Author: Jim Spiegel

Posted on

Review of McLeod-Harrison’s The Resurrection of Immortality

By Jim Spiegel

Mark McLeod-Harrison’s new book, The Resurrection of Immortality (Cascade, 2017) is a welcome contribution to the growing literature related to personal eschatology. His concern in the book is to explore the question of human immortality. Historically, parties to the debate have generally affirmed either that human beings are essentially immortal or conditionally immortal. Those taking the first view maintain that by nature human beings will live forever. As human beings we naturally possess the property of immortality. Conditionalists deny this, maintaining that humans may or may not live forever. God grants immortality to some, depending on certain conditions (e.g., redemption in Christ).

McLeod-Harrison defends a third alternative, which denies that immortality is intrinsic to human nature but says immortality is an enduring property possessed by human beings. On this view, immortality is an extrinsic property, one which God confers on human beings based on other properties that God gives us. And much of the book is devoted to constructing an argument for this claim—an argument that is philosophical, rather than theological, in nature. Though purely philosophical in methodology, McLeod-Harrison’s argument is nevertheless “in-house,” aimed specifically at Christian scholars in that it assumes certain basic claims of Christian theology—the existence of God, the reality of an afterlife, and the biblical doctrine of salvation.

The author admirably devotes the first couple of chapters to laying conceptual groundwork for his argument, especially defining key terms. Since “immortality” is a privative concept (like “infinite” or “unbiased”), he begins with a careful review of the concept of “mortality” and the modal varieties of meanings potentially associated with the term. Thus, he notes, we may understand mortality as referring to the possibility, actuality, or necessity of the death of the body. Alternatively, we may understand mortality vis-à-vis the soul and its possible, actual, or necessary destruction. In the second chapter, McLeod-Harrison lays out, in somewhat parallel fashion, the varieties of immortality. This conceptual backdrop is very helpful preparation for the ensuing discussion and is one of the strengths of the book.

The author’s main target of refutation is conditional immortality, which he defines as the view that humans may possibly suffer soul-death. In chapter three he addresses this claim head-on, considering whether God can cause humans to cease to exist. He addresses the question primarily in terms of God’s “moral purview to cause humans to cease to exist” (29). Though understanding that the moral and metaphysical conditions for God’s destruction of human persons are distinct, he rightly notes that “if it is morally permissible for God to bring about soul-death for humans, then it seems that it also is metaphysically possible for God to bring about soul-death” (29). Here the author appeals to Kantian notions regarding the relationship between “ought” and “can.” So although his argument in this chapter appeals primarily to what is in God’s moral power, the author regards his findings as having significant implications regarding what is metaphysically possible for God.

For the rest of my review, including my criticisms of McLeod-Harrison’s arguments, go here.

Posted on

New Publication on the Ethics of Virtual Reality Technology

By Jim Spiegel

Last week an article of mine, entitled “The Ethics of Virtual Reality Technology: Social Hazards and Public Policy Recommendations,” was published in the journal Science and Engineering Ethics. In the article I discuss a number of issues related to virtual reality technology that are of serious moral concern and which, I argue, warrant the implementation of industry regulations. Here is the article abstract:

This article explores four major areas of moral concern regarding virtual reality (VR) technologies. First, VR poses potential mental health risks, including Depersonalization/Derealization Disorder. Second, VR technology raises serious concerns related to personal neglect of users’ own actual bodies and real physical environments. Third, VR technologies may be used to record personal data which could be deployed in ways that threaten personal privacy and present a danger related to manipulation of users’ beliefs, emotions, and behaviors. Finally, there are other moral and social risks associated with the way VR blurs the distinction between the real and illusory. These concerns regarding VR naturally raise questions about public policy. The article makes several recommendations for legal regulations of VR that together address each of the above concerns. It is argued that these regulations would not seriously threaten personal liberty but rather would protect and enhance the autonomy of VR consumers.

