David Lyle Jeffrey and the Nature of Learning
I think this essay by David Lyle Jeffrey is one of the best things in print on the nature of learning. It is titled, "The Pearl of Great Wisdom: The Deep and Abiding Biblical Roots of Western Liberal Education." I use it often when I teach, and have re-read it numerous times. Jeffrey is arguing that in the western tradition after the first century (particularly in its pre-modern form), learning was often a means to wisdom, and a wisdom centered on the reading and interpretation of Scripture. Thank you David Jeffrey for this essay. It can be found here at the web-site of Touchstone Magazine.
- Details
- Category: Recommended Reading Recommended Reading
- Published: 11 October 2011 11 October 2011
- Hits: 4438 4438
P.D. James and Modernity
Gerald Bray recently shared this quote from the inimitable P.D. James, and I could not resist posting it here. P.D. James has written a number of wonderful books, mainly murder mysteries. Her main protagonist is Adam Dalgliesh of Scotland Yard. This quote is taken from The Book of Common Prayer, ed. Prudence Dailey (Continuum, 2011):
"We live in an age notable for a kind of fashionable silliness and imbued with a restless desire for change. It sometimes seems that nothing old, nothing well-established, nothing which has evolved through centuries of experience and loving use escapes our urge to diminish, revise or abolish it. Above all every organisation has to be relevant - a very fashionable word - to the needs of modern life, as if human beings in the twenty-first century are somehow fundamentally different in their needs and aspirations from all previous generations. A country which ceases to value and learn from its history, neglects its language and literature, despises its traditions and is unified only by a common frenetic drive for getting and spending and for material wealth, will lose more than its nationhood; it will lose its soul. Let us cherish and use what we still precariously hold. Let us strive to ensure that what has been handed down to us is not lost to generations to come."
- Details
- Category: Recommended Reading Recommended Reading
- Published: 28 September 2011 28 September 2011
- Hits: 4309 4309
Did the Church Fathers Promote Allegorical Interpretation?
As far as I am concerned, Peter Leithart and Lewis Ayres are two of the sharper tools in the shed. Both are fine scholars and have done wonderful work. Leithart reports on a recent conference where Lewis Ayres (of the University of Durham) argued in a paper that the early church fathers were not necessarily being "innovative" when they used allegorical interpretation. On the contrary, suggests Ayres (and here I am simply relying on Leithart's report), allegorical interpretation was already around. The early church fathers--against the backrop of widespread allegorical interpretation--actually insisted on more of a "literal" interpretation than was the norm at the time. I look forward to reading Ayres' paper. Leithart's post is at his web site here.
- Details
- Category: Recommended Reading Recommended Reading
- Published: 22 September 2011 22 September 2011
- Hits: 3932 3932
The Theological Nature of the New Testament
Today in my class, "Doctrine of God", I was trying to communicate with students how the New Testament documents are fundamentally, inherently, and inextricably theological documents. That is, we don't go to the New Testament, pull out (non-theological) "data", and then try to "get to" theological conclusions. Rather, the New Testament documents are already theologically-rich and full, and in fact there was already an "apostolic theology" in existence before the emergence of the New Testament that actually gave rise to the New Testament documents. One student in the class (thanks Jace) took this picture.
To be clear, option (1) is a bit anemic and inadequate, while option (2) is more sound, on my view.
- Details
- Category: Recommended Reading Recommended Reading
- Published: 14 September 2011 14 September 2011
- Hits: 3895 3895
C.S. Lewis' Learning in War-Time
An essay I have read over and over is "Learning in War-Time" by C.S. Lewis. To my mind it is one of the best (brief) statements on the nature of learning I know of. See the pdf here.
- Details
- Category: Recommended Reading Recommended Reading
- Published: 22 August 2011 22 August 2011
- Hits: 8368 8368
England, C.S. Lewis, and the Sad Fulfillment of the Abolition of Man
Our family is enjoying a mini-sabbatical of sorts in Cambridge, England, where I am enjoying the wonderful opportunity to study at Tyndale House, see old friends, make new friends, and enjoy some time in the U.K. Having enjoyed a wonderful sabbatical here in 2010, it is a joy to be back.
Sadly, within a few days of our arrival, there were riots in the Tottenham area of London. We prayed for the situation in church, and now similar riots--including various violent acts, looting, etc., have broken out in numerous places in England. Even here in Cambridge, it appears that a gang of people had gathered one evening and were headed to the Grafton Centre (a shopping mall/area) in Cambridge, before police intercepted the effort and apprended (at least some) of the apparently would-be looters/rioters.
