Search Results for: Dallas Willard

Thinking about Cultural Change

Posted on April 5, 2010 by - james davison hunter, to change the world (book)

To anyone who cares about how change occurs in culture and how Christians can influence culture, you must read James Davison Hunter’s latest book, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (Oxford University Press, 2010).

James Davison Hunter is the Labrosse-Levinson Distinguished Professor of Religion, Culture, and Social Theory at the University of Virginia and Executive Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture.

Hunter’s book consists of three main essays:

  1. Christianity and World-Changing
  2. Rethinking Power
  3. Toward a New City Commons: Reflections on a Theology of Faithful Presence

Specific chapter abstracts are available here, and a limited preview is available here.

Hunter’s work, in general, ranges between moral philosophy, social theory, history, political sociology, and now with his latest work, his work intersects with theology. Fundamentally, Hunter is trying to understand questions and assumptions related to meaning and moral order.

In 2002, Hunter gave an address at The Trinity Forum, which was part of the impetus for the book project.

The book is useful reading for anyone who works in an academic context, especially if they think culture mostly develops merely by a change in ideas. Every professor should read this if they want their ideas to make a difference beyond their academic community. Every dean, provost, board and president of a Christian education institution should seriously take these ideas to heart and debate them.

Hunter’s book is also necessary reading for individual culture makers, especially if they think culture making has little to do with institutions.or “elites.” One could read Hunter in dialogue with Andy Crouch’s Culture Making.

To Change the World is must reading for pastors who want to gain historical mindfulness and appreciation for how to guide disciples of Jesus into “faithful presence” in their world (the last part). Read Hunter’s book in sync with Dallas Willard’s Knowing Christ Today, especially Dallas’ last chapter, “Pastors as Teachers of the Nations.” Or, you might also read Hunter’s book as a backdrop to Willard’s recent piece about the “The Failure of Evangelical Political Involvement in the Area of Moral Transformation.” (cf. it with Lindsay’s Faith in the Halls of Power).

“A theology of faithful presence calls Christians to enact the shalom of God in the circumstances in which God has placed them and to actively seek it on behalf of others.” – James Davison Hunter

Lastly, if you want to consider the implication of Hunter’s thesis for the political and public life, you might be interested in this dialogue with Hunter at the very prestigious “Faith Angle Conference on Religion, Politics & Public Life.”

Consider Hunter’s book and get a copy for a friend! I wouldn’t be surprised if this book is considered the top one or two for 2010 in the area of Christianity and culture.

Education for Human Flourishing: Interview with Paul Spears and Steve Loomis (part two)

Posted on March 2, 2010 by - christian worldview integration series, education for human flourishing (book), interview, paul spears, steve loomis

We continue our interview with Biola’s Paul Spears and Wheaton’s Steve Loomis about their book Education for Human Flourishing. You can read part one of the interview here.

You say in the book that “To have an understanding of what it means to be human is necessarily at the core of the educational project” (36). Thus, in chapter 1 you make a case for substance dualism as “the most effective way by which we can best explain fundamental issues in human ontology” (44). How does a Christian substance dualism, compared to say a Christian physicalism, impact educational commitments, especially commitment to an educational vision that is for human flourishing?

Spears: This question is worth a book length answer all by itself. While it is true that I believe that substance dualism gives the best account for the human condition, what I really want to do is begin a discussion about how our philosophical beliefs should be driving the way in which we go about the educational project. So, as a substance dualist and, more importantly, a Christian I should be able to give a fully orbed account of the educational project that is derived from those fundamental views of reality. What I wanted to point out in the book is that most individuals and, even most educators, cannot give a salient account of where the educational theory is derived. My hope is that this book encourages people to closely scrutinize their fundamental beliefs about education, and, thereby, adopt better curricular and pedagogical methodologies because of their more critical knowledge of human persons.  

What does it mean to flourish as a human being?

Spears: Basically, it means to live as is proper to your being. We are to understand how we are a part of God’s created order, and that understanding should enable us to pursue right living in accordance to God’s purpose or end for humanity.  It is when we pursue God’s purpose that we are flourishing. Conversely, if we pursue some other end like physical pleasure it may momentarily be satisfying, but it will never lead to true flourishing. 

Why is education for human flourishing? (in contrast to education for merely skill training, employment, social status, etc)?

Spears: Skill training only teaches the “how” of an action, not the reasons for why you do the action or behavior. Education for human flourishing is concerned with doing the right thing for its own sake, and not for pragmatic reasons. It may result in some pragmatic good, but that is secondary to the right reason.
 
