I had an odd experience the other day. I read my previous blog entry and became irate at the irascible line of reasoning put forth. Basically, I had argued that I would rather grab a cup of coffee with Bill Clinton then with Larry King. I argued that if one could theoretically hang out with a celebrity without that particular celebrity having celebrity status, then one was not starstruck but genuinely attracted to that person. My implicit conclusion was that I could envision hanging out with Bill Clinton.
I can't agree to that line of reasoning. I would love to talk to Bill Clinton precisely because of his fame (or infamy depending on how you interpret the facts). I am fascinated by the fact that he managed to become so politically successful at such a young age. I am enamored by his political skill, which is capable of not only dissembling but magnifying the humanity of his person. I am stupefied by his ability to overcome deep moral intemperance and remain faithful to his wife. In addition, I must say, his life story (as it is told in his autobiography) is rather interesting to listen to. All this to say, I am a little starstruck by his prestidigitation and lack of comportment.
And if that is the case, I probably am not a good person for him to talk to. I would not be addressing his person, but I would be attempting to understand American history or trying to set myself up as someone who is morally superior. So, now, I am stuck. If I can't talk to him merely on the basis of being a political celebrity, then what should I do, if I were given an un-excusable opportunity to grab a cup of coffee?
If I had been on excusable opportunity to talk with Bill Clinton this is what I would do:
1. I would seek to know
a. if he is a good listener – meaning does he said his mind to the task of listening to an individual person who might not otherwise be of any immediate benefit to him?
b. Does he communicate a sense of honor and respect for other people?
c. Does he project a sense of trustworthiness and confidence?
d. Is he witty – that is, does he say appropriate things in ways that are not hackneyed or ambiguous or immoral or with a view towards the truth?
e. Has he ever read the Bible?
f. If so, what does he think that it is about?
2. I would attempt to establish some type of mutually recognized agreement – meaning, I would ultimately seek to try to understand what he had to say, while evaluating the truth of what he had to say in a way that was open and honest – I would make it my aim to try to find a mutual recognition of agreement because truth is the bond of all friendship
So, why this careful delineation? Why have I wanted out so carefully a conversation that will probably never take place? Well, this example of how I would talk to Bill Clinton is really just my blueprint for how I would talk to anyone. I think the goal of any conversation should be one that seeks to establish friendship – the basis and bond of friendship is truth. This means that conversations should be aimed at establishing a mutual recognition of the truth and what is true.
To deny that truth is the basis of friendship, is to make friendship completely arbitrary and one based on mere whim and fancy. This would create a community of mistrust. It would be an obdurate community fueled by everyone's individual passions. What is necessary for every individual to begin to establish a trustworthy community is to begin to think about one's objects of admiration and fascination; to think about celebrities and famous people in terms of love and trustworthiness. This means that one must not indulge oneself into thinking merely about what is fascinating about Clinton, Larry King, Oprah, Tom Cruise, and the like. To think too much in this direction will govern your thinking, affections, and actions in a way that is not trustworthy or friendly. The bottom line, be careful how you think about celebrities because they may not be your friends!
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
Why I would hang out with Bill Clinton but not Larry King
The art of friendship is rarely thought of as an art. In fact, when you read that phrase "the art of friendship" you may have suspected me of dishonesty, manipulation, or perhaps even outright perfidy. However, I still maintain there is a proper way to obtain and maintain friendships – the pith of any art or science includes principles and rules of conduct!
However, even if you disagree with me, follow my thinking for just a moment. Contemporary American culture upholds an ideal image of friendship – that is, people with which one can and should be associated. So what is that ideal? In order to get the cultural ideal of friendship, let us first try to think about a public person that embodies friendship. It may be a celebrity, a political figure, a powerful figure. Certainly there are many people that could come to mind. I think that people like Mr. Rogers, Bill Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, Jay Leno, Jerry Seinfeld, Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, Larry King, etc. (just check out who is being trended on Yahoo to get a good idea of friends, I did!). As you read through this list, you probably had strong conflicting emotions pulse through you because some of those people are universally loved (I dare you to hate Mr. Rogers!), While others are certainly hated by some but adored by others (i.e. Bill Clinton – I have to admit, despite my political and theological disagreements with the man, I still think he would be pretty fun to talk to – he seems really nice and approachable).
It is certainly true that, although there is hardly a person that is universally loved and adored, there can be discerned in patterns of American friendship a set of identifiable characteristics that can be amalgamated into a single ideal of friendship. Let's go with Larry King for the time being. Aside from the fact that Larry King so old that true age could only be verified by method of radiocarbon dating, he is a well-respected figure who has interviewed just about everyone you could imagine from Billy Graham to Paris Hilton.
Now let's think winning characteristics – he has long-standing trust with the American people because of his continued and dependable journalistic skill – he knows how to ask honest inquiring questions, which provide the right information for people to understand various public figures. He is not afraid of interviewing anybody despite their social connotations – the only criteria necessary for Larry King is that there is a public figure/issue worthy of the peoples’ attention.
In my assessment, Larry King earned the title of ideal friend with all honesty, integrity, and praise. But let's face it, unless you were either going to be on the show or you really cared to brag about it to your friends, is not somebody exactly what I hang out with. He would be more like an overly inquisitive uncle. I think the true test of an honest public celebrity is this: if you can answer yes to the following question, that I think the celebrity could be a good friend: if this person were not famous, would not make me famous by meeting them, or would not become famous shortly after the meeting them, would I want to hang out with them? In other words, do you think they would be enjoyable, helpful, or possibly one who could agree with you?
If you cannot answer one of these questions, you may just be starstruck! So, go on, give it a try. Think about your favorite distant friend (i.e. favorite celebrity, politician, or wealthy person), and try to see if be friends with them. In addition, give a little bit more thought to what a friend is. If you can define a friend as an ideal, you can learn how to obtain friends and maintain friendships because friendship begins with a bond of affection – and affections are expressions of what we believe to be true – how we perceive what is true and false about persons, circumstances, and ideas. In other words, when you like a person, you are affirming a belief about that person – you may simply affirm their beauty, their charm, but you may also affirm their character or behavior. As you begin to learn and think about what you like and don't like, you will begin to learn about patterns of behavior and principles, which govern your life and that you find desirable in other people. This will enable you to discover the rules and principles that you use to connect with other people – the essence and pith of the matter is that you will discover how to improve in the art of friendship.
However, even if you disagree with me, follow my thinking for just a moment. Contemporary American culture upholds an ideal image of friendship – that is, people with which one can and should be associated. So what is that ideal? In order to get the cultural ideal of friendship, let us first try to think about a public person that embodies friendship. It may be a celebrity, a political figure, a powerful figure. Certainly there are many people that could come to mind. I think that people like Mr. Rogers, Bill Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, Jay Leno, Jerry Seinfeld, Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, Larry King, etc. (just check out who is being trended on Yahoo to get a good idea of friends, I did!). As you read through this list, you probably had strong conflicting emotions pulse through you because some of those people are universally loved (I dare you to hate Mr. Rogers!), While others are certainly hated by some but adored by others (i.e. Bill Clinton – I have to admit, despite my political and theological disagreements with the man, I still think he would be pretty fun to talk to – he seems really nice and approachable).
It is certainly true that, although there is hardly a person that is universally loved and adored, there can be discerned in patterns of American friendship a set of identifiable characteristics that can be amalgamated into a single ideal of friendship. Let's go with Larry King for the time being. Aside from the fact that Larry King so old that true age could only be verified by method of radiocarbon dating, he is a well-respected figure who has interviewed just about everyone you could imagine from Billy Graham to Paris Hilton.
Now let's think winning characteristics – he has long-standing trust with the American people because of his continued and dependable journalistic skill – he knows how to ask honest inquiring questions, which provide the right information for people to understand various public figures. He is not afraid of interviewing anybody despite their social connotations – the only criteria necessary for Larry King is that there is a public figure/issue worthy of the peoples’ attention.
