LeRon Shults

LeRon Shults is one of my favorite theologians, and, were I to be looking to start a PhD program today, I’d strongly consider the offer he writes of in his guest post:

I’ve asked Tony to help me spread the word about two new opportunities to study theology here at the University of Agder in Norway. Before you say “that is crazy, I can’t move to Norway!” read a little further…

This is a great opportunity to do doctoral studies in a European context, with links to resources all over the world. I would love to have one or two students over here doing work on the kind of themes that are of interest to Tony Jones’s blog readers!

For those of you in the US, Great Britain (or elsewhere) who are not familiar with the Norwegian system, becoming a PhD stipend here means that you are employed by the University for three years and given a salary of approximately 353,200 kroner (about 61,000 US dollars) per year, as well as office space, travel funds, etc. As explained in the announcement, you also receive contributions toward a pension.

The Institute for Religion, Philosophy and History is emphasizing internationalization and so explicitly encourages non-Norwegians to apply for the stipends. Dissertations can be written, and all doctoral lectures are in ENGLISH.

Here is the post with the invitation to apply:

http://uia.easycruit.com/vacancy/372819/35068?iso=gb

The deadline for application materials is 15 April 2010. Applications received after this date will not be considered. The top candidates will be flown in for interviews, most likely in late spring.

I also should say that this will be very competitive, as you can imagine. It would only be worth going through the application process, which is a bit more rigorous in the US, if you can develop a strong research proposal and have an excellent academic background.

Finally, due to the procedural constraints in the Norwegian process, I cannot respond in detail to particular proposal ideas. However, I am posting notes intended to be helpful on my blog: www.leronshults.typepad.com

One month from now, I’ll be part of a unique gathering: a conversation with two leading theologians of youth ministry, Kenda Creasy Dean and Andrew Root.  It’s called “FirstThird: Theological Dialogues on the First Third of Life,” and it’s taking place at Luther Theological Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota.

It’s limited to 120 participants, and there are still some spots left, so if this conversation sounds intriguing, join us!

Once upon a time, there was a Roman general, in charge of a garrison on the outskirts of the Empire.  It was the middle of the fourth century, and he could feel the earth shifting under his feet, so he called his lieutenants together and said, “Things are changing.  The hordes are approaching, and the people are afraid.  They’re losing trust in our ability to protect them, so we’ve got to sharpen our methods, and sharpen our spears.  I’ve investing in some new weapons, and I’m going to try some new ways to communicate battle plans across the legion.  I’ve also been reading about the latest in warfare techniques, which I’ll be implementing little.

“But rest assured,” he continued, “There will always be a Roman Empire.  And there will always be Roman legions, generals, and lieutenants, for we provide an invaluable service.”

***

Once upon a time, there was a lord who lived in a castle on the top of a hill, in 13th century Europe.  Realizing that the serfs were getting restless, he summoned all of his knights and landholders to the castle, and he told them, “The times are changing. In some parts of our world, people are writing documents of law and demanding to have elected representation.  So we’ve got to adjust with the times.  I want you to mix with the vassals, listen to what they have to say, and put up a suggestion box in the square.  Equip them with some new rakes and hoes.

“But worry not,” he concluded, “As long as there are hills, there will be lords upon those hills.  There will always be fiefdoms.  There will always be lords and knights and serfs.  That will never change.”

***

Once upon a time, in the plains of early 19th century North America, there was a U.S. Army general who oversaw a fort on the frontier.  His scouts were telling him that the Natives were getting restless, so he gathered his officers together for a meeting.  “Gentlemen, the Indians are gathering to attack, and the settlers are unsettled.  We need to change up our methods, to work with the Indians and cooperate with the settlers.  I’ve been reading about new leadership techniques, and I want you to implement a new workflow that takes our new realities into account.

“But don’t fret,” he said with confidence, “There will always be a frontier, there will always be Savages, and there will always be Army forts.  We may change how we do business, but we will always be here, for they could never manage this massive continent without us.”

Moral of the stories: Nothing lasts forever.

Epilogue: This is my contribution to the conversation on the future of denominations being curated by Faith & Leadership.

If you’re within driving distance of the Twin Cities, please consider joining us for JoPa’s Social Media Boot Camp for Pastors and Ministry Leaders this Thursday, February 4, from 9am-4pm.  It’s a great way to get off the scheid and into Facebook, Twitter, blogging, and YouTube, if you find those things somewhat intimidating.  (If you’re reading this, you probably don’t, but maybe your pastor, priest, or rabbi does…)

More info here.

J.G. Janos, Governor of Minnesota, 1999-2003

In 1998, I voted for J.G. Janos for Governor of Minnesota, and I was thrilled when he won.  I had hoped that it would pave the way for a three-party system in my state (and beyond), and start to make room for political independents like me.  He held lots of interesting and some controversial political positions, but most of them were common sense.  There was a budget surplus, so he returned money to the taxpayers rather than raise entitlements; he proposed a unicameral legislature because he thought it was a waste of money for the state to fund a senate and a house of representatives; and he held liberatiarian positions on issues like prostitution, marijuana, and gays in the military.

Since he was the lone independent, some of use who elected him worried that he’d get bullied by the two major parties.  But he didn’t, at least at first.  He stood by his campaign promises and vetoed 45 bills in his first year, only three of which were overturned.

But after the first couple years of his tenure, the Republicans and the Democrats decided to hold their noses and work together.  Their cause? To defeat everything the governor proposed and thus scuttle his — and any third party successor’s — attempts at governance.  So, while the governor attempted to do what we’d elected him to do — namely, run our state in a common sense manner that defied conventional politics — the two major parties decided to stand in his way, regardless of the cost.

They chose politics over governance.

I supported President Obama’s candidacy for similar reasons that I supported Ventura.  I thought that he might bring a fresh approach and some populist common sense to our federal government.  Like Ventura, Obama has made some missteps and miscues in this first year, but mainly he’s been attempting to do what we elected him to do: clean up some financial messes, close Guantanamo, fix health care.

And yet, the politicos in D.C. are doing to him what the Minnesota politicians did to Ventura: they are choosing politics over governance because they think it’ll work, they think they’ll regain political power, and they think that Obama is weak and inexperienced enough to collapse under the pressure (Ventura did).

I for one hope that Obama has more tenacity than Ventura.  I hope that he sees the long tail of history and rides out the partisan bullshit of Boehner/Pelosi/McConnell/Reid (and, honestly, I find Obama to be a far superior intellect to all four of those combined — whether he’s a superior politician remains to be seen).

True, the stimulus didn’t work as well as planned.  And, yes, he was a bit ham-fisted in his first run at health care reform.  But he has been attempting to do what we asked of him, while most everyone in the legislative branch of government has been worried exclusively about saving their own political skins.

At what cost?  At the cost of governance.  It’s really a pity.