Last Sunday, Indiana University President, Myles Brand, fired basketball coach Bobby Knight. Brand dismissed Knight three days after he grabbed a student by the arm and remonstrated him for addressing the coach as "Knight," rather than as "Mr. Knight" or "Coach Knight." That incident, said Brand, was only the latest and most public of numerous instances of misbehavior by the coach this summer, in which Knight clashed constantly with college officials over guidelines set forth in May to control his behavior. How should we think about this?

The guidelines, which stated that the coach would be terminated if he made "verifiable, inappropriate physical contact" with anyone, were established after a two-month investigation of Knight's conduct through the years, focusing on an incident in which he grabbed a player by the neck during a practice. In that same time period, Knight threatened the athletic department secretary twice, even throwing a vase at her. The problem for Brand is that he should have dismissed Knight last year. Now the students and many alumni are up in arms over the dismissal. A major confrontation between university officials and students occurred Sunday night in which University property was destroyed and ten people were arrested after the disturbance.

How did Brand defend his approach towards Knight? Brand argued that ethically he did the right thing in May. He argued that Knight had not received any firm guidelines on controlling his behavior, so it would have been inappropriate for the university to dismiss him. After agreeing to control his temper and abide by the "zero-tolerance" guidelines established in May, Knight continued to behave aggressively towards university administrators and students. I appreciate Brand's mixture of mercy and firm discipline. He gave Knight a chance to demonstrate ethically sound behavior and self control. Knight failed this opportunity and Brand did the correct thing. Furthermore, Knight refused to report to his supervisor at the university and attend events required by his contract.

Whether Knight likes it or not, he is a role model, both to the players he coaches and to the students of the university. He is therefore called to a higher standard of behavior. Submitting to authority and self control are basic aspects of acceptable and ethical behavior. Knight has failed this basic test of leadership and must be called to accountability. When a role model like Knight, despite his extraordinary abilities as a coach, cannot control his behavior he cannot remain a coach. It is time for our culture to call leaders to a high standard of accountability for their actions. Proper role models for a coach are Tom Osborne and Joe Paterno, not Bobby Knight. Brand was right in firing Bobby Knight!!

See The Chronicle of Higher Education, Today's News (12 September 2000).

Back to top

TWO RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS

The Roman Catholic Church has officially responded to the Postmodern challenge of religious pluralism with a 36-page theological document. In the document, the Vatican rejects the idea that all religions are equal. In addition, it took issue with the idea that non-Christian religions could be equal to Roman Catholicism or that Protestant churches could be considered "sister churches." The document went on, non-Christians are in a "gravely deficient situation" regarding salvation. The Church reiterated its official position, ordering its theologians not to manipulate what it called the truth of the faith and to counteract "relativistic theories" of religious pluralism. The document also argued that other Christian churches have "defects," in part because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope.

The document likewise dismissed all post-Reformation churches, stating those "that have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery are not churches in the proper sense." In effect, the Roman Catholic church is drawing a theological line in the sand when it comes to Postmodernism and religion. It will not tolerate pluralism and will not even tolerate the blending of Catholicism with any other expression of Christianity. It has brought a strong reaction from other Protestant groups and other world religions.

Although I do not agree with all of the tenets of Roman Catholic theology, I do agree that Postmodern religious pluralism dilutes truth and makes theology irrelevant. That will not do and it is unacceptable to buy into such a diluted and powerless faith. Christianity has the truth because it is revealed and no amount of postmodern religious toleration will undermine that proposition. There is absolute truth and it is knowable. (See "Current News Summary of Religion Today, (6 September 2000).

A full-page ad in the 10 September issue of the New York Times called for a new relationship between Jews and Christians. Called "Dabru Emet," the statement was signed by dozens of Jewish Rabbis and key Christian leaders as well. It represents an attempt to create a basis for dialog between Judaism and Christianity. The document affirms that Jews and Christians worship the same God, seek authority from the same book, accept the moral principles of the Torah, and declares that Nazism was not a Christian phenomenon. Furthermore, it calls on Christians and Jews to work together for justice and peace and affirms Christian support for the state of Israel. Finally, the document declares that the irreconcilable differences between Jew and Christian will not be settled until "God redeems the entire world as promised in Scripture."

Although the document addresses the core issues of similarity between these two great faiths, it does not really address the core differences adequately. That cannot occur if the person of Jesus Christ is ignored. Jews are not Christ-killers, nor did Christianity produce the holocaust. For both religions to affirm these truths is refreshing but the core differences will remain. We can work jointly for justice and peace but the difference will not be reconciled when "God redeems the whole world as promised in Scripture." Such a statement reflects a distortion of Scripture. The core reality is what to do with Christ? If He is rejected, then there is no hope for reconciliation with God or with one another. That is the message that Dabru Emet tragically does not deal with.

A final note is the recent canonization of Czar Nicholas II. Near the end of August, 144 prelates of the Russian Orthodox Church voted unanimously to canonize Czar Nicholas II and his family. The czar was canonized as a "new martyr," meaning he was canonized not for his rule but for his death. Ever since the collapse of Bolshevism in the 1990s, Nicholas has been a powerful symbol of everything that was wrong with Bolshevik communism. Today, Nicholas is pictured, not as a loving husband and father, but as an autocrat, the ruler of an enormous empire, whose banner carried the inscription, "Russia, one and indivisible," and protected by the prayers of the clergy. It is quite an incredible development, really, filled with a symbolism that we in the West cannot quite grasp. What it means for the future is anyone's guess right now. But it does send some confusing signals as to where Russia is headed.

Back to top

OPEN WATER AT THE NORTH POLE: GLOBAL WARMING

Recent eyewitness reports of open water from melting ice at the North Pole have prompted some to argue that this phenomenon is further evidence of global warming. Is it?

In a recent article in the New York Times (29 August 2000), there is compelling evidence that this argument is spurious at best. Climatologists are still not certain if diminishing polar ice reflects some short- term natural cycle or global warming. Dr. Mark Serreze, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, CO, stated that, "We have no clear evidence at this point that this is related to global climate change." Similar open patches of water have appeared before, causing climatologists to caution against alarm, saying no clear evidence exists that the current situation is related to climate change.

The bottom line in all of this is that we must not take very seriously the sensationalism that often accompanies reporting like this. Records on matters like this are fragmentary and do not go back very many years. Furthermore, data on climate and weather patterns go back with certainty only about 140 years. Many argue that this is not adequate to determine what major climatic cycles look like. In short, we must be very cautious in reaching major conclusions on the meaning of open water at the North Pole. When climatologists are very divided, lay people like us should be equally as cautious. God has created His world with patterns and cycles of climatic change. We are only now beginning to understand those patterns. Let's be cautious about the conclusion we reach.

Back to top