This post was written by Matt Bazemore on September 17, 2008
In Part II of Dynamics of Spiritual Life, Richard Lovelace switches his attention from the aspects of renewal to the renewing of the church. By renewal, he is referring to the sanctification process whereby the Holy Spirit works in the individual, transforming him into the image of Christ. He begins this part of the book with a focus on the local congregation and prescribes some principles for implementing the aspects of renewal covered in Part I of his book. He observes a phenomenon which he calls the sanctification gap, a “conspiracy to somehow mislay the Protestant tradition of spiritual growth and to concentrate instead on frantic witnessing activity, sermons on John 3:16 and theological arguments over eschatological subtleties” (p. 232).
According to Lovelace this laying aside occurred as a reaction to hyper-calvinism. With hyper-calvinism many of the requirements of the Christian life were lumped into conversion (p. 233-5). This implied one had to be a practicing mystic in order to be considered a Christian. The reaction led to a lessening of the requirements for initial conversion. Charles Finney is characteristic of this reaction by his call for “instantaneous commitment and instantaneous conversion.” While hyper-calvinism made it difficult for those to enter the kingdom, the reaction made it easy for people to enter on the basis of simple faith and initial repentance. The result of this reaction was that sanctification was left out of place.
With sanctification out of place Christians were left with a general ignorance of how to grow from the Real to the Ideal. The Ideal is simply that which comes to mind when we think of the end result of the Christian life, i.e. individuals fully transformed into the image of Christ. It also includes the feeling that we often have when we feel like we should be more spiritually mature than we are. The exhortation from many pulpits is to be like Jesus, and three more things to do are adumbrated as application. Unfortunately there is very little connection between such sermons and what believers experience on an every day basis. Hence we feel guilt and shame for not being farther along in our journeys when we fail to measure up. The Real is this every day experience of our own sin that still exists in us. It is the constant awareness that we are not even close to being like Jesus and we have no idea how to change. We are left constantly aware of where we should be, without the knowledge and skill of moving in partnership with the Spirit from where we are in that moment in our growth and development.
The sanctification gap, therefore, is the ignorance of how to move from the Real, where we truly are, toward the Ideal, where Jesus is. Because of the sanctification gap, Christians often engage in frantic witnessing activity, sermons on John 3:16, etc., in order to feel like they are doing something that contributes towards their growth. They do not have the tools, so to speak, to partner with the Spirit in the process of sanctification and are left in the shallowness of outward activity without inner transformation. This shallowness ultimately leaves us thirsty.
As Lovelace closes his chapter he discusses three things of importance regarding the closing of the sanctification gap. I will mention only one. The first thing to do is open ourselves to the truth and recognize that it is there. Our problem, both individually and corporately, is that the content of our spirituality is anemic and superficial and thus people looking in from the outside see a spirituality that does not correspond to our claims about the Christian life. This hurts our credibility. As Lovelace states, “…unless what we export is more than a two-dimensional [i.e. superficial] caricature of Christian spirituality, we will not overcome the credibility gap among consumers” (p. 236).
This is the crucial point for Christians desiring to be faithful in the academy. An anemic spirituality will have at least two effects. First, it will not provide the nourishment that one needs as a redeemed image bearer of God in light of academic culture. Second, Christianity will not be worthy of consideration by those who appreciate having depth or richness of life, which, I think, includes a large number of academics.
This post was written by Matt Bazemore on August 26, 2008
Previously I argued that developing and refining a theology of life is important for living as an integrated being as God intended. What comes into focus from a theology of life is a way of life. A way of life is the ordered aggregate of practices, responses and activities in which a person participates that grows out of that person’s theology. Let me expound on this definition. An ordered aggregate is a collection of entities arranged in a non-random way. An example of an ordered aggregate is the DNA molecule. DNA is a collection of certain molecules arranged in a particular order. An example of an unordered aggregate is a pile of sand. An ordered aggregate is implied by one’s understanding of what life is—it is ordered because it is informed by one’s theology of life.
