EPS Blog

Dallas Willard: "My Beloved Rabboni"

2013-05-16T11:36:00.000-07:00

Aaron Preston, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Chair of the Philosophy Department at Valparaiso University, writes a moving tribute to Dallas Willard, which he aptly summarizes as follows:

Dallas Willard was the most wonderful person I have ever known. I was privileged to have him as my teacher both as an undergraduate and as a graduate student, and to have him as my mentor, friend, and - in the truest sense of the word - my pastor, the shepherd of my soul, over the last two decades. Here is my very inadequate attempt to describe what Dallas was like in these roles. Of course it is somewhat misleading to call these "roles". In reality, they were all expressions of the brilliant, patient, caring, nurturing person Dallas was (and is!), a person who united great intelligence and great virtue in the substance of his own being so powerfully as to palpably manifest the goodness of God like no one else I have ever encountered.

The full-text of Preston's reflection offers insights into Willard's own character and his ability to shape the lives of others - and not just their "spiritual life" or their "professional life" - beyond the public eye. Consider this final anecdote in Aaron Preston's reflection:

On one occasion I was suffering from a rather severe depressive episode related to my spiritual angst. Dallas spent an hour or more praying over me after which the depression was simply and entirely gone, and it has never come back. Life has not been a bed of roses ever since – that’s the stuff of fairy tales – but since that moment I’ve always been able to find the strength to cope with life, often by remembering his prayer and invoking it over myself again.

... Dallas was not just my teacher and my dissertation supervisor. He was my beloved Rabboni. I am grateful for his life. I will miss him for the rest of mine.

On Dallas Willard, Husserl and the Perennial Problem

2013-05-15T11:20:00.000-07:00

Gregg Ten Elshof, chair of Biola's department of philosophy and director of the Center for Christian Thought, observes the following about the impact of Willard on his life and whether Dallas was a scholar for the sake of Husserlian scholarship:

In the early 90’s someone introduced me to Dallas Willard’s book The Spirit of the Disciplines. That book completely reorganized my thinking about what it meant to be a Christian. Strangely enough, it was the first time that I can remember seriously entertaining the invitation to follow Jesus – this though I’d been a Christian my whole life. I am, and will eternally be, grateful for the opportunity to follow Jesus. So I am, and will eternally be, grateful for Dallas Willard.

For five years I was a student under Dallas’s direction at USC. Having been so deeply impacted by his written work, I was pleasantly surprised to find that he, himself, was far more compelling than anything he had written. To be with him was to draw near to the Kingdom of God. He seemed effortlessly to communicate the peace, security, love and acceptance of God by his mere presence. I found it nearly impossible to remain anxious about anything while with him. And it was my repeated experience to witness the disarming of anger, contempt, fear, and countless other inner ailments with a simple look, a gentle word, a touch.

Dallas is the best teacher I’ve ever met. His work in philosophy always penetrates to the perennial problem – that issue of central importance to the human condition – in whatever discussion he’s a part of. During his time with us, he loved to think, write, and talk about a philosopher by the name of Edmund Husserl. He saw in Husserl a few crucial insights required to make sense of our ability to have knowledge of the world. But he didn’t allow the world of Husserl scholarship (and it is a real world unto itself) to define his research agenda. Rather, he brought the insights of Husserl to bear upon urgent questions about life, meaning, and the Kingdom of God.

The simple and relaxed confidence so palpable and contagious in his person and so visible in his writing is the result of having deeply internalized these insights by means of decades of careful, nuanced, and often erudite scholarship. For Dallas, the big ideas and their relevance for life mattered more than did anything like Husserl expertise. As a result, his students (as I’ve experienced them anyway) are among the least likely in the field to lose the forest for the trees or to get bogged down in the technical trivia that often animates academic dialogue. He passed on the insistence on finding and addressing the urgent questions of our day.

Here is a life deeply worthy of celebration and imitation. I am grateful to God for the gift of Dallas Willard.

Gregg Ten Elshof

Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines, and Lord Aragorn

2013-05-13T09:54:00.002-07:00

Dallas Willard was a magnanimous man in his vocational capacity as a professor and scholar and also in his capacity as a friend, mentor, and colleague. Greg Ganssle, a Senior Fellow at Yale University's Rivendell Institute, discerns a vision of human greatness in Willard's work and its convergence with Tolkein's Lord of the Rings. Greg writes the following:

I defended my dissertation in January of 1995. Once the dust had settled, I decided to read or re-read all of the books I had put off for so many years. On my list, of course, was another trip through Middle Earth. At the same time, I read through Dallas Willard’s The Spirit of the Disciplines in my devotional time. I was struck with the convergence between Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings and The Spirit of the Disciplines. Both held forth a vision of human greatness. What does it mean to be a great person? Willard led the reader through the wise practices that enabled one to put down deep roots in character. Tolkien painted a picture of character in action.

A great person is one who can live and act with patience and confidence because he both knows who he is, and he is centered on something larger than himself. For the Christian, the center is Christ. His call to us is our anchor. Our keel is deep because we draw upon the depth of his love and work in our souls. Through the habitual drawing upon his strength, we flourish. We may look strong from the outside, but it is the strength of his might.

The vision of human greatness held forth by Willard and Tolkien shines brightly when compared with the anemic pictures of greatness in our culture. A bit in Peter Jackson’s production of the Lord of the Rings makes this clear. In the first film, the character Aragorn was made to wallow in uncertainty about whether he could or would take up the task at hand. In Tolkien’s books, Aragorn never doubted and never hesitated. Why the change? I think it is because Jackson knew that the only categories contemporary viewers have for a deep person are those of overcoming self-doubt. In order to make Aragorn deep, he had to make him struggle with self-doubt. For Tolkien, it is much deeper to be a man who is confident and unwavering about one’s identity and destiny and to be patient in realizing one’s highest aspirations. Such virtues are invisible to a culture that is living in the triumph of pop-psychological entertainment.

Dallas called us to be people who do not doubt or hesitate because we are built upon the firm foundation of the work of God. He challenged us to embody those virtues that are real and visible to God, even if they cannot be seen by those around us. He blazed a trail for all of us. He pointed us towards a distant horizon, one that many of us had only glimpsed in imaginary worlds such as Tolkien’s. That horizon is not new. But every generation needs someone who can see it more clearly and point towards it more decisively.

We are all better people because of Dallas Willard's faithfulness.

Talbot's Philosophy Department Mourns the Death of Dallas Willard

2013-05-11T10:48:00.000-07:00

Dallas Willard's academic influence permeated from within and beyond the University of Southern California. As a former trustee, his impact upon Biola University, and especially her philosophy faculty, is significant. Scott Rae, Chair of Talbot's Philosophy Department, says of Dallas:

We at Talbot, and especially in the philosophy department, are deeply saddened with the homegoing of our mentor and friend, Dallas Willard. We want to remember his immense contribution, not only to Talbot and Biola more generally, but specifically to our philosophy program.

Dallas was a source of great encouragement to us when we began the program some 20 years ago and has remained one of our best friends and supports for our ongoing work. He mentored a number of us in our doctoral programs at USC, marked us deeply and impacted not only our professional lives but our spiritual lives as well. He was very inspirational to us to remember the right things and set our priorities accordingly. He modeled the kind of humility that continues to, we hope, define our community, where we take God's Kingdom very seriously, but do not take ourselves that seriously.

We will miss him greatly and will always appreciate his calm demeanor, well thought out views, the priority of the Kingdom and his love for Jesus. We know he is better off, but I'm pretty sure we're not--his loss is incalculable. Thanks, Dallas, for your investment in our program, faculty and students.

Scott Rae, Chair of Talbot's Philosophy Department, was at USC from 1988-1992, and his dissertation was on the "The Ethics of Commercial Surrogate Motherhood."

Moreland on Willard: 'We Have Lost a Five-Star General"

2013-05-10T11:53:00.000-07:00

"Dallas was a man with a deep, pervasive, penetrating intellect. He was a Christian first and a philosopher second," observes long-time friend and former student of Willard's, J. P. Moreland in his tribute here. J.P. also said, "We have lost a five-star general in the armies of God, and the world is not what it was when he was among us.

