Free Their Minds

William T Cavanaugh
The brilliant young Catholic theologian William T. Cavanaugh deflates some gassy notions about education. This has implications for all sorts of teaching, but it rings especially true for undergraduate education.

[T]here is no good reason to suppose that authority of itself is a hindrance to academic freedom. Indeed, Christians argue the opposite: the very exercise of rationality depends on the exercise of authority. This may seem like a counterintuitive claim, given the regularity with which students are admonished to ‘think for yourselves.’

[S]tudents manifestly do not learn by becoming more autonomous. To think critically and creatively one must possess certain habits and dispositions acquired by hard experience in the context of a community in which authority has an orienting function. To ask students to make choices while attempting to strip away any basis they might have for making choices is to breed arbitrariness and cynicism, not critical reasoning. To tell students to rely on nothing but their own authority is to entrap them in a prison of the self, and they tend to resent it, not least because a professor’s denial of authority is often a ploy –conscious or not– to win the students over to his or her worldview without appearing to have exercised authority over them. Students today by and large do not need to be freed from narrow dogmatism and unthinking acceptance of religious authority. They need to be freed from the confines of the self and the dreary consumerism that teaches them to regard truth as something chosen, not something received.

– William T. Cavanaugh, “Sailing under True Colors: Academic Freedom and the Ecclesially Based University,” in Michael L. Budde and John Wright, eds. Conflicting Allegiances: The Church-Based University in a Liberal Democratic Society (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2004), p. 49.

Edit This

Nature’s God, the Supreme Judge, etc.

declaration
There is an argument about the American founders which is always going on somewhere, and is never productive.

First speaker: “This is a Christian nation, with a Christian founding, and the religion reflected in all of our founding documents is Christianity. None of our polity makes sense without the Judeo-Christian origins.”

Second speaker: “This is an Englightenment nation, whose major advantage was that it had the good fortune to be designed by rationalists to keep church and state separate, and to keep religion a private affair.”

First speaker: (produces reams of documents showing Christian influence on American ideals)

Second speaker: (cites Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc.)

First speaker: “It’s so Christian!”

Second speaker: “It’s so not!”

Leaving these two characters to their own discussion (don’t worry, it’ll still be going on when we get back), we can save the whole subject with a little bit of nuance.

Let’s say you start with a chemically pure version of the Christian faith, in which you’ve isolated the thing itself and removed any contaminants. Then you put that into circulation in the late eighteenth century, when certain crying political needs are being felt. What you get is a particular application of some useful Christian ideas to the needs of the time. The resulting political/cultural/economic entity is a hybrid. The idea of America assembled by the founders has elements of its Judeo-Christian heritage (which is why Speaker 1 can go on forever without saying anything false) and elements of Enlightenment political theory (which is why Speaker 2 can do likewise). These two influences react on each other in unprecedented ways, and the hybrid turns out to be a vigorous and apparently stable organism.

Take as a case study the theology of the Declaration of Indpendence.
(more…)

Edit This

The Declaration of Independence

we hold these truths
There are many ways to celebrate the American brand of political freedom on this Independence Day weekend, and the bookish way is to take a moment to ponder the Declaration of Independence. Its words are so familiar that it can be hard to hear them at all, so try the mental trick of imagining what it was like to read this little document in 1776: It must have sounded like a blank check for uppity colonists to make whatever kind of government they wanted to. If it hadn’t been followed up by the Constitution within a few years, the Declaration would have come to signify something very different than it does.

So try reading it as if today is 1776, and recapture some of the suspenseful drama these words produced on the world stage, as the world watched the American experiment. Then play the whole thing out mentally, and watch this stream of liberty flow between solid embankments of the Constitution, broadening out in Lincoln’s interpretation (four score and seven years downstream) into a mighty river of freedom. Then set off some fireworks if your local municipality allows it!