As for the regulations I recommend in the article, they include (1) a standardized rating system for VR technologies, (2) minimum age requirements for some VR products, (3) informational and warning labels, (4) public disclosure mandates, and, depending upon the degree to which VR technology merges with social networks, (5) “no share” laws regarding user data gleaned by VR companies.

To this day I have yet to experience VR technology first hand. This avoidance was not entirely intentional, but now I am pleased that I finished this research project before doing so, as I was somewhat wary of how the experience might bias my thinking about the subject. I am happy to say that all of the arguments and recommendations I make in the piece are based entirely on the research data I explored. But now that the article is published, I’m eager to do give VR a try. Anyone out there want to invite me to join them for a trip to a virtual world? I’m ready to don a headset and make the plunge!

Posted on

Seneca on Anger

By Jim Spiegel

This semester in my Principles of Ethics class I’ve been incorporating some new readings, including several works by the ancient Stoic philosopher Seneca.  A lot of his stuff is not only insightful but also practically beneficial, not to mention beautifully written.  His essay “On Anger” is an excellent case in point.  Personally, I think he goes too far in suggesting that all anger should be avoided, but I think we all can agree that much, if not most, human anger is counter-productive.  And we all would benefit from improving in the area of anger management, especially in these days of division and rancor.  Below I have highlighted some of Seneca’s thoughts on the subject which you may find helpful.  (All quotes below are from the Oxford edition of Seneca’s Dialogues and Essays, translated by John Davie.)

Why Anger Should be Avoided

  1. Anger inflicts harm on oneself: anger makes one a prisoner of one’s own passion. It is more painful to 516fhtlbDsL._SX328_BO1,204,203,200_surrender to anger than to resist it: “every sense of grievance grows to self-torture” (32). “The anger I feel is more likely to do me harm than any wrong you may do me” (40).
  2. It is a sign of greatness to be resistant to all disturbances: “a lofty mind, always composed and established in a peaceful location, suppresses all that produces anger, and so is moderate, well-ordered, and earns respect; none of these things will you find in an angry man” (23).
  3. Anger turns men into savages: Gaius Caesar and many other leaders have allowed their anger to the most extreme cruelties, which extends even to fury on entire nations. Anger begets “every sort of evil, fire and sword. Trampling shame underfoot, it defiles men’s hands with murder . . . and leaves no place free from crime” (50).

Anger is Susceptible to our Control

  1. Many others have pardoned worse sins than you’ve suffered: People have forgiven criminal offenses, so “should I not pardon laziness, carelessness, or chattering?” (39). Even Harpagus controlled his anger when he was forced to eat his own sons, which the Persian king had killed, cooked, and served to him.
  2. You are able to tolerate other forms of irresponsibility, such as “a sick man’s lunatic behavior, a madman’s crazed words, or children’s petulant blows. . . . What difference does it make what fault it is that makes a person behave irresponsibly?” (40).

Guidelines for Avoiding Anger

  1. Take note of the things that provoke you: “It is an advantage to know one’s illness and to destroy its strength before it has scope to grow” (27).
  2. Use humor as a defense: “Let most affronts be turned into amusement and jest.”
  3. Resist the tendency to suspicion and exaggeration: “Very many men manufacture complaints, either by suspecting what is untrue or by exaggerating the unimportant. Anger often comes to us, but more often we come to it” (28).
  4. Put yourself in others’ shoes: Usually anger results from an “unjustified estimate of our own worth” and “an unwillingness to put up with treatment we would happily inflict on others” (28).
  5. Remember that everyone does foolish things: “Even the wisest men do wrong.” “No one is so ripe in judgment that his self-possession is not driven by misfortune into some heated action” (39). “All of us are inconsiderate and imprudent, all unreliable, dissatisfied, ambitious—why disguise with euphemism this sore that infects us all? All of us are corrupt.” (40).
  6. Remember your mortality: Resisting anger will make you more lovable. Better to “spend the brief span we have left in rest and peace” (50). Anyway, the one who offended you will die one day, whether or not you burn with anger toward him.  “Soon we will spit out this little spirit. In the meantime, while we have breath, while we are among our fellow men, let us behave as men should; let us not be a cause of fear or danger to anyone; . . . and let us tolerate with a great mind our short-lived misfortunes” (52).
Posted on