Three days before Dallas passed on, J.P. spoke to him on the phone and reports this:

He was lucid, in good spirits, but so weak that he could hardly project his voice over the phone. He knew he was dying. I told him that I wanted to take a minute to celebrate his life and remind him of the impact for the Kingdom he had had. Well, being the humble, unassuming person he was, Dallas would have none of this. I told him he had to listen to me whether he wanted to or not, and he responded that he would take the praise as from the Lord, and I filled his ear with his wonderful legacy. He closed our conversation by remarking on “what a glorious future we all have in the Kingdom,” and that was how the man approached his death.

Read more of J.P.'s tribute at his website's blog.

Dallas Willard Mentored Me to Be Mentored by Christ Through the Spirit

2013-05-10T09:45:00.000-07:00

Dallas Willard's impact in philosophy is far and wide. Many had the privilege to do their doctoral work under his care.

R. Scott Smith, Associate Professor of Ethics and Christian Apologetics at Biola University, was at the University of Southern California from 1995-2000. His dissertation was on "Whose Virtues? Which Language? A Critique of MacIntyre’s and Hauerwas’s ‘Wittgensteinian’ Virtue Ethics," which later developed into his first book with Ashgate in 2003, Virtue ethics and moral knowledge: philosophy of language after MacIntyre and Hauerwas.

Consider how Scott shares the way in which Dallas was a "sign-pointer" to the way in which Christ seeks to mentor us:

I am so grateful for how the Lord opened up the opportunity to study at USC and be mentored by Dallas Willard. I think that was a major reason why the Lord opened that door. I could not do the work I am now doing without his influence, and that of another student of his, JP Moreland.

As a student (and even still), I was amazed at how much meaning and insight Dallas could pack into a single sentence. I still am chewing on some of those nuggets he shared with me in his office hours, or in class. His insights have opened up vistas that I just could not have begun to see while a graduate student, but the Lord has since expanded into areas of research and fruitful labor for His kingdom.

I sought out Dallas originally to help me understand better postmodern thought, but I have walked away with a much broader set of horizons and opportunities – e.g., the many, many facets of constructivism; naturalism’s inability to give us knowledge; how the breakdown in epistemology today is due fundamentally to a breakdown in ontology; and how we can indeed know reality, even directly. But, I cannot help but think that these were things he already had understood and foreseen long ago.

Now that he is absent from the body, yet present with the Lord, I miss him. He is someone I could go to for advice and be encouraged. But, he leaves us with a rich deposit of articles and books that we all ought to explore and deeply ponder. Some of his philosophical works, like “Knowledge and Naturalism,” “How Concepts Relate the Mind to Its Objects,” “A Crucial Error in Epistemology,” and Logic and the Objectivity of Knowledge, are treasures worth mastering. They contain very helpful insights that apply to so many of our questions and issues today.

But now, it seems there is a big gap without him being here, to go to. Even so, I started to learn about an answer when I first started working at Biola. I was exposed to his talk, “Jesus: The Smartest Man Who Ever Lived?” and little did I know, the ideas therein, though simple in one sense, would profoundly influence me. He portrayed Jesus as the One who has knowledge (indeed, all wisdom and knowledge - Col. 2:3), who wants to mentor and apprentice me, and who gladly wants to share His wisdom and knowledge with His servants. If we humble ourselves, seek and listen to Him, and be deeply united with His heart and mind, Dallas had discovered that Jesus will be happy to mentor us, in philosophy or whatever area of life we are in. Jesus is the smartest man who has ever lived, or ever will.

I know now of His mentoring me in firsthand ways, while I bathe in prayer subjects I am researching; while I am writing and have typed sentences the meaning of which turned out to be far beyond what I had in mind when I typed them; and from listening to Him. So, while a giant and a good man has passed from among us for now, and we miss him, his Mentor is available to all of us who are His children. “Learn of Me” – this is what a Christ-shaped philosophy must be about: being actively apprenticed by Him, and not me trying to do philosophy as a Christian by my best lights, without an intimate, utter dependence upon Him. That is too dangerous, for as Dallas, who exemplified humility, knew well, apart from Him even the Christian’s heart can be more deceitful than all else, and our thoughts are not His thoughts.

Thank you, Dallas, for all these things. And thank You, Lord, for Dallas and Your Spirit at work through him, and in us.

R Scott Smith, PhD
Biola University

May 25: Dallas Willard Memorial Service

2013-05-09T23:40:00.000-07:00

Memorial Service Celebrating the Life and Work of Dallas Willard

Saturday, May 25, 10:30 a.m.
Church on the Way
14300 Sherman Way
Van Nuys, CA 91405

From Becky Heatley, daughter of Dallas Willard:

Dallas asked that we not make this a big deal, and wanted us to encourage people not to travel across the country for the service. So there will be a webcast of the service, and details will be posted on www.dwillard.org.

The Willard Center has setup a page where people are leaving tributes and messages to the family at: http://dallaswillardcenter.com/guestbook/ You might want to take a look at what’s being said.

Dallas Willard (1935-2013): Life-long Learner and Lover of Christ Jesus and His Kingdom

2013-05-08T14:17:00.000-07:00

Dallas Willard (1935-2013), a life-long learner and lover of Christ Jesus and His Kingdom, and a faithful "co-conspirator" for Jesus' cause in the world, early this morning entered into Act 2 of the "eternal kind of life now." His dear daughter, Becky, wrote to friends:

Dallas entered into the joy of his Master this morning at 5:55. His passing was quiet and gentle. We know that he was willing to stay and continue his work, but he was longing to be home with Jesus and we find joy in knowing he is there now. In the day before his passing, he shared that he was experiencing moments when the veil was parting and revealing the glorious reality of the great cloud of witnesses.

It's impossible to put into words the multi-level, generational influence Dallas has had on Christian philosophers, pastors, theologians, psychologists, educators and spiritual formation directors; and that's the short-list of different types of influencers!

No doubt, a "Willardian" perspective will continue to influence, even though Dallas personally eschewed the mere reproduction of "Willard-ites" as a substitute for people themselves personally experiencing the Kingdom of God.

Dallas didn't set out to make a movement or foster a trend. He did intend to cast a big vision for a "big God" in a big world. Ordained as a pastor, he never lost sight of the value of shepherding and caring for people, whether as a philosophy professor at the University of Southern California (1965-2012), or as a celebrated author, conference speaker and dear friend.

To those that knew him, these words easily come to mind: a man of gentleness, wisdom and understanding who was in awe of God, full of patience, ease, tenderness, magnanimity, good humor, and classy.

No one will have the ultimate word on Dallas and his influence, except His Master and Friend, Jesus. The next best authority on Dallas would be his lovely and faithful wife, Jane, who has (as Dallas often admitted) the "real scoop" on him.

In the days and weeks to come, we seek to feature various remembrances and celebrations of Dallas by those who studied under him at USC and who see his philosophical influences at work in their own life and in the life of others.

Dallas was more than an accomplished and seasoned "professional philosopher," notable for his work on Edmund Husserl, and various others areas of epistemology, ontology, and ethics. Philosophy was a servant and not a master of him, enabling him to reflect deeply and richly on the God-bathed world.

He was not satisfied with "doing philosophy," even as a disciple of Jesus, for the sake of merely furthering scholarly discussions as some kind of academic sport. His philosophical insights were put in the service of helping people better understand how to flourish well in a God-bathed world.

He loved people and cared for their dignity, and many people love him, and will continue to be nurtured by both memories and his wise sayings.

The Ontology of Boredom and Culture of Death

2013-05-07T15:44:00.000-07:00

R. J. Snell, Philosophia Christi contributor, director of the philosophy program at Eastern University and co-director of the Agora Institute, offers a timely and insightful lecture at the Templeton Honors College's honors forum, "The Ontology of Boredom and Culture of Death."

The Implausibility of Physical Determinism

2013-04-01T15:54:00.000-07:00

Richard Swinburne, a recent Presidential Visiting Scholar at Biola University's Center for Christian Thought, offered this lecture at a recent CCT lecture series:

Debating God - Williams, Lewis et al

2013-03-22T06:48:00.003-07:00

EPS followers may be interested in Peter S. Williams' recent debate on God's existence with Professor Christopher Norris at Cardiff University:

Audio of the debate is available here.

Turning to a debate of a rather different nature, Peter's new book, C.S. Lewis vs the New Atheists (Paternoster, 2013), is available from amazon.com.

