Gleanings
Items of interest on faith and culture from around the Internet
Dirda on Language
Mon 05 Dec 2005 by Peter Edman
Relating to the item below from Stephen Talbott on the potential decline of language, there is a fascinating piece from critic Michael Dirda in the Washington Post Book World.
W. H. Auden used to warn against those who read the Bible for its prose. Ignore this advice. The hoopla of the next few weeks should be interrupted from time to time with quiet moments when we reflect on our lives and the years past and to come, and one of the best ways to do this is by meditating on grave and noble sentences.
Dirda is highlighting a new edition of the Book of Common Prayer (1559). He offers a spirited defense of oratory, a rejection of the idea that efficiency in language is the only virtue. Even for those in business, leadership is more than decision-making; it is casting a vision for your organization, and that type of communication requires both practice and a deep well to draw from.
The Bible and Its Influence—A New Public School Text
Tue 27 Sep 2005 by Peter Edman
The Bible Literacy Project, led by TF alumnus Chuck Stetson, has released its student textbook, The Bible and Its Influence.
A teacher edition will follow. The project continues in the tradition of the Williamsburg Charter and its contributors include Charles Haynes and others familiar to us at the Trinity Forum. As someone who worked with Os Guinness on an older project, Living With Our Deepest Differences, now out of print but with similar ambitions, I’m very pleased to see something of this caliber out there.
This curriculum differs from earlier attempts in that it recognizes not just the literary and cultural influence of the Bible, but its importance as a religious text as well, and it does so while respecting but not endorsing various faith traditions and denominations. I hope it will be more influential than the Wall Street Journal is fearing. (Knight Ridder article)
The Confidence Man
Wed 27 Jul 2005 by Peter Edman
Books & Culture for August 2005 features a review essay from Dr. Eugene McCarraher (hat tip: ALD).
McCarraher, in “The Confidence Man,” a pleasantly acerbic article, discusses Confidence Games: Money and Markets in a World without Redemption, a new book by Mark C. Taylor, who is essentially an evangelical Nietzschean.
One often wonders why some atheists feel the need to evangelize their lack of faith. At any rate, Dr. McCarraher raises some good questions about an assortment of subjects, most notably the danger that academics and others face who are too isolated (in this case by tenure) from the joys and sorrows of the material world.
What does it take to write with such insouciance about failure, suffering, and death? I don’t think it’s flippant to respond: tenure, medical insurance, and a pension, the oblivious possession of which provides the Bobo set with security to neglect some intractable material and social realities.
McCarraher also makes trenchant comments (while appreciating Taylor’s spirited defense of capitalism) on the now common techno-gnostic utopianism that Taylor falls into, which is certainly born out by my recent readings on technology.
The Future of Tradition
Fri 22 Jul 2005 by Peter Edman
The Wall Street Journal has published a long but extremely thoughtful essay on “The Future of Tradition” by novelist and essayist Lee Harris (22 July 2005).
In this article, originally published in Policy Review, Harris discusses how tradition has been defended and attacked by the Enlightenment and its elites and suggests some different ways of talking about tradition that are well worth pondering—particularly for those of us in Western societies who are having difficulty maintaining our population and tradition—Italians and other Europeans, pay attention! Actually, everybody should probably pay attention to this one. The second parts of the essay are much more concrete, so skim the first section if you must, but do not miss the later discussion. Moral abstraction, he says, is not enough. Good historical context for the culture wars. Interesting discussion of the unintended consequences of Maimonides trying to defend Jewish dietary laws as if they were a health code. Fascinating discussion of language and the repsponsibilities of the elites. Read toward the end for some unexpected personal revelations by the author. Take that, Andrew Sullivan.
Basically, take the time to read this.
. . . in the view outlined here, a tradition is viable if it effectively keeps future generations from backsliding to a lower ethical or civilizational state. The track record of a tradition is irrelevant here; it may have been supremely useful in the past, but if its continuing embodiment in the rising generation begins to lower the society’s civilizational standards, the tradition must be discarded and replaced, and it makes no difference how many evolutionary challenges it may have successfully overcome in the past.
Technology Bites Back
Wed 20 Jul 2005 by Peter Edman
Graeme Philipson has an interesting article on technology in the Sydney Morning Herald.
He references Why Things Bite Back by Edward Tenner.