The Saddest Songs I’ve Ever Heard

By Jim Spiegel

Recently it occurred to me that its been a long time since I’ve heard a new song that is really sad. I’ve encountered plenty of new music that is perverse or aims to be shocking, but not anything that I would categorize as truly sad. And by that I mean the kind of song that has the capacity to create a genuinely sorrowful mood through its lyric and, of course, a melodic structure that reinforces the lyrical theme. This got me to thinking about the saddest songs I know, so here is my top ten list of saddest songs. Obviously, this sort of thing is somewhat subjective. A song that makes me sad might not hit you the same way. But there is also an objective component—attributes which explain why certain songs tend to prompt a melancholy response in listeners. I’ve highlighted some of those features in many of the songs in my list.

But first, here are ten honorable mentions:

  1. Both Sides Now by Judy Collins – A poetic, somewhat stream of consciousness reflection on how personal maturation inevitably involves loss and the discovery of one’s limits. Collins’ vocal is direct and plaintive, supported by rich orchestration. Joni Mitchell’s more spare and intimate original version is also wonderful.
  1. Cats in the Cradle by Harry Chapin – The ultimate song about parental regret over time and opportunities squandered. Our kids grow so fast, and before you know it they’re off to college. Not only that, but the song captures the sorrow of seeing your own faults recapitulated in your own kids: “…and as I hung up the phone it occurred to me, he’d grown up just like me. My boy was just like me.” Ouch.
  1. Those Were the Days by Mary Hopkin – A reworking of an old Russian melody, matched to a nostalgic lyric, Hopkin’s vocal performance is both precise and mournful. The history of art is replete with the pangs of sorrow over human mutability and our inevitable demise. This song captures and conveys that sorrow as well as anything I’ve heard.
  1. Yesterday When I Was Young by Roy Clark – Another song about nostalgic regret. Clark’s vocal performance isn’t particularly great, but the lyrical genius makes up for that. For some other versions with more compelling vocals, check out this version by Glen Campbell (with scrolling lyrics) and this more upbeat arrangement by Dusty Springfield.
  1. I Started a Joke by the Bee Gees – The Bee Gees are most well known for their Saturday Night Fever era disco stuff, but for a decade prior to that they recorded numerous classics, including this tear-jerker sung by Robin Gibb. The Wallflowers interpretation of the song is also excellent.
  1. Long, Long Time by Linda Ronstadt – If anyone was born to sing, it was Ronstadt. She made a career out of making covers of songs that put the originals to shame. This song is brilliantly composed, capturing the feeling of resignation over love lost or never known, and Ronstadt delivers an exquisite performance to match, supported by guitar, harpsichord, and a beautifully scored string section.
  1. Alone Again by Gilbert O’Sullivan – This one is a musical gut punch, as the singer contemplates suicide after being stood up at the altar. From there he proceeds to reflecting on the death of his parents and questioning the mercy and goodness of God. Perhaps the best presentation of the problem of evil in song.
  1. Mr. Bojangles by the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band – Written and originally recorded by Jerry Jeff Walker, the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band version is deservedly the standard, with an understated vocal and perfectly stacked instrumentation. The fact that the song is based on an actual person that Walker met in New Orleans adds to its emotive power.
  1. Mother by John Lennon – John Lennon’s father left him when he was a small boy, and his mother was tragically killed when John was 17. Such pain is not fully expressible, but this song probably comes as close as possible to doing that. The desperation in Lennon’s voice during the closing refrain is almost unbearable.
  1. Somewhere Over the Rainbow by Judy Garland – The signature song in a film whose theme is finding a way home, it captures that unique sorrow inherent to the human condition. We are all longing for home, our heavenly home “over the rainbow.” I’ve listened to this song thousands of times over half a century, and I still tear up sometimes when I hear it. For an equally melancholic rendition in a completely different arrangement, check out this version by Israel “IZ” Kamakawiwoʻole.
Posted on