How might C.S. Lewis, the greatest Christian apologist of the twentieth century, respond to the twenty-first century 'new atheism' of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and company? Might Lewis' own journey from atheism to Christian belief illuminate and undercut the objections of the new atheists? Christian philosopher Peter S. Williams takes us on an intellectual journey through Lewis' conversion in conversation with today's anti-theists.

A free sample chapter is available here. You can listen to Peter's talk from the official book launch at the Oxford C.S. Lewis Society here and to an interview about the book with Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 here.

'This book shows the breadth, depth, and durability of Lewis's Christian apologetics.' - Dr. Michael Ward, Senior Research Fellow, Blackfriars Hall, Oxford University & author of Planet Narnia

‘Given the New Atheists’ confident rejection of religious belief, one might have thought that their case would stand up to scrutiny when compared with the most prominent Christian apologist of the twentieth century, C.S. Lewis. In this book, Peter Williams clearly demonstrates that this is not the case at all. He shows that Lewis rejected his earlier atheism as a result of an in-depth consideration of the nature of reality, whereas the New Atheists fail to back up their rhetoric with any serious evaluation of the arguments. This highly readable book will be of interest to all who wish to evaluate the New Atheism and to understand the enduring legacy of C.S. Lewis.’ - Dr. David Glass, author of Atheism’s New Clothes

‘While they terrify many an unprepared soul, the new atheists are really paper tigers. Their roar rings hollow, their swagger lack intellectual rigor. Their arguments, while strident, are really hapless and hollow. Williams carefully exposes their fallacies and rebuts their arguments with biblical and intellectual rigor. This is a savvy work of apologetics for our day.’ - Dr. Douglas Groothuis, Professor of Philosophy, Denver Seminary

'I recommend [Peter's work] enthusiastically.' - Dr. William Lane Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology

Ratio Christi: Interview with President Rick Schenker

2013-01-01T13:26:00.000-08:00

The student apologetics alliance, Ratio Christi, continues to experience great development, history, and influence in its endeavor to bring thoughtful Christian witness to non-religious university contexts. I recently interviewed President Rick Schenker about some of the great work of his organization. The EPS continues to be a home for self-identified apologetics scholars, leaders and practitioners. For that reason and more, ATTENTION all graduate students in apologetics: Ratio Christi Wants You!

Rick, what are you passionate about when you think about the work and leadership of Ratio Christi?

I am passionate about evangelism, and I believe apologetics is all about evangelism. I believe an apologist fits the Ephesians 4:11 role of an evangelist by equipping believers to win their own circle of influence. Therefore, by placing a resident apologist at each university, Ratio Christi is training Christian students not only that their faith is solidly grounded in truth (reality), but that every conversation is an opportunity to lead others to Christ. We are turning them into evangelists, and training them to teach what they have learned to other faithful men and women who will to teach others. I know it sounds amazing, but my hope is to help create one of the greatest evangelistic movements of this century by training 2.5 million apologetics oriented evangelists in the next 10 years. I think we have the plan to get it done.

How does Ratio Christi value graduate training in apologetics?

Ratio Christi needs well trained apologists. We love to recruit our chapter leaders from schools that offer graduate training in apologetics. We are hoping that by providing trained apologists with more opportunities to work in the field of apologetics that the schools that do the training will be able to drastically increase their enrollments.

Ratio Christi is a mobilizing and networking organization. Why is that important?

The thing that was missing in the overall apologetics movement was an organization that is entirely focused on developing grassroots (local) opportunities for apologists. We are filling that niche by offering to have them serve (full-time or as a volunteer) as a Ratio Christi resident apologist at a university. This has mostly been in the U.S., but now we are creating opportunities internationally. We will be increasing these opportunities as soon as we launch Ratio Christi College Prep to reach middle school and high school students. Think about what this does. It also creates more opportunities for apologetics ministries to provide speakers and resources at every one of our venues. Our goal is to grow the entire apologetics enterprise.

How many leaders and groups are currently affiliated with Ratio Christi, and how are you wanting to see Ratio Christi grow?

We have grown from having only 10 chapters in early 2011 to having over 100 chapters right now, and our budget has tripled. Our initial goals are to open 500 chapters at universities in the next five years, and 1,000 chapters in the next ten years. Add to this the plan we are developing for Ratio Christi College Prep, and all of a sudden this becomes a movement.

What are the top needs and opportunities that you see for apologetics leadership in the church and on campuses?

I think the biggest need is probably also the biggest opportunity. We need more apologists not only to serve in Ratio Christi opportunities, but to also provide more speakers and resources for the needs that will be created. I believe God has been laying the foundation for an apologetics oriented evangelistic movement for well over 60 years (maybe more). If our plan works only half as well as I am hoping, we will still have over a million Christians trained as apologetics oriented evangelists that understand their obligation to teach others what they have learned. If we keep the focus on students, they will eventually be reaching into churches and schools all around the world.

To aid toward having "Christians trained as apologetics oriented evangelists," do you foresee Ratio Christi providing additional training regarding leadership development? If so, how?

Part of the Ratio Christi plan is to not compete against other apologetics organization that provide training and resources. We work with potential chapter directors and students all the time and recommend training and resources from these other organizations. However, when we finally launch Ratio Christi College Prep, our plan is to train and certify local mentors (or trainers) to reach middle school and high school age students. Yet even in this case we plan to use the materials and curriculum of other organizations to train the trainers.

Are there other training needs that you foresee would be important for undergraduate and graduate training to attend to as they help to prepare the next generation of Christian apologists?

I think most of the schools that have apologetics graduate degrees do a great job. It would be nice to see apologetics and its relationship to evangelism emphasized more in Christian undergraduate programs, and more of their graduates entering graduate degree programs in apologetics. I personally think that the church is heading into what I call the “age of the apologists.” To win our postmodern culture to Christ and to keep Christians from falling away from the faith, churches are going to have to equip their congregations with more than how to have financial peace, or how to laugh their way to a better marriage. That means the church will eventually have to start engaging apologists—something very few churches are doing right now.

I know you value the work of the local church and pastors. Ratio Christi, of course, is a "parachurch" organization aimed at Christian witness on campuses. But I wonder if there are ways that pastors might collaborate with your overall endeavor. If so, how?

There are a few ways that churches can collaborate with Ratio Christi. We encourage local churches to adopt a local chapter and find ways to support their efforts. For chapters where we have full-time missionaries, churches could place those missionaries on their missions budget, and engage the services of these apologists to help train their parents, youth, and leaders in the use of apologetics. We actually have a plan for this called our "Community Apologists program.” In addition, one model we are looking at for Ratio Christi College Prep would be to develop a direct relationship with local churches to train local trainers to teach youth in various venues in the community. Another way would be to welcome the Ratio Christi students that have certified “Legatus Christ—meaning Ambassadors of Christ” and look for opportunities for them to teach others in the local church.

To learn more about the work of Ratio Christi, please visit RatioChristi.org.

Philosophia Christi Winter 2012: Paul Moser's Religious Epistemology

2012-12-13T22:04:00.000-08:00

The very next issue of Philosophia Christi has now mailed! If you are not a current member/subscriber, you can become one today by purchasing here.

This packed issue leads with a resourceful discussion on Paul K. Moser's religious epistemology, with contributions by Katharyn Waidler, Charles Taliaferro, Harold Netland and a final reply by Moser. This journal contribution not only extends interest and application of Moser's epistemology but also compliments the EPS web project on "Christ-Shaped Philosophy".

We also feature interesting work in philosophical theology, including how one might understand "friendship with Jesus" (Michael McFall), the scope of divine love (Jordan Wessling), and how one's view of original sin relates to a broad free-will defense (W. Paul Franks).

Other significant article contributions address criticisms against Plantinga's conditions for warrant (Mark Boone), the latest in cosmology and arguments for God's existence (Andrew Loke) along with further challenges against "central state materialism" (Eric LaRock).

Readers will not want to miss J.P. Moreland's critique of Thomas Nagel's Mind and Cosmos along with the critique of Christian physicalism by Jonathan Loose. Michael Austin provides a helpful philosophical account of the virtue of humility in light of social science considerations, and Amos Yong critically assesses "relational apologetics" in a global context.

Finally, this issue features book reviews by William Lane Craig, James Stump, Paul Copan, James Bruce and Jason Cruze about books related to the latest on science and theology, cosmology, metaethics, and ethics of abortion.