What is Christian worldview integration? 

Spears: Christian anthropological commitments are not just concerned with human persons flourishing for their own sake, but they flourish as active participants in God ‘s kingdom purposes.  So a proper education does not stop with our own self understanding and flourishing, but continues as we participate as servants of God in his economic kingdom. Christian anthropology is not narcissistic, but theocentric. As we integrate our Christian worldview into our intellectual endeavors, we come to gain a more complete understand of how we are to live.

How can we engage in integration?

Spears: We need to realize that there are multiple ways to understand how the world works. Just as God gave us our 5 senses so that we can investigate the physical world, we should see the different academic disciplines as bringing unique insights to the way in which we understand our world and the human condition. 

How have the professionalization and the specialization of knowledge and expertise impacted education and attempts at integration?

Spears: Again, a question fit for a book… Specialization of knowledge came about because of the Enlightenment turn and the establishment of “research universities” (e.g. the University of Berlin and later in the U.S., Johns Hopkins) where modern empirical scientific methods were the primary method of inquiry. Theology, previously, had been “queen of the sciences,” and it was through the lens of theology that all science was understood. In the new research university, theology, for example, had no claim of absolute or ultimate authority on truth because it could not be investigated by the means of the 5 senses. This radical restructuring of truth called all of the “humanities” into account.  This is due to the fact that the idea of what constitutes truth within the humanities would not fit within the new scientific research paradigm. This led to a new professional view of academia as much of the new science was driven by a more economic model of academic work, which was much more focused on what universities could bring to a nation in terms of its how university research could through the scientific research enhance a nations economic viability. Education became increasingly focused on empirical research rather than continuing the classical model of education which was committed to training students in the fundamentals of intellectual discourse and virtue. This commitment to research of course also deeply affected both teachers and students. In universities, professors no longer saw their task as shepherding students into mastery of ideas, but in terms of their own personal research agenda. The modern research agenda within universities puts students and faculty in more of an adversarial role, as students demand time from faculty members who need that time to produce “scholarship” which is the coin of the realm within the university. I am glad that Biola sees both faculty scholarship and mentoring as fundamental for a good university professor. 

What difference does it make for education if scripture is viewed as a source of knowledge about reality vs. scripture as merely a source of one’s religious beliefs?

Spears: This is a common problem. Much of our world does not think of scripture as being “true,” that is a means by which we have access to reality. The epistemological marginalization of the scriptures makes relative the claims of the Christian faith. This allows for people to have personal Christian commitments, but does not allow for scripture to be a source by which you can determine the rightness or wrongness of an action. To remove this fundamental source of reality is akin to taking away our sight and expecting us to have a cogent discussion of the paintings in the J. Paul Getty Museum.  Scripture, to paraphrase Dallas Willard, “…Is the most important book about the most important thing.” To ignore scripture as a source of reality hamstrings humanity in terms of our ability to truly flourish.  Scripture is the true story about God’s creation of this universe and the fall and redemption of humanity. If we believe that scripture is true, it necessitates our mastery of and comportment to it.

Loomis: It makes every difference.  Scripture as special revelation is a key that unlocks the ontology of life’s ends and means.  It brings coherence and understanding to an otherwise incoherent and misunderstood world.  We can begin to understand human performance in terms of proper function.  To think Christianly is to think more broadly and liberally about any given field of knowledge, the opposite from what some screed-slinging critics have supposed.  Understanding Jesus’ vision as best we can is seeing a little more deeply and clearly about a matter than we would or could otherwise.  Education as the locus of learning, the locus of revealing and uncovering, as a process of moving from ignorance to truth and understanding, is itself only made possible by the reality tokened by Scripture: if we are reading the claims of the Bible accurately, there is literally no education anywhere but for the ontological reality of God.

Part three of our interview with Spears and Loomis can be found here

Interview with Gregg Ten Elshof: I Told Me So (part one)

Posted on August 6, 2009 by - gregg ten elshof, I told me so (book), interview, self-deception, self-knowledge

We are pleased to have interviewed Gregg Ten Elshof about his latest book, I Told Me So: Self-Deception and the Christian Life (Eerdmans, 2009). Gregg is a professor of philosophy and the department chairperson of the undergraduate philosophy program at Biola University. He has also been a contributor to Philosophia Christi. Below is part one of a two part interview with Gregg.

