I haven't written lately because we're nearing the end of the semester (meaning I have to turn in grades!), grad school applications have been due, and my teammates got season 2 of Lost for Christmas. However, there's a bunch of stuff I've wanted to write about and haven't. I'm going to give each of them a paragraph (instead of a full post) just so I can get them out of my system.
The Trad's Wedding: A week ago I was in Prague for one of the most interesting weddings I've been to. The bride is a Lebanese-American who taught with Teach Overseas in Prague for two years. The groom is a terrific Czech guy who speaks great English and met the bride because she taught English to his little brother (I think). The service and reception were a wonderful blend of cultures and captured many of the idiosyncrasies that makes this couple terrific. Also, the wedding fell on Epiphany, so the readings were from Isaiah 60 and Matthew 2. Themes of light and the revelation of Christ to the world permeated the service. It was a new twist on the wedding covenant (for me), asking for Christ to be revealed in their relationship.
Craziness in Federal Way: An article in the Seattle P-I tells how a father objected to the showing of An Inconvenient Truth in Federal Way schools. His rationale is that the documentary shows only one side of the story, so showing it gives students a warped perspective. The School Board agreed with him, saying global warming should be covered by their policy on "Teaching Controversial Issues." That means teachers who want to show the film must give equal time to opposing view points. I think it's great that the Board wants to show students both sides of tricky issues, but how far will this go? Do we need to start showing Birth of a Nation as an alternative to traditional American History? What about giving equal time to those who believe the moon landing was a big hoax? As much as we love equality in this country, not all ideas are equal nor do they deserve equal billing in our classrooms. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the American Meteorological Association, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences agree with the basic conclusions presented in the documentary (according to the article). As a recent article in the Seattle Times by two UW atmospheric scientists points out, on global warming the scientific community is, for once, in agreement. The Federal Way School Board told teachers who have already shown the documentary that they must now show students a "credible, legitimate opposing view." Good luck with that.
Frank Luntz on "Fresh Air:" If you want to hear how the power of language impacts your daily life listen to this interview. Luntz is, for lack of a better term, a linguistic consultant. His job is to poll the public and then tell people how to communicate in a way that best sways public opinion. Anybody who has, say, done research on how the language of stewardship has impacted Christian views of environmentalism might want to give it a listen. (My favorite moment is when Luntz says, in answer to a pointed question from Terry Gross about Republicans portraying environmentalists as extreme, "What about Democrats who want to present all businessmen as evil?" She pauses for a moment and changes the subject. Way to cave, Terry! She comes back strong with the gaming vs. gambling discussion, though.)
Free Will in the New York Times: Reading a recent article in the NYT brought me back to my religion senior seminar at Calvin and our discussions of Open Theism. The author, Dennis Overbye, describes the work of some psychologists and scientists who are taking a good look at traditional "deep free will." Their studies conclude that free will is an illusion. Some of it sounds a lot like what I remember from reading Jonathan Edwards. He differentiated between Free Choice and Free Will, saying we have the former but not the later. It's sort of like saying we have the ability to choose what we want, but we don't have the ability to decide what will appeal to us, what our wants will be. One thing that is lacking from the article is a discussion of what you might call the spectrum of free will. It's not an all or nothing proposition. To use Professor Crump's example, if I'm a cow in a field with no fence I'm free to go wherever I want. If I'm that same cow in a field with a fence around me I'm not free. But, what about if I'm the cow surrounded by a fence with an open gate? I'm free, but am I as free as the cow with no fence? I wish I had a better philosophy background so I could discuss it more, but maybe one of my smart friends will take it on (Kent? Sam?).
Poetry: In several of my literature classes I've been doing units on poetry, and it's been great fun. I have smart students and seeing them sink their teeth into Frost, Hughes, Dickinson, Sandburg, Roethke, and even Donne has been a joy! When I started these units many of the students were wary of poetry. They didn't think they could handle it. However, they've shone and come up with some very creative analysis that would not have occurred to me.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Humility, that low, sweet root, From which all heavenly virtues shoot" - Thomas More
3 comments:
So I didn't read the NYT article (never had much patience for things that require logging in). But I think you're right when it reminds you of Edwards. It's been a long time since I heard anyone talk about him, but what I remember is he differed somewhat from Luther, who described the will as "bound" by sin. Edwards said that it's not bound at all, but it's simply a matter that what it wills will ever be bad.
Of course any Christian discussion of the will in the West comes from Augustine. I've been curious (and have no ideas where to start) what the Eastern Fathers say on the subject; they have, after, a very different view of sin from Augustine, and consequently I would guess a different idea of free will.
Anyway that distinction between "free will" and "what we are free to will" is one that comes from the different terms Augustine uses: libertas, voluntas, and liberum arbitrium.
If I recall correctly (and I could be mixing them up), liberum arbitrium is that simple power to choose between two options, voluntas is our generation inclination(s), and libertas is true liberty, that is, the divine life with God. According to Augustine we have lost libertas due to sin, we have a bent (curvatus) voluntas--i.e., our inclinations are directed back to ourselves rather than towards God. We still have liberum arbitrium but this is a very hollow sort of choice when our choices will inevitably be self-directed and denying of the true freedom in God which is the fact of our creation.
I'm not entirely sure how to work with your cow analogy. One would have to remember what the cow would actually want, which may or may not be freedom. But in any case in a Christian sense that is not the right kind of freedom. That is the freedom of nothingness, whereas Augustinian freedom is the freedom to dwell in God. Let us say that the cow lives in a fence with an open gate, but there is no sun. How can the cow want what she does not know? How can she make choices when she is unaware that they exist?
I'm not sure that works. Maybe. In any case I have a suspicion that when Arminians and Calvinists (not, I daresay, either of their namesakes), Baptists and Presbyterians and the like get in arguments about free will, they may not always have a very nuanced sense of what free will means. They have conflated it with a liberal version of Augustine's voluntas which he would argue is nothing more than a kind of "will to power." And that sort of free will is no free will at all.
Hey Matt. I suppose this is an odd way to get in touch with you, so I hope you read your comments regularly. Will you send me an e-mail? schuttc@btgh.org
Thanks! I hope you're doing well.
Courtney Schutt
why is it that you're applying for grad schools? i thought you meant to stay in hungary for quite some time. have those plans changed?
Post a Comment