Seriously? The Gregarious and Hug-able, Ken Starr?
I found this article to be most fascinating on two fronts. The first half of the article is a profile on the new Baylor University President, Ken Starr. A taste…
But the reality of Kenneth Winston Starr, who in June became the 14th president of Baylor University, is quite different. To watch him work the crowd at the Baylor-Texas A&M football game, in fact, is nothing short of a revelation.
Here, he seems less a pious righter-of-wrongs than a sort of funny uncle. Resplendent in a white warm-up suit trimmed with green and gold and a yellow Baylor cap, and bearing a cherubic smile that never quite leaves his face, the 64-year-old Starr plunges into groups of startled tailgaters. He talks to everyone. He hugs anyone who will agree to be hugged. He tells jokes. He tosses footballs. He poses for photographs, lots of them.
When the Baylor players emerge from their bus to walk a gauntlet of fans, Starr tries to hug all of them, many of whom appear to have no idea who he is. He fails, but is undeterred.
Though his enemies might prefer to think otherwise, this is the actual Ken Starr, the one the TV cameras never quite got: warm, kind, humble, funny and engaging.
There is much more to the profile and its worth a read in and of itself. However, I found even more fascinating, perhaps, the description of the mission Baylor University.
Baylor wants to turn itself into a top-ranked institution and research university all while not just maintaining, but emphasizing, its Christianity. The only comparable model would be Notre Dame, except well, actually Christian.
His larger mission is to fulfill one of the most breathtaking visions in American higher education. Baylor wants nothing less than to transform itself from its traditional role as a somewhat sleepy, second-rate, predominantly regional Baptist school to a world-class research university with highly ranked graduate programs.And it wants to accomplish all that while asserting itself as a fully Christian, evangelical university with avowedly Christian professors. No Protestant university has ever done this before or even tried. Old-line schools founded on Christian principles like Harvard, Princeton and Yale historically bowed before a relentless secularism and are now places where religion is relegated to extracurricular status. Notre Dame is the only remotely comparable model. It is very definitely a world-class research institution, but not absolute in requiring its faculty to be Catholic or Christian.
December 26, 2010 at 4:52 pm
"(Notre Dame) is…not absolute in requiring its faculty to be Catholic or
Christian." That is one very tactful way of putting it.
December 26, 2010 at 7:19 pm
It's hard to believe any Catholic University can be a research university. Research and science goes directly against the philosophy of the the Church. The Bible teaches us to believe not to question for research. Questioning is for the weak minded. Us Catholics are much smarter than what research and science has to offer.
December 26, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Adrienne, please tell me that comment was tongue-in-cheek. Nothing could be further from the Truth.
December 26, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Adrienne is right. Scientist believe in evolution, which goes against the Bible. Scientist believe in abortion, birth-control, homosexuality is normal, divorce, equal rights for everybody. All this goes against the Bible. Research and education, don't mix with the Church and religion.
December 26, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Adrienne and Anonymous, I can only assume you're joking.
Otherwise, your views would be a surprise to Catholic scientists
like Mendel, Pasteur, and Copernicus…
The Church has never had anything to fear from the Truth.
December 26, 2010 at 9:12 pm
But Darwin was also a Scientist, but Catholics hate him. Catholics hate the Scientists and doctors that create the Birth Control Pill. The Birth Control Pill gave women to much freedom. Later women then wanted to Divorce. The Birth Control Pill ruined the Churches control over women. They no longer wanted to be Virgins before marriage. And yes there were some Scientist that were Catholic before becoming scientist like Mendel, Pasteur, and Copernicus, but they all later denounced the Catholic Church, publicly claiming the believes of the Church were backwards. Say these Scientist were Catholic Scientist is like saying the woman on The View are Catholics. Just because they were once Catholic doesn't make them Catholic for life. Academia is the enemy of the Church. Most Academicians are Atheists and that's been documented over and over again.