New Publication on Open-mindedness

By Jim Spiegel

Recently, another article of mine on the virtue of open-mindedness was published, this one in Philosophia: Philosophical Quarterly of Israel. It is entitled “Contest and Indifference: Two Models of Open-Minded Inquiry.” The link takes you to (a read-only version of) the entire article. Here is the abstract:

While open-mindedness as an intellectual trait has been recognized for centuries, Western philosophers have not explicitly endorsed it as a virtue until recently. This acknowledgment has been roughly coincident with the rise of virtue epistemology. As with any virtue, it is important to inform contemporary discussion of open-mindedness with reflection on sources from the history of philosophy. Here I do just this. After reviewing two major accounts of open-mindedness, which I dub “Contest” and “Indifference,” I explore some ideas pertinent to the subject in four philosophers spanning eighteen centuries: Sextus Empiricus, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Paul Feyerabend. Despite their varying concerns and terminology, their contributions may valuably inform current reflection on the virtue of open-mindedness, whether construed in terms of the Contest or Indifference account.

This article is the product of research I did while a fellow at the Biola University Center for Christian Thought a couple of years ago. It is my third scholarly publication on open-mindedness (along with articles in Sophia and Theory and Research in Education). My long-term aim is to publish a monograph on the topic. It is certainly an area where such work is needed, both because there are very few book-length treatments of open-mindedness and because in the West, especially the United States, genuine open-mindedness is an endangered intellectual virtue. High-pitched, dogmatic and even abusive rhetoric seem to be carrying the day in our culture. We could benefit from a large dose of this intellectual virtue, in the form of either version of open-mindedness that I discuss in my piece—contest or indifference. I would prefer the former, but let’s take what we can get!

Posted on

Is Evangelism Biblical?

By Jim Spiegel

Among evangelical Christians there is a widespread, even dogmatic belief that every Christian has a duty to evangelize unbelievers, that is, to explicitly share the Gospel with them in order to persuade them to come to belief. If you’re an evangelical Christian reading this, you’re probably thinking, “Well, yes, of course Christians have a duty to do that.” But is this really true? Are there any biblical grounds for thinking that every Christian has a moral obligation to evangelize? I don’t think so. In fact, I don’t think there is a shred of biblical evidence for this.

Now let me explain my claim a bit by clarifying what I am not saying. First, I am not saying that Christians do not have a biblical duty to be prepared to intelligently explain the Gospel when asked.   This much is clear in the apostle Peter’s directive to “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). Clearly, Peter is saying that all Christians have a duty to be ready to explain the Gospel and even provide some apologetic grounding for their beliefs. But notice that this is an injunction to respond to those who inquire, not a command to actively initiate such conversations in order to persuade others.

Secondly, I am not suggesting that it is unbiblical or morally wrong for individual Christians to do evangelism. In fact, it is overwhelmingly clear in Scripture that well-planned initiatives to persuade people of the Gospel are appropriate and wise in various circumstances. This is obvious from Jesus’ sending out his disciples two-by-two to spread the good news (Luke 9:1-6 and Luke 10:1-11) and numerous instances in the book of Acts where Christian leaders evangelized (Acts 5:42; Acts 8:4-13, etc.). However, note that these are specific initiatives that do not imply a universal duty to evangelize, though they might support the notion that Christian church leaders have a duty to 4242566_origevangelize. In fact, the apostle Paul confesses that “when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!” (1 Cor. 9:16). But in that passage, Paul is speaking for himself and perhaps, by extension, other apostles, as the context of that passage is Paul’s defense of his rights as an apostle.