In my assessment, Larry King earned the title of ideal friend with all honesty, integrity, and praise. But let's face it, unless you were either going to be on the show or you really cared to brag about it to your friends, is not somebody exactly what I hang out with. He would be more like an overly inquisitive uncle. I think the true test of an honest public celebrity is this: if you can answer yes to the following question, that I think the celebrity could be a good friend: if this person were not famous, would not make me famous by meeting them, or would not become famous shortly after the meeting them, would I want to hang out with them? In other words, do you think they would be enjoyable, helpful, or possibly one who could agree with you?
If you cannot answer one of these questions, you may just be starstruck! So, go on, give it a try. Think about your favorite distant friend (i.e. favorite celebrity, politician, or wealthy person), and try to see if be friends with them. In addition, give a little bit more thought to what a friend is. If you can define a friend as an ideal, you can learn how to obtain friends and maintain friendships because friendship begins with a bond of affection – and affections are expressions of what we believe to be true – how we perceive what is true and false about persons, circumstances, and ideas. In other words, when you like a person, you are affirming a belief about that person – you may simply affirm their beauty, their charm, but you may also affirm their character or behavior. As you begin to learn and think about what you like and don't like, you will begin to learn about patterns of behavior and principles, which govern your life and that you find desirable in other people. This will enable you to discover the rules and principles that you use to connect with other people – the essence and pith of the matter is that you will discover how to improve in the art of friendship.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Remembering Bad Study Habits
Recently I happened upon a discussion among some fellow students of mine concerning the problem of reading and retaining practical knowledge. The discussion arose in the classroom when the professor was absent. (He had momentarily stepped out in order to give us the time freedom to fill out our student evaluations of him). We all finished our student evaluations rather quickly and the professor had not yet returned. Immediately, some of the students began to discuss the question of whether or not they had satisfactorily passed the reading quiz given at the beginning of the class. One student very openly and frankly confessed that he was only confident about one of the five answers that he had given. The problem, he explained, was that he would read material for the class, understand the practical principles with relative ease, but would not be able to regurgitate those principles for the quiz. Without commenting further concerning the progress of this conversation, let me pose this question: what makes the reading of practical books easy-to-understand, but difficult to retain?
I would suggest that many practical books (i.e. any book that contains information that suggests some type of procedure for implementation) are relatively easy to understand because most practical books appeal to principles we already know and use. In other words, practical principles are not the thing that we are learning; rather what we are learning is the specific application of those principles. In other words, when you are reading a cookbook, you are not learning how to cook in general rather you are learning how to cook something. Part of the difficulty is simply remembering the specifics.
There is another edit difficulty, which has to do with the systemization of practical knowledge. Most practical books layout and logical and explicit sequence of instructions whereas most of the time people tend to operate at an intuitive unstated level. Think about it this way: when you are driving down the road, are you mentally rifling through the various rules of the road that you have to learn as a 15-year-old? No. You may do so on occasion when discussing some type of ambiguity trafficking such as a four way stop or blinking traffic light. However, most of the time you operate more or less automatically without conscious thought. When you learn something new, you have to do so in an explicit conscious level. In other words, acquiring a new skill does not feel the same as doing that skill. In order to learn that skill, you must first learn the stated explicit logical sequence before it can become automatic knowledge.
As it turned out with my classmates, I found out that what they were failing to do was simply taking notes from the book, condensing those notes, and attempting to memorize those notes. You see, for them when they read the textbooks, they clearly understood the practical advice that was being given and the assumed that immediate understanding was the full extent of the task. However, this is only part of the task. Immediate understanding must be accompanied with intent on memorization. If one fails to attempt to retain the systematic framework of practical knowledge, then one is either simply lazy, or one assumes they are not learning anything new, or that they are right disagree. Immediate understanding could simply just indicate that they just understood the part but not the whole, which seems very likely in this case.
I say these things not to condemn my fellow classmates, but out of embarrassment from my own academic past. I can remember some of my teachers saying things like: "I'm not concerned that you memorize all the details, rather I want you to understand." I'm almost positive that the intent of my teachers was not to belittle the idea memorization but it was simply to stress the idea of understanding as the goal of reading. However, I interpreted the statements to mean – don't worry about memorizing anything just retain the big picture. What I have been learning since being in graduate school is that there must be a healthy combination of big picture understanding and memorization of detail. If one does not commit the details memory, then one risks actually having an inaccurate big picture. So, as an aspiring professor myself, I plan on telling my students, “I'm not concerned that you memorize details or understand the big picture, rather I am concerned that you memorize the details that support and informed the big picture!”
I would suggest that many practical books (i.e. any book that contains information that suggests some type of procedure for implementation) are relatively easy to understand because most practical books appeal to principles we already know and use. In other words, practical principles are not the thing that we are learning; rather what we are learning is the specific application of those principles. In other words, when you are reading a cookbook, you are not learning how to cook in general rather you are learning how to cook something. Part of the difficulty is simply remembering the specifics.
There is another edit difficulty, which has to do with the systemization of practical knowledge. Most practical books layout and logical and explicit sequence of instructions whereas most of the time people tend to operate at an intuitive unstated level. Think about it this way: when you are driving down the road, are you mentally rifling through the various rules of the road that you have to learn as a 15-year-old? No. You may do so on occasion when discussing some type of ambiguity trafficking such as a four way stop or blinking traffic light. However, most of the time you operate more or less automatically without conscious thought. When you learn something new, you have to do so in an explicit conscious level. In other words, acquiring a new skill does not feel the same as doing that skill. In order to learn that skill, you must first learn the stated explicit logical sequence before it can become automatic knowledge.
As it turned out with my classmates, I found out that what they were failing to do was simply taking notes from the book, condensing those notes, and attempting to memorize those notes. You see, for them when they read the textbooks, they clearly understood the practical advice that was being given and the assumed that immediate understanding was the full extent of the task. However, this is only part of the task. Immediate understanding must be accompanied with intent on memorization. If one fails to attempt to retain the systematic framework of practical knowledge, then one is either simply lazy, or one assumes they are not learning anything new, or that they are right disagree. Immediate understanding could simply just indicate that they just understood the part but not the whole, which seems very likely in this case.
I say these things not to condemn my fellow classmates, but out of embarrassment from my own academic past. I can remember some of my teachers saying things like: "I'm not concerned that you memorize all the details, rather I want you to understand." I'm almost positive that the intent of my teachers was not to belittle the idea memorization but it was simply to stress the idea of understanding as the goal of reading. However, I interpreted the statements to mean – don't worry about memorizing anything just retain the big picture. What I have been learning since being in graduate school is that there must be a healthy combination of big picture understanding and memorization of detail. If one does not commit the details memory, then one risks actually having an inaccurate big picture. So, as an aspiring professor myself, I plan on telling my students, “I'm not concerned that you memorize details or understand the big picture, rather I am concerned that you memorize the details that support and informed the big picture!”
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
IS DAVE RAMSEY A CALVINIST?
Okay, so I don't actually know where Dave Ramsey stands on the doctrines of total depravity, irresistible grace, and limited atonement, but I can say with confidence that there is principled agreement between Calvin’s theology of wealth and Ramsey’s financial ethical principles. The question worth pursuing is: how do Ramsey and Calvin agree? In order to pursue this question, we must ask first of Calvin: what is wealth strictly defined; what is wealth from a theological perspective; and what is the place of wealth within the Christian life? This will put us in a position to demonstrate in principle where Dave Ramsey fundamentally agrees with Calvin.
CALVIN’S DEFINITION OF WEALTH
Calvin understands wealth rather broadly. He defines it as anything which is of "earthly benefit." This benefit could classify as something which is strictly necessary – that is, physical goods or services that by necessity are required for sustaining life. Earthly benefit can also extend into things made "for our delight and good cheer," (ICR, 720). If we factor this spectrum of purposes together, we can say that for Calvin wealth is defined as: any product or service that contributes towards a definite and identifiable end, whether that and be defined by necessity or enjoyment. This definition may include products or services that are: strictly necessary (i.e. water), necessary and enjoyable (i.e. food and clothing), or intrinsically and strictly enjoyable (i.e. gold, silver, ivory, marble). The purpose of wealth is identified by “the natural qualities themselves of the things,” (ICR, 721).