See all the articles included in this issue by clicking here.

Charles Taliaferro On "Christian Agrarianism Today"

2012-11-12T22:43:00.000-08:00

The 2012 theme of the Evangelical Philosophical and Theological Society meetings is focused on"Care for Creation."

Come gather for the EPS plenary address on Wednesday, the 14th @ 3:00 PM - 4:30 PM (Frontier Airlines Center, Ballrooms ABC).

Noted philosopher Charles Taliaferro's (St. Olaf) will discuss the following topic: "Christian Agrarianism Today; Some lessons from early land stewardship and community-based agriculture in New England":

In recent decades, there has been a revival of Christian agrarianism with such important spokespersons as Wendell Berry and Wes Jackson. Christian philosophers have much to learn from Berry and others as well as from the agrarian movement in the southern United States. And yet some of the southern agrarians were weak on sustainability, excessive in their opposition to corporations, and less vital than their New England counter-parts in their Christian understanding of virtue and neighborliness. In this address, I propose that there is a neglected, but rich vision of Christian agrarianism in early, colonial New England that can provide us with important resources for thinking about agriculture today. My hope is there might be a movement today of "new theism" (as a counter-part to "new atheism") which combines an analytic, philosophically rigorous articulation of theism in concert with a heightened sense of our shared, God-given responsibility for land and neighbors.

Existential Reasons for Belief in God: An Interview with Clifford Williams

2012-09-25T12:51:00.000-07:00

In a recent EPS interview, philosopher Clifford Williams discusses his 2011 IVP Academic book, Existential Reasons for Belief in God, by detailing what he means by 'existential needs' and its importance for helping people gain confidence in God. The interview also discusses how his book contributes to other recent projects in epistemology (mostly) developed by Christian philosophers.

How did you come to write your 2011 book, Existential Reasons for Belief in God (IVP Academic)?

I was giving talks at Cornerstone Music Festival in 2004, and after one of them—on Nietzsche or Kierkegaard, I think—Rod Taylor, who was then a Ph.D. student in literature at Indiana University, asked me to have lunch with him. So I took my sandwich and apple to his camper and we talked about apologetics. The contemporary brand of apologetics, which seems to assume that faith is entirely evidence based, comes up short, he said. Logic can take us only so far. He thought there should be an apologetics that appealed to the heart as well as to the mind. And, he said, perhaps I could work on it. I asked, “Existential apologetics in addition to evidential apologetics?” He replied with an emphatic “Yes.” And that is what the book consists of.

What exactly do you mean by “existential apologetics”?

I mean the attempt to show that believing in God is justified because doing so satisfies certain needs. Evidential apologetics says, “I believe in God because there is good evidence for doing so,” but existential apologetics says, “I believe in God because I need to.”

What counts as an ‘existential need’?

It is not, of course, just any need that believing in God satisfies. There are a number of what I call “existential needs”—the need for cosmic security, the need for meaning, the need to feel loved and the need to love, plus others. On the basis of these needs, we can construct an argument, which I call the existential argument for believing in God. The first premise mentions all of our existential needs, but I am going to mention only a few.

We need cosmic security. We need meaning, and we need to love and be loved.
Faith in God satisfies these needs.
Therefore, we are justified in believing in God.

This is not an argument purporting to explain why we have certain needs and desires. That would be an evidential argument. The existential argument for believing in God does not appeal to evidence; nor does it offer an explanation of why we have the existential needs. It gives a different kind of justification for believing in God than evidence-based justification—a need-based justification. The question the book deals with is, Is this different kind of justification legitimate?

So, would you characterize your approach as ‘non-evidential’?

Although I contrast existential apologetics with evidential apologetics, I don’t think of the developed version of existential apologetics as non-evidential. It uses reason in an evidential way. And that use involves a number of components, so that there is something like a cumulative case in a developed version of the existential argument for believing in God. Given the number of existential needs, given the connections among them, given the successful outcome of the application of the “need criteria,” the “value test,” and the “satisfaction test,” one is justified in believing in God. All of this is a fusion of need and reason in a cumulative way.

For the purposes of your overall argument, would you draw a distinction between affectivity, desires, and emotions? If so, how might this look?

Affectivity, I take it, is a general term referring to what has “feeling tone,” which includes desires and emotions. Emotions typically contain desires, but not all desires are contained in emotions. Although the existential argument for believing in God takes off from felt needs, it could also be put in terms of desires.

How does your book seek to contribute to other historical and contemporary work on ‘existential needs’ and ‘arguments from desire’?

One thing I do is to expand what counts as an “existential need” by giving a short description of thirteen such needs, including, in addition to the ones I mentioned above, the need for awe, the need to delight in goodness, the need to live beyond the grave without the anxieties that currently affect us, and the need to be forgiven.

Two features of these needs stand out. The first is that there are more of them than just the need for cosmic security that Freud focuses on. And what is relevant to believing in God is not simply the “need for God” that other writers sometimes mention. When I hear that phrase, I wonder what exactly our need for God amounts to. The thirteen existential needs unpack the idea. Our need for God is a complex matter, because we are complex creatures, and a great deal of who we are connects to faith in God.

The second feature of the existential needs, as I describe them, is that not all of them are self-directed. Some are other-directed. This fact undercuts the critique that faith in God is simply a result of a self-satisfying need. If it were, faith would seem to be nothing more than something I want. But some of the existential needs are not self-serving at all. The need for awe isn’t, nor is the need for justice and fairness or the need to love. We are, of course, satisfied when these needs are met, but not in a self-serving way, just as we are not satisfied in a self-serving way when we act compassionately even though we are indeed satisfied when we do so.

As for arguments from desire, they come in two forms: existential and evidential. The existential ones are essentially equivalent to the existential argument for believing in God, as desires and needs are the same for purposes of the argument. Evidential arguments from desire take various forms. C. S. Lewis’s well-known argument from desire in Mere Christianity seeks to explain a certain fact: “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.” This is an evidential argument because Lewis is giving evidence for the claim that we were made for another world, namely, the fact that we possess desires that no experience in this world can satisfy. The claim that we were made for another world is the most probable explanation of the fact, according to Lewis. The ways in which my existential argument for believing in God can be supplemented with reason can also be used to support Lewis-type evidential arguments from desire.

The existential argument for believing in God is a special form of a pragmatic argument. What I say in its defense, when it is supplemented with reason, is in the tradition of William James’s pragmatism. James’s pragmatism, I might add, is not so non-evidential as seems commonly to be thought. My contribution to that tradition is to systematize both the existential argument for believing in God and the objections to it.

In addition, I draw on accounts of emotion in the work of Robert C. Roberts (Emotions: An Essay in Aid of Moral Psychology and Spiritual Emotions: A Psychology of Christian Virtues), Robert Solomon (True to Our Feelings: What Our Emotions Are Really Telling Us), and Martha Nussbaum (Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions). Their robust conception of emotions is what I have in mind when I say that the satisfaction of the existential needs consists of emotions and that believing in God consists in part of emotions.

When I think of your project, I also think of several recent projects mostly in epistemology from Paul Moser, Stephen Evans, Jamie Smith, Eleonore Stump, and Esther Meek, that would seem to contribute to your overall thesis and objectives for existential apologetics. So, I am wondering whether you have some comments here as it relates to the positioning of your project in light of the work of others.

I like their focus on affectivity, as it corrects the focus on reason that is sometimes prominent in philosophical and theological writing. It fits well with the existential argument for believing in God and with my conception of faith as consisting, in part, of an emotion, but so far as I know, none of these authors espouse either of these.

Can you say a little more about faith consisting of an emotion?

If faith is a result of the satisfaction of existential needs, and if the satisfaction of these needs is an emotion, as it is for most of the needs, then faith consists of emotion, at least in part. I say, “in part,” because if faith is a result of reason and evidence in addition to the satisfaction of needs, then it would consist of assent as well. Because most people come to faith through some combination of reason and the satisfaction of needs, for most people faith is a fusion of assent and emotion.

By “reason” I mean not just having evidence, but more broadly “making sense.” It is also important to have the robust conception of emotions I referred to earlier. Emotions have had a bad reputation among many Christians, but with the right conception of emotions one can say that they are part of faith.