Thirdly, I am not suggesting that the Church, as a body of believers, does not have a duty to evangelize unbelievers. Clearly, evangelism is an obligation of the Church. For as Paul says elsewhere, “How . . . can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent?” (Romans 10:14-15). Moreover, there is the Great Commission which is given by Jesus himself: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matt. 28:19-20). But while these passages imply that the Church should spread the Gospel, neither of these passages imply that each individual Christian has a duty to bear this burden. And to suggest that the former implies the latter is to commit the logical fallacy of division (illicitly reasoning from an attribute of a whole to that of its parts).

So by rejecting the notion of a universal Christian duty to evangelize I am not suggesting that evangelism is wrong, that Christians need not be prepared to defend the Gospel, nor even that the Christian church has no duty to evangelize. I am suggesting that evangelism is a crucial function of the Church that should be intentionally carried out by those who are especially well-prepared—and I would say specially gifted—to perform. I would compare the gift of evangelism to such spiritual gifts as prophecy, teaching, and church leadership (1 Cor. 12:8-10 and Rom. 12:6-8). Such are crucial functions within the church, but it would be absurd to suggest that every Christian has a duty to prophesy, teach, and be a church leader. No, as Paul says, not all members of the body of Christ have the same function (Rom. 12:4). Similarly, although evangelism is an important task of the church, not everyone is called or properly gifted to perform that task. (For more on this idea, check out Bryan Stone’s book Evangelism After Christendom.)

Yet the myth of a universal Christian duty to evangelize is extremely popular among evangelicals these days. Given the way that some Christian leaders emphasize and even guilt trip congregations about it, it is tempting to classify this as a modern pharisaism, a way in which Christian leaders have bound the consciences of Christians, effectively adding to the law. I am not exaggerating when I say that I’ve heard more sermons proclaiming a supposed universal Christian duty of evangelism than I have heard proclaim any of the Ten Commandments as moral duties. What is wrong with this picture?

So where did this idea come from? If there are no biblical grounds for an individual mandate to evangelize, then why is this misconception so popular among evangelicals? In short, I believe it is a consequence of Western, particularly American capitalistic thinking as applied to Christian public life. In other words, I think the idea resulted more from market and sales thinking than from Scripture. This is my best guess anyway. (For more on the connection between evangelism and marketing, see the Kenneson and Street book Selling out the Church.)

Speaking of history, consider a final point that should prompt doubt in the minds of even the most stalwart defenders of a universal duty to evangelize. So far as I can tell, none of the greatest Christian theologians and spiritual leaders ever taught this doctrine. I challenge you to locate it in any of the early church fathers (St. Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, John Cassian, Augustine), the great medieval theologians (Anselm, Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic, Thomas Aquinas), the Reformation era theologians (Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Ulrich Zwingli, Teresa of Avila), Revivalist theologians (John Wesley, Charles Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, and George Whitefield) and the greatest 20th century theological minds (Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and C.S. Lewis). That’s 25 of the greatest Christian minds—and certainly inclusive of the greatest Christian theological minds—in world history. Yet apparently none of them believed that there is a universal Christian duty to do evangelism. Now if that teaching was a biblical one, I think its safe to say that most, if not all, of these folks would have picked up on that. Right? So what gives?

If you’re a conservative evangelical, you’re probably bothered by what you’ve just read. But my plea to you is to honestly reflect on whether your view is actually biblical. I would also urge you to consider the force of the fact that there is no evidence that any of the greatest theological minds in history agree with you. That fact alone should give any Christian serious pause.

Now, finally, why does this matter? Even if we did get this one wrong, you may ask, isn’t it better to err in the direction of zeal than complacency when it comes to evangelizing others? I don’t think so, and here are three reasons why. First, it is wrong and harmful to bind people’s consciences. Legalism is deadly for Christian faith and spiritual formation. Secondly, the myth of a universal duty to evangelize has undoubtedly compromised the power of the Church’s witness, since this myth has had the effect of prompting incompetent evangelizing which poorly represents the Gospel. Thirdly, this myth has created a tragic association of Christianity with cheap marketing, thus making conservative Christianity synonymous with insincere, means-to-an-end salesmanship and kitschy sales techniques. (I’m sure we can all think of many cringe-worthy examples we have personally witnessed.) This, of course, is the most ironic distortion of Christianity, representing the Gospel as something precisely opposite what it is.