“Technology bites back,” Sydney Morning Herald, April 9, 2005:
We surround ourselves with so much digital paraphernalia and technological impedimenta that half the time we forget why we’re here. Perhaps the machines are doing us a favour when they bite us back. They remind us that technology is not infallible and very often not even necessary. It can be fun, but so can walking on the beach or playing with the dog.
Buford on Newman
Tue 12 Jul 2005 by Peter Edman
Bob Buford has sent out a passage from John Henry Newman’s sermons as recommended summer reading for his e-mail list. I thought it worth sharing with those of you who might not be on that list.
This is Newman’s Sermon 30, preached on the Feast of St. Luke, ”The Danger of Accomplishments,” from his Parochial & Plain Sermons (1908). As a literature person, I take exception to a good part of the sermon—he falls prey to false dichotomies—but its overall point is well taken.
Now the danger of an elegant and polite education is, that it separates feeling and acting; it teaches us to think, speak, and be affected aright, without forcing us to practise what is right. . . .
Daedalus and Icarus
Wed 06 Jul 2005 by Peter Edman
Our forthcoming technology curriculum includes a section from Bertrand Russell’s Icarus, Or, the Future of Science.
Icarus was written in 1924 in response to a 1923 published lecture by JBS Haldane, Daedalus, Or Science and the Future. The debate between these two great men of science is reconsidered in the Spring 2005 issue of The New Atlantis by Charles T. Rubin.
The real argument is about the meaning of and prospects for moral progress, a debate as relevant today as it was then. Haldane believed that morality must (and will) adapt to novel material conditions of life by developing novel ideals. Russell feared for the future because he doubted the ability of human beings to generate sufficient “kindliness” to employ the great powers unleashed by modern science to socially good ends.
Both authors explore the problem of relating moral and technological progress with sufficient depth that we would benefit by reexamining this debate with a view to our own time. But the manner in which they frame the problem stands in the way of articulating a clear moral goal that might serve as progress’s purpose and judge. With serious ethical discussion thus sidelined, technological change itself becomes the fundamental imperative, despite the reasonable doubts both Haldane and Russell have concerning its ultimate consequences. And while Haldane is more loath to acknowledge it than Russell, the net result of their debate is a tragic view of mankind’s future, marked by an irreconcilable and destructive mismatch between our aspiration to understand nature and the power we gain from that knowledge.
Congratulations, CT!
Fri 01 Jul 2005 by Peter Edman
Christianity Today, one of the more important evangelical Christian magazines, has an editorial out on the public portrayal of evangelicals in the U.S. media.
”We’re Prime Time, Baby!” (July 2005) notes that evangelicals are being treated with more even-handedness by the news side of the media (not the opinion side, to be sure), and suggests some responses in light of that, including this one:
Second, as noted, we really can’t play the persecution card anymore. As “players,” we will be criticized sharply still, but that’s just part of life in America.
This is extremely encouraging to hear. Publicly claiming to be a persecuted minority may have been a good fund-raising strategy, but it has never been legitimate. It’s well past time for evangelicals to leave it behind.
Mansfield on Brann, or, Why read the classics
Mon 27 Jun 2005 by Peter Edman
Harvard prof Harvey Mansfield has an article in The Weekly Standard on the work and latest book of Eva Brann of St. John’s College, Annapolis.
The piece is entitled “Greek Books, American Life,” (20 June 2005). It’s an interesting appreciation and critique, implying that her devotion to deep study in the Greek and other classics may be undermined by an American tendency to skim over the stuff that’s hard or irritating.
Of course, that’s not always a bad way to read people like Nietzsche, says Brann, in Open Secrets/Inward Prospects: Reflections on Word and Soul. Worth noting for a good assessment of Jefferson vs. Madison, and for the following quote.
Vox Populi, Vox Stupidity?
Fri 17 Jun 2005 by Peter Edman
Spiked Magazine features an article by University of Kent sociologist Frank Furedi on populism and elites in light of recent events in the U.S. and EU.
A well written and historically aware article covering the bases from the EU constitutional referendum to the 2004 U.S. elections (and some Australian commentary) and the parallel response of many elites.
Fascinating and more than a bit scary in light of the insights raised by the Foucault/Ayatollah essay and my recent reading in Postman’s Technopoly. Technopoly as fundamentalist secularism? Political and even NGO elites openly desire a move from democracy to technocracy, or rule by bureaucracy. It is a quintessentially illiberal notion.