The “practices, responses and activities” mentioned above are generic terms that summarize the whole range of what one does. “Practices” are things such as celebrating Christmas, going to church every Sunday, as well as the classic spiritual disciplines. Practices are regular, proactive steps that one takes in life. “Responses” are more passive in that they are ways in which we respond to unanticipated events in our lives. For instance, the Good Samaritan had a response of love toward the victim that he encountered. It was an unanticipated circumstance that arose, requiring a response. Responses also include ways we react to tragedy when it hits close to home. “Activities” refers to things that are not regular like practices but are still things that we do, whether internal or external. For example, mowing the lawn is an external activity, whereas thinking about mathematics is an internal activity. Again, I am using these three terms to refer to everything and anything that humans do. “Christian spirituality,” then, refers to both the theology of life and the way of life for the individual.
An important advantage of conceiving of “Christian spirituality” in these terms is that it helps counteract dehumanizing effects of many things in modern life, including compartmentalization in the academy. Compartmentalization occurs in the academy because the university values the gathering of information, but typically provides very little encouragement for other humanizing activities of the mind such as meditation and reflection. For example, “How does this research shape who I am?” is not a question that scholars are encouraged to ask in most academic settings. Concerns about goodness and beauty in every discipline have been marginalized in the modern academy as well as in modern culture as a whole. This marginalization is dehumanizing in that it leaves out an appreciation of goodness and beauty which is so essential to leading a flourishing human life. “Christian spirituality” as described above would enable one to recognize some dehumanizing effects of academic culture and take steps, such as including time for reflection in one’s daily schedule, to counteract it.
This post was written by Matt Bazemore on August 11, 2008
The Teacher in Ecclesiastes rightly said, “Of making many books there is no end, and much study is weariness to the flesh” (Eccl. 12:12, ESV). Living a life that values the mind is hard work and can be very tiring. But there is a danger that lurks in the shadows from which we must guard ourselves. The danger is that in developing one’s mind one ceases to live as an integrated being, i.e. neglecting the rest of one’s humanity. Since this neglect of one’s humanity is a very big topic I will be expounding on it, highlighting those things that have surfaced in my thinking as it currently stands.
In order to live a fully human life we need to have a grasp of what life is. Paul Gould in The Two Tasks of the Christian Scholar correctly locates the task of integration in the human person, who in turn finds himself in the meta-narrative of Scripture. It is in this meta-narrative that we also find the answer to the question of what life is.
Everyone has his own understanding of life which is dynamic and is (typically) refined over time. As Christian scholars we must call this understanding a theology of life in virtue of God’s relation to humanity. The word “theology” implies this relation as well as the knowledge God has revealed through Scripture and Creation. For example, we find that our Triune God is a humanist in the sense that he is for human flourishing. The glimpse we have of the Garden of Eden is a rich and full experience of life as it was meant to be. We also find in his general revelation that he has structured the world in a way that allows us to flourish as his image bearers.
I understand that in defending one’s dissertation one is usually asked how one’s work contributes to humanity’s knowledge. I think an important activity for Christian scholars to pursue is to reflect on how their field of study contributes to a biblically grounded theology of life. How does your field contribute to human flourishing? Such reflection is a crucial first step towards living as an integrated being.
This post was written by Matt Bazemore on May 3, 2007
In my last post, I described how Moral Irrealism is rooted in the scientific worldview, and why it makes actual moral truth impossible. Thus, what is the Moral Realist’s response to Moral Irrealism and the absolute conception?
Moral Realism maintains that ‘appearance’ qualities are real for two main reasons. First, the absolute conception is a theory selected upon subjective criteria. The criteria for the absolute conception are dependent upon the human perspective and our preferences for organizing data. Thus, the absolute conception is ultimately subjective.
Second, the absolute conception explains away most of our experience. Qualities such as color, smell and beauty are nothing more than illusions. Before moving on, think about everything that is included in that last statement. This means the majority of our experience is illusory, i.e. in the realm of appearance. This seems to be too high a price to pay for holding to the absolute conception.