So, in summation, the answer to the question “Is evangelism biblical?” is, of course, yes. It is clearly biblical that the church has a duty to spread the Gospel message. But what is not biblical is the notion that there is an individual mandate for Christians to evangelize other people. For those who feel so led or, better, have the gift of evangelism, it is perfectly appropriate for them to do so, given the right circumstances. But the duty for all Christians is to be prepared to answer those who ask them about the Gospel and, most importantly, to live virtuous lives, displaying the fruit of the Spirit (“love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control”—Gal. 5:22-23). Now these are universal mandates that are biblical. And if we Christians were all more serious in pursuing them, I bet the Church would be far more effective in fulfilling the Great Commission.

Posted on

The Theological Significance of Carpentry

By Jim Spiegel

I get a spiritual high out of doing home construction and renovation. I know that sounds strange, but its true. Building and repairing things actually makes me feel closer to God. For many years, I didn’t know why carpentry had this effect on me, but I’ve finally figured out why.

It started about twenty years ago when I built my first book case. Then came another and then another. Eventually, Amy asked me to build an entertainment center, and from there my projects expanded to, among other things, tables…

 

IMG_2459

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

stairs…

 

IMG_0977

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beds…

 

IMG_1048

IMG_2334

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and a buffet…

 

IMG_2458

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alongside my furniture construction there grew an increasing interest and competence in home repair, from basic plumbing and electrical to roofing, drywall, and flooring, especially tiling. My latest renovation project, which I completed just this week, was on our downstairs bathroom in our “new” house (built in 1920) in Upland. Here is the progression of the project…

 

IMG_2358IMG_2398

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMG_2407IMG_2408

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMG_2447IMG_2448

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMG_2460IMG_2449

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, these projects are satisfying, if only because they are practical and make a home look better. But I believe the joy I experience in doing (and finishing) this work derives from aspects of carpentry which trace back to the imago Dei in human beings:

  1. Carpentry is creative—As is clear from the first chapters of Genesis and, well, the entire world around us, God is a fundamentally creative. That we humans are divine image-bearers explains why we are also irrepressibly creative. Carpentry is an especially significant mode of creativity, because it features both practical and aesthetic goods. The products, if done right, are both functional and beautiful. That’s an accurate description of the divine artwork that is the physical universe, and to the extent that we engage in creative construction, we mirror this divine creative activity.
  1. Carpentry is redemptive—When you live in old houses, as we have for the last fifteen years, there is always plenty of repair and renovation to do. To repair and improve is essentially redemptive and thus Gospel-like, a fulfillment of the biblical mandate to address the consequences of sin. Construction repair work is the “healing” dimension of carpentry.
  1. Carpentry is a whole-person activity—Carpentry involves not just one skill but numerous particular skills which require competencies with a variety of tools as well as design and measurement tasks. It is physically and intellectually demanding, and it also requires significant value judgments pertaining to everything from finances to aesthetics and even ethics. If being a servant in the Kingdom of God requires challenging and developing as much of yourself as possible, then carpentry is the ideal discipline for such training.

I would add that as a teacher and scholar I also find a special satisfaction in carpentry because the result of one’s construction toils are tangible and, at least potentially, indisputably excellent. Even the most well-constructed lecture, argument, journal article, or book can be disputed or casually dismissed. But there is no (reasonable) disputing or dismissing a superbly constructed table, bed, buffet, or bathroom. Here, again, there is a parallel in divine creation and redemption. God does not offer us mere arguments that he is powerful, wise, innovative, and gracious. Rather, he demonstrates this in his creative and wise construction of the universe as well as his innovative and gracious ministry of redemption on earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. And, speaking of him, I wonder if it is just a coincidence that Jesus’ vocation for most of his adult life was apparently that of a carpenter or craftsman of some sort (cf. Mark 6:3). Hmm….

