Posted by: gcarkner | November 22, 2013

Notes on Leadership

Brief Notes on Leadership for Graduate Students and Others

One of our PhD student colleagues in fisheries, Vijay Raj, attended a leadership conference with Dave Kraft recently and came to me the next week very excited indeed. I will relay some of his thoughts because leadership is an area in which we all must grow, even though it may not be on the curriculum of our degree program. We feel the tug of leadership when we teach an undergrad class or run a tutorial, lead a colloquium. I remember a special PhD student in organic chemistry at Queen’s University who saved us from implosion in second year. He was wonderful and patient and clear. He was deeply committed to us and our learning. I don’t know how I would have survived that course without him. His face and character remains a happy memory to this day.

You will be called on to lead with your Masters and especially your PhD. I’ve just connected on LinkedIn with Dr. Katherine Excoffon one of our alumni who is leading a virology lab at Wayne State University in Dayton, Ohio. She has stepped up to the plate of leadership and shows a model of what can be our future (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40yIE1wbA5E). Faculty here have proved to be very helpful at modelling leadership; learn from their best characteristics. I have learned much from faculty here and elsewhere in my studies. Where would I be without them?

Reading good books on leadership is also a bonus; don’t leave it to the business students to think about leadership. A book called Integrity by Henry Cloud really impressed me a couple years ago, stressing the power of virtue in leadership, the impact of a person’s wake; Don Page’s book on Servant Leadership is very impressive in its breadth and depth and common sense. We see a model of the opposite of integrity, civility and servanthood in the mayor of Toronto and what damage it does to so many. Humility, passion, servanthood, emotional intelligence are all key virtues to cultivate as we develop our academic expertise. Read More…

Leave a Comment

Posted in GCU Personality, Grad Student Strategies, Stewardship | Tags: leadership

Posted by: gcarkner | November 17, 2013

Freedom, Identity and the Good…4

Proposition Three: Redeemed freedom flourishes within a transcendent trinitarian horizon. Trinitarian divine goodness proves to be a fruitful plausibility structure within which to think differently about freedom and the moral self. Trinitarian goodness-freedom answers some of the concerns in the Foucauldian self and reveals new opportunities for identity, discovery, transformation and exploration. It also adds sophistication and meaning to some of Taylor’s categories without offering the final answer on the discussion. It is in the life of Jesus as a member of the Trinity that one can visualize this goodness-freedom dynamic most dramatically. This holds dramatic implications for moral discourse.

Foucault (1984e, p. 4) claims that, ‘Ethics is the deliberate form assumed by freedom.’ But what kind of form in our freedom will endure and flourish? What is the impact of a transcendent paradigm in this conversation and how does it help to interpret and discern the constitution of the moral self? The language of strong transcendence implies a transcendence which resides outside the economies of human experience, and human culture spheres of science, art, religion and ethics, and yet it plays a key role in the drama of self-constitution. It offers a significant contribution to the validation, affirmation, and recognition of the self from a larger horizon of significance, creating a whole new range of possibilities. It also occasions a standpoint for an evaluation of beliefs and practices, offering a subject position from which to protest the unexamined hegemony of the aesthetic present in Foucault’s hermeneutics of the moral self. This hegemony, along with the hegemony of science, is resisted through an exploration of the horizons of the good, moving the self beyond Foucault’s limitations and beyond the hegemony of scientism. It reaches for something higher and deeper, more meaningful.

