Search Results for: Michael Rea

An Ongoing Series of Sketches from the Contributors of Being Good: Christian Virtues for Everyday Life, co-edited by Michael W. Austin and R. Douglas Geivett (Eerdmans, 2012). More info can be found at www.beinggoodnews.com.

Today in American society it seems the last thing on people’s minds is wisdom. From Hollywood to Wall Street, we are preoccupied with wealth, entertainment, and social status.  And even where wisdom is generally acknowledged as a noble aim, genuine devotees of this virtue are rare.  Yet the biblical exhortation to wisdom is clear, as the proverb says wisdom is “more precious than rubies” (Prov. 8:11).  But what exactly is wisdom?  What is it about this trait that makes it so valuable?  And what practical steps can one take in order to become wise?  Is it a matter of simple dedication in study, or are there other things involved in the attainment of wisdom?  In my chapter I address each of these questions.

Generally speaking, wisdom is a kind of practical moral insight.  So it appears to be both a moral virtue and an intellectual virtue.  For the wise person has knowledge of what is the best conduct in particular situations, and this knowledge is manifested in good conduct.  So you might say that wisdom is a sort of “governing” virtue that is necessary, to some degree, for the development of all other virtues. This is why wisdom is especially important and perhaps why we find such a strong biblical emphasis on it.

How does one become wise?  Is it just a matter of study and cognitive reflection?  While we usually think in terms of beliefs determining behavior, Scripture suggests that the causal dynamic runs the other direction as well.  The Old Testament wisdom literature tells us that God makes wise the simple and grants understanding to those who humble themselves (see Psalm 19:7, Psalm 25:9, Prov. 1:4, and Prov. 11:2).  And some New Testament passages underscore the critical role of behavior when it comes to belief formation (e.g., Rom. 1:18-32, Eph. 4:18-19).

Alvin Plantinga has provided some insights regarding how vice undermines wisdom.  He notes that cognitive faculties are like any other aspect of human beings, in so far as they were designed for a purpose (to form true beliefs) and that they function properly only under certain conditions.  Like any physical organ, such as lungs or eyes, cognitive processes can malfunction because of corrupting influences.  And moral vice, such pride, resentment, or the habitual indulgence in perverse behavior, is a major cause of cognitive malfunction.  In other words, sin compromises a person’s capacity to form true beliefs, particularly regarding moral and spiritual matters.

Psychological studies have shown that, when faced with a conflict between their personal beliefs and behavior, people will often reconcile this conflict by changing the way they think about their behavior.  Rather than alter their conduct, they will take the less demanding route and search for some way to rationalize it.  This response is almost always unconscious, which of course makes for a morally insidious dynamic in contexts involving vicious behavior.  These moral-psychological insights appear to confirm the Apostle Paul’s remarks in Romans 1:18-32 where he describes how wicked behavior leads to futile thinking.

So sinful behavior undermines the quest for wisdom.  But on the positive side, virtuous living leads to wisdom.  By living rightly we diminish the corrupting impact of sin on the mind.  Consequently, our cognitive processes can function properly, and we are more likely to form true beliefs about moral and spiritual issues.  So those who faithfully obey God will grow wiser, just as Scripture tells us.

While Plantinga and others have done some helpful work in exploring the negative dynamics of moral psychology when it comes to cognition, more work needs to be done to understand the positive impact of virtuous living.  What are the specific moral-psychological causal dynamics involved?  What role might the spiritual disciplines (e.g., prayer, fasting, sacrifice, etc.) play in maximizing cognitive health?  And what specific implications might there be here for Christian educators and scholars, for whom proper cognitive function is especially critical?

James S. Spiegel
Taylor University

An Ongoing Series of Sketches from the Contributors of Being Good: Christian Virtues for Everyday Life, co-edited by Michael W. Austin and R. Douglas Geivett (Eerdmans, 2012). More info can be found at www.beinggoodnews.com.

A philosophy of love is defended in which love has two aspects.  The most important is beneficent love, which is when the lover desires the good or well being of the beloved.  The second aspect of love is unitive love, the desire of the lover to be united with the lover.  In responding to some cases when it appears that a person may love someone too much, it is argued that true love cannot be in excess.  In other words, you cannot love a person too much –especially if the love is truly beneficent.  It is further argued that the love of another requires some self-love, and while it may be good to love the love of another, this is very dangerous.  It would mean that if the beloved withdraws her love, the object of love no longer exists.

Belief in a loving, Triune God offers an enhanced, richer understanding of love and its endurance than in a secular context.  Some of the pressing issues that Christians face in thinking about love (some, but not all of which are addressed in the chapter) is the primacy of agape (selfless or unconditional love) versus loves that are particular (the love one has for one’s spouse or child rather than a stranger).  When is impartial love to be preferred to particular loves (for example, in a Christian community is it important to love others impartially or is and when is preferential treatment good)?  When should love be unconditional?  Is love usually a response to value (the good of the beloved) or can love in some way create value?  Is love under your control?