Moral Realism provides the following account for our perception of qualities dependent upon a particular perspective: our mode of perception does not produce qualities but enables us to discern them in reality. The range of modes of perception is limited by one’s capacities. If one lacks the capacity to smell, then that mode of perception is unavailable. The absolute conception does not provide an account explaining why experienced ‘appearance’ qualities, which we understand to be in reality, are unreal. Thus, there are good reasons to maintain that our common experience of light, color, smell and beauty is of a mind-independent reality.
Therefore, the tragedy at Virginia Tech is evil in a mind-independent sense. When call the events “evil,” we are using “evil” in a descriptive sense, not an evaluative sense that is dependent upon the perspective of the speaker.
I would like to say that my heart aches for the community surrounding Virginia Tech in the recent killings. It is clear that what happened was truly wrong and atrocious, and I hope the relevance of this discussion is clearly seen in light of these recent events.
Part 1 Part 2
This post was written by Matt Bazemore on April 30, 2007
In my previous entry we were left with two major positions concerning ethics: Moral Realism and Moral Irrealism. Today we will examine how Moral Irrealism analyzes the meaning of moral statements.
Moral Irrealism makes a distinction between descriptive and evaluative meaning that is found in every statement of value, such as “That is cruel.? Descriptive meaning refers to the meaning that is not dependent upon any particular perspective. In other words, multiple people could agree with its meaning, because something external to the speaker is being described.
Evaluative meaning is dependent upon a particular perspective, i.e. multiple people would have differences about the same thing, such as the taste of a particular dish. This distinction of meaning is grounded in what is called the absolute conception of the world. When Christians hear the word, “absolute? in relation to ethics, their usual response is gladness. Celebrations would be premature in this case, as will soon become evident.
The absolute conception seeks a description of reality not dependent upon any particular perspective. This is related to scientific methodology. Science seeks to provide us with a picture of the world that is independent of any particular perspective. As scientists study the world they do not find qualities such as “goodness? and so conclude that values are of appearance and not reality. Thus, the absolute conception places objective qualities in reality, and subjective qualities in appearance.
The Moral Irrealist can affirm as actually existing in reality only those qualities that science deems descriptive, and not evaluative. Evaluative qualities, while perhaps containing or causing a high level of emotive content, do not really refer to anything outside of the person who is making an observation. They can’t – “good? and “bad? aren’t really “there?.
The success and prevalence of the scientific worldview adds much weight to the Moral Irrealist position. But if Moral Irrealism is true, then moral truth is impossible. This implies that those who find the recent shootings at Virginia Tech horrifying are feeling an affective response to an opinion and not the truth of the situation. Despite this rather damning implication however, the Moral Realist still needs to provide a response to the absolute conception.
Part 1 Part 3
This post was written by Matt Bazemore on April 27, 2007
I recently read Moral Vision: An Introduction to Ethics (Blackwell Publishing, 1988) by David McNaughton. This work not only introduces ethics, but it’s richly satisfying food for the soul.
Moral Vision begins with the question Where are properties of value located? Properties, or qualities, of value refer to things such as beauty, ugliness, right and wrong. How we answer this question is profoundly important, as I will seek to demonstrate over the next couple of entries.
To begin, let’s say Sam observes two children attempting to light a gasoline-soaked cat on fire. Sam states, “That is cruel,? and acts to stop the children. Sam’s action may be analyzed two ways. The first takes the statement “That is cruel? as referring to the children’s action. Sam discerns the quality of cruelty and a belief is formed. To discern means the ability to select a quality and refer to it by stating a belief. The belief is true if and only if it corresponds to reality, the mind-independent world. In discerning a moral fact, Sam’s action is justified to bring about a different state of affairs, such as preventing the children from further harming the cat. This analysis that places the locus of value (both moral and non-moral) in reality is called Moral Realism. The Moral Realist position in which Sam’s belief alone is sufficient for motivating one to action is called Cognitivism. Moral Realism provides a basis for our experience of moral truth, moral justification and moral observation in reality.
