Philosophia Reformata

There is now a website for the journal Philosophia Reformata published by the Association for Reformational Philosophy. If you explore it a little you will find a few articles on-line and the contents for the next edition apparently due out now.

Paul has also pointed out to me that Roy Clouser and others have published a special edition of the journal Axiomathes dedicated to Herman Dooyeweerd. See here and here. Reason to celebrate.

Links of interest

An interesting article articulating a communitarian conservative response to the global economic crisis called Rise of the red Tories.

Some videos of Alvin Plantinga on God and arguments among other topics and among lots of other interesting people at Closer to Truth.

Loads of great philosophy cartoons at chaopet.

A little more than nothing

I owe Bruce Wearne thanks for coming across this quote. It expresses well the insight that we should avoid unbridled optimism because we are not the answer to the worlds problems, we cannot solve everything, at the same time the pessimism that we cannot do anything is equally misguided.

The Kingdom is not only beyond our efforts, it is even beyond our vision. We accomplish in our lifetime only a tiny fraction of the magnificent enterprise that is God's word. Nothing we do is complete, which is another way of saying that the Kingdom always lies beyond us. No statement says all that should be said. No prayer fully expresses our faith. No conversion brings perfection, no pastoral visit brings wholeness. No programme accomplishes the church's mission. No set of goals and objectives includes everything. This is what we are about. We plant seeds that one day will grow or maybe die. We water seeds already planted, knowing that they hold future promise. We lay foundations that will need further development. We provide yeast that produces effects far beyond our capabilities. We cannot do everything and there is a sense of liberation in realizing that. This enables us to do something and do it very well. It may be incomplete but it is a beginning. A step along the way. An opportunity for God's grace to enter and do the rest. We may never see the results. But that is the difference between the master builder and the worker. We are the workers, not master builders. We are ministers, not messiahs. We are prophets of a future that is not our own.

Archbishop Oscar Romero, El Salvador (1917-1980)

Religious reasons in public discourse

Theos a think tank for public theology has published a report by Jonathan Chaplin called Talking God.

The reformed philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff has made significant contributions to this topic and can been seen explaining his view in conversation with Miroslav Volf in the video below.

Sermon on Money

Grace Church Hackney puts their sermons on-line. I've just caught up with one we missed on Luke 12:13-34. It is well worth a listen as Giles Fouhy gives a perceptive and challenging reading of the passage.

Elaine Storkey on the Bible and Gender

Storkey’s fascinating and well written book on the gender debate Origins of Difference ends with a useful summary of how the Bible deals with issues of gender. Her main point is that the Bible does not offer a simple one-dimensional response, in the terms of the debate it is not ‘essentialist’. Instead the Bible can be seen to present four dimension to the issue, Storkey calls them paradigms however since they are not opposing options it seems more appropriate to speak of dimensions.

The first dimension is that of difference, this is seen in the different creation accounts of Adam, from the dust, and Eve, from Adams rib. It is also apparent in their different confrontation with temptation and the different curse that they receive for their disobedience. This ties in with the different gender roles that men and women find themselves involved with in different cultural contexts, though Storkey notes that these roles are not fixed.

The second is that the Bible also incorporates the idea of sameness or similarity. Both are made in the image of God, Adam recognises the women as “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh”. They are both given the cultural mandate with its authority and responsibility for God’s creation; both receive the curse and look towards the promise of redemption. Paul even goes so far as to say that there is neither “male” nor “female” in Christ suggesting at least that the difference should not be divisive or decisive.

Thirdly the Bible points to the complementarity of women and men, they fit together designed as co-helpers. Just as women came from man so now man comes from women (1 Corinthians 11:11).

Lastly the Bible shows that men and women were made for union. No other creature was suitable for Adam and the gospel of reconciliation draws all together in the unity of the body of Christ as his church.