CALVIN’S THEOLOGY OF WEALTH
TWO POLARIZING TENDENCIES
Calvin identifies two polarizing tendencies with regard to a proper theology of wealth within the Christian life. One view tends to see wealth as a provision to the Christian only in so far as it is necessary for sustaining one's life. Although the motive behind this stands on wealth is praiseworthy, the strictness of the stands is more or less un-biblical because it fetters "consciences more tightly than the word of the Lord – a very dangerous thing," (ICR, 720). The other view tends to see wealth as a provision that is "not to be restrained by any limitation but to be left to every man's conscience to use as seems lawful to him.” In other words, wealth is not only necessary but is to be used according to the conscience of the one who possesses it.
CALVIN’S MEDIATING POSITION
Calvin maintains that wealth has a definite place within the Christian life. On the one hand, wealth is necessary for one's life as a pilgrim, which "we ought to use its good things insofar as they help rather than hinder our course," (ICR, 719 – 20). On the other hand, one's use of wealth is not strictly determined by “every man's conscience.” He has no desire to bind the conscience to “definite and precise legal formulas; but inasmuch as Scripture gives general rules for lawful use, we are surely to limit our use in accordance with them.” In other words, once use of wealth is determined by natural quality and purpose of the benefit itself.
Why is this case? How can Calvin argue such a mediating position on wealth? Calvin argues that “The use of God gifts is not wrongly directed when he is referred to that end to which the author himself created for us, and he created them for our good, and not for our ruin.” In other words, the proper use of wealth is defined by its specific purpose, which is ultimately based in God as the author and directed toward us as a good. If wealth is used in accordance with its proper purpose, then the Christian has glorified God in the process because he has done something in accordance with the mind of God and in response to his kindness.
Calvin states more fully that earthly benefit has been, “created for us that we might recognize the author and give thanks to him,” (ICR, 721). This statement sums up what wealth is from a theological perspective. Notice that he identifies the nature wealth as “all things created.” This means that all earthly benefit has its true origin in God and yet is distinct from God. It must be recognized that “all things created” in this context does not exclude artifacts and implements manufactured by man. Remember, Calvin included food and clothing with in his examples of earthly benefit, (ICR, 721). Notice also that earthly benefit is “for us;” that is, we are proper recipients. The purpose of wealth has two dimensions to it. There is subjective dimension – as recipients we are meant to “recognize” and “give thanks” in response to wealth acquisition. There is also an objective dimension – God communicates through wealth that he is the author of earthly benefit and as such he is kind.
CALVIN’S THEOLOGY OF WEALTH IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE
It should now be more abundantly clear to the reader how one stands on wealth is actually a reflection of one's attitude toward God. If one maintains that wealth is merely strictly for our necessary benefit, then one is in fact denying God's creative involvement in products and activities that are clearly intended for purposes other than essential survival. In addition, such asceticism will actually cultivate an attitude of ingratitude and discontentment because one is needlessly denying a benefit that is not at all prohibited by God himself. On the other hand, permitting oneself every benefit within one's possession will also result in ingratitude. So to sum up – what is the Christian attitude towards: wealth in general, wealth in their particular circumstance, and their individual financial responsibility?
Wealth in General – Every Christian must possess an indifferent attitude toward wealth. Calvin states, "Those who use this world should be so affected as if they did not use it."
Circumstances of Wealth – every Christian should be mindful of his/her financial circumstance. Calvin states, "They should know how to bear poverty peaceably and patiently, as well as to bear abundance moderately." In other words, individual financial circumstance should not determine one's attitude toward wealth or your fellow human beings. That attitude of the rich should be modest and the attitude of the poor should be patient.
Financial Responsibility – The third and final rule is accountability. Calvin states, "All those things were so given to us by the kindness of God, and destined for our benefit, that they are, as it were, entrusted to us." This means that all Christians everywhere are required to have a sense of personal financial responsibility.
Calvin and Ramsey
So how do you Calvin and Ramsey agree? Ramsey roughly holds the same position regarding the nature of earthly benefit, or money. Ramsey maintains that money has to basic properties. First, "money is active," (FP, 19). In other words, money is a type of social power that is constantly exercised through its continued use. Money has a place within society as a reciprocal instrument, which "requires you to take the initiative to control it," (FP, 20). The second quality is "money is amoral," (FP, 20). This point emphasizes the instrumental factor of money. Money is impersonal; that is, it requires an intelligent agent to make use of it. Money is not responsible, rather it is the one who uses the money that requires responsibility. Ramsey states, "the way you act your money or lack of it will show us whether you are good or evil, but the money itself is neither," (FP, 20).
I would argue that Ramsey’s first stated quality about money would agree with what Calvin means by possessing an indifferent attitude toward wealth. To be indifferent does not mean that you pretend wealth does not exist, it simply means that you are aware of its limits, purposes, and uses. You understand the reciprocal and social dimensions of wealth that requires personal initiative on your part. Second, I would maintain that Ramsey's second quality of money regarding its moral status would agree with what Calvin has to say about financial responsibility. Ultimately, money is not accountable before God, but the one who uses the money is accountable.
Most fundamentally, however I believe agreement can be perceived between how Calvin and Ramsey understand the supreme importance of a moral reflection. Ramsey stated in strictly anthropological and ethical terms, "extreme amounts of money or extreme lack of it magnifies character," (FP, 24). Calvin, from a theological perspective, could modify the statement by saying something like, "extreme amounts of money or lack of it reveals ones attitude toward God. In other words, if it is true that all things are created by God for our good, which are to be used according to their purpose, then the improper use of them in any way is indicative of what one believes about God.
For instance, if a Christian were to take an extreme attitude regarding one's budget, that a Christian should only budget for what is strictly necessary for survival, then in effect one is making a theological claim about God. That is, God only wants us to earn money insofar as it keeps us alive. This action is a patent denial of God's goodness which is revealed in the main purposes of other created objects (and" created objects" by the way extends to technological artifacts as well). Or take the case of somebody who believes that there finances are only to be regulated by their own conscience; that is, they are free to be as liberal and indulgent as possible. In this case, there is in fact a denial of gratitude. Yes, it affirms that God has made all things according to their purpose for us and for our good, but it places a one-sided emphasis on "for our good" and he fails to acknowledge the good God behind the thing. I realize, it's not Ramsey's intent to be this theologically overt, but in my opinion is ethical thinking on the matter not only extends into the theological realm, but in fact agrees with Calvin’s theological thinking.
P.S. I'd love to know what you think with regard to these matters:
• do you think it's possible to develop a theology of money like Calvin?
• Did you think Calvin is being fair to Scripture?
• Do you think he's being too lenient?
• Do you think he's being too strict?
• Do you think that wealth has nothing to do with theology?
• I invite your comments…
CALVIN’S DEFINITION OF WEALTH
Calvin understands wealth rather broadly. He defines it as anything which is of "earthly benefit." This benefit could classify as something which is strictly necessary – that is, physical goods or services that by necessity are required for sustaining life. Earthly benefit can also extend into things made "for our delight and good cheer," (ICR, 720). If we factor this spectrum of purposes together, we can say that for Calvin wealth is defined as: any product or service that contributes towards a definite and identifiable end, whether that and be defined by necessity or enjoyment. This definition may include products or services that are: strictly necessary (i.e. water), necessary and enjoyable (i.e. food and clothing), or intrinsically and strictly enjoyable (i.e. gold, silver, ivory, marble). The purpose of wealth is identified by “the natural qualities themselves of the things,” (ICR, 721).
CALVIN’S THEOLOGY OF WEALTH
TWO POLARIZING TENDENCIES
Calvin identifies two polarizing tendencies with regard to a proper theology of wealth within the Christian life. One view tends to see wealth as a provision to the Christian only in so far as it is necessary for sustaining one's life. Although the motive behind this stands on wealth is praiseworthy, the strictness of the stands is more or less un-biblical because it fetters "consciences more tightly than the word of the Lord – a very dangerous thing," (ICR, 720). The other view tends to see wealth as a provision that is "not to be restrained by any limitation but to be left to every man's conscience to use as seems lawful to him.” In other words, wealth is not only necessary but is to be used according to the conscience of the one who possesses it.
