to.
There are days when I struggle to feel anything at all that could be considered spiritual.
There are days when all I do is fight the demons.
There are many days when I would rather do anything than go to church.
And yet I call myself a Christian because I believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he died on a cross in AD 33 to save the world, of which I am a part. I just don't buy much of anything else that has been added to this one simple truth over the centuries.
The dissonance remains and I have not effected any reduction strategies to minimize it. Late at night, tonight, I feel liminal, and while it is hardly perfect or desireable, for now it is real, and therefore acceptable. I am between the past and the future, between the old and the new, between the beginning and the end, between dusk and dawn, between questions and answers....
So I find myself up late most night sitting by myself at the dining room table with my laptop open, several books open around me, my project playlist in my headphones, and several half finished chapters in front of me.
Tonight I have just finished taking notes on a book on the theory of cognitive dissonance, and although I am planning on applying parts of this theory to my analysis, I can't help but feel as if I am a victim of cognitive dissonance. Briefly, cognitive dissonance theory states that when a person holds two dissonant beliefs or ideas in his or her head, or when a person believes one thing but outwardly acts in a contrary manner, that person will do whatever is necessary to resolve that dissonance. There are many dissonance reducing strategies, however the two that I find most relevant to my own situation are either to abandon one or both of the dissonant beliefs, or to rationalize one or both of them (this means coming up with new or alternative explanations about what these beliefs 'really' mean).
I wonder how often I say things that I do not necessarily believe are true. I am not saying that I lie, although from time to time I do, but rather that I say things that I know I should believe or that I really want to believe, yet I do not. So, by my actions (saying I believe something), I am creating a type of dissonance in my head (because I do not fully believe or adhere to the belief or principle I am affirming). This most often happens when I tell people that I am a Christian.
I have tried calling myself other things, like 'a follower of Jesus', or 'a believer', or one of many other things that all eventually lead back to the person I am talking to saying 'oh, you're a Christian'. Now, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with this statement if Christianity didn't have such a (well deserved) shitty reputation in most places, and if by identifying myself as a Christian I didn't have to accept so many preconcieved notions or ideas about what defines a Christian. I am not saying that I do accept them, but more often than not, the person or persons with whom I am having this discussion will have certain preconceived ideas about what a Christian is or isn't.
I believe in the Bible, but I believe there are many ways to interpret it.
I believe in God, but I don't know much about Him (see above sentence).
I believe in mercy and justice and peace, but I don't agree with how Christians (and many other people who call themselves religious) use religion as a pretext to commit attrocities around the globe.
I believe in helping those less fortunate than myself, but I rarely ever do it.
I believe in extending grace to everyone, but I find it difficult to extend grace to myself and therefore I do not extend it to others very often.
I believe in forgiving others, but I do not always forgive people and I struggle with concepts like the Lord's prayer where it says' forgive us as we forgive others'.
I believe in living a good life, but I don't really know what that looks like.
I believe in prayer (although what I believe it actually does remains a mystery), but I can go for days or weeks without it.
I believe in heaven and hell, but some days I seriously question which one I am closer to.
There are days when I struggle to feel anything at all that could be considered spiritual.
There are days when all I do is fight the demons.
There are many days when I would rather do anything than go to church.
And yet I call myself a Christian because I believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he died on a cross in AD 33 to save the world, of which I am a part. I just don't buy much of anything else that has been added to this one simple truth over the centuries.
The dissonance remains and I have not effected any reduction strategies to minimize it. Late at night, tonight, I feel liminal, and while it is hardly perfect or desireable, for now it is real, and therefore acceptable. I am between the past and the future, between the old and the new, between the beginning and the end, between dusk and dawn, between questions and answers....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)