The second position analyzes Sam’s discernment as referring to himself. Sam’s statement has two kinds of meaning: the factual or descriptive meaning that refers to the observation, and the evaluative meaning that refers to an emotive state in Sam. This would be called Moral Irrealism, the analysis of moral statements that places qualities of value in the subject. Moral Irrealism would include “Sam felt a strong disfavor? to explain why he acted. This position in which the emotive quality, which does not have a truth value, is a necessary constituent to explain Sam’s action is called Non-Cognitivism. Thus, moral truth is not possible.
This second view is a serious position, and is one way to ground properties of value on a scientific and physicalist (or atheistic) worldview. In my next post, I will explain how the modern scientific perspective undergirds Non-Cognitivism, and why it is not a robust view to hold.
Part 2 Part 3
This post was written by Matt Bazemore on November 15, 2006
An additional component that is included in the structure of the person is the deontologic component. This component refers to the fact that good, bad, right or wrong are assigned to at least some of the experiences that are continually incorporated into the structure of the person. I say “some? for the reason that I am not ready to claim that all experiences, beliefs, or desires have a moral quality assigned. If a moral quality has been assigned to at least some beliefs or experiences, then there is some integration of the moral faculty with the other faculties of the person.
For instance, let us say that a student hears an idea, B. Upon hearing it, the content of B is then incorporated into the Belief-Desire set. B may give rise to a positive, negative, or an indiscernible affect given the relations of B to the individual’s Belief-Desire structure at that time. Moral qualities are also assigned in this acquisition which could be expressed in the proposition, “This idea is good/bad.? I take this to be a plausible picture of the educational process in which a moral quality is assigned to an acquired idea. This occurs because every individual soul is an integrated whole (see part 1).
My larger point of why the Academic-Professional Model is deficient is hopefully made clear from this discussion. The A-P Model does not view the student as an integrated person. If lectures, assignments, and curricula are structured for the sole purpose of acquiring propositional knowledge, then that approach does not address the whole person. Class time becomes more of indoctrination than actual learning. Students passively take in what the teacher says with no reflection on how that information shapes them as a human being. In other words, there are larger things occurring in the individual in the educational process. This has implications for what kind of people universities are producing.
This also has implications for the task of integrating a Christian world view with one’s field. If the spiritual faculty is a faculty of the soul, and it is integrated with the mind along with the rest of the soul, then intellectual beliefs and religious beliefs can be integrated. This assumes that religious beliefs address the spiritual faculty of the person, and intellectual beliefs (those dealing with one’s academic field) address the mind of the person.
This post was written by Matt Bazemore on November 13, 2006
Previously I stated that the human person is composed of inseparable parts and that these parts are integrated with one another. In this entry I will deal with the relations of these parts. My intent is not to give an exhaustive account of the human person, but rather to provide some of the building blocks that ultimately lead to the task of integration. I am in the middle of an argument that provides a reason for the deficiency of the Academic-Professional Model defined as the model that seeks to pass on knowledge and professional skills with no moral training or reflection provided for the student, even though this may not be the intent of the faculty.
The inseparable parts of the human person have a certain kind of order or relations with one another. For instance the mind seems to play a role of gatekeeper. A person will usually not believe something that they do not think is plausible, such as the concept that the earth is flat. This places the mind in a certain ordering with the other faculties. This ordering results in a structure.
What is this structure made of? Richard Swinburne’s Belief-Desire set I think is a good starting point for understanding this structure (Evolution of the Soul, Oxford U. Press, Revised Edition, 1997). The internal structure of the person is the structure of the Belief-Desire set and the relations between the multitude of beliefs and desires.