The best online presentation I’ve seen of the Declaration is here, with lots of explanatory notes: hyperlinks that define its vocabulary by reference to Dr. Johnson’s dictionary, historical background on George’s abuses, etc.

declaration figurine
And here’s a fun project, if your idea of fun involves translating eighteenth century documents. The Declaration in foreign translations. If you know another language (which they say is a pretty un-American thing to do, but I don’t believe them), hear how the Declaration sounds in Italian:

Noi consideriamo come verità evidenti in se medesime che tutti gli uomini sono stati creati uguali; che han ricevuti dal loro Creatore certi diritti inalienabili; che nel numero di questi diritti vi sono, la vita, la libertà, e la ricerca della felicità;

(Oooh, diritti inalienabili, cool!) or Spanish:

Nosotros creemos ser evidente en sí mismo, que todos los hombres nacen iguales y dotados por su Criador de ciertos derechos inagenables: que entre estos son los principales la seguridad de la libertad y la vida, que constituyen la humana felicidad:

(Oooh, derechos inagenables, I want some of those!), or German:

Wir halten diese Wahrheiten für ausgemacht, daß alle Menschen gleich erschaffen worden, daß sie von ihrem Schöpfer mit gewissen unveräusserlichen Rechten begabt worden, worunter sind Leben, Freiheit und das Streben nach Glückseligkeit.

(Yeah, unveräusserlichen Rechten! And a little bit of Streben nach Glückseligkeit to boot!)

It’s also available in French, Hebrew, Russian, Japanese, and the Malay language. In most cases, it’s re-translated back into English so that even if you don’t know the other language you can see what becomes of the founders’ words in a foreign tongue.

What I’d like to see is an Arabic translation of the Declaration. Come to think of it, I bet they’d like to see that in Iraq right about now, and in a host of other places in the Arab world. Somebody should put that on their to-do list…

Edit This

Storming the Battlements

storming battlements
Variation in mark-making: A minus. The passage where the slotted visor gives way to the billowing crest is especially strong. Could have used some punctiliar elements. There is only one dot in the whole composition. And the rectilinear elements are curvilinears in disguise.

Contrast: A. Good decision to go with the blue marker and leave the background untreated. Very intelligent deployment of darks (sword and sheath) and near-darks (plume)

Control of lines: B. Watch tendency to let lines run downhill left to right; close the forms at the bottom of the neck.

Gestural force: A plus. Spirited!

Composition: B plus. Strong horizontals and verticals (sword, castle wall) set off by a striking diagonal (sheath) in strategic bottom right of image. Vertical of sword pointed at figure on the wall, nice touch. Figure on the wall balanced by helmet crest. Total composition is drifting into too strict a hieratic structure; it could almost have a grid superimposed on it. Also, because you let the horizontal line run downhill, it touches the plume at almost a visual tangent; a bit above or a bit below would have made a stronger separation and popped the forms apart better.

Proportion: difficult to assign a grade without determining whether the ovresized head is intentional for expressive or cartoony effect

Imagery: A minus. Like all art, this piece is more valuable for the questions it poses than for any answers it might give. Is the knight attacking, or defending, the castle indicated by the horizontal line? What is the meaning of the wave being offered by the figure on the castle wall? Well chosen, minimalist imagery that invites dialogue with the viewer, but it runs the risk of being too obvious at the first look.

Overall grade: A. Keep up the good work. A few thousand more knights and I think we’ll have something.

Edit This

R. A. Torrey: Who You Callin’ Narrow?

tor 90yr biola wt

Here is a piece of vintage R. A. Torrey (1856-1928), published in 1917. Everything you could love or hate about Torrey is right here in cold print: the quick wit, the principled stand, the willingness to embrace the social stigma of conservative orthodoxy, the vicious counter-attack on the cultured despisers of religion, the readiness to fire the “more educated than thou” salvo in comat, the ready answer to every question on a list, and the clincher argument: “how many souls have you rescued lately?” If you were to read this piece in historical context, you’d have to bear in mind that Torrey is in the midst of a very gradual transition from cheery road warrior to embattled founder of fundamentalism; and that American culture at this time is assertively renegotiating its contract with its evangelical past. We’re in a different world now, and some of Torrey’s rhetorical moves wouldn’t play and shouldn’t be used. Still, there’s nothing like watching R. A. Torrey decide to call out his opponent and go to the heart of the matter.

The Narrowness and Bigotry of So-Called Liberals
By R. A. Torrey
The King’s Business 8:3 (March 1917), 233-235

As a rule the most narrow and bigoted men in the world are those who most flaunt their liberality. The following correspondence is an illustration of this narrowness. The quiet assumption of the new theology men that all who do not accept their ill-founded conclusions do not think for themselves and belong to “the dark ages” would be amusing if it were not so sad.