Now, as far as objections go, what about the Freudian charge—that satisfaction of need does not justify belief? What is the difference between the existential argument for believing in God and the assertion that someone is justified in believing that a friend of theirs is innocent of a crime because they have a need to believe in their friend’s innocence?

I have two replies. The first is that humans are both reason and need creatures, especially when it comes to believing in God. We need to have both our reason and needs satisfied. My assumption here is that the way in which we come to have a belief affects that belief in some way. So if someone comes to believe in God solely through reason, that is, solely because of evidence, then that belief will reflect that process. It will be largely “intellectual.” This, I think, is the point Rod Taylor was making. Believing in God should not be just intellectual, because God is a person to whom we can connect in emotional ways. God is someone who satisfies our existential needs. So if my assumption is correct, the way in which we come to believe in God should involve needs and emotions as well as evidence. This means that the way apologetics has often been practiced is deficient because it appeals to only one aspect of human nature.

My second reply is to admit that the existential argument for believing in God is just as one-sided as evidential arguments. It needs to be supplemented with reason. And that is the main burden of the book, showing how this can be done. The twist I offer is that reason can be applied to the needs themselves. It is not just evidence used independently of the satisfaction of needs that is required to buttress the existential argument for believing in God, but reason operating on the needs mentioned in the argument.

I need to make it perfectly clear that I side with evidential apologists’ claim that evidence is needed in order to be justified in believing something. A purely existential apologetics is deficient, as the Freudian charge claims. But so also is a purely evidential apologetics. I offer a way to fuse them.

You can read the full-text of the interview by clicking here.

Readers might also be interested in Cliff's recent contribution to the EPS web project on "Christ-Shaped Philosophy," where he attempts to show the relevant role of the emotions in this approach to philosophy.

William Lane Craig - Video from the Reasonable Faith Tour of England

2012-09-10T06:05:00.000-07:00

Video of Bill Craig's 'Reasonable Faith' Tour of England in 2011 (and 2007) is available free on-line at several venues including:

YouTube: The Reasonable Faith Tour (UK)

Bethinking: Audio & Video from the Reasonable Faith Tour

The tour took Craig from London to Southampton, Oxford, Cambridge and Manchester debating the existence of God with British atheists such as Peter Atkins, Arif Ahmed, Stephen Law and Peter Millican, as well as giving several lectures on diverse themes, including Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design.

See Frank Turek's interview with Bill about the tour here.

Bobby Conway likewise interviewed Craig about the tour here.

I was privileged to partner with Bill in a debate at the Cambridge Union Society on the motion "This house believes God is not a delusion"; my blow by blow analysis of the debate, as well as the video, is available here.

New Essays on the Philosophy of Alvin Plantinga

2012-08-08T09:08:00.004-07:00

Kelly James Clark and Michael Rea (eds.), Reason, Metaphysics, and Mind: New Essays on the Philosophy of Alvin Plantinga (Oxford University Press, 2012).

Christian philosopher and theologian Jim Beilby (Bethel University) has a helpful NDPR review on the latest celebration of Al Plantinga's work.

"The culmination of a long and fruitful career is always something worth celebrating. But some retirement celebrations require a little something extra -- like an academic conference and a book," writes Beilby.

The context for the development Reason, Metaphysics and Mind is the May 21-23, 2010 conference in honor of Plantinga. "[nearly three-hundred people] gathered, Beilby notes, "not only because Plantinga is world-renowned for his contribution to the fields of epistemology, metaphysics, and philosophy of religion, but also because "Al" -- as most of the conference participants know him -- is their friend, mentor, and/or former professor." One is reminded here of Wolterstorff's paper at the closing session of the conference, "Then, Now, and Al" (which is also available in the book).

Not surprisingly, the topics addressed by the papers in this book are as wide-ranging as Plantinga's own work.

The quality of the essays in this volume is very high. They all provide an important contribution to their respective areas of philosophical discourse and some have the potential to be classics. I found Ric Otte's essay, for example, to be profoundly helpful in advancing (and in some ways, redirecting) the conversation about the problem of evil. Furthermore, the distribution of the topics provides an interesting survey of some of the best work in analytic philosophy and analytic theology out there.

The essays in the volume also nicely illustrate the profound impact Alvin Plantinga has had on the field of philosophy. His purely academic achievements were not the only reason for this conference and ensuing volume. Consider the first footnote in Michael Bergmann's essay.

I am very pleased to be presenting this chapter in honor of Alvin Plantinga. His philosophical writings are brilliant, field defining, and full of wit, all of which make them both hugely beneficial and a huge pleasure to read. But even more impressive and meaningful to me, however, is the manner in which he has modeled in his own life, in multiple ways that I think about often, how someone with a career in philosophy can be a faithful Christian (p. 9, n. 1).

Comments such as these, including the whole of Wolterstorff's essay, indicate that Al has not been content to merely blaze new trails in the philosophical landscape. He has shouldered the more difficult task of guide and mentor to many who have followed him on those new trails. This volume appropriately conveys appreciation for his work, both philosophical and personal.

I do, however, have three small quibbles with the volume. First, the issues engaged by the essays are profoundly interesting and the contributors and respondents are all top-notch, so I would very much have liked to have seen more extensive conversations between them. Second, some (but not all) of the essays include a short rejoinder to the comments of the respondent. But this rejoinder is included as a postscript to the original essay and before the response. This is, as I said, a quibble. It is certainly possible to read the essay, skip ahead to the response, and then jump back to the post-scripted rejoinder. But this is unwieldy and unnecessary. Third, not all of the essays include a rejoinder.

Bergmann, Flint, Merricks, and Sosa do, but Otte, Stump, van Inwagen, and Zimmerman do not. But, of course, these are not objections to the content of the volume. The problem here is not, one might say, philosophical indigestion. The problem here is analogous to that of Oliver Twist. The philosophical food in this volume is so appetizing that I found myself saying, "Please sir, I want some more."

As more books come out about the influence and leadership of Plantinga's work, it will be interesting to explore his impact on some aspect of a 'pentecostal philosophy' (e.g., the work of Jamie Smith), Christian apologetics (e.g., his influence on Bill Craig's epistemology), and to more interdisciplinary discussions (e.g., science and theology), including the work of Christian scholarship.

Recently, Plantinga and Wolterstorff were Presidential Visiting Scholars at Biola University's Center for Christian Thought. Below is an interesting video interview with both of them. The interviewer, philosopher Tom Crisp (a former student of Al's), asks them questions pertaining to the nature of Christian scholarship and the role of Christian scholars in the academy and in society.

I

Wolterstorff on Christian Scholarship and Shalom

2012-07-09T17:16:00.001-07:00

Alvin Plantinga On the Conduct of the Christian Philosopher

2012-07-09T16:52:00.001-07:00

Would Plantinga say anything different today about his famous "Advice"?

2012-07-09T16:45:00.001-07:00

On the Holy Spirit and Christian Scholarship: An Interview with Amos Yong

2012-07-06T14:20:00.001-07:00

What difference does the Holy Spirit make for 'doing Christian scholarship'? In some sense, that is a question that lurks behind Paul Moser's recent paper, "Christ-Shaped Philosophy." To be sure, it is a question that interests self-identified 'pentecostal' and 'non-pentecostal' scholars alike. Moreover, there is not a single take on the issue even within these two broad contexts.

One pentecostal who has thought a lot about this question (and associated issues) is the theologian Amos Yong.

Amos Yong is a professor of theology at Regent University (Virginia Beach, VA) and director of their doctor of philosophy program. He is an accomplished scholar on several fronts, with research interests in global Pentecostalism, theology of disability, Pentecostalism and science, and many other multidisciplinary areas. EPS members will be interested in his recent philosophy of religion article, “Disability and the Love of Wisdom: De-forming, Re-forming, and Per-forming Philosophy of Religion,” Ars Disputandi (2009). Over the years, Amos has also contributed to Philosophia Christi as a book reviewer.

During Spring 2012, Amos was a Fellow at Biola University’s Center for Christian Thought where he did research toward a future book on the significance of the Spirit in Christian scholarship and higher education. This is a question not only of interest to self-identified Pentecostals and Charismatics, but also of interest to evangelicals.

In my interview with Amos, we discuss his own vocation as a scholar, along with how he sees the ‘pentecostal’ contribution to so-called ‘faith-learning integration’ discussions and theology’s work in multidisciplinary contexts.

