Discussion Guide for Marsden's Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship
Chapter 3: "Christian Scholarship and the
Rules of the Game"
What is the thesis of Chapter 3?
"Religious perspectives ought to be recognized as legitimate
in the mainstream academy so long as their proponents are
willing to support the rules necessary for constructive exchange
of ideas in a pluralistic setting" (45).
Do you think there is anything wrong with this understanding
of the essence of "Christian Scholarship"?
What logical error/fallacy is made when one says "Your
motivation is religious, therefore your data is invalid?" What
error is made when one argues a religious prejudice should
not intrude in their scholarship? What logical fallacy is evidenced
by the view that allowing for Christian scholarship will lead
to cutting off of all intellectual exchange?
Summarize the main points regarding making religious perspectives
explicit. Do you agree that some or all of these are appropriate
rules? Why or why not? Do you agree that by following some/all
of these rules the objections to making religious perspectives
explicit can be nullified? Why or why not?
What is the central integrative question Marsden suggests
the Christian scholar ask? Do you agree? Why or why not?
"If this religious teaching were true, how would it
change the way we look at the subject at hand" (52).
Marsden suggests that true Christian scholarship will actually
be more even, fair, critical of its own views than other, "secular" approaches
to scholarship, which can be quite partisan. Do you agree?
Why or why not?
Marsden raises objection on the other side of the debate:
proposed Christian scholarship is too docile a project, if
we really believe Christian revelation to be true. What is
his response? Do you agree with his rejoinder?
|