CALVIN’S MEDIATING POSITION
Calvin maintains that wealth has a definite place within the Christian life. On the one hand, wealth is necessary for one's life as a pilgrim, which "we ought to use its good things insofar as they help rather than hinder our course," (ICR, 719 – 20). On the other hand, one's use of wealth is not strictly determined by “every man's conscience.” He has no desire to bind the conscience to “definite and precise legal formulas; but inasmuch as Scripture gives general rules for lawful use, we are surely to limit our use in accordance with them.” In other words, once use of wealth is determined by natural quality and purpose of the benefit itself.
Why is this case? How can Calvin argue such a mediating position on wealth? Calvin argues that “The use of God gifts is not wrongly directed when he is referred to that end to which the author himself created for us, and he created them for our good, and not for our ruin.” In other words, the proper use of wealth is defined by its specific purpose, which is ultimately based in God as the author and directed toward us as a good. If wealth is used in accordance with its proper purpose, then the Christian has glorified God in the process because he has done something in accordance with the mind of God and in response to his kindness.
Calvin states more fully that earthly benefit has been, “created for us that we might recognize the author and give thanks to him,” (ICR, 721). This statement sums up what wealth is from a theological perspective. Notice that he identifies the nature wealth as “all things created.” This means that all earthly benefit has its true origin in God and yet is distinct from God. It must be recognized that “all things created” in this context does not exclude artifacts and implements manufactured by man. Remember, Calvin included food and clothing with in his examples of earthly benefit, (ICR, 721). Notice also that earthly benefit is “for us;” that is, we are proper recipients. The purpose of wealth has two dimensions to it. There is subjective dimension – as recipients we are meant to “recognize” and “give thanks” in response to wealth acquisition. There is also an objective dimension – God communicates through wealth that he is the author of earthly benefit and as such he is kind.
CALVIN’S THEOLOGY OF WEALTH IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE
It should now be more abundantly clear to the reader how one stands on wealth is actually a reflection of one's attitude toward God. If one maintains that wealth is merely strictly for our necessary benefit, then one is in fact denying God's creative involvement in products and activities that are clearly intended for purposes other than essential survival. In addition, such asceticism will actually cultivate an attitude of ingratitude and discontentment because one is needlessly denying a benefit that is not at all prohibited by God himself. On the other hand, permitting oneself every benefit within one's possession will also result in ingratitude. So to sum up – what is the Christian attitude towards: wealth in general, wealth in their particular circumstance, and their individual financial responsibility?
Wealth in General – Every Christian must possess an indifferent attitude toward wealth. Calvin states, "Those who use this world should be so affected as if they did not use it."
Circumstances of Wealth – every Christian should be mindful of his/her financial circumstance. Calvin states, "They should know how to bear poverty peaceably and patiently, as well as to bear abundance moderately." In other words, individual financial circumstance should not determine one's attitude toward wealth or your fellow human beings. That attitude of the rich should be modest and the attitude of the poor should be patient.
Financial Responsibility – The third and final rule is accountability. Calvin states, "All those things were so given to us by the kindness of God, and destined for our benefit, that they are, as it were, entrusted to us." This means that all Christians everywhere are required to have a sense of personal financial responsibility.
Calvin and Ramsey
So how do you Calvin and Ramsey agree? Ramsey roughly holds the same position regarding the nature of earthly benefit, or money. Ramsey maintains that money has to basic properties. First, "money is active," (FP, 19). In other words, money is a type of social power that is constantly exercised through its continued use. Money has a place within society as a reciprocal instrument, which "requires you to take the initiative to control it," (FP, 20). The second quality is "money is amoral," (FP, 20). This point emphasizes the instrumental factor of money. Money is impersonal; that is, it requires an intelligent agent to make use of it. Money is not responsible, rather it is the one who uses the money that requires responsibility. Ramsey states, "the way you act your money or lack of it will show us whether you are good or evil, but the money itself is neither," (FP, 20).
I would argue that Ramsey’s first stated quality about money would agree with what Calvin means by possessing an indifferent attitude toward wealth. To be indifferent does not mean that you pretend wealth does not exist, it simply means that you are aware of its limits, purposes, and uses. You understand the reciprocal and social dimensions of wealth that requires personal initiative on your part. Second, I would maintain that Ramsey's second quality of money regarding its moral status would agree with what Calvin has to say about financial responsibility. Ultimately, money is not accountable before God, but the one who uses the money is accountable.
Most fundamentally, however I believe agreement can be perceived between how Calvin and Ramsey understand the supreme importance of a moral reflection. Ramsey stated in strictly anthropological and ethical terms, "extreme amounts of money or extreme lack of it magnifies character," (FP, 24). Calvin, from a theological perspective, could modify the statement by saying something like, "extreme amounts of money or lack of it reveals ones attitude toward God. In other words, if it is true that all things are created by God for our good, which are to be used according to their purpose, then the improper use of them in any way is indicative of what one believes about God.
For instance, if a Christian were to take an extreme attitude regarding one's budget, that a Christian should only budget for what is strictly necessary for survival, then in effect one is making a theological claim about God. That is, God only wants us to earn money insofar as it keeps us alive. This action is a patent denial of God's goodness which is revealed in the main purposes of other created objects (and" created objects" by the way extends to technological artifacts as well). Or take the case of somebody who believes that there finances are only to be regulated by their own conscience; that is, they are free to be as liberal and indulgent as possible. In this case, there is in fact a denial of gratitude. Yes, it affirms that God has made all things according to their purpose for us and for our good, but it places a one-sided emphasis on "for our good" and he fails to acknowledge the good God behind the thing. I realize, it's not Ramsey's intent to be this theologically overt, but in my opinion is ethical thinking on the matter not only extends into the theological realm, but in fact agrees with Calvin’s theological thinking.
P.S. I'd love to know what you think with regard to these matters:
• do you think it's possible to develop a theology of money like Calvin?
• Did you think Calvin is being fair to Scripture?
• Do you think he's being too lenient?
• Do you think he's being too strict?
• Do you think that wealth has nothing to do with theology?
• I invite your comments…
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Thou Shalt Not Speak with Imprecision!
Did you know that Jesus instructs us to cultivate speaking and listening skills in the Sermon on the Mount? Okay, so he never explicitly says, “Thou shalt not speak with imprecision!” But he nevertheless teaches us that this must be the case, if we are to develop genuine friendships. The Sermon on the Mount is a discourse on friendship: friendship with God and friendship among men. The startling feature about this theme is the way in which Jesus approaches it. He begins by addressing the problem of hatred, which is the destructive force that undermines friendship, and name-calling. He states that “you have heard that it has been said long ago, ‘do not murder’ and whoever murders is subject to judgment, but I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother is guilty of murder. Whoever calls his brother a fool is guilty before the Sanhedrin and whoever calls his brother a moron is in danger of the fire of Gehenna!” (Matt 5:21-22, my translation).
The principal here has two dimensions. Negatively – hatred is part of the prohibition of murder – this is a destructive force to friendship. In addition, abusive language is an extension of hatred and thereby a further violation of the prohibition to murder. This much is prominent and readily accessible in the text. Positively – love is the fulfillment of the law – this is the edifying force for friendship. Love between brothers is what constitutes true community. In addition, non-hostile negotiable language is a further extension or expression of love. Love – that is, an attitude of goodwill that seeks the benefit of one's neighbor – is a necessary condition of the heart that is fully expressed in the words we choose to use with our friends. Jesus affirms this principle when he addresses the problem of dealing with those who may be angry at you. He states, "Even when you are offering a gift on the altar and then and there remember that your brother has something against you, then go, leave your gift on the altar, and be reconciled to your brother," (Matt 5:23, my translation).
The verb "to be reconciled" means to come to terms with your brother. From this it can be inferred that reconciliation involves a skillful use of nonhostile, simple, and unambiguous language. Nonhostile – means that you are not using fighting words or name-calling. Simple – means that you're using ordinary language. Unambiguous – means that you must use language that is not attempting to hide, deceive, or subvert.
The Sermon on the Mount is a discourse on friendship. To be sure, all human friendship must first be grounded in friendship with God (Matt 5:8 – 10). This being established, this friendship extends into human to human relationships. Friendship between brothers is constituted with love (5:21). Love is expressed with a skillful use of language (Matt 5:22). This means that the fulfilling the law does not mean merely avoiding hatred among men but also speaking simply, peaceably, and unambiguously to men. In other words, do your friends a favor by cultivating your ability to speak clearly, truly, and peaceably.