Here is a sample:

I want to start off by asking how you view your vocation as a theologian

The first thing I say is that I identify myself as a pentecostal scholar. What does it mean to be a pentecostal scholar? It means not dismissing pentecostal spirituality, pentecostal life, pentecostal practices, pentecostal ways of being in the world, and since there’s sometimes a lot of craziness going on in those ways of being in the world, it makes it a very exciting job!

In other words, as a pentecostal I don’t want to bracket all of that. As a pentecostal, I theologize with all of that, which is very messy.

As a pentecostal scholar, what in the pentecostal tradition informs the manner in which you do scholarship?

Certainly the role of the Holy Spirit in pentecostal imagination and worldview is prominent. So in that respect, it may be that pentecostals are more attentive to the Holy Spirit.

But as a theologian I also want to step back and say, “let’s also take, for example, the evangelical tradition which may not foreground the work of the Holy Spirit quite that much.” Now here I am asking a theological normative question: For evangelical foregrounding of the Spirit, does it mean that the Holy Spirit isn’t at work just that much? I probably want to say something like No. For the Holy Spirit is at work whether you or I name the Spirit.

But it’s possible that one may not have or use what I call ‘pneumatological language’ to foreground the Spirit’s work. So are we theologizing about the same thing but using different languages? That may be possible. I think what is distinctive is the kind of things we are paying attention to.

My way of looking at the world as a pentecostal may probably mean that I am more comfortable saying that just because there’s a lot of craziness, it doesn’t mean that we want to throw out the baby with the bath water. It does mean that discerning the work of the Holy Spirit will be a lot more complicated and we have to make some very fine distinctions in a particular phenomenon. In other words, to say whether the Holy Spirit is working here or not here seems a little bit artificial, so we will have to cultivate what I have called ‘pneumatological sensitivity.’

Discernment has to be a very precise kind of a thing in terms of how the Spirit is present or not present here, and even when we say that the Spirit is not working here, how then is the Spirit still working redemptively in this very dark scenario?

Can we say, then, that part of your job as a pentecostal theologian is to help draw attention to how God is present in the world, colored by the social imaginary of what it means to be a pentecostal?

I like that. Because I do think at the end of the day, at some fundamental level, all Christians are interested in this question – the question of drawing attention to how God is present – and they all should be.

Is this also a contribution that pentecostal scholars bring, ecumenically, to the broader Christian tradition?

Yes, so I’ve just re-read Jonathan Edwards’ Religious Affections, a well-recognized classic treatment of the subject. A careful reading of it will show that Edwards worked very hard to develop criteria, and to be nuanced, and to be very sensitive about other different ways of discerning things. He doesn’t want to be presumptive. I think this should be something that resonates with pentecostals.

I know Edwards is not a pentecostal in our sense of the term, and as a pastor he’s very concerned about these things. Colonialism is in the background coupled with a kind of bias against enthusiasm. Edwards is attentive to this.

Maybe a pentecostal bias, or “colored” perspective – to use your term – is less suspicious, which opens up a possibility, perhaps of naming and discerning these materials. Edwards can be very helpful for us. For he still provides a kind of well-received classical way of articulating these things at a certain level of theological respectability. Pentecostals are a little bit used to the messiness of reality, but Edwards is still very helpful. He’s a good conversation partner. And we can help call attention to that. That could be a good starting point.

How does a ‘pneumatological sensitivity’ and a responsiveness to God in doing scholarship lend themselves to particular practices as a scholar?

The tradition hands these issues down to us in a way that is both helpful and unhelpful. In one sense, we speak of “faith and reason.” But sometimes we speak of using earlier terms like “enthusiasm” and “religion within the limit of reason alone” – these are like poles on two sides of a spectrum. I think it’s helpful in some respects like when we’re talking about the left brain and the right brain. There’s day and night, there’s male and female. I do think at one level pentecostalism puts its fingers on those aspects of the human constitution such as the affective, the emotional, the subjective.

But with all of this, I want to say something like this: I want to be sensitive to the lesson we learned from modern liberalism. It’s not a mere return to Schleiermacher’s kind of pietism, but not returning to that doesn’t mean to not attend to the affective, the pietistic, and the emotive at bodily level.

Perhaps pentecostals might be more sensitive to the fact that reason and cognition can be involved in the affective and emotions?

Yes. I guess being a pentecostal, because of the foregrounding of affective reason and embodiment, affectivity and emotion is not mere emotionalism, mere spiritualism. Some people may think pentecostalism is all about the spiritual, I think as a pentecostal scholar I try to call attention to my own pentecostal friends about the fact that our spirituality is not much about otherworldliness.

We are very concerned with the material, the affective way of inhabiting this world. As a pentecostal scholar I think it’s very difficult to separate reason from faith, the emotion from the intellect, and the body from the spirit. Maybe pentecostals can help Christians think about all these things in their intertwined, interdependent, and interconstitutive manner. We have a take on it.

I try to encourage my pentecostal scholarly friends to keep helping us all to think about this and maybe perhaps our combined reflection will contribute to the broader Christian discourse, which I think will need a little bit of help in all these points. I would suggest a pentecostal approach that is holistic, paying attention to embodiment and the material dimension. That perspective is a springboard for me to think in interdisciplinary terms. All of this is helpful to think in terms of the embodied and social dimensions of our life. So for me this pneumatological imagination has already been interdisciplinary.

To read the full text of the interview, please click here.

On Entrepreneurship, Poverty and Abraham Kuyper: An Interview with Peter Heslam

2012-06-25T11:46:00.000-07:00

It is rare to find a scholar with a practitioner's heart. Peter Heslam, though, is as much 'into' ideas as he is practices. In fact, he says that "The best ideas are rooted in practice and the best practice is rooted in ideas"

In my wide ranging interview with Peter Heslam, we discuss his Cambridge multidisciplinary project, “Transforming Business,” the value of entrepreneurship, thinking about enterprise solutions to poverty, and the wisdom of Abraham Kuyper and John Wesley when helping us think about the current economic crisis and recovery in light of the value of thrift, magnanimity and magnificence. We close our conversation with him by offering some encouragement for emerging scholar types concerning how they might think about their academic pursuits 'beyond' academe.

At the University of Cambridge, you direct an innovative and very interesting research and development project, called “Transforming Business.” Why don’t you tell us about that endeavor, how it came about and why it’s at Cambridge?

Transforming Business analyzes and catalyzes the contribution of Christianity and entrepreneurship to human flourishing. Our focus is on enterprise solutions to poverty - ‘what works?’ In finding answers to this question, we pay particular attention to the role of faith in building social capital – the institutional, relational, moral and spiritual aspects of society.

The role of faith in building social capital is fascinating.

Social scientists increasingly agree that social capital is fundamental to business success, economic development and wellbeing and that Christianity is one of its key contributors.

Through innovative research and instruction we aim to channel the rising concern about global poverty in fresh directions that will deliver tangible improvement and genuine opportunities for people in poverty, based on biblical, holistic approach to what it means to be human.

We use robust, creative and multidisciplinary thinking, along with practical models and case studies, to discover and disseminate the most effective means by which Christians integrate faith with enterprise to provide sustainable routes out of poverty.

Are there advantages for Transforming Business to be at Cambridge?

By being based at the University of Cambridge we have the advantages of a globally recognized research institution. Its multi-disciplinary make-up and close associations with other spheres are also important to us, as the project crosses such disparate fields as divinity and economics and has strong links with the real worlds of church and business, both locally and globally.

In finding and advancing effective ways for Christian faith to combine with business enterprise in the fight against poverty, we draw not only on the best ideas but also on best practice. This reflects our determination to equip and inspire the rapidly growing numbers of Christian entrepreneurs, business leaders and opinion formers worldwide with research-based resources that help maximize their impact, for the good of all.

Surrounding the project is a growing international network of business ethicists, economists, practitioners, consultants, psychologists, educators, theologians and thought leaders. They are united by a passion to integrate their faith with their knowledge and skills in order to address the most pressing social, economic, and moral challenge of our time: the elimination of poverty within the constraints of finite natural resources.

What are some of your research questions?