The last time we were here (spring 2010), there was talk about Britain being "broken"--and this talk came from, if I remember correctly, the Conservative party here, and its leader (now Prime Minister) David Cameron. I have no doubt that Britain--like virtually any modern nation-state--is "broken". As a limited-government kind of American, I have my differences with the statist and welfare-state system of any modern nation-state who chooses that economic/social/political path (the UK or otherwise). The welfare-state virtually must--by definition--produce an entitlement mentality, and as wonderful as the UK is, it is nigh impossible to avoid an entitlement mentality when one is told repeatedly that shelter, food, drink, education, health-care, employment, etc., are all "rights" that one is entitled do.
But I suppose that the "brokenness" of the UK--as well as the "brokenness" of the modern world more generally--runs deeper than simply a false view of entitlement. I keep waiting for folks to turn to C.S. Lewis' classic work, The Abolition of Man. To my mind The Abolition of Man was one of Lewis' most prescient works, and its radical nature may still not be appreciated. Lewis was concerned about the power of one generation to shape the next generation, and the way in which one generation could--even if this was not their explicit goal--"abolish" man over time. That is, through something as seemingly inoccuous as a grammar textbook, one generation could so shape future generations, that future generations would--in a sense--abolish themselves.
Lewis' The Abolition of Man were the Riddell Memorial Lectures (University of Durham) originally published in 1943, and subtitled, "Reflections on Education with Special Reference to the Teaching of English in the Upper Forms of Schools". Lewis begins the lectures by contending that even something as (seemingly) inoccuous as a grammar book can lead to great harm. Lewis takes a passage from The Green Book (Lewis' made-up title for an actual grammar book) where the authors (subtly) say that "This is sublime" actually means "I have sublime feelings." That is, when one says "This is sublime [i.e., beautiful, majestic], one is actually saying, "I have sublime [i.e., beautiful, majestic] feelings." Thus, what we think are statements about something outside us are really simply expessions of our feelings. Lewis is making any number of points, including: (1) A grammar book is making what it seems to be a self-evident point (i.e., a statement about something else is simply an expression of personal feelings); (2) such "self-evident" statements get lodged in the heart, soul, and mind of the reader (since they are simply reading a grammar book--not a, philosphical or theological or moral treatise), and will end up shaping a person's ultimate convictions in ways the reader may never ultimately grasp or comprehend.
Thus, the readers of The Green Book are subtly shaped such that they come to think that statements about things outside of one's self are simply expressions of one's feelings. Lewis teases out such philosophical influences and argues that eventually this person--or later generations influenced by such a vision of reality--will come to doubt that there is any sort of moral reality or moral law that is true and real (and not simply an expression of one's feelings) and that impinges--rightfully--upon one's self. In short, a "throw away" line from a students' grammar book may just (because of the insidious philosophical premise embedded in such a "throw away" line) lead to the denial of any sort of ultimate moral reality, and therefore lead to the eventual "abolition of man".
Other twentieth-century figures lamented that fact that modern man seemed to have a "suicidal impulse" (Richard Weaver), or that modern man seemed to have a "death wish" (Malcolm Muggeridge). That is, modern man--adrift from ultimate moral and theological convictions and moorings--seemed to be bent on destroying himself.
Lewis ends the first lecture (of three) of The Abolition of Man with a lament. His final words in this essay are worth quoting at length:
And all the time--such is the tragi-comedy of our situation--we continue to clamour for these very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more 'drive', or dynamism, or self- sacrifice, or 'creativity'. In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.
One cannot tell generation after generation that they have right to food, shelter, education, health-care, employment, a vacation, etc., and then be surprised when folks "entitle" themselves to other people's property. But more fundamentally, a culture--the UK or otherwise--cannot generation after generation laugh at honour and virtue and then be surprised that a culture has produced people who have no interest in honor or virtue. The most foundational question is not, "what caused these riots?", but rather, "why are there not more riots?" That is, a culture that systematically and repeatedly and thoroughly laughs at virtue and honor should not be surprised when they look up to see traitors in their midst. We cannot make "men without chests" and then be surprised to see them face-to-face. May God help the UK, and all of us.
- Details
- Category: Recommended Reading Recommended Reading
- Published: 15 August 2011 15 August 2011
- Hits: 15036 15036