Intellectual Crisis

Only someone returning from a Vanwinklian nap would not be aware of the incredible and brittle factiousness permeating our culture. Nearly everyone you talk to will shake their head with sorrow at the cracks throughout Western society, and then just as quick point to this or that group as the ones primarily responsible. In a NYTimes review of a new book, The Anointed, the divisive debates roiling in Christendom are brought to fore from the apparent perspective of someone from a more secular worldview to an audience largely outside of the Christian worldview.

The review describes much of the intellectual conflict in evangelicalism, particularly in the States. Old earth versus theistic evolution, whether the Founders were Christian or Deist (or pre-Darwinian humanists, as some now affirm, with credible arguments), the relative value of academic credentials versus a strictly common-sense/sola scriptura based faith are some of the issues, even asking the fundamental and completely academic question of whether or not the Enlightenment was a good thing.

Carrying Culture Too Far

Today I met a lovely postdoc who is an international Fulbright scholar at a major university. She is working with a professor who happens to originally hail from her native country. There is a surprising bit of friction because the professor apparently perceives her as competition rather than a colleague. While this occurs sometimes in the US, it is fairly rare, but in this woman’s country it is fairly common. So there is no shortage in irony in this situation.

One of the things I love about universities is how cosmopolitan they truly are:  folks from the globe over coming together in scholarly pursuits, sharing and studying a world of knowledge and culture, ideally in harmony. All cultures have their weak spots as they are composed of fallen human beings, but it is still a shame when those weaknesses survive the transfer to a new environment, even though it should be expected.

When these rough spots arise, ideally the egalitarian environment of the university helps resolve them. This should be the hallmark of the Church, yet universities are more known for ‘inclusiveness’ and Christians known for ‘divisiveness.’ Both are stereotypes in every sense of the word. As Christian faculty, we have the opportunity to be peacemakers in both cultures, and from there affect many more.

“As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.” Proverbs 27:17

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” Matthew 5:9

SDG

American Foreign Policy and Islam

I just got back from a lecture by Graham E. Fuller (former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA, senior analyst at RAND Corporation) on his new book, “A World Without Islam.” His premise is that if the religion of Islam never existed, many of the areas of conflict that exist today would still be problems, comparable in scope to what currently exists. Basically, he builds a case that religion is not really the source of these conflicts, but the typical sorts of resource-driven conflicts where more powerful nations take resources from the less powerful, and the resentment that is generated in a region where foreign troops occupy one’s turf for whatever reason.

It is a powerful thesis that I have observed in other areas, particularly Northern Ireland. Their conflict was less about theology (Catholic versus Protestant) and more about British occupation of Irish land and abuses that ensued. Since both groups ethnically looked alike, the primary way to determine who was enemy and friend was which door they darkened on Sunday.

We all know people who are so dynamic that they disrupt everything going on in the room, regardless of their motivations. Perhaps we’ve done this as a nation more than we realize. I think Fuller has a valid point in the sense that being the elephant in the room, America has tended to get its way without needing to take others’ perspectives too much into account, we got used to it and sometimes barely even pay lip service to others’ viewpoints and needs, and that engendered resentment by the them being forced to accommodate us. Even if mostly benevolent, even if it helps raise others’ standard of living, it is still on the selfish side and hard on others’.

There is another key issue:  both journalists and politicians prefer sound bites and black and white issues to the shades of gray and nuance that actually comprise most issues. This really complicates things because people like bold, decisive leadership, and often this is done in lieu of wise leadership, on both sides of the aisle.

However, while Fuller makes a good point, I think he is somewhat guilty of oversimplification himself. He put most of the onus on America (and the West), and while he acknowledged problems on both sides, he didn’t elaborate at all on the issues created by those in the Middle East themselves. Part of this was likely because he was a guest of a Muslim student group, but I suspect it was also due to a personal sense that we really are mostly to blame and therefore the other issues are less important.

Furthermore, I think Fuller oversimplified and “overminimized” the role that religion does play in these conflicts, and I think addressing in some way the role that Islam and religion in general have made a difference and are real causes in conflict would have been very appropriate.

My view on persuasive speech is that if you want to convince a skeptic of your position, you must thoroughly describe the skeptic’s perspective, demonstrate you understand it, and show the limits to the validity of their arguments, before they really have a chance to raise them. Show what is good about their perspective and what and why the weaknesses are weaknesses. Then, you can address the strengths of your own perspective. This builds credibility and more importantly shows respect to the skeptic. In my opinion, Fuller’s talk failed to do this to my satisfaction, and I left with a nagging feeling that he was too entrenched in his political perspective to fully give credence to the arguments of those with whom he disagreed, and thus risks recommending policies that are not fully formed.