The current global entrepreneurial revolution and rapid rise of Christianity ensure that these questions are of crucial importance to the future of the planet and its people: How does the convergence of Christian faith and enterprise help tackle poverty? How do Christian business leaders understand their vocation and how can they inspire and equip those considering a call to business? What would a theology of entrepreneurship look like and what is its practical value? How does Christian belief help foster innovation, integrity, responsible risk-taking, and entrepreneurial aspiration?

What do you think is the unique contribution that Kuyper brings to the questions of economic development, poverty, welfare and state vs. society spheres (e.g., from The Problem of Poverty), which perhaps differs from other Christian social thought thinkers and ethicists.

Kuyper maintained that neither enlightenment individualism nor the collectivism of state socialism offered viable solutions to the endemic poverty associated with the industrial revolution.. He denounced socialism for its revolutionary nature that rode roughshod over democratic freedoms and resulted merely in the replacement of one sort of tyranny with another. It also excluded any reference to a transcendent ‘other’, basing its political programme solely on human reason – which is fallen. A third problem he found with socialism was its secular materialism, which reduced humanity to the realm of nature, robbing human beings of the dignity they have by virtue of being created in the image of God. For Kuyper, the world only has meaning because of its contingent relationship with a sovereign creator. And hope for the future doesn’t reside in a socialist utopia but in faith in the Lord of history. This did not mean, for Kuyper, that piety or charity were any more the solution to poverty than socialism. As he wrote in the publication you refer to of 1891:

If you do not acknowledge this and think that social evil can be exorcised through an increase in piety, or through friendlier treatment or more generous charity, then you may believe we face a religious question or possibly a philanthropic question, but you will not recognize the social question. This question does not exist for you until you exercise an architectonic critique of human society, which leads to the desire for a different arrangement of the social order.

Perhaps Kuyper as political theorist is best known for his notion of ‘sphere sovereignty’. Do you think it’s of any relevance today?

I would indeed. Whereas Christian integralism tends to restrict civil liberties, as it allows the state to dominate the other spheres of society, promotes religious freedom and a flourishing civil society without the need to secularize the public square. This is because of its belief that society is made up of autonomous spheres that are all directly accountable to God, rather than to the state.

This is key to Kuyper’s notion of sphere-sovereignty and I believe it is of some considerable importance to the way Christianity develops in the developing and emerging world in the coming decades. Christians in those parts of the world, as in ours, need to work out what an ‘architectonic critique’ of society based on sphere-sovereignty would look like today. From Kuyper’s attempt to do that in his day, we can learn that this needs to be passionate in its pursuit of justice and the fight against poverty; determined in seeking freedom for the poor from the patronising hegemony of the rich, so that initiative and hard work are properly rewarded; unrelenting in its foundational critique of secularism and libertarianism; and rigorous in its propounding of freedom for the various spheres of society, with all the rights and responsibilities such freedom entails. While we cannot draw blueprints from Kuyper’s thought and work, these elements do provide rich sources of inspiration and reflection.

Did Kuyper see his theology of common grace as offering a critique against the ‘privatization of religion’?

That’s right. In propounding his doctrine of common grace, Kuyper’s argument was not so much with medieval asceticism as with modern religious philosophy. He was critical of what he regarded as its attempt to ban religion from the field of the human intellect and to confine it to the emotions and the will, in order to exclude religion from science and from public life.

For Kuyper, this attempt threatened to undermine the potential of the Calvinistic worldview based on common grace. It was indeed this worldview that, for Kuyper, accounted for the ‘Protestant ethic’ that, as Max Weber argued, had a dramatic effect on work and the economy. Weber maintained, in a similar way to Kuyper, that Calvinism propounded beliefs, attitudes and behaviours that had great economic significance: hard work, honesty, diligence, a sense of calling, discipline and the rational and productive stewardship of resources.

What was Kuyper’s view of wealth?

Although Kuyper wasn’t hostile to wealth, he was opposed to its accumulation at the expense of the poor, such as through usury and exploitation. Indeed, he sometimes stressed God’s ‘bias for the poor’ in ways that sound the liberation theologians of the 1960s: ‘When rich and poor stood opposed to one another, he [Jesus] never took his place with the wealthier but always with the poorer.’ He frequently pointed out that Jesus had more in common with the homeless and those on the margins of society than with the wealthy and the powerful.

Is there a concern that motivates Kuyper’s view of the poor?

Indeed, Kuyper’s worry was that the ideals of the French Revolution and enlightenment rationality amounted to a bias against the poor. For him, rationality, utility, pragmatism, secularism, and moral relativism helped increase injustice and inequality.

This is interesting contextualization. What did he think was distinctive about the Christian view?

The Christian worldview maintained that ‘authority and freedom are bound together by the deeper principle that everything in creation is subject to God.’ Without this starting-point, individual free will threatened to become the foundation of society. This, Kuyper believed, would allow pride, license, egoism, and material consumption free reign, as reflected in the French Revolution, which ‘left nothing but the monotonous, self-seeking individual asserting his own self-sufficiency.’

Sounds like an identification of societal problems in our own day.
Precisely, and Kuyper also attacks the French Revolution with other phrases that have contemporary resonance:

It [the French Revolution] compelled men to seek happiness on earth, in earthly things, and thus created a sphere of lower pressures in which money was the standard of value, so that everything was sacrificed for money. Now add the demolition of all social organization, followed by proclamation of the mercantile gospel of laissez faire, and you can understand how the ‘struggle for life’ was ushered in by the ‘struggle for money.

While today’s crisis is far removed from the tyranny of eighteenth century French aristocrats, Kuyper dismissed both the individualism of libertarianism and the collectivism of state socialism as the answer to the problems caused by the industrial revolution. He sought to develop a ‘third way’ based on Christian principles.

As we conclude our interview, I’d love for you to encourage Christian graduate students in philosophy and ethics, who think that a career in such areas must amount to doing just quintessential academic work: be a professor and publish. Of course, some are, indeed, called to do that. But can you speak to the broader purpose of academic pursuit? Many academic discussions are often fraught with over-specialization. How would you encourage scholars to avoid myopic thinking?

Central to Protestantism is the notion of calling. In the first instance, this is a calling to Christ and to his church but this leads to a further calling, to serve Christ in the various spheres of ‘secular’ life. That includes the academy. So the challenge for a Christian in the scholarly world is the same as that for a Christian in any other sphere of life – to use our gifts for the glory of God and for the service of humanity. This will inevitably mean our scholarship is infused with a sense of higher purpose. While this may not take explicit form, my experience is that people feel the difference - all the more so with the increasing emphasis on academic detachment, specialization and empiricism.

Can you offer a personal example?

I try to make sure that, for every piece I write for academic peer review, I produce at least one piece for the general reader and one for the business leader. This discipline helps ensure I don’t lose the bigger picture – how my research serves wider humanity (however modestly), rather than simply my peers.

From what I said earlier about Kuyper, it’s perhaps not surprising that I find him an inspiration in this quest. Given his early scholarly achievements, the young Kuyper would have had the prospect of a glittering academic career. Yet he was determined to serve the wider ends of intellectual pursuit and to lead and inspire ordinary people. He wrote many learned books but most began not in scholarly journal articles but as newspaper columns. And as founder and rector of the Free University he succeeded in forming a group of more narrowly-focused academics around him, such as Herman Bavinck, who gave Kuyper’s ideas a deeper and more rigorous scholarly outworking than Kuyper himself provided.

Few Christian academics who aspire to be public intellectuals today find they can fulfill this aspiration while also meeting the exacting demands of the academic peer-review process. But they should be encouraged to devote at least some of their time and energy to discussing their ideas and findings with those outside the academy, for mutual benefit. Organizations like the Acton Institute provide great opportunities for such cross-fertilization between specialists and non-specialists in various fields of Christian engagement. The best ideas are rooted in practice and the best practice is rooted in ideas.

Read the Full Text of the Interview by Clicking Here.

Interested readers might also enjoy the recent interview with Amy Sherman, where she discusses "vocational stewardship for the common good." Moreover, in our recent series of interviews, Ross Emmett discusses the need for Christian conceptualization of entrepreneurship and innovation, and Andreas Widmer speaks of "business as a moral enterprise."

Christ-Shaped Philosophy: Wisdom and Spirit United

2012-06-23T16:06:00.000-07:00

Paul K. Moser continues to offer an 'agenda-paving' focus on what 'Christian philosophy' should be about.