Storkey also points to the occasions where Jesus challenged traditional gender roles and prejudices in the way he acted towards women, such as his interaction with the Samaritan woman (John 4), the woman who suffered from bleeding (Luke 8:43-48), and the episode with Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38-41). Her conclusions seem to be that (1) men and women, being different, will tend towards some differences in roles, but that these can change over time, there is no fixed ahistorical framework, (2) These differing and changing roles should be judged according to the norms set out in the Bible for loving relationships such as the fruits of the spirit (e.g. Galatians 5:16-26, Colossians 3, Romans 12:9-21). In this way Storkey finds a way out of the sterile debates about “created or constructed”, our creaturely sex/gender nature is both given with creational order and called to faithful cultural response.

Bach's Partita in D minor for solo Violin

This piece was played last Sunday at our church during communion. It is quite sublime. Hopefully the violinist will indeed play the other sections of the partita tomorrow as she suggested she might.

Dooyeweerd's Text

We can now celebrate having both De Wijsbegeerte de Wetisdee and A New Critique of Theoretical Thought I-II and III-IV available on-line, though as Baus remarks we still await affordable copies of his works. Personally I accept that a decent set of the New Critique is going to cost more than your average paperback, but that is no excuse for not making reasonably cheap editions of books like Roots and Twilight available. Unfortunately price is not the only problem, in his article on Dooyeweerd and a reformational theory of truth Zuidervaart makes these rather sobering comments:

Because New Critique is both a translation and a revision of Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee, commentators face tricky questions when they interpret Dooyeweerd’s magnum opus. This is especially so of English passages that seem prima facie to translate the Dutch version. Sometimes there are significant differences in meaning between equivalent passages in the two works. One does not always know whether this is due to the quality of the translation or due to a change in Dooyeweerd’s conception. Although I shall note a number of these differences, to give them a complete interpretation would take me too far afield. Where the English version translates an equivalent passage in the Dutch version, I occasionally use square brackets to indicate nuances in Dutch not caught in the English version. I also silently modify translated passages in other ways, usually to render them in more idiomatic English. What Dooyeweerd scholars really need is a thorough, critical edition of NC, one that sorts out the differences between WW and NC and makes informed judgments about the nature and source of those differences. In the meantime, a careful reader of Dooyeweerd should use both WW and NC, and not assume that everything in NC is a faithful rendering of his own conception.

Perhaps I should add a critical edition of the New Critique onto my list of future reformational book, however it could be that we are still decades away from such a publication I hope not.

Just War Theory

It is sometimes argued that Just war theory (JWT) is of no use because it is ineffective to stop wars and is often used by governments prosecuting war as a moral cover for its actions. A further criticism is that JWT only kicks in at the last minute when the chances of a peaceful outcome is fast receding from improbable to impossible. In other words JWT finds the limelight just as the decision to go to war has been made and the government is looking around for a way of justifying this decision.

These criticisms seem to me me a little unfair. Firstly even if the slide to war has acquired a sense of inevitability the first requirement of JWT is that all peaceful means have been exhausted so there is a chance to pull back and consider other avenues, the government can also be criticised for opportunities missed or deliberately spoiled. This requirement also highlights the properly limited character of JWT because it points to the need for a Just Peace Theory, which is to say that JWT should be understood as only one specific outworking of a broader theory of the states task of pursuing justice. Its ineffectiveness in preventing war is not a failure of JWT so much as a more general failure of governments to seek justice in all its actions, in particular in the international realm.

The use of JWT in trying to give a moral veneer to an unjust war is certainly to be regretted, but appeals to freedom and democracy for ideological purposes are equally to be deplored, and these need not be discredited on account of such abuse. The only other options for a critique of warmongering is an absolutistic pacificism, such a position certainly cannot be co-opted in the justification of war! However by its very absolute character pacificism is unable to engage with the specifics of a particular situation, JWT in contrast encourages a critical evaluation of the situation which can latch onto the concrete realities of states entering into peace endangering scenarios.

JWT, it should be remembered, has a role to play in evaluating the prosecution of war and military hostilities just as much as in the decision to go to war. This is illustrated in this article from the Economist on Israels actions in Gaza. In a more thorough fashion see James Skillen's assessment of the war in Iraq from a while back.