The discussion of recovering ethics and freedom of a higher quality as a partnership with trinitarian relationality is highlighted in Jesus. He offers an example of redeemed human freedom, through the cooperation between divine goodness and human freedom, effecting and empowerment of human freedom. In earlier posts, the human good was linked through a transcendent turn to trinitarian goodness. At this juncture, it will be fruitful to explore the marriage of the good (transcendently rooted and qualified) and freedom. Jesus’ life constitutes the reconciliation of, rather than the enmity between, goodness and freedom. Transcendent goodness energizes and impacts his expression of freedom. In the philosophical turn towards transcendent goodness, freedom as an ontology is subverted by the ontology of agape love, or divine trinitarian goodness. Foucault resists this sense of strong transcendence in his ethics of the disenchanted self, and his project risks falling back into nihilism. His ethical thought is focused through the culture sphere of art (in resistance against the preceding cultural hegemonies of science and religion). Aesthetics is given a controlling position over the other culture spheres. It is an arts of rebellion and self-assertiveness.

But does Foucault miss something significant in his analysis of Christian technologies of the self and is it not a bit one-sided? How does Jesus’ life interpret freedom differently in the light of this suggested turn to transcendent goodness? How does it deal with Foucault’s claim to radical autonomy for the self? The interpretation starts as trinitarian theonomous goodness-freedom, a God-related freedom, that is qualified by transcendent divine goodness (D. Stephen Long, The Goodness of God).

It begins with the living God of the Christian story, who is constituted by a form of relation, mutuality and reciprocity in which freedom is given to that which is Other—other Persons in the Trinity and the creational Other, humans. The Christian Trinity is a tri-unity of Persons with a history of self-giving freedom that defines God’s being as agape love, and the moral source and inspiration for human finite goodness. Human goodness participates in, but is not identical with, nor does it reach the quality of divine goodness. Jesus is a form and expression of trinitarian goodness in human society, a robust example of this goodness-freedom. The studied avoidance of Jesus’ exemplum in ethics accorded by Foucault’s critique of Christian moral self-constitution is an unfortunate oversight. It skews the conversation quite inappropriately. Read More…

Leave a Comment

Posted in Apologetics, Faith & Culture, GCU Personality, Seeker Corner, Stewardship | Tags: freedom & identity, the good, Trinity

Posted by: gcarkner | November 12, 2013

Dennis Danielson Investigates the Enigma of Galileo UBC Nov. 13

The Enigma of Galileo: Rethinking a Pivotal Episode in the History and Mythology of Science

Dr. Dennis Danielson

Literary & Intellectual Historian

Department of English, UBC

Wednesday, November 13, @ 4:00 p.m. Woodward Room 1, Gate One UBC

Recent Publication by Danielson on History of Astronomy in January 2014 issue of Scientific American

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-case-against-copernicus

Danielson’s new book Paradise Lost and the Cosmological Revolution is now available

Abstract

The better part of a century passed before more than a handful of serious scientists accepted Copernicus’s cosmology (1543) proclaiming that the Earth rotates on its axis, while also orbiting the Sun. Galileo’s important telescopic discoveries in 1609 and 1610 form the most famous early chapter in the story of the wider acceptance of heliocentrism. But in the process, something went terribly wrong. Two decades later Galileo was put on trial by the Roman Inquisition—a move damaging not only to Galileo and free scientific inquiry, but also to the reputation of the church for centuries thereafter. In this lecture, Dr. Danielson will revisit the first great telescopic astronomer and show how he “cheated” in his presentation of “the two great world systems.” He will also show how mis-readings of the Galileo episode continue to skew our understanding of the history of science. In fact, right through the seventeenth century, many of those resistant to heliocentrism founded their objections scientifically—not merely on dogmatic or traditionalist grounds. Of course, none of this excuses the persecution of Galileo by church authorities. Danielson contends that by zooming in critically on Galileo’s own writings we can gain a better grasp both of his faults and of his genuinely astonishing scientific contributions. The talk should engage anyone interested in the literature and history of science and/or cultural and intellectual history.