Swinburne’s model however, is inadequate to account for the whole person. I think the structure includes more than just beliefs and desires. Evidence for this claim comes from a branch of the field of Psychology known as Cognitive Therapy. Rational Emotive Theory (RET) claims that every experience one has ever had, including those in an educational environment, is a part of one’s memory structure and has two parts: meaning and affect. The meaning is the belief that results from the experience and the affect is the emotion that results from the experience. According to a psychologist friend of mine, RET has a lot of documented success in research and therapy. I think this success is due to the fact that it makes the connection between the Belief-Desire set and emotions. RET points to a connection that agrees with my brief ontology. So the Belief-Desire set is not just composed of beliefs and desires, but there are also affects that make up the set’s composition.
In light of our discussion thus far, a number of questions arise: Does this view of the integrated human soul fit with our experiences and our intuitions? Does it seem, prima facie, to be true? If it does seem to be true, as I believe it is, how would it influence the way we study, teach or live?
This post was written by Matt Bazemore on November 9, 2006
In my previous two entries on educational models (part 1 and part 2) I argued, briefly, that the Transformational Model of seminary education provides a model of education that is more sufficient than the current Academic-Professional Model utilized in both secular and non-secular universities. Why is the A-P Model deficient? The A-P model is deficient because it does not address the whole person in the process of education. This answer deals with the notion of human persons. So, what do I mean when I refer to humans?
One essential property of humans is that they are persons. If one is a person, then she at least has three distinct necessary parts called faculties: a mind, a will, and emotions. To state it in theological terms, personhood is a necessary property of the imago Dei. I am using these parts of the person in their commonsense fashion. A more robust presentation would obviously need to explicate what is meant by each part and why each is necessary for personhood.
If personhood is composed of parts, referring to the faculties as such, then what kind of parts are they? One level of investigation seems to be that they could either be separable or inseparable parts. Separable parts still have existence apart from the whole, such as a table leg. Inseparable parts cannot be separated from the whole and still exist. The mind, will, and emotions are inseparable parts. They are incapable of existing apart from the whole. It seems to me that if one could remove the mind from a soul that soul would be destroyed.
If they are inseparable parts, then they would be connected in a “tightly knit sort of way.? One word that I think can be used to explicate on some level this connection is integrated. Each part is integrated with the whole in such a way that to take one part away is to destroy that part and the whole.
If the parts of the person are integrated in an inseparable way, then they cannot be isolated. I am using isolation to refer to the severing of connections from the other parts. Isolation is distinguished from focusing. A part of the person, say the mind, can be given focused attention for a time, but not in isolation from the emotions and will.
In my next entry I will deal with the relations of the inseparable parts. In Part 3 I will relate this brief ontology of the human person to the deficiency of the A-P model of education.
This post was written by Matt Bazemore on October 2, 2006
Continuing from Coe’s paper from my last entry, the second model for seminary training is called the Transformational Model. It includes the gaining of knowledge and useful skills for ministry but centers on the work of the Holy Spirit in the student’s life as they attend seminary. In other words, attention is given to the whole student. In Medieval times monks would reflect on the character of God while doing mathematics, gardening –whatever they were learning. They saw the reality that knowledge is efficacious to the whole person because the faculties of the person are fully integrated.
But one might immediately respond with one cannot have this kind of class structure in a secular university environment. One cannot have their students reflect on the nature and character of God in the secular classroom without potential consequences.
But what if the reflection only dealt with the content of the class? For instance, at the beginning of a history class, ask students to reflect on the importance of history. Ask them to take an hour, sit quietly for 20 minutes with no distractions, 10 minutes thinking about the question and 30 minutes typing an answer making it pass/fail. This kind of exercise at least begins the process for the student of internalizing some of the content of the class.
My point in all this is the Christian interested in academic integration understands not only the importance of knowledge but also its role to the whole person. Therefore, the knowledge that is passed through the teacher-student relation must take the whole person into account. However, the university environment only addresses the acquisition of knowledge and skills with no concern for the whole person, especially the moral aspect. Because of this restrictive environment the Christian needs to give thought to this state of affairs and how one might overcome it. I have suggested one type of assignment that might minimally help the student reflect on course content in order to bring the whole person into the learning process. However, much more thought is needed.
|