Early Genesis

No not the book the band. I got into 'early' Genesis (i.e. the Gabriel era) while at high school and still enjoy their music. I wouldn't say I'm a typical music lover having a rather small cd collection and being well behind on the whole iPod and download technology. Still I do love music, a smattering of classical - mainly Bach, Jazz - leaning towards later Coltrane and 1960s Miles Davis, and a random collection of more 'popular' music.

What I love about early Genesis is the rich musical textures they create, their wide ranging dynamics making the climaxes more impressive and each band member contributing something distinctive from their instruments. Anyway, here goes for my first YouTube insert. And if you enjoy this, take a look at Gabriel's surreal theatrics in their live performances here.

Philosophia Reformata

The latest edition of PR has just arrived and it contains an important announcement: all future contributions are to be in English only. While it states that this will commence from the next issue the current issue is already English only.

Here is the list of articles:

Andrew Basden, Engaging with and Enriching Humanist Thought: The Case of Information Systems

M.D. Stafleu, Time and History in the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea

Lambert Zuidervaart, Dooyeweerd's Conception of Truth: Exposition and Critique

Jonathan Chaplin, Beyond Multiculturalism - but to where? Public Justice and Cultural Diversity

There is also a review of B.J. van der Walt's When African and Western Cultures Meet by Steve Bishop. So it is not only the English language that is well represented but also English nationals with three out of the six contributors Englishmen residing in England. I must admit to having a slight reservation about banning future Dutch language articles, despite its obvious positives, especially for people like myself, however I do hope that the prominence of the British is a sign of things to come in this country.

Future Reformational Books

At this time of year it is customary to look back over the year and make lists and observations of various kinds. It occurs to me though that there are many books that I am looking forward to reading once they are published. While it is great to hear about forthcoming books, it can also be a little frustrating when the process of publication takes a long time. So two books that I have read and enjoyed this year I was especially pleased that their publishing date was advertised soon after hearing about them and that they became available as close to on-time as could be wished. Indeed both Bob Goudzwaard's Hope in Troubled Times and Lambert Zuidervaart's Social Philosophy After Adorno arrived as reasonably priced paperbacks.

What follows is a list of reformational books that I have, in a variety of ways, come to learn are to be published at some indeterminate time in the future.

• Dirk H. T. Vollenhoven Reader edited by John Kok
• Philosophy put to work:Contemporary Issues in Art, Society, Politics, Science and Religion Edited by Henk Geersema and Jan van der Stoep
  
• Philosophy the discipline of the disciplines by D.M.F. Strauss
  
• Herman Dooyeweerd: Christian Philosopher of State and Civil Society by Jonathan Chaplin
• Reason Reversed: The Neo-Marxism of the Frankfurt School and the Dialectic of Enlightenment by Jacob Klapwijk
• Creation, Revelation and Philosophy by Johan Mekkes
• Technology and the Future by Egbert Schuurman
• Culture, Society, and Diversity: Essays by Sander Griffioen Edited by Paul Otto and Hubert Krygsman
• Between Historicism and Relativism: The Dynamics of Historicism and the Philosophical Development of Ernst Troeltsch by Jacob Klapwijk

***Update

• Political Community Beyond The State: A Neocalvinist Position On Non-Monopolistic Public Law Order by Gregory Baus
  

If you know of other reformational books worth waiting for do let me know.

Reformational philosophy on the web

These days I rarely do a random internet search on Dooyeweerd or reformational philosophy to see what might turn up. However I recently found some interesting stuff:

The biggest find was a long, "directors cut", article by Lambert Zuidervaart called After Dooyeweerd: Truth in Reformational Philosophy. Since Zuidervaart has been working on theories of truth for a while now, this looks like it is a significant contribution to systematic philosophy within the reformational movement.

I was also encouraged to find a blog post on Dooyeweerd's philosophy of furniture by a "Thomist of sorts" who finds value in Dooyeweerd's non-reductionist ontology. It is also a good illustration of how Dooyeweerd ontology can open up our perspectives on the most mundane of realities.

I also discovered this blog that looks interesting, must get round to reading it properly.

The latest Aspects from the Association for Reformational Philosophy is now on-line and includes interviews with Gerrit Glas and Roger Henderson. Glas has been appointed to the Dooyeweerd Chair at the Free University and hopes to publish more in the area of systematic philosophy. Sound exciting to me.