Biography

Dennis Danielson, professor of English at the University of British Columbia, is a literary and intellectual historian who has made contributions to Milton studies and to the early modern history of cosmology, examining scientific developments in their historical, philosophical, and literary contexts. His books include Milton’s Good God: A Study in Literary Theodicy (1982) and the Cambridge Companion to Milton (1989, 1999), both published by Cambridge University Press. His subsequent work in the history of astronomy, especially The Book of the Cosmos: Imagining the Universe from Heraclitus to Hawking and The First Copernican: Georg Joachim Rheticus and the Rise of the Copernican Revolution, has engaged both humanities scholars and scientists in dialogue about the historical and cultural as well as cosmological meaning of Copernicus’s legacy. Danielson was the 2011 recipient of the Konrad Adenauer Research Prize from Germany’s Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. His new book Paradise Lost and the Cosmological Revolution is in press and scheduled for publication by Cambridge University Press in 2014.

Commentary from the Lecture: Danielson seems to be saying that Galileo in his argument with the authorities of the time (religious and scientific) was actually not presenting accurately the two main contending views of the universe: Tycho Brahe’s (Tychonic) vs. Copernican. He was instead choosing the ‘straw man’ view of Ptolemy which had already been discredited many years before. There were actually three systems to speak about if he were properly to include Ptolemy’s view. The idea that he faked the alternatives to win the debate is an astounding insight.

There was one other important point: it takes centuries to actually change the scientific mind on such an important issue as its cosmic picture. Scientific objections to the Copernican view were not fully removed until the 19th century.” claimed Danielson.

Dr. Danielson responds to the above commentary:

“I wouldn’t characterize Galileo’s Dialogo (1632) specifically as an
“argument with the authorities of the time (religious and scientific).”
Well, maybe with the scientific authorities (the Aristotelians). But the
religious authorities DID — I think contrary to Galileo’s intentions —
interpret the Dialogo as an argument with themselves, and hence his
trial by the Inquisition a year later.

My argument is that Galileo’s tactic in the Dialogo — of treating the
Ptolemaic and Copernican as the “two great” systems — made victory for
the Copernican system a cheap victory, because almost no serious
scientist held to the Ptolemaic cosmos any more. It was Tycho’s that was
the main contender, the main alternative to that of Copernicus, solving
as it did the appearances of Venus and NOT making claims about the size
of the starry sphere that would entail stars’ being as large in diameter
as the entire annual orbit of the Earth (according to the Copernican
system). Your term “faking the alternatives” is quite fitting. I have no
idea whether I’m the first to notice this; I suspect not. But the most
novel aspect of the presentation is the emphasis on star size. Neither
is this original with me. But the guy who has really nailed this
problem, Christopher Graney, has collaborated with me to produce a
semi-popular article called “The Case Against Copernicus” that will
appear in the January issue of Scientific American.

See also brilliant literature on Galileo by Harvard professor Owen Gingerich.

Cover of The Book of the Cosmos

Leave a Comment

Posted in Faith & Culture, GCU Events, Public Lectures, Science Reflections, Seeker Corner

Posted by: gcarkner | November 12, 2013

Freedom, Identity and the Good…3

Freedom, Identity and the Good, Part 3

Proposition Two: Redeemed freedom by definition takes on a distinctively communal character; it is contextualized within a discussion and relationships between fellow interlocutors, against the backdrop of larger narrative which makes sense of self. Individual freedom gives up ground to community and makes space for the Other, in order to avoid some of the pitfalls of radical autonomy and provide for a richer moral experience.

This transformation of the Foucauldian thin aesthetic self is desirable under this proposal; the move is towards a deeper, more complex communal character of self, a thick self. Foucault articulates freedom as flight from one’s neighbour; the aesthetic self is part fugitive, part manipulator; its context is reduced to a life of contest with the Other, within power relations and truth games. There is a certain validity to these concerns, but from the perspective of Taylor’s comments and those on trinitarian goodness, they lack vision for relationships that are other than manipulative, that is, those informed by love, compassion and cooperation. In the light of this investigation, it is suggested that there is a need to rethink Foucauldian freedom in terms of a reconciliation between self and the Other, self and society, to put it metaphorically, in terms of self and one’s neighbour. The direction of reformulation is the recovery of a social horizon, including a stronger concept of the social body, and the common good—the courage to face the neighbour as a good.