Some Christian philosophers today (Richard Swinburne, Stephen Davis) believe that the three highest loves are self-love, love of another, and the love of two for a third, and they see this (following the philosopher Richard of St. Victor) as part of the glory of God as Triune.  I believe they are right and am working on an account of love that would fill out this position.  If you enjoy the chapter, you might check out a book I wrote on love called: Love. Love. Love. And Other Essays (Cowley Press, 2005).  The title comes from the last essay in which I relate the last three words my father told me when he died at the age of 95; he held my hand and said “Love. Love. Love.”

Charles Taliaferro

St. Olaf College

An Ongoing Series of Sketches from the Contributors of Being Good: Christian Virtues for Everyday Life, co-edited by Michael W. Austin and R. Douglas Geivett (Eerdmans, 2012). More info can be found at www.beinggoodnews.com.

Given its popular association with being deferential and submissive, what place does humility have in our present day world? And indeed, in the light of the many achievements of humanity, why should we be humble? What can humility do for us except inhibit our efforts to excel? Is it not better to strive for greatness, to reach for the stars rather than crawl in the dust?

In my chapter of Being Good, I argue that not only is humility compatible with greatness, and even with an acknowledgement of one’s own greatness, but that it is a precondition of the only true and lasting greatness. Humility’s importance, however, is most readily perceived by examining what is wrong with its opposing vice, namely pride. The four traditional marks of pride are:

(a) ascribing an excellence to oneself that one does not possess;

(b) thinking that one has acquired for oneself some excellence that one has received as a gift;

(c) thinking that some excellence that one has received as a gift is due to one’s own merits;

(d) thinking that some excellence that one possesses is greater insofar as others do not have it.

Humility opposes all these forms of pride, but has a unique importance in Christianity because the excellence offered is a personal relationship with God. This supernatural goal is utterly inaccessible to any unaided natural human capacity. The pride by which a person attempts to make himself like God, to seize participation in the divine nature, is not only insane but is incompatible with that divine friendship that alone makes such participation possible.

Given its importance, how then can we become humble? Since the very nature of humility disposes us to receive God’s gifts as gifts, I argue that it is not, in fact, within our power to acquire humility for ourselves as if humility itself is not a gift. A self-help book entitled How to be Humble or Teach Yourself Humility would miss the entire point.

The whole history of Christianity suggests that God forms humility in his people in a most unusual way, constantly disrupting the apparent but false association that reason tends to make between natural powers and supernatural fruitfulness. Indeed, he often entirely inverts the natural order of strength and weakness in such things, “He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree” (Luke 1:52).

So while it is true that God sometimes makes use of a person’s exceptional natural gifts, such as intelligence or political ability, God can just as easily make use of someone’s simplicity, weakness or foolishness. Indeed, he frequently seems to make someone weak, or allow a person to fall, precisely to bring about the disposition of trusting in him alone. It is only when Peter has betrayed Christ and been forgiven that he is humble enough to be the leader of the church; it is only when Paul has persecuted Christ to the point of murdering his followers that he is conscious enough of his own failures to be the greatest of all missionaries. Humility properly disposes us to receive God’s gifts as gifts – and even that disposition is itself the fruit of God’s grace.

If you enjoy this chapter, I invite you to explore the works of other philosophers who have written on this theme and whose writings are referenced in the chapter. I also invite you to examine a book I have just published that explores these themes further, The Second-Person Perspective in Aquinas’s Ethics: Virtues and Gifts (Routledge, 2012).

The unusual emphasis on humility in Christianity, as well as the many other non-Aristotelian virtues examined in Being Good, has led me to conclude that we need a radically new way of conceiving of a ‘virtue’. In this new book, I argue that the key is to be found in so-called ‘second-person relatedness’. A fitting metaphor to understand the life of grace and the infused virtues is that these dispositions remove a person’s ‘spiritual autism,’ enabling the kind of second-person relatedness with God manifested vividly in Augustine’s Confessions. For additional work on second-person relatedness, especially applied to the problem of suffering, I also recommend Stump, Wandering in Darkness (OUP, 2011).  Over the next few years, I am keen to develop further the idea of a specifically second-person virtue ethics and I invite you to join me in this enterprise.

Andrew Pinsent
Oxford University

Contributors to Being Good: Christian Virtues for Everyday Life participate in an EPS web series that highlights their contribution to the book and its value to a broader context of literature on the topic. More info about the book can be found at www.beinggoodnews.com

• Rebecca Konyndyk DeYoung, “On Courage.”
• Michael W. Austin, “On Compassion.”
• David Horner and David Turner, “On Zeal.”
• James S. Spiegel, “On Wisdom.”
• Jason Baehr, “On Open-Mindedness.”
• Andrew Pinsent, “On Humility.”
• Charles Taliaferro, “On Love.”