When I first interviewed Paul in 2008 about his "kerygmatic philosophy," I was struck (and delighted!) by how his perspective could help shape greater integrative work between philosophy and Christian spirituality. His latest paper, "Christ-Shaped Philosophy: Wisdom and Spirit United," will not disappoint in this area. Here is some of what Paul communicates:

Christian philosophy is a distinctive kind of philosophy owing to the special role it assigns to God in Christ. Much of philosophy focuses on concepts, possibilities, necessities, propositions, and arguments. This may be helpful as far as it goes, but it omits what is the distinctive focus of Christian philosophy: the redemptive power of God in Christ, available in human experience. Such power, of course, is not mere talk or theory. Even Christian philosophers tend to shy away from the role of divine power in their efforts toward Christian philosophy.

The power in question goes beyond philosophical wisdom to the causally powerful Spirit of God, who intervenes with divine corrective reciprocity. It yields a distinctive religious epistemology and a special role for Christian spirituality in Christian philosophy. It acknowledges a goal of union with God in Christ that shapes how Christian philosophy is to be done, and the result should reorient such philosophy in various ways.

No longer can Christian philosophers do philosophy without being, themselves, under corrective and redemptive inquiry by God in Christ. This paper takes its inspiration from Paul’s profound approach to philosophy in his letter to the Colossians. Oddly, this approach has been largely ignored even by Christian philosophers. We need to correct this neglect.

To read the full text of this article, you can access it here.

Come this Fall, stay tuned at the EPS website as we seek to launch a new and unique online discussion around the themes of Paul's paper and its implications.

From Paul Moser's Spring 2012 presentation at Biola's Center for Christian Thought:

Alvin Plantinga's New Argument Against Materialism

2012-06-19T21:38:00.000-07:00

The Summer 2012 issue of Philosophia Christi showcases a noteworthy discussion between Alvin Planting and Michael Tooley regarding Plantinga's "new argument against materialism." We are grateful for their contributions and for Jeremy Evans' (SEBTS) guest editor work. In fact, here's how he introduces this discussion:

Materialism is the rage these days, so much so that some Christian thinkers are shifting away from long-standing traditions on the relationship of the mind and body (dualism of some sort) to provide a more scientific vision of mind-body interaction and personal identity. In order to move this discussion forward Philosophia Christi invited Alvin Plantinga to advance some of his arguments made in his famous essay “An Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism,” drawing to the front some of the problems that materialism must address. In this entry, Plantinga focuses on some problems inherent to materialism pertaining to theories of belief formation, intentionality, and the undertakings of agents. In essence, Plantinga argues that if materialism is true (whether it be of a reductive or nonreductive type) then the usual connection between beliefs and intentions do not provide the causal story that is needed to account for a person’s undertaking some endeavor. If neither beliefs nor intentions are causally relevant to an agent’s undertakings, then, as Plantinga argues, this provides a strong argument against materialism. We invite the reader to inspect Plantinga’s entry in order to piece together the argument.

We also invited Michael Tooley to provide a materialist response to Plantinga. Tooley seemed especially suited for this discussion given his previous exchange with Plantinga in their excellent book, The Knowledge of God (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008). In this entry, Tooley seeks to overcome what, he thinks, are misrepresentations of materialism by Plantinga—personal identity does not track bodily identity, or brain identity, or upper brain identity, so I am not identical with my body, or with my brain, or with my upper brain. After developing some necessary groundwork, Tooley argues that Plantinga’s new argument against materialism is unsound because it “fails to distinguish, first of all, between mere physical movement on the one hand, and genuine, intentional action on the other, and secondly, between the causation of mere physical movement on the one hand, and the explanation of genuine intentional action on the other. Subsequent to this argument Tooley then advances what is, in his opinion, the strongest form of materialism and why Plantinga’s argument does not address it. In his second article, Plantinga offers a response to this critique.

You can purchase the Summer 2012 issue or become a subscriber to the journal or a member of the EPS and receive this issue as part of your membership.

Is Distributism a Viable 'Third Way': An Interview with Kishore Jayabalan

2012-06-16T13:28:00.001-07:00

An economic theory of ‘distributism’ is often presented as a Christian ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism. But is it? Does it have an adequate view of economics? How does its anthropology inform his vision?

In this interview, public policy communicator Kishore Jayabalan offers an overview and critique of distributist assumptions. Kishore Jayabalan is director of Istituto Acton in Rome. He organizes the institute’s educational and outreach efforts in Europe.

Here are some excerpts from our interview:

What are some of the basic questions that distributism surfaces?

The most basic question, in my opinion, is whether there is a specifically “Christian” model of economics, or whether there is a certain autonomy to economics as a human endeavor or subject of study. As a 2,000+ year-old religion, Christianity has survived and will continue to outlast many kinds of political and economic arrangements; it is therefore “transpolitical” in Fr. Ernest Fortin’s phrasing.

This would also seem to speak to Christianity’s uniqueness, even as a vision of the ‘political.’

While there is no doubt that there is such a thing as Christian anthropology and a Christian way of looking at and interpreting the world, Christianity is quite different than Judaism and Islam. For example, it does not rely on extremely detailed prescriptions about how Christians are to live in the world. I’d say that Christianity is more concerned with how we live materially and spiritually in systems such as capitalism and socialism than with the systems themselves, with how one should rule rather than who should rule.

Indeed, this would seem to be widely recognized in Catholic social teaching

Yes. I am reminded of what John Paul II says: “The Church's social doctrine is not a ‘third way’ between liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism, nor even a possible alternative to other solutions less radically opposed to one another: rather, it constitutes a category of its own.” (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, n. 41) and “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one another.” (Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, n. 43)

Distributists seem to also be surfacing questions about what is the best way to protect individual liberty and private property.

Distributists tend to argue that mass industrial capitalism eventually gives way to socialism, and that only a properly “distributist” model can prevent monopolies and concentrations of power. They must, however, rely on state power to keep economies from becoming too “large”, to keep things “small” or “local.” Whether this prevents, rather than encourages, the growth of State power is the big question.

So, with this in mind, who are some of the historical and contemporary representatives of a Christian distributism, and what do you find to be unique about their contributions?

Distributism is generally thought to have begun with the writings of G.K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc at the beginning of the 20th century; E.F. Schumacher, author of Small Is Beautiful, is another early representative. More recently, the theologian John C. Médaille has taken up the cause of “neo-distributism,” which is more of a critique of the current state of capitalism from a free-market perspective in the name of distributism. What is unique about their contributions is that they tend to come from serious Catholics and offer moral criticisms of modern industrialism and what it does to agrarian, religious life. This is opposed to the socialist and communist critiques, which sought to argue that capitalism does not ensure equality. Distributists do not often complain about the gap between rich and poor, but rather the concentrations of power that tend to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor, however. The old distributists also blamed nearly all of the ills of modern society on the Protestant Reformation and Jewish financiers, something which the neo-distributists have discarded for quite obvious, political reasons.

Why do you think distributist premises are so appealing to some?

Distributism is appealing because it recognizes that there is more to life than economics and especially the production and consumption of material goods. Liberal commercial societies have produced all kinds of wealth and opportunity, but from a Catholic perspective, we know that these are not the ends of life, but rather the means to ensure a just society and eventually to help us lead holier lives. It’s also true that large corporate interests and big government collude to reduce competition and that there is something wrong with our current economic system. It’s always tempting for humans to think that the past was better, that progress is delusional, that we’ve lost our way. But the question is whether the past was as noble was we think it was, and whether some kind of return to a pre-modern way of life is possible or even desirable.

What do you find to be the biggest mistake about distributist economics?

I think the biggest mistake distributism tends to make is in assuming that smaller is necessarily better or more “beautiful,” and that the State can guide the economy towards such “smallness.” It may well be in some cases, it may well not be in others – we simply don’t know in the abstract.

Can you offer an example?

The sub-prime mortgage bubble that blew up in 2008 is a prime example of how good policy intentions, in this case widespread home ownership, can go awry by dictating that capital be put to “socially useful” or political desirable ends. I often wish that distibutists devoted themselves to improving the moral and ethical tenor of the broader culture that informs market choices rather than inveighing against capitalism; it would be much more beneficial to the workings of the marketplace and help us all realize the proper end of our human existence.

You can download the full text of this interview by clicking here.