The principal here has two dimensions. Negatively – hatred is part of the prohibition of murder – this is a destructive force to friendship. In addition, abusive language is an extension of hatred and thereby a further violation of the prohibition to murder. This much is prominent and readily accessible in the text. Positively – love is the fulfillment of the law – this is the edifying force for friendship. Love between brothers is what constitutes true community. In addition, non-hostile negotiable language is a further extension or expression of love. Love – that is, an attitude of goodwill that seeks the benefit of one's neighbor – is a necessary condition of the heart that is fully expressed in the words we choose to use with our friends. Jesus affirms this principle when he addresses the problem of dealing with those who may be angry at you. He states, "Even when you are offering a gift on the altar and then and there remember that your brother has something against you, then go, leave your gift on the altar, and be reconciled to your brother," (Matt 5:23, my translation).
The verb "to be reconciled" means to come to terms with your brother. From this it can be inferred that reconciliation involves a skillful use of nonhostile, simple, and unambiguous language. Nonhostile – means that you are not using fighting words or name-calling. Simple – means that you're using ordinary language. Unambiguous – means that you must use language that is not attempting to hide, deceive, or subvert.
The Sermon on the Mount is a discourse on friendship. To be sure, all human friendship must first be grounded in friendship with God (Matt 5:8 – 10). This being established, this friendship extends into human to human relationships. Friendship between brothers is constituted with love (5:21). Love is expressed with a skillful use of language (Matt 5:22). This means that the fulfilling the law does not mean merely avoiding hatred among men but also speaking simply, peaceably, and unambiguously to men. In other words, do your friends a favor by cultivating your ability to speak clearly, truly, and peaceably.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Platonic Wealth Building
A couple of nights ago, I was reading Plato's Republic only to be surprised by the fact that the first issue to be discussed was wealth building! The Republic is a political philosophy, indeed the political philosophy. The basic thematic question is: what is justice? Plato not only wants to understand and articulate a theory of Justice but he also wants to propose a pragmatic model that could be implemented. As a piece of literature, it is staged as a dialogue, which is characteristic of most of Plato's writings. This particular dialogue is completely narrated by Socrates, who is incidentally the main character of the drama. At the beginning of the drama, Socrates is invited to participate in a festival that is taking place in the city. On his way to the city, he encounters a pleasant older gentleman named Cephalus.
Cephalus is unusual older gentleman because he possesses a sense of contentment and happiness, which seems to run contrary to many older people who no longer enjoy the benefits of youth “as the physical pleasures wither away” (I. 328d2). Socrates, was quite astonished by this, inquires about how he has achieved this state of mind. Celphalus provides an astonishing rationale for his philosophy of thinking young. He basically says 1) old age does not “cause many evils” 2) rather it is “the way people live,” or a lack of personal responsibility. This personal responsibility is founded on the principles of moderation and contentment, which is practically demonstrated in the way one approaches personal-finance.
Cephalus is admittedly one who has great wealth, but it is well that he himself has acquired and no thanks to his father's wasteful opulence. Cephalus is indifferent to wealth itself, but is satisfied by the benefits that he has achieved by means of his wealth. He clearly states that his wealth has benefited him in two areas: 1) he is able “to leave my sons here not the last but a little bit more than I inherited,” 2) he stands fearless before the gods because he knows he has lived "the just and pious life" and this life was made possible by the fact that wealth enables one to speak truthfully – without coercion – and one his people to a man and gods.
This is extremely interesting because Cephalus has drawn attention to the significance of money in three different yet related social spheres: family, economy, and religion. He doesn't have a strained relationship with his family because he has put them in the best possible financial circumstance. This means, even in his old age he is taken care of by his children because he has ensured (at least in part) there wealth. He's not at odds with the state because he has been able to pay his debt. He does not have to fear the gods because he has lived a good life and he has paid for all the proper sacrifices (this last point certainly is theologically suspect, but the principle remains true). Money does not just affect I – It relationships. That is, money is not just a way for an individual to relate to a large impersonal society. On the contrary, money is also a way of relating to family, neighbor, and God. Money is reflective of one's personal character. This does not mean that a lack of money equals a lack of character. In other words, character is not measured by quantity, however character is reflected in one's use or misuse of money. The acquisition and use of wealth should be guided by a sense of moderation and contentment. The acquisition of wealth will enable a person to provide for his family, speak the truth in confidence, and live with complete integrity before God. The purpose of acquiring great wealth is not mere acquisition but personal character and provision.
Now, admittedly, Socrates dismisses Cephalus’understanding of justice on the grounds that it does not provide a sufficient definition of justice, specifically in the case of truth speaking. However, if we are to be fair to Cephalus, he was simply referring to personal justice and not widescale political justice. In addition, even though "Socrates" (the literary character) dismisses Cephalus’case study, I believe that Plato is holding up Cephalus as a paradigm example of somebody who is a Just citizen and who has achieved a just balance in life by means of a pure state of mind. The principal here is: just character begins the heart but is expressed outwardly through one's use of allotted power, which in this case is money. Truly, this is the first principle of Platonic wealth building!
Cephalus is unusual older gentleman because he possesses a sense of contentment and happiness, which seems to run contrary to many older people who no longer enjoy the benefits of youth “as the physical pleasures wither away” (I. 328d2). Socrates, was quite astonished by this, inquires about how he has achieved this state of mind. Celphalus provides an astonishing rationale for his philosophy of thinking young. He basically says 1) old age does not “cause many evils” 2) rather it is “the way people live,” or a lack of personal responsibility. This personal responsibility is founded on the principles of moderation and contentment, which is practically demonstrated in the way one approaches personal-finance.
Cephalus is admittedly one who has great wealth, but it is well that he himself has acquired and no thanks to his father's wasteful opulence. Cephalus is indifferent to wealth itself, but is satisfied by the benefits that he has achieved by means of his wealth. He clearly states that his wealth has benefited him in two areas: 1) he is able “to leave my sons here not the last but a little bit more than I inherited,” 2) he stands fearless before the gods because he knows he has lived "the just and pious life" and this life was made possible by the fact that wealth enables one to speak truthfully – without coercion – and one his people to a man and gods.
This is extremely interesting because Cephalus has drawn attention to the significance of money in three different yet related social spheres: family, economy, and religion. He doesn't have a strained relationship with his family because he has put them in the best possible financial circumstance. This means, even in his old age he is taken care of by his children because he has ensured (at least in part) there wealth. He's not at odds with the state because he has been able to pay his debt. He does not have to fear the gods because he has lived a good life and he has paid for all the proper sacrifices (this last point certainly is theologically suspect, but the principle remains true). Money does not just affect I – It relationships. That is, money is not just a way for an individual to relate to a large impersonal society. On the contrary, money is also a way of relating to family, neighbor, and God. Money is reflective of one's personal character. This does not mean that a lack of money equals a lack of character. In other words, character is not measured by quantity, however character is reflected in one's use or misuse of money. The acquisition and use of wealth should be guided by a sense of moderation and contentment. The acquisition of wealth will enable a person to provide for his family, speak the truth in confidence, and live with complete integrity before God. The purpose of acquiring great wealth is not mere acquisition but personal character and provision.
Now, admittedly, Socrates dismisses Cephalus’understanding of justice on the grounds that it does not provide a sufficient definition of justice, specifically in the case of truth speaking. However, if we are to be fair to Cephalus, he was simply referring to personal justice and not widescale political justice. In addition, even though "Socrates" (the literary character) dismisses Cephalus’case study, I believe that Plato is holding up Cephalus as a paradigm example of somebody who is a Just citizen and who has achieved a just balance in life by means of a pure state of mind. The principal here is: just character begins the heart but is expressed outwardly through one's use of allotted power, which in this case is money. Truly, this is the first principle of Platonic wealth building!