The dynamic character of reality

Sometimes Dooyeweerd has been accused of articulating a static view of creational structures. Whatever the truth of this I think it does go against his intention as expressed by his statement that “all structures of temporal reality are structures of cosmic time” (NC I 105).

Here is another indication of Dooyeweerd’s desire to stress the dynamic character of temporal reality:

“the entire conception to the effect that temporal reality should be something statically given, a fixed “Vorhandenes”, rests upon a fundamental failure to appreciate the dynamic character of reality in the whole coherence of its different modal aspects. In our view, this dynamic character is guaranteed by the mode of ex-sistence of all created things as meaning, finding no rest in itself, and by the opening-process of temporal reality” (NC I 112)

This theme of creational dynamics is something that Mekkes took up in his philosophical reflection, he wrote that

"right from the beginning reformational philosophy emphasized the dynamic character of creation as being God's first revelation to the creature. That's why it spoke of the ground-motive of creation."

In another place he speaks of the

"thesis of disclosure, a dynamic principle" which is "not secondary with regard to the modalities, as if the latter could be subsequently related to each other in a dynamic relation. It is the dynamics of creaturely meaning which shows itself in those modal aspects. It is the dynamics which is primary."

Mekkes placed at the centre of his philosophical work the themes of creational dynamics, religion as radix and a critique of Reason. These are themes are certainly present in Dooyeweerd, yet it appears that Mekkes came to develop them in distinctive ways. Since Mekkes work is a very difficult and as yet largely untranslated we will have to wait for more work to be done to assess his contribution to reformational philosophy. The glimpses I have seen and the evidence of those he influenced (eg Bob Goudzwaard) suggest to me that he is well worth a serious study.

A reformational scholar in the making

Reformational presentations at the Metanexus conference

The papers from the Metanexus conference are now on-line. These include the following:

Roy Clouser

A Blueprint for a Non-Reductionist Theory of Reality

Johannes Corrodi Katzenstein

H. Dooyeweerd and E. Voegelin on Transcendence

Adolfo García de la Sienra

The Economic Sphere

Egbert Schuurman

The Ethics of Responsibility as a Comprehensive Approach: An Application to the Ethics of Technology

James Skillen

The Necessity of a Non-Reductionist Science of Politics

Daniel F. M. Strauss

The Significance of a Non-Reductionist Ontology for the Disciplines of Mathematics and Physics–an Historical and Systematic Analysis

Critique as unmasking

Dooyeweerd assures his readers that his transcendental critique does not cut each philosophical school off from each other in incommensurable starting-points. It is instead the dogma of theoretical autonomy that threatens genuine philosophical dialogue.

“Our transcendental critique wages a merciless war against the masking of supra-theoretical prejudices as theoretical axioms which are forced upon the opponent on penalty of his being viewed as an outsider in philosophical matters. In other words, it aims its attack against the dogmatic exclusivism of the schools, all of which fancy themselves to possess the monopoly on philosophical truth” (NC I 70)

Dooyeweerd emphasises again and again that it is the Christian understanding of the radicality of evil that cuts off any theoretical pride in claiming to possess the monopoly on theoretical truth. In contrast humanism, under the inspiration of the enlightenment, has become more dogmatic in affirming its supra-theoretical beliefs as irrefutable rational certainties.

Humanism that holds to the autonomy of theoretical thought must conclude that exclusive 'supra-theoretical prejudices' which reside at the base of theoretical thinking must cut off philosophical communication. Dooyeweerd's emphasis on the fundamental antithesis between the central motive of Christianity and that of all other religious impulses which have guided philosophy is surely poof of such obscurantism, yet he insists on the continuing contact between Christian philosophy and immanence philosophy.