While holding united evangelistic meetings in the City of Philadelphia for three months in 1906, I received the following letter from a Universalistic minister in a city in New Jersey. Of course we do not give the minister’s name, because the correspondence reflects seriously upon him. The letter read as follows:

Please excuse me for the liberty I take in addressing to you these few lines, but I desire from your pen a little information which I trust you will gladly give me. If you answer them in the affirmative, would you give me the names of five presidents or professors of theological schools who agree with you in the theology? I have kept in touch with your work from the beginning of the Philadelphia mission, and I desire now to know correctly the position you hold upon the central theological and ecclesiastical doctrines. The Ledger reports of your sermons indicate that you are riding in a theological stage coach, constructed in the dark ages, and I cannot conceive of a Yale graduate doing such a thing. Believing there must be some mistake, I write for light.
Thanking you, I am,
Yours in Christian fellowship.

The following list of questions was enclosed in the letter:
(more…)

Edit This

The DaVinci Hope

Bob Hope comic book
Here is the greatest comic book ever made in the history of the universe. The very existence of this artifact justifies the medium of comic books, validates the career of Bob Hope, and raises the artistry of Leonardo to a new level. This is what the internets are for, this is why the Library of Congress has an archive, this is why printing was invented, this is why there was a Renaissance, this is why humans painted animals on the walls of caves at the dawn of history. What did we do before we found this image? And now with you I share it. Use it wisely, use it well.

Edit This

Two Brown Knights

two brown knights
Hold up your shield, brother Knight, and ward off that stiff wind that threatens to push us over. This rugged terrain beneath our feet makes for tough going, but we must stay at our post with our weapons at the ready and our unfashionable noseguards in place. Whatever happens, don’t let the enemy see you smile or frown. In fact, keep your mouth a perfectly straight line.

Edit This

What Got Into Robinson Jeffers?

Jeffers on Time
I mean literally, what is the thing that got inside of this California poet?

Robinson Jeffers (1887-1962) is not read much anymore, but I predict his work will make a big comeback in the next decade. I somewhat grudgingly admit that he stands out as one of California’s most accomplished poets, in fact one of the most important poets in American history. He was very popular in the early decades of the twentieth century, popular enough to land on the cover of Time. Classically educated and fearsomely intelligent, he brought the tough discipline of the great Western poetic tradition along with him when he perched in central California and devoted his life’s work to describing the spirit of California.

“Perched” is the right word: Jeffers imagined himself as a kind of hawk on a rock, sharp-eyed, predatory, inhabiting inhospitable regions, and living by taut muscle and will. Just look at the formal elements of his poetry. Without rhymes or meter, his poetry rumbles along in eerie lines that obey some inner logic which seems predetermined yet is impossible to forecast. Relentelessly serious, sometimes outright didactic, his authorial voice rings out like an unlikely cross between an Old Testament prophet and a manic Delphic seer. The Judaeo-Christian echo is natural enough, as his father was a theologian and Old Testament scholar. The pagan tonality was chosen and carefully cultivated, as Jeffers found a real kinship with the rougher edges of the age of Periclean Athens. He wrote long poems in an ancient Greek idiom, but he’s no Homer, and wouldn’t want to be. His long poems are more like some kind of central coast Sophocles, or (more on target theologically and aesthetically) Aeschylus at Big Sur.

Having made the grand tour of Western culture in its Christian and Graeco-Roman forms, Robinson Jeffers placed himself on the west coast of the United States and set himself to be the spokesman for the place itself. In an image that recurs in many of his poems, he thinks of the human race as having completed a “long migration” out of the East, across Europe and into the new world, across America to the very edge of the continent. From California, the final migrators look further west and see only their point of origin. Migration complete. This is the end.

And this “continent’s end” is where Jeffers perched to carry out his poetic vocation. He came here and opened himself up to whatever is, to hear it say its word to a humanity which had nowhere further to go. He built a rock cottage with a tower in it, and he waited for the spirit of the place to become manifest and audible.

He opened himself up to whatever is, and whatever is got into him and spoke. What it said, according to Jeffers’ transcription over the course of decades, is that it doesn’t care much for humans.

jeffers hawk tower

You’d have to see this worked out over the course of his poems, especially the long ones that try the reader’s patience with their gruesome plots and shrieky characters (Roan Stallion, Medea, The Double Axe, Tamar). But Jeffers also made helpful comments about his overall approach from time to time. He declared that his goal was “to present a certain philosophical attitude, which might be called Inhumanism, a shifting of emphasis and significance from man to not-man; the rejection of human solipsism and recognition of the transhuman magnificence.” This Inhumanism was, according to Jeffers, the proper attitude for humans, and was consonant with the way the rest of the cosmos felt about humanity. The basic idea is that the human race is a microscopic portion of the vast reality of the world, and anybody in the business of evaluating it should evaluate it as ranking rather low in the whole scale of things (a “sick microbe” as he says in one poem). This would be mentally healthy: “It seems time that our race began to think as an adult does, rather than like an egocentric baby or insane person. This manner of thought and feeling is neither misanthropic nor pessimist, though two or three people have said so and may again.”