A radical pursuit of private self-interest, to the exclusion of the presence and the needs of the Other, is a far less tenable option after this critical dialogue. Foucault holds to a faulty assumption of chronic distrust, that is, that the Other will always try to control and manipulate my behaviour for its own purposes, or try to impose its agenda on me. Although such manipulation exists, this is a jaded and cynical perspective on human society, and the potential of human relationships. The autonomy that modernity cannot do without, needs a dialectical relationship with community as a balance to one’s self-reflexive relationship to oneself. The nature of autonomy cannot be confined to a radical self-determination but must involve the possibility of recognition by and dependence upon other people within a larger horizon of significance. Flight is the easier and least complex default option; it is more challenging to take other selves seriously in terms of the good that they are, and the good that they can offer. We suggest that trust building is a tentative but necessary exercise for the moral health of the self. Redeemed freedom can emerge through a wiser discernment and exploration of the communal dimensions of subjectivity, as freedom to cooperate with, and freedom to serve the Other.

This newly discovered type of freedom is destined to find its fulfilment, not in a self- justifying control, alone in self-sufficiency, but in seeking out a communion of love, a healthy vulnerability, interdependency and mutuality, with an ear to the voice of the Other. It promotes the relocation of the dislocated self into a new narrative, a new drama which involves us, within the relational order of creation. Human experience is intensely relational; one weakness in Foucault is that, by contrast, he assumes a denial of the social body when it comes to ethics. This conclusion suggests the positive outlook for the future of the self will involve a communal experiment. The word discernment above speaks of exploring the potential of these relationships as they relate to a communal horizon of the good, the good that can be carried in the community and its narrative as Taylor articulates in his ethics of the good. Others can help discern the self, in order for it to find its own space for freedom and calling with responsibility.

Foucault highly values individual creativity, but he lacks appreciation for how this relates to communal creativity of interdependencies and complementarity. Fulfilment in community prevents the self from extreme forms of self-interest, narcissism and solipsism (R. Wolin, 1986). McFadyen (1995) offers a helpful reflection on this point concerning the deceptions and distortions of radical freedom.

The free pursuit of private self-interest has a naturally conflicting form, since the otherness of the individual means their interests must be opposed. One needs freedom from what is other in order to be oneself. Personal centeredness is essential, for autonomy is a private place that has to be protected by fencing it off from the sphere of relation and therefore from the otherness of God and one’s neighbours … Autonomy is something one has in self-possession, apart from relation to God and others in an exclusive and private orientation on an asocial personal centre …. Freedom and autonomy are had apart from relationship: they inhere within oneself. (p. 35)

Foucault’s language of freedom has a mythological flavour that offers a mask for a disguised self-interest, the freedom to be and do whatever I want. Redeemed freedom reveals this outlook as a distorted reality-construction. M. Volf in Exclusion and Embrace (1996) shows how this reconciliation or redemption of sociality can occur even amidst the most abusive and oppressive of situations. The lack of communal discernment is one of Foucault’s significant limitations.

In this anatomy of community, the good can be mediated and carried more fruitfully and robustly. One’s individual relationship to the good can be strongly enhanced by involvement with a group that allows the good to shape its identity; not just any, but the right community environment can provide a positive school of the good. Mirrored through others, the good can offer both accountability and empowerment to the self. Group covenant and commitment to one another sustains the self in its agency; the younger self especially is released from the burden to invent its whole moral universe. Moreover, communal discernment supports the weak and challenges the strong with accountability, promoting societal justice. Moral self-constitution of this thicker, weightier, and more complex sort exceeds the capacity of the individual self; it requires a community. J. Habermas in response to Foucault argues that the preoccupation with the autonomy or self-mastery is simply a moment in the process of social interaction, which has been artificially isolated or privileged:

Both cognitive-instrumental mastery of an objective nature (and society) and a narcissistically overinflated autonomy (in the sense of purposively rational self-assertion) are derivative moments that have been rendered independent from the communicative structures of the lifeworld, that is, from the intersubjectivity of relationships of mutual understanding and relationships of reciprocal recognition. (Habermas, 1987, p. 315)

~Dr Gordon E. Carkner PhD Philosophical Theology

Habermas, J. (1987). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

McFadyen, A.I. (1995). Sins of Praise: the Assault on God’s Freedom. In C. Gunton (Ed.). God & Freedom: Essays in historical and systematic theology (pp. 36-56). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

Volf, M. (1996). Exclusion and Embrace: A theological exploration of identity, otherness and reconciliation. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

See also posts on Quality of the Will which articulates Charles Taylor’s Ethical Framework.

Leave a Comment

Posted in Apologetics, Faith & Culture, Seeker Corner, Stewardship

Posted by: gcarkner | November 7, 2013

Jacques Maritain on Human Rights

Jacques Maritain, Philosopher and Advocate of Universal Human Rights

Jaques Maritain (1882-1973) a French convert to Catholicism, became one of the leading philosophers of the neo-Thomist revival sparked by the crises of the 1930s and the Second World War. A critic of the WWII French Vichy regime, Maritain spent much of the wartime in the US, where he gave political and spiritual direction to the Gaullist Free French movement. His most influential writings were on the topic of universal human rights, where he presented a widely influential neo-Thomist case in Les droits de l’homme et la loi naturelle (New York: Éditions de la Maison Française, 1942); The Rights of Man and Natural Law, trans. Doris C. Anson (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1943.)

After the war, and during the rise of the Cold War, Maritain played a central role in providing philosophical and religious foundations to the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed by the UN General Assembly in December 1948. Maritain’s writings and political engagements on this topic were guided by, and amplified, Thomist imago dei themes, but he also presented a capacity to work with other religious and philosophical traditions and leaders in a carefully-defined pluralism which searched for pragmatic common ground.

Maritain was a frequent visitor to Canada from the 1930s through the 1950s, often teaching at the Toronto Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies during summer sessions, while also holding a position at Princeton University. His influence in Canada was profound, not only amongst Anglophone Catholics, but especially among Quebec Catholic intellectuals and leaders where support for human rights was problematic in the years of Duplessis’ governments. Liberal Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent was steeped in Maritain’s writings when the Canadian government gave a very reserved positive vote for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. It was the original policy of the Liberal Government to abstain on the vote unless the Declaration made an explicit reference to God and imago dei theology as the foundation for universal human rights.

Thinking on human rights in Canada, and especially Quebec, has changed radically since the 1960s. Readers can find more extensive treat of this topic in the attached publications.

~Dr. George Egerton, Professor Emeritus History, UBC

CHRA Egerton

Copy of 85.3egerton CHR

BetweenWar+Peace KirbyRev

See also talk on human rights by Brad Gregory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcmmMjzh64w Dr. Brad Gregory, Early Modern Historian, Notre Dame University

Leave a Comment

Posted in Faith & Culture, Grad Student Strategies, Stewardship

Posted by: gcarkner | November 7, 2013

Remember What? Invest in What?

The Take Home Message of Remembrance Day

In Canada, this is the week of remembrance of people who have made the ultimate sacrifice “for God and country”, for “freedom”, for “honour” in the great wars of the 20th century. Our veterans deserve their due respect. It gives us pause to think about the sacrifice, the costs. The trumpet plays its forlorn tune at the cenotaff. The wreaths are laid ever so gently, slowly, so as to slow time itself. It is a moment for reflection on where we are and what we have learned from history.