“this radical rupture with the starting-points and transcendental ground-Ideas of immanence-philosophy does not mean, that an intrinsically re-formed Christian philosophy should intend to break off philosophical contact with Greek, scholastic, and modern Humanistic philosophy. On the contrary, because of its radical-critical standpoint, the Christian philosophy developed in this work is enabled to enter into the most inward contact with immanence-philosophy”

Dooyeweerd further insists that his philosophy “will never break the community of philosophical thought” because to do so would be to return to a dogmatic conflation of religious pre-suppositions and theoretical axioms (NC I 115). Then a few pages on Dooyeweerd writes that his philosophy “is wedded to the historical development of philosophic and scientific thought with a thousand ties” (NC I 118). It would be good to see more work done on exploring these ties.

Reformational Philosophy

The latest Aspects is now on-line.

Also Schuurman's lecture The Challenge of Islam's critique of Technology is now available in English.

Philosophy and the special sciences

Here’s a succinct summary of Dooyeweerd’s understanding of the relationship between philosophy and the special sciences:

“each special realm of theoretical inquiry, whether or not it is called “empirical” in the narrower sense, pre-supposes a theoretical vision of temporal reality. And such a vision of reality must necessarily exhibit a philosophical character. Consequently it appears at the same time, that no single special science can possess an essential autonomy with respect to philosophy in the sense of a theory of reality” (NC I 49)

I think that it is worth pointing out that such a “vision of reality” does not require full comprehension of reality. Its purpose is to set the tone of ones research based on an insight on how things hang together. This is often a reductionist vision taking one of the (abstracted) modal-spheres as the theoretical entry-point to reality, but it need not be. It is the positive contribution of Dooyeweerd’s philosophy to sketch what an anti-reductionist ontology looks like.

Selfhood and the act of thought

“Our selfhood … is never to be eliminated from the act of thought” (NC I 23)

This statement shows how theoretical thought is not self-sufficient for it relies on the non-theoretical and more-than-logical human selfhood. Human thought is an actual activity and so theory is a human artefact. Recognising this puts limits on theoretical thought and in particular its ability to comprehend the human subject, even the thinking human subject cannot be grasped in a theoretical concept. Dooyeweerd explains this saying “the “gegenstand-relation” can only be an intentional relation within the real act of theoretical thought between its logical and its non-logical aspects. The real act itself can never be made the “Gegenstand” of its logical function, since the latter can be actual only within a real act of our consciousness, and does not have any actuality in a theoretical abstraction” (NC I 50)

This takes us back to the negative result of Dooyeweerd’s transcendental critique. To arrive at an understanding of the religious root of thought requires an act of self-reflection that is not theoretical.

The necessity of Transcendence

Dooyeweerd uses the image of a lookout-tower to explain why “if I am not to lose myself in the modal speciality of meaning during the course of philosophical thought, I must be able to find a standpoint which transcends the special modal aspects. Only by transcending the speciality of meaning, can I attain to the actual view of totality by which the former is to be distinguished as such” (NC I 8)

This necessity of transcendence is a crucial element of his critique of “immanence philosophy”, yet it still feels to me too closely tied with an epistemological standpoint. That’s a problem because it is the immanence standpoint that is supposed to be caught up in the problematic of knowing subject over-against known object. The point of the Zuidema quote turns on this issue, we are not a philosophical or theoretical subject, but ultimately a religious subject. Apparently Dooyeweerd’s student Johan Mekkes questioned the character of this transcendence in his later thought suggesting that the Archimedean point sought by Dooyeweerd was an illegitimate, neo-Kantian turn which effaced the temporal actuality of thought.

Perhaps we have to accept that the negative character of Dooyeweerd’s critique remains persuasive while his positive account concerning the transcendence of the religious concentration point requires, at the least, further reflection. On this negative result of his critique Dooyeweerd wrote: “the demonstrative force of our critique has been negative in character, so far as it, taken strictly, can only demonstrate, that the starting-point of theoretical thought cannot be found in that thought itself, but must be supra-theoretical in character” (NC I 56-57)

Future posts

I've been getting back into Dooyeweerd's A New Critique of Theoretical Thought and so I plan to post a few quotes and thoughts as I read through. While Dooyeweerd's philosophy is systematic, I think his style invites reflection on themes that recur throughout his work.