Thursday, November 18, 2010
The Life of the True Scholar: Intentional Selective Friendship
Philip Soen
Professors tend towards one of two ways, when it comes to the giving of advice to their students: either they tend to give an overabundance of counsel or they give none at all. The problem with both of these tendencies is that very often a professor has the potential to pay a significant role in the life of his/her students. Of course, an excess of advice leaves the student with a bad impression whereas defective silence leaves no impression at all. The principal question then is: how can a college professor administer council in such a way that is most beneficial to the student?
The purpose of this paper is to develop a rough theological/philosophical sketch of counseling, specifically nontherapeutic counseling, which will be administered within academic settings. I will call this type of counseling Intentional-Selective-Friendship. The goal of this type of counseling will seek to avoid the pitfalls of either excess (i.e. what is normally thought of as unsolicited advice) or defective advice (i.e. the teacher who is mute before the specific problems of his or her students). Positively, it will attempt to provide a starting point for building biblical community. In addition, it will provide philosophic framework for thinking about the types of problems one may encounter with student-teacher relationships.
This paper will be divided into two portions. The first portion will be a brief sketch of Intentional-Selective-Friendship. Within this portion I will briefly define this approach and provide a biblical basis for it. Then I will describe the appropriate contexts for this type of counseling. After which, I will provide a basic methodology. The second portion of this paper will focus the issues of the integration and implementation of this method within a reformed theological framework and an ecclesiastical context.
INTENTIONAL SELECTIVE FRIENDSHIP
Its Definition and Biblical Basis
What is Intentional-Selective-Friendship? Basically, it is the art of friendship that is intentionally and thoughtfully exercised within a clearly defined context. This definition is not exhaustive but it is functional. Let me break down the basic components of this definition.
First, friendship is a nonhostile relationship between persons that has been established either by circumstance or design. This means that true friendship requires some semblance of mutual feeling and respect (i.e. nonhostile) between the persons involved. This relationship could have been brought about by mere circumstance (e.g. neighbor, coworker, student, and child) or perhaps by intentional design (e.g. best friends, spouse, etc.).
Second, friendship is an art. Aristotle was well aware of this aspect of friendship. In fact, he devoted several books to the subject within his discussion on ethics. Basically, this means that true friendship is not thoughtless but has set of governing principles, which makes it possible to practice. Within our context, friendship is thoughtfully and intentionally exercised. This means that in order to practice this type of friendship, we must seek to understand the principles that govern it, the setting for it, and the skills required for its continued growth and development.
Now, what is the biblical basis for Intentional-Selective-Friendship? I would suggest that the basis for this type of friendship is clearly taught in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5—7). This sermon is fundamentally about establishing community. First (and primarily), Jesus teaches that there must be true community between God and man. Second, there must also be community between man and man. It is difficult to distinguish at what point Jesus is addressing these two different types of community because for Jesus both of these types of community overlap. One's relationship with God will flow over into how one treats and establishes community with his fellow man. This sermon is principally addressed to disciples of Jesus or “his disciples” (Matt 5:1). This is important because the principles and perspective that Jesus assumes within a sermon could only be practiced by somebody who is in a right relationship with God.
Now, the pragmatic goal of Jesus’ sermon is that his disciples will intentionally and selectively establish community. How does this work? First, it must be noted that for the Christian there is no such thing as accidental circumstance (6:26), and therefore anyone within the Christian's purview is another opportunity to further establish community. In fact, Jesus will command all of his disciples to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt 28: 19).
If this is true, then how can a Christian be truly selective in his or her friendship? After all doesn't Jesus call us to love is in our enemies (5:43)? Yes, it is true that we are required to love our enemies; however this does not mean that trust is automatically extended to the same degree to our enemies. Jesus requires a Christian to establish trust with all men, but he does not require all Christians to dispense that trust in an undifferentiated and nonselective manner.
Jesus has three categories of relationship: family, neighbors, enemies. Family includes spouse (Matt 5:31-32), parent-child (Matt 7:9), and “brother” (ἀδελφός). Spouse and parent-child relationships apply to close and genuine kin whereas the latter “Brother” (ἀδελφός) can apply to family brothers and brothers within the community of faith. “Neighbors” (πλησίον) are nonthreatening neutral relationships: a relationship with “one who is near close by.” “Enemies” (ἐχθροὺς), of course, are threatening and hostile relationships. This hostility is expressed through violent actions (Matt 5:39) and a lack of shared communication (Matt 5:11 -- 12).
So what are we to do with these relationships? Jesus requires continual intentionality whether these relationships are threatening or peaceful. The spouse is required to remain absolutely faithful without a hint of external sexual intrusion (Matt 5:27 -- 32). The parent is someone who provides for the child, despite his or her or natural evil inclination (7:11). The brother is required to live selflessly for his brother and without persistent conflict (5:21 -- 26). The disciple is required to at least live on peaceful terms with his enemy, if at all possible (5: 38 -- 43).
In all of this, the disciple is summoned to make his “neighbors” into “brothers” and his “enemies” into “neighbors.” The disciple is in effect intentionally establishing community with all men, while selectively differentiating the types of relationships that exist among men.
Counseling with in an Academic Community
Now, I believe that Intentional-Selective-Friendship could be applied theoretically in almost any and every circumstance. However, for it to work effectively, one must give deliberation to what circumstances one will apply it. In my circumstance, I want to think about how this model could be applied within an academic setting, specifically within a smaller scale Christian liberal arts university. As a future teacher, I envision functioning with two types of friendship: peer-to-peer relationships and teacher-student relationships.
Now, by definition, both of these types of relationships are determined by incidence. In effect, both relationships are defined by mutual interest in “what is good for themselves;” that is, each party is involved for the sake of something that is useful for themselves. But the former is more strongly defined by mutual professional interest whereas the latter may only varying degrees of interest depending on the focus and aptitude of the student.
In addition, my peer-to-peer relationships will be longer and more indefinite in duration where as my student-teacher relationships will be shorter lived. In other words, it will be more of a temptation to invest more in my professional relationships then in my student relationships. In addition, it will be a great temptation to take less responsibility for what is said and done to my students than would be to my peers because the duration for student-teacher relationships is less and more sharply defined.
Regardless of these conditions I still will seek to intentionally established community with both types of these relationships, while recognizing the difference mutual interest, design, and duration. If I may apply uses terminology to the context, I will recognize that “brothers” (peer-to-peer) must continue and repeatedly established trust among themselves, while quickly resolving any conflict that may arise. In addition, I will seek to establish “brotherhood” among my future students. This means I will seek to bring them into closer community, despite the fact that the relationship by design is temporary.
Jesus’ pattern of intentional selective community, demands that within any profession we should seek to be a source of trustworthiness. In addition, it demands that we intelligently differentiate and define the types of relationships within that community. Community, of course, is not the goal of Intentional-Selective-Friendship, rather it is God's own glory. The Christian builds community in such a way that everything works towards this goal. He maintains brotherhood in order to worship in all purity and he who holds his enemies so that he can win them over into brotherhood, which will bring more glory to God. The implication for professors is that the academic setting does not exclusively define and determine the operational framework for building community within a Christian college. Ultimately, education functions within an ecclesiastical framework. It is a house built upon rock (Matt 7:25).
Framework and Method: Functional Holism and Intentional Selective Friendship
Since we have provided a functional definition of Intentional-Selective-Friendship, substantiated this model with minimal yet adequate biblical evidence, and given some thought to the specific challenges that one may encounter within an academic setting; we may now safely sketch out a biblical psychology with regard to an anthropological model and relational method.
I am under the conviction that all men can be understood within a Pauline/Petrine framework. I believe both of these biblical writers understood man as a functional yet differentiated whole. That is, these men understood the person to consist in rational, emotional, and physiological unity whereby these “functions are fully integrated.” This does not mean that Paul is an ontological monist. Ontologically Paul understood that there was a difference between the physiological, the psychological, and even the higher supernatural elements of the person (e.g. immortality, incorporeal existence, etc.).
There are three basic aspects of this anthropology, which should be kept in mind. First, we must keep in mind what a person was created to be (i.e. in terms of his or her original unity, diversity, and epistemic experiential dimensions). Second, we should keep in mind what has happened to the person since creation (i.e. his bondage to sin in terms of his passive condition, active contribution, and evil infliction). Third, we should keep in mind what God is doing for that person to redeem and restore him back into his original functional state.