Jeffers also tried in his work to express “a religious feeling, that perhaps must be called pantheism.” He believed that “the world, the universe, is one being, a single organism, one great life that includes all life and all things; and is so beautiful that it must be loved and reverenced; and in moments of mystical vision we identify ourselves with it.” It was important for him, however, to distinguish this from traditional forms of pantheism which were always egocentric, tending to find divinity and reality within the soul, and illusion and transience in the outer world. For Jeffers, the exact opposite was true: “the outer world is real and divine; one’s own soul might be called an illusion, it is so slight and so transitory.” The natural world is so real that the I who beholds it scarcely deserves to be recognized as substantial.

Add me to the list of the two or three who have said that Robinson Jeffers the poet hated people, and that he hated people because he had accepted a finite god in place of the infinite, living God. He, and the local genius that got into him and found its voice through him, declare themselves clearly to be on the side of impersonal cosmic force rather than on the side of humanity. The poetry of Robinson Jeffers is unmatched among twentieth-century poetry for its vigor, vitality, and attention to the rhythms of nature. But the price he paid for his inspiration is too high. What will it profit a man if he gains the world but loses his soul?

Edit This

The Devil’s Dictionary

ambrose bierce Ambrose Bierce (born 1842, date of death an unsolved mystery) had a wit that could eat its way through anything. So universally sardonic was his imagination that there was nothing he couldn’t make fun of, and he proved it by making fun of the dictionary and all the words in it. For his Devil’s Dictionary project, he wrote bitter, triple-negative spoofs of everything from letters of the alphabet to political and metaphysical systems.

Just a half-dozen favorite definitions:

CARTESIAN, adj. Relating to Descartes, a famous philosopher, author of the celebrated dictum, Cogito ergo sum — whereby he was pleased to suppose he demonstrated the reality of human existence. The dictum might be improved, however, thus: Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum — “I think that I think, therefore I think that I am;” as close an approach to certainty as any philosopher has yet made.

CAT, n. A soft, indestructible automaton provided by nature to be kicked when things go wrong in the domestic circle.

CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

FUTURE, n. That period of time in which our affairs prosper, our friends are true and our happiness is assured.

PEDESTRIAN, n. The variable (and audible) part of the roadway for an automobile.

SELF-ESTEEM, n. An erroneous appraisement.

YEAR, n. A period of three hundred and sixty-five disappointments.

Oops, that was seven. Hard to stop. Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary, like the devil, takes on many forms. Here’s a fun online version of it, but if you really like this stuff, I recommend buying this edition. For a compromise, here’s a cheap and less exhaustive edition (after all, how much acid can your stomach take?)

The greatest danger posed by the Devil’s Dictionary is that by reading it you will encourage your inner cynic. The second greatest danger is that you will turn yourself into a colossal bore (BORE, n. A person who talks when you wish him to listen) at parties by quoting it (QUOTATION, n. The act of repeating erroneously the words of another) to your friends (FRIENDSHIP, n. A ship big enough to carry two in fair weather, but only one in foul).

Edit This

Be Still: Right Doctrine, Wrong Text

Psalm 46:10 says: “Be still, and know that I am God.”

Perhaps you know a song with these words. You may even have a coffee cup with them on it, perfect for those laid back (but with caffeine mandatory!) quiet times. Perhaps you’ve seen images that try to capture the feeling evoked by the words:
Be still

A holy hush descends and these words call us back to a place of stillness, a place of quietness, the exercise of the spiritual disciplines of silence and solitude. What we need above all is to turn away, if only for a moment, from the hectic pace of modern life and spend some quiet time in the presence of God. There, in the silence, we can recollect the truth: God is God. He is sovereign. All our noise and fuss distracts us from attending to this one thing necessary, the quiet and passive recognition of God’s Godness.

All of that is true. And if reading my quick reminder of it in the above paragraph rings true for you, the right thing to do is to close your internet browser and go pray.

But if you’re still with me, or if you’re back, here’s my point: I’m pretty sure Psalm 46:10 isn’t talking about any of the things I just said. Taken on their own, the words “Be still and know that I am God” sound like “have a quiet time to reflect on God’s Godness,” but taken in context they’re pointing in another direction.
(more…)

Edit This