However, we must avoid at all costs a glorification of war. Is there ever a just war when so much mayhem occurs, people’s lives are destroyed, property stolen, families ripped up the middle, refugees are driven across wastelands or into jungles as we are seeing now in the Congo or Syria. War brings us ‘hell on earth’. War is a false gospel, a bad culture, a deadly discourse, a dis-ease, a way of life steeped in blood and immense suffering. War is full of arrogance, bravado, machismo, imperialism, deception and pride. It is a false god! It reveals itself as the art of being overcome by evil. War is a failure in good diplomacy, a failure of our ethics and politics. It is nothing to be proud of. War is for moral children who cannot discern the conversation of negotiated needs, of politicians who cannot think deep enough, without the patience to study the consequences and the debts to be paid.

I was reading Romans 12 this week and Paul is reflecting on a different gospel, a different culture, a discourse of peace, love and constructive living together, using our gifts to bless one another, negotiating our conflicts, loving our enemies. Jesus is announced as the Prince of Peace who claimed, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.” This is a high honour. Romans 12 is a discourse of realistic evaluation of faith and giftedness to pursue a calling which honours God and builds into communion. It is a heroic paradigm shift from war. Read More…

Leave a Comment

Posted in Faith & Culture, Prayer & Spirituality

Posted by: gcarkner | November 6, 2013

Freedom, Identity and the Good…2

Freedom, Identity and the Good

Proposition One: Redeemed freedom means that one refuses freedom as an ontological ground of ethics, and embraces a new definition of freedom within an ontology of the moral good. Charles Taylor’s moral horizon of the good is offered as a lively and robust alternative to Foucault’s horizon of aesthetic-freedom.

Foucault’s idea of autonomous freedom as self-invention, self-interpretation, self- expression, self-legislation and self-justification is radical indeed. Schwöbel sums it up:

In deciding for policies of action which incorporate choices concerning the interpretation of our possibilities of action, of our goals of action and of the norms of action we attempt to observe, we decide the fundamental orientation of our lives. Such decisions are examples of self-determination. Self- determination is contrasted to determination by external authorities. (Schwöbel, 1995, pp. 62-3)

Aesthetic-freedom certainly has its appeal; it comes with a creative, youthful energy, to launch human subjectivity, overcoming the inertia and restrictions of governmentality and power relations. Foucault does not apologize for its elitist outlook. But this view of freedom has revealed a failure to offer sufficient direction for subjectivity, for the use of the will; it lacks a position of critical appraisal of actions or choices. Thus, it has a major deficit in equipping the self for serious moral reflection and action; it short circuits moral discourse by moving too quickly to praxis or action, without sufficient reflection on reasons for action, or on the virtues, or the goods involved in ethics.

During the conversation with Foucault in previous posts, cracks and contradictions in his ideology of the aesthetic have emerged along with its potential dangers of Dionysian proportions. Taylor illuminates the darker side of Foucault’s artful freedom. The absolute sovereignty that Foucault has given to the individual for self-expression raises concerns: it may indulge in a fantasy of the human will. Foucault propounds a very optimistic anthropology of the aesthetic self (artistic work is worthy in and of itself) with great faith in the creativity of the individual, and at the same time, great cynicism about society and its institutions. He understands that domination can occur in corporate regimes of knowledge (making evil visible), but he is less open to acknowledge the potential evil in individual self-shaping and self-expression. This is a major oversight which is not acceptable for such a notable scholar. Read More…

Leave a Comment

Posted in Faith & Culture, Seeker Corner, Stewardship

Posted by: gcarkner | November 4, 2013

Freedom, Identity and the Good

The quest for freedom is central to some major expressions of modern self-consciousness. This blog series will explore a fresh paradigm for freedom in late modernity, a re-thinking of the context of the self and the rich contours of the self. Michel Foucault in particular brings the issue of freedom to the centre of the discussion of moral self-constitution. Now it is time to draw the discussion into some overall conclusions, with a hopeful trajectory of the future. It will include some reflection on a way forward for the moral self, following from the three-way engagement between Foucault, Taylor and three theologians. Three propositions will try to capture the new insights garnered, and offer projections towards future directions, under the overall theme of a quest for redeemed freedom. They cannot be fully defended here, but it is very useful for final reflection and future thought, exploration and debate within this particular moral discourse of the constitution of the moral self. C. Schwöbel (1995) articulates the trajectory of this conclusion.