Philosophy as point of departure

It's a bit late, I know, to mention that The Reformational Publishing Project has made available S.U Zuidema's important essay concerning Kuyper's view on common grace, follow this link: Common Grace and Christian Action in Abraham Kuyper However it does give me an excuse to quote an extract from another article by Zuidema which also appeared in the volume Communication and Confrontation. This brief piece is entitled "philosophy as point of departure", it is still relevant in its self-critical comment concerning reformational philosophy (here referred to as the Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee).

It is out of the question that any creature behaves at root philosophi­cally in his totality or in his concentrating selfhood. This is certainly beyond dispute with respect to the plant and animal kingdoms. How­ever, man also is not a "philosophical being," and also the man of philos­ophy, qua man, is more than philosopher, and qua philosopher, does not find his point of departure in his philosophical activity, let alone in its results. Neither the point of departure nor the driving force of man are philosophical in nature–nor are they theological or sociological.

This is not to deny that in Western culture there have not lacked at­tempts and do not lack attempts to elevate philosophy, theology or soci­ology to a point of departure. Even certain special sciences aspire to this all-controlling position. Wherever this occurs, an overestimation of sci­ence has taken place, which as an overestimation is of a profoundly reli­gious nature, and man has doomed himself to slavery. He has thus be­trayed and sold out his freedom, and with his freedom his responsibility, his task, and his calling. He has subjected himself to the sway of his phi­losophy, his theology or his special science and, as a result, can no longer find himself or his God.

Wherever the autonomy of thought–which is allegedly grounded in itself and grounds man in his thinking–is made an article of faith, phi­losophy claims to be the only Absolute, the only Unconditional, the only Non-contingency and Inviolate, and attempts to efface as much as possi­ble the supra-philosophical character of the belief in the autonomy of thought. Wherever this type of philosophy comes to historical power, "Philosophy" in fact becomes the point of departure, also for the prac­tice of life, which is then daily subjected to this indignity. Wholly con­trary to its deepest intention, the Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee can also be misconstrued as the point of departure for the practice of life. This is a very antinomical misconception but one for which we must constantly be on our guard because it is characteristic of a temptation which has un­dermined and threatened Christendom for centuries. Is this not one of the many ways whereby man, or in this case the Christian, seeks his se­curity and point of departure in "the works of his hands"–as has been the case for centuries in Christian theology, and no less in the depending on a "strong" personal faith, an experience of faith, and works of faith.

Communication and Confrontation pages 124-125

Politics of Time

One of my old lectures at Middlesex University has put a book of his on-line. The Politics of Time is a fascinating read for anyone interested in modern philosophy and issues of modernity, history, temporality and politics. It seems to me that the very idea of reformational philosophy is an appeal to a certain 'politics of time' that is anti-revolutionary and anti-conservatistic.

Interestingly Peter Osborne drew a parallel between Heidegger's temporal politics and that of the reformation in an article on Heidegger's politics. This was not an appealing connection though, as Osborne argued that it was the temporal dimension of Heidegger's project - "as a revival of the openness of the present through the retrieval, beneath the de-structured tradition, of the concealed truth of a distant origin" (p.26) - that structurally tied his philosophy to National Socialism. This temporal logic is a form of "reactionary modernism" which he calls "conservative revolution" where the past is regained in order to effect radical change. This temporal logic, writes Osborne, "displays distinct affinities with the temporal-political logic of the Reformation, in which religious authority was challenged by reference to the concealed essence of an other-worldly domain (conscience), delegitimising the established Church and energising the present with a newly transcendent futurity: justification by faith alone" (p.26). I admit that my reformation history is not good enough to know just how fanciful such an explanation is, but it does not come very close to what I understand by the term "reformational"

Prodi loses vital vote

Strange, I was watching Viva Zapetero the other day, and then checked out Freedom House's rating of Italy which has moved from "partly free" to "free" since Prodi replaced Berlusconi as Italy's prime minister. Today Prodi lost a confidence vote in the senate and it looks as though Berlusconi could be back yet again for what would be his third spell as Italy's prime minister.

A Bibliography of Bibliographies

There is loads of stuff out there for Christians seeking to honour God in all they do. The Bibliography at the end of Walsh and Middleton's The Transforming Vision (see updated version here) together with Richard Russell's book list were crucial in my early development in reformational thinking. So here I offer up a short list of links to bibliographies that others may find to be the doorway into an exciting world of following Christ in our thinking.