December 26, 2010 at 10:39 pm
From reading some of these comments here and on a forum I frequent makes me stop and question: are these "Catholics" (some people have been known to pose as Catholic) serious? I thought I left the anti-scientific thought behind when I rejected the Fundamentalism of my birth. I wandered as an agnostic for years before I found the Catholic faith. It was a beautiful thing — all the majesty of Faith, and all the humility of Good Reason. I see now what Sola Scriptura has done — it has invaded even Catholicism. Whenever a Catholic references Scripture, I have to check with the teachings of the Magisterium, which is the proper interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Unfortunately, many times, the one who references Scripture to support some seemingly wild proposition support just that – a wild proposition out of line with the Catholic Magisterium. We must remember that we are NOT the interpreters of Scripture. The Bishops in union with and including the Pope are. St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine of Hippo, pray for us!
December 26, 2010 at 11:08 pm
There is no animus between Catholicism and science. Mostly protestant converts bring that baggage and put the Catholic faith in a poor light.
Some dope said …
["And yes there were some Scientist that were Catholic before becoming scientist like Mendel, Pasteur, and Copernicus, but they all later denounced the Catholic Church, publicly claiming the believes of the Church were backwards. Say these Scientist were Catholic Scientist is like saying the woman on The View are Catholics."]
I think you will find they hated the Church so much that two of the names became ordained priests. LEARN YOUR HISTORY!
December 26, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Adrienne,
That is not the Catholic position. What an embarrassment for Catholics that you put the title Catholic on your blog.
December 26, 2010 at 11:14 pm
@z Hayden. – But I believe that what the comments of the commenters above are trying to say. For years "the bishops in union with and including the Pope" have tried to interpret the scriptures. But they are not educated people. They are spending their entire life reading one book. From an outside perspective or scientific perspective that appears very limiting or short-minded. The bishop and clergy try to pretend they know something, so all the lost people will believe in them, but they tend to be very dense and clueless themselves. And the scientist know this. They know that there will always be these types of people that need to be lead. Hence, there will always be a Church.
December 27, 2010 at 12:41 am
@ anon 6:08 – "There is no animus between Catholicism and science." that typically what Catholics believe, but Scientists believe as anon 6:14 stated "from an outside perspective or scientific perspective (Catholics) appear very limiting or short-minded." Catholics want to believe they are scientist but…. no body else believes them, and most of all not scientist or academia.
December 27, 2010 at 12:46 am
Anon @6:14, what a secularist position to take! I was drawn to the Catholic Church (I'm a convert) because the only people that made sense were the bishops and the Pope. Pope Benedict XVI is one of the most educated people alive. I've looked into the training process for priests, and most seminaries in my region require at least a bachelor's degree before they will consider you. Even at college-level seminaries, the academics are far more rigorous (and surprisingly wide-ranged) than at the typical state-run university. 6-8 years of education means that someone is uneducated? That is just for a priest. Our Holy Father, unless I am gravely mistaken, was a professor at the University of Munich. If that is what passes for uneducated now, what hope do we have? A bit of historical background: Priests, for the majority of the Church's history, have been the most educated people in society. As the education of the laity grew, so did the education of the seminarians. And, just as a minor point of correction (it's a common mistake): the Bible is not "a" book. It is a collection of some 73 separate books, each written from a different author (in most cases), in a different time, from a different perspective, with varying genres. It covers at various points, history, music, theology, poetry, and a collection of contemporary records and letters, as well as the infamous Jewish prophetic works, which require about the same skills as does understanding Shakespeare or Wordsworth.
December 27, 2010 at 1:12 am
@ z. hayden: pleaze. priest and minsters are typically men and women that can't gain entrance to academically challenging public universities, therefore they seek entrance into seminary schools. and gaining entrance into a seminary school is no big deal. priest and minsters are generally from a lower academic tier, especially today.
December 27, 2010 at 1:17 am
I read Adrienne's comment above. And I don't believe it's her that wrote it. I've read Adrienne's blog before, and she isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but she wouldn't write something like that.