The redemption of freedom is liberation from freedom for freedom, from the destructive consequences of absolute self-constituted freedom and for the exercise of redeemed and created human freedom which is called to find fulfilment in communion with God … Redeemed freedom is … essentially finite, relative freedom, freedom which is dependent on finding its orientation in the disclosure of the truth of the gospel … freedom as created, as the freedom of creatures whose freedom is not constituted by them but for them. (p. 78)

Redeemed freedom is defined by this writer as a recovery of the language and horizon of the moral good, the social horizon of the neighbour, and the theological horizon of trinitarian goodness-freedom. It requires that the self turn from flight to courageously face the moral good, the Other and God, in order to rescue freedom from some of its most negative possibilities. Here are the three important propositions.

Proposition One: Redeemed freedom means that one refuses freedom as an ontological ground of ethics, and embraces a new definition of freedom within an ontology of the moral good. Taylor’s horizon of the good, seen in previous posts, is offered as an alternative to Foucault’s horizon of aesthetic-freedom.

Proposition Two: Redeemed freedom by definition takes on a distinctively communal character; it is contextualized within a discussion and relationships between fellow interlocutors, against the backdrop of larger narrative which makes sense of self. Individual freedomt gives up ground to community and makes space for the Other in order to avoid some of the pitfalls of radical autonomy and provide for a richer moral, social and ultimately political experience.

~Gordon E. Carkner, PhD Philosophical Theology

Leave a Comment

Posted in Apologetics, Faith & Culture, GCU Personality, Seeker Corner, Stewardship

Posted by: gcarkner | November 1, 2013

Scholarship & Excellence

Evangelical Scholarship and the Pursuit of Excellence

A Review of Andreas Köstenberger’s Excellence

Guest contributor David Leonard

Today, we are featuring a book review from guest contributor and ESN member David Leonard. David recently completed a Ph.D. in philosophy and teaches a wide range of courses at several universities in the Twin Cities. His current project involves developing a taxonomy of the intellectual virtues, to be used in college-level philosophy courses.

Because of his own scholarship on virtue, David is especially well-suited to review the book under consideration, Excellence: The Character of God and the Pursuit of Scholarly Virtue by Andreas Köstenberger, Director of PhD Studies and senior professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. Thank you, David! ~ Mike

Nearly twenty years ago, the esteemed Alvin Plantinga wrote the following words, in offering his advice to Christian philosophers:

The Christian philosopher who looks exclusively to the philosophical world at large, who thinks of himself as primarily belonging to that world, runs a two-fold risk. He may neglect an essential part of his task as a Christian philosopher; and he may find himself adopting principles and procedures that don’t comport well with his beliefs as a Christian. What is needed, once more, is autonomy and integrality. ¹

Excellence: The Character of God and the Pursuit of Scholarly Virtue (Crossway, 2011) Read More…

Leave a Comment

Posted in Faith & Culture, Grad Student Strategies, Stewardship

Posted by: gcarkner | October 27, 2013

Regent Bookstore Literary Tour

Regent Bookstore Tour: Faith, the Arts and Literature

Imagine this! Literature that could change you life, broaden your horizons, inspire you at deep levels.

Regent College houses the best bookstore in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Drop in and browse for inspiring spiritual and theologically driven literature, Regent College Bookstore (corner of Wesbrook Mall and University Blvd. UBC’s Gate One). It is a store full of constant surprises and delights. This tour focuses on the Christian Literati and Writers equipped to open the universe of you imagination. If you are on a search for depth and meaning, this is a place to stop, linger, reflect: a soul building exercise. Take time out to browse, ask questions, have a coffee, even meet a new friend. Bill Reimer the manager and his staff are very helpful to your education. There is also a very good chance of running into someone interesting. That happens to me all the time. Recently I met two Korean guys, one from a New York art school and one from Korea. They were exciting, curious people. The store also has some excellent music.