Posted on

WANTED: Gay Affirming Christian Scholar from Before 1950

By Jim Spiegel

I am currently researching and writing a chapter for an upcoming book on sexual ethics, to be entitled Venus and Virtue (edited by Jerry Walls, Jeremy Neill, and David Baggett and published by Wipf and Stock). The aim of the book is, in the editors’ words, to “recover Christian wisdom about sexuality by exploring again the biblical and theological foundations that teach us how to celebrate sex while seeking sanctification.”

My own chapter, entitled “The Sexual Pluralist Revolution: Reasons to be Skeptical,” will discuss the dramatic shift of perspective that has occurred in the West within the last generation regarding sexual morality—a shift away from the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic of sex as appropriate only within heterosexual marriage and in the direction of affirming any sexual relationship so long as it takes place between consenting adults. I dub this view “sexual pluralism.” I think there are several reasons to be skeptical of sexual pluralism, not the least of which is the fact that there appear to be no gay-affirming Christian scholars (theologians, philosophers, ethicists, etc.) in history until the latter part of the twentieth century. So with this post I am beckoning our readers to help me out here. Can anyone give me a plausible example of such a scholar?

This matter of historical precedent is quite germane to the question of a Christian’s skepticism about sexual pluralism, and here’s why. As Christians we should take seriously the wealth of moral and theological wisdom that has preceded us historically, and where there is strong consensus among our best thinkers about an issue, as there is on the sexual conduct question, then that forms a strong presumption in favor of the prevailing view. Now since sexual pluralism constitutes a rejection of the Christian consensus about sexual ethics, then, to say the least, we ought to be rather skeptical of this view. In fact, it seems to me, to dismiss the strong consensus of all of the greatest Christian minds who have written on the subject down through history is actually quite arrogant or else historically myopic (or perhaps, to a degree, both).

Now it is very clear that there is, as I have said, a strong historical consensus among Christian scholars on sexual ethics until the last few decades. (This point is strongly confirmed in Fortson and Grams’ new book Unchanging Witness.) But what I want to know is whether there is actual unanimity—agreement without exception—among Christian scholars regarding the traditional sexual ethic until the mid-twentieth century. Not that my argument depends on such, of course. One would expect at least a few historical exceptions, given the many thousands of Christian scholars who have weighed in on the issue over nearly twenty millennia. Identifying a few outliers would not undermine the argument. But I am intrigued by the possibility that there are no such outliers and that there really was complete unanimity on the issue among Christian scholars until recently. So again, I beseech your help in identifying an example for me. This would then confirm that I should avoid use of the term “unanimous” in my chapter in describing the Christian scholarly consensus on the issue prior to the mid-twentieth century.

Now, a couple of caveats. First, it will not do to point to a given scholar in history who might appear to have engaged in same-sex practices or to cite historical innuendo in that direction. Not only is this potentially slanderous regarding the scholar in question but it misses the point of my argument, which regards the studied views of Christian scholars down through history, for it is this which carries some epistemic authority for Christians today.

Also, it won’t do to appeal to the dangers of being a sexual pluralist or gay affirming in past times, thus ostensibly explaining the silence of dissenting Christian scholars on the subject. This is because down through history thousands of Christians—scholars and lay people alike—have suffered severely for rejecting other doctrines, even those as relatively minor as particular views on communion and baptism, as well as the doctrine of salvation and creedal matters. (Here is one partial list.) So if some Christian scholars were gay affirming in such dangerous contexts, surely at least a few would have been willing to make this known despite the damaging consequences. Also, the threat of execution or even severe prosecution would not apply to all Christian contexts in all countries down through history. In some places and times, the ramifications for affirming sexual pluralism would be less severe, thus making the supposed “silence” of all sexual pluralist Christian scholars less plausible.