How did this book come about for you?

I first took up an interest in self-deception as a graduate student at USC in the 90’s. I was just beginning to modify my approach to the Way of Jesus in response to the reading I had been doing about spiritual formation (from Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, etc.). I began to suspect that I had fallen prey to self-deception in significant ways and that my Christian brothers and sisters had too. But I found precious little in the contemporary literature on the Christian life that focused on self-deception. I devoted my doctoral research to defending a model of self-knowledge which made sense of self-deception with an eye toward writing this book at some point. In the ten years or so since, I’ve been reading and teaching courses about self-knowledge and self-deception. Finally, last year, I felt like I had enough to say to warrant the writing of a book.

What is your model of self-knowledge that makes sense of self-deception?

I’ve defended a traditional account of self-knowledge according to which the most direct way of knowing about yourself parallels the most direct way of knowing about anything else — observation. Put differently, I’ve defended an observational account of introspection. I think an observation model makes the most sense of our experience of ourselves. So it’s defensible for its own sake. But it also makes clear sense of self-deception. Just as there are recognizable conditions that make for illusion in sense-perception (speed, lack of light, object too small, object too big, object under water, etc.), one can expect there to be recognizable conditions that make for illusion in introspection or inner-perception.

How does your book contribute to our knowledge of Christian experience?

Most Christians who are interested in spiritual formation suspect (as I did) that self-deception is alive and well in their own experience and in the experiences of those around them. Most pastors are aware that self-deception is occurring to one degree or another in their congregations. Psychologists who focus on this sort of thing have explored the various forms that self-deception can take and the conditions under which it reliably occurs. I Told Me So is the only contemporary book I know about, though, that explores the various manifestations of self-deception in Christian sub-cultures in particular and provides explicitly Christian wisdom about what to do with and about it.


Why do you think there has been a lack of responsible attention to the issue of self-deception?

The first chapter of the book is given over to this question. Part of the answer, I think, has to do with the fact that authenticity has been given a very large promotion in the ordering of the virtues over the past 100 years or so. Interestingly, for college-aged students, the most significant qualification for a leadership position is authenticity. Older generations, by comparison, rank competency much higher on the list of qualifications. In our culture, it has become all-important to be authentic. Interestingly, self-deception often occurs when there is some painful truth about yourself that you’re not willing to face squarely. Well, if authenticity is all-important, then self-deception is chief among the vices. The rise in significance of authenticity means that the admission of self-deception in oneself is more damning and painful. So the motivation to avoid that admission is stronger. I think we have collectively avoided the topic of self-deception because, as we heap increasing praise on authenticity, it is an increasingly painful thing to recognize in ourselves.

So what is self-deception? How does it come about?

As you might expect, philosophers argue about what exactly self-deception is. Its label practically screams paradox and invites philosophical reflection about how best to characterize what it is that that we’re talking about. I doubt that there is a single set of necessary and sufficient conditions that captures all of the phenomena we’re likely to label “self-deception.” I Told Me So interacts with cases of self-deception, though, that can be characterized this way: To be self-deceived is to intentionally manage one’s own beliefs for some purpose other than the pursuit of truth. It’s worth noting that, given this characterization, one can be self-deceived in believing what is true. One can even be self-deceived in believing something that is true and for which one has evidence. Self-deception occurs most often when there is an emotional attachment to believing in a particular direction. It often involves the management of attention away from evidence that would disrupt the desired belief. And it seems to be capable of achieving greater distances from truth and rationality in groups than in the individual. It was Nietzsche, I believe, who said that insanity is rare in the individual but the rule in groups.

How must the self be understood if self-deception is to be rightly understood?

Well, the kind of transparency that characterizes the Moderns (Descartes, Locke, etc.) is out. There’s a whole lot going on in my mind that is not available by means of direct and simple introspection. On the other hand, I don’t think a proper understanding of self-deception requires anything like the Freudian unconscious censor. In the book, I try to steer clear of both of these models. What we need, I think, is a view of the mind and of intention which accommodates the suggestion that things can be closer or further away from the center of attention and consciousness. At any given time in my experience my direct focus is on a very limited number of things. Beyond that, though, there is a horizon of conscious experience which fades gradually into objects which lie beyond the scope of my awareness. Self-deception most often occurs, I think, on the peripheral edges of consciousness – not in the center of my focused attention but also not in an unconscious self that is, in principle, off limits to examination.


Next week we continue with part two of our interview with Gregg Ten Elshof.