Below you will find some of the choice titles and authors to explore, books to rock your worldview. This is especially vital for people in the hard sciences, engineering, medicine, and business. In GFCF & GCU, we encourage students and faculty to invest in their core self while they are building their academic expertise and research skills, to search for bold sources to build inspiration and imagination. If you are suffering from the caricature that Christian literature is dull and lifeless, think again. Bookstore Manager Bill Reimer’s genius in providing this collection is second to none; he knows books; he can get you books … fast. In fact, the friendly staff at the store could become your best friends in terms of good literature. The selection is a wide-ranging, robust, life-giving service to the whole UBC community. There is also a great selection of CDs of talks by art, literary and film critics such as Alan Jacobs, Ralph Wood, Leland Ryken, and Jeremy Begbie. You will be a richer person for visiting in your spare time or to find a title of poignant importance to your studies.

~Gord Carkner

A. Literary Classics:

John Donne. The Complete English Poems.

George Herbert. The Complete English Works.

Gerard Manley Hopkins. The Major Works.

William Shaespeare. The Sonnets.

Flannery O’Connor. Collected Works.

W. H. Auden. The Age of Anxiety.

B. Contemporary Writers:

Frederich Buechner. Speak What We Feel.

Scott Cairns. Love’s Immensity.

Madeleine L’Engle. A Wrinkle in Time.

Luci Shaw. Water & Soul.

Craig Bartholomew (ed.). In the Fields of the Lord.

P.D. James. The Private Patient.

Marilynne Robinson. Gilead.

Fyodor Dostoevski. Brothers Karamazov.

Blaise Pascal. Pensees

Susan Howatch’s novels including Scandalous Risks.

Rob Alloway’s award winning Babylon Post.

Augustine. Confessions.

Harold Bloom & Jessica Zuba. American Religious Poems.

C. Faith & Culture Critics:

Andy Crouch. Culture Making: recovering our creative calling.

Nicholas Wolterstorff. Art in Action.

Alan Joacobs. Pleasures of Reading.

Hans Rookmaaker. Modern Art & the Death of a Culture.

Laurel Gasque, Art and the Christian Mind: the life and work of Hans Rookmaaker.

Lloyd Baugh. Imaging the Divine: Jesus and Christ Figures in Film.

W. David O. Taylor (ed.). For the Beauty of the Church.

Calvin Seerveld. A Christian Critique of Art & Literature.

Leland Ryken. The Christian Imagination.

Jeremy Begbie. Beholding the Glory (also Resounding Truth).

Many more…

Visual Arts: ArtWay Meditations www.artway.eu Marleen Hengelaar” <marleen@artway.eu> to receive these periodic reflections on your email.

Christians in the Visual Arts: http://civa.org/ Local consultants are Laurel Gasque & Dal Schindel. Also see Rob Des Cotes at A Rocha and his Imago Project.

Imago http://imago-arts.org/

Christian Drama: Pacific Theatre Vancovuer for regular shows http://pacifictheatre.org/

Leave a Comment

Posted in Apologetics, Faith & Culture, Seeker Corner

ubcgcu

Notes on Leadership

Freedom, Identity and the Good…4

Dennis Danielson Investigates the Enigma of Galileo UBC Nov. 13

Freedom, Identity and the Good…3

Jacques Maritain on Human Rights

Remember What? Invest in What?

Freedom, Identity and the Good…2

Freedom, Identity and the Good

Scholarship & Excellence

Evangelical Scholarship and the Pursuit of Excellence

A Review of Andreas Köstenberger’s Excellence

Regent Bookstore Literary Tour

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Links

Admin