I do believe that in terms of world powers, we have done or at least tried to do much more good than any other power in history. (less oppression, encouraging more freedom, donating blood and treasure for others’ benefit, etc.) We have also stepped in it pretty deep and done things we should not have and hurt many innocent people as a result. These do not negate each other as sin is sin and good deeds do not make up for our sin. However, we mustn’t be too myopic about either our national/governmental sin or our generosity, championing the weak, and so on.

As academics, we should be trained to appreciate the complexities of real systems, and we should appreciate the difference between theory and practice. As educators, we have a responsibility to help our students learn to be appreciative as well. However, college faculty have somewhat of a reputation of pushing ideology rather than training in critical thinking. As Christians who follow the Incarnate Truth, we must be willing to recognize the truth of complex situations and deal with those realities, regardless of political persuasion, and help others to work through those realities as well. Looking at naked truth is uncomfortable, even painful. But full healing only comes when the whole wound is exposed and treated, not just the parts that don’t hurt when we probe them.

SDG

What is Freedom?

I promised from the beginning of this blog that it was apolitical, and I have come to realize I did not say what I meant. A better word would be apartisan. Anytime a statement is made about human systems, it is a political statement—it deals with the policy of a polis, a group of human beings. Thus, when I discuss academic freedom or even different views on Creation, those are political statements, even if they are not partisan. Of course, I do need to clarify what I mean by partisan, which is I will not advocate for any of the organized political parties in the US. I will share views on issues, some (many) of which may be identified with a plank in a given party’s platform, but those are happenstances of agreement rather than advocacy, as I will also usually challenge weaknesses of a given view or its application to policy.

Enough disclaimer.

Obviously, I feel the need for the disclaimer today because “freedom” is a very political concept. There is inherently a prepositional implication: “freedom from” or “freedom to.” It is certainly THE most cherished value in our society, yet strangely, one of the least defined or discussed. It is so foundational an axiom in Western life that few meditate on it or study it. It is the water in which our culture swims, and we rarely realize that indeed, we are wet. That is, until we perceive dry spots on our scales.

Literally, herein lies the rub. In its most basic sense, freedom is the ability to shape the environment around us, to a greater or lesser extent. To have freedom is to possess the ability to influence. Therefore, if there is more than one entity with the ability to influence, then the risk arises that these influences will interact. When they do, the interaction can be constructive, neutral or destructive, in the sense of achieving the goals of both entities. Dry spots occur when the influence of one entity reduces the influence of another entity. Given that the entities are separate, it stands to reason that the motivations and goals of each will have differences, and can run counter to each other, or, that the preferred methods for achieving even common goals can be different.

Therefore, as the number and complexities of entities increase, the risk for conflict increases until at a certain point, that risk becomes a certainty. Conflicts are avoided or resolved by one of two means, restricting an entity’s own freedom, or restricting the freedom of others. These are the only two options, yet they play out in a variety of ways: self-restraint, overpowering, or compromise (which is mutual self-restraint).

When an entity refuses to exercise self-restraint, conflicts become more intense. If its influence is small, its impact on others is small to non-existent. The greater its power (the freedom to influence a larger area of its environment), the greater the conflict in intensity, number of involved entities, or both.

The ability to influence is not the only issue however. There is also the quality of self-awareness. A hurricane has a substantial ability to influence, but is not self-aware, and therefore cannot be said to have freedom. An animal has the ability to influence (building a nest), and perhaps some minor level of self-awareness (a dog being obedient or not), but it is an open discussion as to how ‘free’ they are in the context of this post. No, for purposes of this discussion, we are talking about human beings and the systems that groups of humans create in order to have working societies.

So, given that conflicts arise due to the exercising of freedoms, what are our options? We basically have two—live with it or take away freedom. If we live with it, it means we are accepting the other’s ability to hinder our freedom (i.e.- to be inconvenienced). However, in order to take away freedom, there must be an entity with enough freedom to do so. Thus, when a restriction in one entity’s freedom is imposed, it of necessity must be done by another entity with more freedom…AND/OR the permission of the restricted entity. So really, there really is only one option—when conflict arises (apart from issues of pure misunderstanding), someone’s freedom is restricted. The questions then become who’s freedom, by how much, and who imposes the restriction?

With this foundation, in the next post or two, I will look at contemporary examples of freedom to see if we can find resolutions for points of conflict. {Of course, if this extends past two posts, I am merely exercising my freedom as the owner of this blog. You are welcome to exercise your freedom to read or not!}

SDG