A Bibliography we can’t live without by Brian Walsh and Richard Middleton

Bibliographies: Important resources for Christians

Christianity and Economics: An annotated Bibliography

On Dooyeweerd by Steve Bishop

Public Justice for All: an annotated bibliography of the works of James W Skillen
1967-2006 by Bruce Wearne

Cultivating Care within a Vulnerable Economy: an annotated bibliography of the English writings of Bob Goudzwaard 1967-2007 by Bruce Wearne

Sphere Sovereignty on the Internet

Here is a preliminary bibliography of articles on Sphere sovereignty available on-line. Further suggestions welcome.

Baus, Gregory. Dooyeweerd’s Societal Sphere Sovereignty

Chaplin, Jonathan. Sphere Sovereignty and Canadian Public Life

Chaplin, Jonathan. Towards A Social Pluralist Theory of Institutional Rights

Friessen, Glenn. Sphere Sovereignty

Goudzwaard, Bob. Authority Abused

Goudzwaard, Bob. Principles and Political Action

Harinck, George. A Historian’s Comment on the Use of Abraham Kuyper’s Idea of Sphere Sovereignty

Heslem, Peter. Prophet of a Third Way: The Shape of Kuyper's Socio-Political Vision

Langley, McKendree R. Creation and Sphere Sovereignty in Historical Perspective

Mouw, Richard. Mine! Kuyper for a new century

Pennings, Ray. Kuyper's Sphere Sovereignty and Modern Economic Institutions

Pennings, Ray. Sphere Sovereignty 101

van der Vyver, Johan D. Sphere Sovereignty of Religious Institutions: A Contemporary Calvinistic Theory of Church-State Relations

Wikipedia. Sphere Sovereignty

Hurrah!

Steve Bishop has very generously tagged me, despite the fact that it has been over a month since I last posted. Nevertheless, far more worthy of cheer is the fact that Kenn Herman has returned to his radix perspectives with a tantalizing piece on technology and abstraction, reviewing and taking a few steps further his previous analyses.

Kenn's take on abstraction in relation to traditional reformational work on "individuality structure" comes from the same mold as what Goudzwaard writes in "Religion and Labour". Under the heading "reduction of man to animal" he writes:

Essentially, we are dealing here with an animalistic view of life, a view which we meet almost everywhere. It is a view which tries to convince us that ultimately politics is nothing but a power struggle, that ultimately the wife-husband relationship is purely a matter of sex, and that ultimately work is only a means of making money. In such a vision the trade union as a mere power machine fits very well.

He then argues that what has happened here is that the qualifying functions of social structures have been stripped away leading to a reduction to the qualifying function. As Kenn notes this abstracts human artifacts from their normative framework.

I look forward to further radix reflections.

Of Interest

Some things that may be of interest:

James Skillen has a good piece on just markets in the latest Capital Comentary.

Susan George expresses scepticism on the EU Reform Treaty here.

There is a short piece on Fiji and the rise of its military since taking on UN peacekeeping duties after the British left in 1970 in the latest edition of the Economist.

Peter Heslem on Anita Roddick.

A Christian View of Everything

A little while ago there was a discussion on a Christian view of everything. See here, here, here, here and here.

I had intended to write something in response, but, as often happens, time elapsed faster than expected and nothing got written. Now Joel has wondered out loud, as it were, about reformational philosophy asking “what is essentially christian (i.e., gospel-shaped) about it”. While these are different questions they are related. So I will use his prompting to respond to the earlier issues and hopefully get round to reformational philosophy later.

Firstly I would agree with many of the comments that express concern about the use of the title “Christian”. It is easy to give something the title “Christian”, much harder to live up to such a designation. Given this gap, is it not right to feel a certain reticence even disapproval towards labeling all sorts of activities and ideas as “Christian”? After all it can only do great damage to the gospel when a so called “Christian” political party turns out corrupt, a “Christian” school fails Ofsted or a “Christian” business goes bankrupt. Nevertheless, if we accept this line of reasoning then it must be applied just as readily to Christian families, Churches and Theologies. Cannot these also bring the name of Christ into disrepute?