Practically speaking within an academic context this means helping my students understand the functional relationship between their emotional, intellectual, and physiological dimensions. My goal should be to demonstrate and exemplify a fully integrated life of true scholarship. This will be done both in the classroom and within interpersonal settings. In order to clarify this, I will need to (at a later date) attempt to further understand Paul's theology of the divide itself in Ro 7:14—25.
INTEGRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
Reformed Psychology or Reforming Psychology?
So is it possible to integrate various psychological theories into this schema of Intentional-Selective-Friendship? To put it quite bluntly: yes! Karl Barth once stated in a rare interview that was conducted in English, “the Christian need not fear science, sociology, or psychology, there is only one fear that matters... the fear of God!” I think this statement goes a long way in summarizing the integration of psychology and reformed theology. Basically, as long as any given method of psychology does not contradict the place and supremacy of God's glory, then the only problems that remain are purely pragmatic, which can only be solved in real-world settings.
Intentional-Selective-Friendship As Church Mission?
Throughout this entire essay I have been making the case for Intentional Selective Friendship, which I argued has its biblical basis in Matt 5-7 with a supplemental Aristotelian framework in Nichomachean Ethics. The implicit argument is that this is certainly a pragmatic and functional goal of every believer and consequently the church. However, what is the place of professional counseling within the church? Without going into too much detail, I would suggest that there is certainly a place for professional counseling within the church simply on the basis that there is such a great need for counseling and a lack of genuinely good counselors.
Without going too deeply into the subject, I would suggest that the presence of professional counseling is highly indicative of the fact that many believers have failed to adequately think about the subject of friendship and consequently failed to develop the skills necessary for good and healthy friendships; that is, friendships that go beyond mere incidence (i.e. utility or pleasure) and transform into ideal and perfect relationships. As a consequence of this failure many people are not even aware that friendships could be improved and deepened by a conscientious and intentional effort to develop people literacy or speaking and listening skills.
This failure is not the sole responsibility of the church. Mortimer J. Adler states that schools have also failed to incorporate speaking and listening training within its curriculum. I would extend the criticism to include the responsibility of pastoral clergy. Preaching is a larger-than-life and simplification and demonstration of speaking and listening. It demonstrates before the body of Christ: 1) how the preacher engages the biblical text and 2) how the preacher engages the audience. In my experience, preachers tend towards one extreme or the other.
I would suggest that the church could better learn to develop the skills through a batter pulpit education. By this I mean that the preacher should learn to develop speaking and listening skills through a more active engagement with the text at the language level. Preachers should understand that active engagement with “digital” texts is transferable ability. To actively engage in text at a digital level requires an attention to detail, deleted information, generalized information, as well as selected information. Correspondingly, active engagement of a person could assist the pastor in understanding the questions that his congregation is interested in as well as the areas of theological ignorance as well as hostility.
CONCLUSION
This essay has advocated a non-therapeutic approach to counseling, which I have called Intentional-Selective-Friendship. Our goal here was to begin to develop an approach to counseling that negatively sought to avoid the common pitfalls of mere unsolicited advice and positively to intentionally and actively established biblically based friendships that can be sorted through an understood within Aristotelian framework. The goal of this counseling is to embody the life of true scholarship in such a way that adequately administers advice tailored to the needs of specific students. The task is to recognize the different types of relationships, while at the same time seeking to deepen those relationships by transforming and inviting relationships to go from incidence to intentional selective biblical community. The goal of this community is the glory and worship of God. Although there was particular attention paid to the application of this approach in academic settings, it can virtually be applied to any real life setting.
Bibliography:
Adler, Mortimer J. How to Speak How to Listen. New York: Simon & Shuster, 1983.
Gordon, David T. Why Johnny Can't Preach: the Media Have Shaped the Messengers. New Jersey: R & R Publishers, 2009.
Hawthorne, Gerald F. and Ralph P. Martin. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 1993.
Lewis, Byron and Frank Pucelik. Magic of NLP Demystified: A Pragmatic Guide to Communication & change. Portland: Metamorphous Press, 1990.
Theilman, Frank. Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.
Professors tend towards one of two ways, when it comes to the giving of advice to their students: either they tend to give an overabundance of counsel or they give none at all. The problem with both of these tendencies is that very often a professor has the potential to pay a significant role in the life of his/her students. Of course, an excess of advice leaves the student with a bad impression whereas defective silence leaves no impression at all. The principal question then is: how can a college professor administer council in such a way that is most beneficial to the student?
The purpose of this paper is to develop a rough theological/philosophical sketch of counseling, specifically nontherapeutic counseling, which will be administered within academic settings. I will call this type of counseling Intentional-Selective-Friendship. The goal of this type of counseling will seek to avoid the pitfalls of either excess (i.e. what is normally thought of as unsolicited advice) or defective advice (i.e. the teacher who is mute before the specific problems of his or her students). Positively, it will attempt to provide a starting point for building biblical community. In addition, it will provide philosophic framework for thinking about the types of problems one may encounter with student-teacher relationships.
This paper will be divided into two portions. The first portion will be a brief sketch of Intentional-Selective-Friendship. Within this portion I will briefly define this approach and provide a biblical basis for it. Then I will describe the appropriate contexts for this type of counseling. After which, I will provide a basic methodology. The second portion of this paper will focus the issues of the integration and implementation of this method within a reformed theological framework and an ecclesiastical context.
INTENTIONAL SELECTIVE FRIENDSHIP
Its Definition and Biblical Basis
What is Intentional-Selective-Friendship? Basically, it is the art of friendship that is intentionally and thoughtfully exercised within a clearly defined context. This definition is not exhaustive but it is functional. Let me break down the basic components of this definition.
First, friendship is a nonhostile relationship between persons that has been established either by circumstance or design. This means that true friendship requires some semblance of mutual feeling and respect (i.e. nonhostile) between the persons involved. This relationship could have been brought about by mere circumstance (e.g. neighbor, coworker, student, and child) or perhaps by intentional design (e.g. best friends, spouse, etc.).
Second, friendship is an art. Aristotle was well aware of this aspect of friendship. In fact, he devoted several books to the subject within his discussion on ethics. Basically, this means that true friendship is not thoughtless but has set of governing principles, which makes it possible to practice. Within our context, friendship is thoughtfully and intentionally exercised. This means that in order to practice this type of friendship, we must seek to understand the principles that govern it, the setting for it, and the skills required for its continued growth and development.
Now, what is the biblical basis for Intentional-Selective-Friendship? I would suggest that the basis for this type of friendship is clearly taught in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5—7). This sermon is fundamentally about establishing community. First (and primarily), Jesus teaches that there must be true community between God and man. Second, there must also be community between man and man. It is difficult to distinguish at what point Jesus is addressing these two different types of community because for Jesus both of these types of community overlap. One's relationship with God will flow over into how one treats and establishes community with his fellow man. This sermon is principally addressed to disciples of Jesus or “his disciples” (Matt 5:1). This is important because the principles and perspective that Jesus assumes within a sermon could only be practiced by somebody who is in a right relationship with God.
Now, the pragmatic goal of Jesus’ sermon is that his disciples will intentionally and selectively establish community. How does this work? First, it must be noted that for the Christian there is no such thing as accidental circumstance (6:26), and therefore anyone within the Christian's purview is another opportunity to further establish community. In fact, Jesus will command all of his disciples to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt 28: 19).
If this is true, then how can a Christian be truly selective in his or her friendship? After all doesn't Jesus call us to love is in our enemies (5:43)? Yes, it is true that we are required to love our enemies; however this does not mean that trust is automatically extended to the same degree to our enemies. Jesus requires a Christian to establish trust with all men, but he does not require all Christians to dispense that trust in an undifferentiated and nonselective manner.
Jesus has three categories of relationship: family, neighbors, enemies. Family includes spouse (Matt 5:31-32), parent-child (Matt 7:9), and “brother” (ἀδελφός). Spouse and parent-child relationships apply to close and genuine kin whereas the latter “Brother” (ἀδελφός) can apply to family brothers and brothers within the community of faith. “Neighbors” (πλησίον) are nonthreatening neutral relationships: a relationship with “one who is near close by.” “Enemies” (ἐχθροὺς), of course, are threatening and hostile relationships. This hostility is expressed through violent actions (Matt 5:39) and a lack of shared communication (Matt 5:11 -- 12).