Posted on

Berkeleyan Idealism and Christian Philosophy: My Overview in Philosophy Compass

By Jim Spiegel

Last year saw the publication of the two-volume Bloomsbury series on Idealism and Christianity, for which I was chief editor. My co-editors (Steve Cowan, Joshua Farris and Mark Hamilton) on the two volumes happily discovered that there is no shortage of Christian scholars today who espouse the idealist perspective, whichcoveraffirms that the physical world is entirely dependent on a conscious Mind (also known as “God”) or, otherwise put, consciousness is most real and the physical world is essentially divine ideas made public (i.e., perceivable by finite minds).

So far, our volumes have created just the sorts of conversations we intended to stimulate. In fact, one of our colleagues—Chad Meister, Philosophy professor at Bethel University—recently informed us that he has “converted” to Berkeleyan idealism. And many others are intrigued and attracted to idealism for a variety of reasons.

So these are exciting days for idealism (also known as “immaterialism”). So much so that I was commissioned to write an article for Philosophy Compass on idealism and Christian philosophy. Last week the article was published, and you can access it here. As I note in the abstract, my essay “provides an overview of some of the ways Christian philosophers have deployed immaterialism to solve problems and generate insights in metaphysics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, and philosophical theology.” Indeed, the explanatory power of idealism is formidable and is its most convincing feature. That is, at least in my judgment. Perhaps my article will be of some help to you as you look into it yourself.

Posted on

Hoffman’s Conscious Realism

By Jim Spiegel

Recently I learned of this excellent article in a recent issue of the Atlantic. It is an interview with cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman, who endorses an idealist view of reality—the notion that all that exist are conscious minds and their thoughts. He dubs the view “conscious realism,” but that is just his own terminology for what any philosopher will immediately recognize as something akin to Berkeleyan idealism, the thesis that esse est percipi aut percipere (to be is to be perceived or to be a perceiver).

The author of piece, Amanda Gefter, prefaces the interview with a nice summation of how two different scientific fields are converging on the idealist conclusion:

Getting at questions about the nature of reality, and disentangling the observer from the observed, is an endeavor that straddles the boundaries of neuroscience and fundamental physics. On one side you’ll find researchers scratching their chins raw trying to understand how a three-pound lump of gray matter obeying nothing more than the ordinary laws of physics can give rise to first-person conscious experience . . ..

On the other side are quantum physicists, marveling at the strange fact that quantum systems don’t seem to be definite objects localized in space until we come along to observe them. Experiment after experiment has shown—defying common sense—that if we assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective, observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central lesson of quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out there in some preexisting space. As the physicist John Wheeler put it, “Useful as it is under ordinary circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.”

So Gefter concludes, “while neuroscientists struggle to understand how there can be such a thing as a first-person reality, quantum physicists have to grapple with the mystery of how there can be anything but a first-person reality. In short, all roads lead back to the observer.”

Indeed, this is precisely Hoffman’s view, as he explains in the interview. “As a conscious realist,” he says, “I am postulating conscious experiences as ontological primitives, the most basic ingredients of the world.” But, of

from Psychology Today
from Psychology Today

course, he cannot stop there. For consciousness—first-person subjectivity, awareness, perception, etc.—is not so much a thing as an event or phenomenon that must be had by a thing. Awareness and other forms of thought cannot exist on their own (as Descartes rightly observed). There must be someone who is aware, a mental substrate that is the ontological ground of the conscious events. So it won’t do to stop at conscious experience as an “ontological primitive.” A personal who must lie behind the consciousness what.

Hoffman recognizes this, granting that “objective reality is just conscious agents.” Gefter worries that this emphasis on first-person subjectivity might be a threat to science. Hoffman rightly dismisses this worry, mainly because the best science points in this direction. Others might worry that as a scientist it is not Hoffman’s place to make inferences to such a metaphysical notion as personal agency. But it would be disingenuous to suggest that scientists can avoid making metaphysical claims and assumptions. The real question is when certain scientific discoveries warrant our making particular metaphysical inferences. In this case, it seems to me that such inferences are clearly warranted.