So what are we to do with these relationships? Jesus requires continual intentionality whether these relationships are threatening or peaceful. The spouse is required to remain absolutely faithful without a hint of external sexual intrusion (Matt 5:27 -- 32). The parent is someone who provides for the child, despite his or her or natural evil inclination (7:11). The brother is required to live selflessly for his brother and without persistent conflict (5:21 -- 26). The disciple is required to at least live on peaceful terms with his enemy, if at all possible (5: 38 -- 43).
In all of this, the disciple is summoned to make his “neighbors” into “brothers” and his “enemies” into “neighbors.” The disciple is in effect intentionally establishing community with all men, while selectively differentiating the types of relationships that exist among men.
Counseling with in an Academic Community
Now, I believe that Intentional-Selective-Friendship could be applied theoretically in almost any and every circumstance. However, for it to work effectively, one must give deliberation to what circumstances one will apply it. In my circumstance, I want to think about how this model could be applied within an academic setting, specifically within a smaller scale Christian liberal arts university. As a future teacher, I envision functioning with two types of friendship: peer-to-peer relationships and teacher-student relationships.
Now, by definition, both of these types of relationships are determined by incidence. In effect, both relationships are defined by mutual interest in “what is good for themselves;” that is, each party is involved for the sake of something that is useful for themselves. But the former is more strongly defined by mutual professional interest whereas the latter may only varying degrees of interest depending on the focus and aptitude of the student.
In addition, my peer-to-peer relationships will be longer and more indefinite in duration where as my student-teacher relationships will be shorter lived. In other words, it will be more of a temptation to invest more in my professional relationships then in my student relationships. In addition, it will be a great temptation to take less responsibility for what is said and done to my students than would be to my peers because the duration for student-teacher relationships is less and more sharply defined.
Regardless of these conditions I still will seek to intentionally established community with both types of these relationships, while recognizing the difference mutual interest, design, and duration. If I may apply uses terminology to the context, I will recognize that “brothers” (peer-to-peer) must continue and repeatedly established trust among themselves, while quickly resolving any conflict that may arise. In addition, I will seek to establish “brotherhood” among my future students. This means I will seek to bring them into closer community, despite the fact that the relationship by design is temporary.
Jesus’ pattern of intentional selective community, demands that within any profession we should seek to be a source of trustworthiness. In addition, it demands that we intelligently differentiate and define the types of relationships within that community. Community, of course, is not the goal of Intentional-Selective-Friendship, rather it is God's own glory. The Christian builds community in such a way that everything works towards this goal. He maintains brotherhood in order to worship in all purity and he who holds his enemies so that he can win them over into brotherhood, which will bring more glory to God. The implication for professors is that the academic setting does not exclusively define and determine the operational framework for building community within a Christian college. Ultimately, education functions within an ecclesiastical framework. It is a house built upon rock (Matt 7:25).
Framework and Method: Functional Holism and Intentional Selective Friendship
Since we have provided a functional definition of Intentional-Selective-Friendship, substantiated this model with minimal yet adequate biblical evidence, and given some thought to the specific challenges that one may encounter within an academic setting; we may now safely sketch out a biblical psychology with regard to an anthropological model and relational method.
I am under the conviction that all men can be understood within a Pauline/Petrine framework. I believe both of these biblical writers understood man as a functional yet differentiated whole. That is, these men understood the person to consist in rational, emotional, and physiological unity whereby these “functions are fully integrated.” This does not mean that Paul is an ontological monist. Ontologically Paul understood that there was a difference between the physiological, the psychological, and even the higher supernatural elements of the person (e.g. immortality, incorporeal existence, etc.).
There are three basic aspects of this anthropology, which should be kept in mind. First, we must keep in mind what a person was created to be (i.e. in terms of his or her original unity, diversity, and epistemic experiential dimensions). Second, we should keep in mind what has happened to the person since creation (i.e. his bondage to sin in terms of his passive condition, active contribution, and evil infliction). Third, we should keep in mind what God is doing for that person to redeem and restore him back into his original functional state.
Practically speaking within an academic context this means helping my students understand the functional relationship between their emotional, intellectual, and physiological dimensions. My goal should be to demonstrate and exemplify a fully integrated life of true scholarship. This will be done both in the classroom and within interpersonal settings. In order to clarify this, I will need to (at a later date) attempt to further understand Paul's theology of the divide itself in Ro 7:14—25.
INTEGRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
Reformed Psychology or Reforming Psychology?
So is it possible to integrate various psychological theories into this schema of Intentional-Selective-Friendship? To put it quite bluntly: yes! Karl Barth once stated in a rare interview that was conducted in English, “the Christian need not fear science, sociology, or psychology, there is only one fear that matters... the fear of God!” I think this statement goes a long way in summarizing the integration of psychology and reformed theology. Basically, as long as any given method of psychology does not contradict the place and supremacy of God's glory, then the only problems that remain are purely pragmatic, which can only be solved in real-world settings.
Intentional-Selective-Friendship As Church Mission?
Throughout this entire essay I have been making the case for Intentional Selective Friendship, which I argued has its biblical basis in Matt 5-7 with a supplemental Aristotelian framework in Nichomachean Ethics. The implicit argument is that this is certainly a pragmatic and functional goal of every believer and consequently the church. However, what is the place of professional counseling within the church? Without going into too much detail, I would suggest that there is certainly a place for professional counseling within the church simply on the basis that there is such a great need for counseling and a lack of genuinely good counselors.
Without going too deeply into the subject, I would suggest that the presence of professional counseling is highly indicative of the fact that many believers have failed to adequately think about the subject of friendship and consequently failed to develop the skills necessary for good and healthy friendships; that is, friendships that go beyond mere incidence (i.e. utility or pleasure) and transform into ideal and perfect relationships. As a consequence of this failure many people are not even aware that friendships could be improved and deepened by a conscientious and intentional effort to develop people literacy or speaking and listening skills.
This failure is not the sole responsibility of the church. Mortimer J. Adler states that schools have also failed to incorporate speaking and listening training within its curriculum. I would extend the criticism to include the responsibility of pastoral clergy. Preaching is a larger-than-life and simplification and demonstration of speaking and listening. It demonstrates before the body of Christ: 1) how the preacher engages the biblical text and 2) how the preacher engages the audience. In my experience, preachers tend towards one extreme or the other.
I would suggest that the church could better learn to develop the skills through a batter pulpit education. By this I mean that the preacher should learn to develop speaking and listening skills through a more active engagement with the text at the language level. Preachers should understand that active engagement with “digital” texts is transferable ability. To actively engage in text at a digital level requires an attention to detail, deleted information, generalized information, as well as selected information. Correspondingly, active engagement of a person could assist the pastor in understanding the questions that his congregation is interested in as well as the areas of theological ignorance as well as hostility.
CONCLUSION
This essay has advocated a non-therapeutic approach to counseling, which I have called Intentional-Selective-Friendship. Our goal here was to begin to develop an approach to counseling that negatively sought to avoid the common pitfalls of mere unsolicited advice and positively to intentionally and actively established biblically based friendships that can be sorted through an understood within Aristotelian framework. The goal of this counseling is to embody the life of true scholarship in such a way that adequately administers advice tailored to the needs of specific students. The task is to recognize the different types of relationships, while at the same time seeking to deepen those relationships by transforming and inviting relationships to go from incidence to intentional selective biblical community. The goal of this community is the glory and worship of God. Although there was particular attention paid to the application of this approach in academic settings, it can virtually be applied to any real life setting.
Bibliography:
Adler, Mortimer J. How to Speak How to Listen. New York: Simon & Shuster, 1983.
Gordon, David T. Why Johnny Can't Preach: the Media Have Shaped the Messengers. New Jersey: R & R Publishers, 2009.
Hawthorne, Gerald F. and Ralph P. Martin. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 1993.
Lewis, Byron and Frank Pucelik. Magic of NLP Demystified: A Pragmatic Guide to Communication & change. Portland: Metamorphous Press, 1990.
Theilman, Frank. Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)