Here Rube makes the suggestion that in light of the all-pervasive character of sin, we should shift the distinction of Christian/non-Christian to that of sinful/sinless, or more accurately we should ask the question “what aspects of my baking (or whatever profession) are sinful?” Indeed this is exactly the kind of thing reformationals are thinking of when they talk about a Christian approach to X. More fully we tend to first ask “what is it about my profession that gives it a distinct task in this world and that when done well brings blessing to those nearby?” before going on to think self-critically about the pervasive influence of sin, this is what is meant by the Structure/Direction distinction.

There remains the ready reply that there are some tasks that only a Christian could do, for example Church leader or Christian missionary and that these alone merit the title of Christian. There may be something to this, however it is illegitimate to draw the further conclusion that the Gospel does not touch on the vast majority of human activities. It is this conclusion that is being rejected by those who talk of a “Christian view of everything” and they/we do so for good reason. Apart from the fact that such a conclusion renders Christianity irrelevant to the greater part of our existence - not a happy result - it is in stark contrast to the claim that Christ, as Lord of all, has over our whole life. Colossians 1:15-20 does not seem to me to leave much space for a neutral area of life, not even a square inch! As Kuyper would say.

Indeed the Gospel, and here we start to touch on Joel’s question, is like yeast working its way through the whole warp and woof of life (Matthew 13:33). The call to repentance is a call to turn our life around and do things differently (see for example Luke 3:7-14). Those who do not “see” any connection between the Gospel and the “Christian view of everything” approach that neo-calvinists and reformationals advocate will need to either, show us at what points we depart from the Gospel and so help us get our view of everything more in-line with it, or ask themselves honestly whether they have not reduced the Gospel to something less than the “power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” a power that has the whole of creation waiting in eager anticipation for its completion (Romans 1:16 & 8:19).

It's not a blog but ...

Bruce Wearne may not have a blog, but over this month just ending he has published six pieces in his Nurturing Justice series. This is a regular broadsheet on Australian politics which gives much to ponder for all concerned with the Christian task of promoting and nurturing justice in our various polities.

Have a read.

9. The Impoverishment of Political Entitlement 3 August

10. John Howard's Republic? 9 August

11. After the Election 14 August

12. A Way Out of Electoral Spin16 August

13. Public Justice: On the Path to Political Life 21 August

14. On the Regional Path to Political Life 30 August

Kirby Laing Newsletter

The first Kirby Laing newsletter is now on-line here.

There are two lectures given by the new Director Jonathan Chaplin that are now on-line.

Speaking from Faith in Democracy

A Christian Political Response to Religious Pluralism

Chaplin has been fairly busy since arrive in Britain. He will be in Leeds at the beginning of September for the FAITH IN THE ACADEMY conference co-sponsered by WYSOCS and the Christian Academic Network.

Two great film directors die on the same day

Michelangelo Antonioni and Ingmar Bergman both died last week on 30th July.

Here is an article on Antonioni and one on Bergman.

Loads a' money!

I'm a poor teacher right? I can't afford to buy my own house, or own a car. I certainly can't afford to go part-time and study for a PhD. And worst of all, that guy sitting opposite me on the bus, I bet he earns so much more than me.

In a society that defines how wealthy you are by your material possessions, and then sets the standard at around the level of the Beckhams, it is rather easy to get our perspectives all wrong. To see just how wrong you are go here.

Turns out that I am the 213,648,696 richest person in the world! Which puts me in the top 4%.

Turkish Elections

The citizens of Turkey head for the polls tomorrow with the ruling Justice and Development Party expected to be returned to power.

There is a good article by Richard Falk on secularism in Turkey which is the main question underlying the election here.

James Skillen also wrote on Turkey's struggle with secularism earlier in the year, see here.

There is a full account of the background to the election in the Economist here.

More on van Prinsterer

Thanks to Steve Bishop I have a copy of Sander Griffioen's "Origins and Growth of Revolutionary Thought: An Outline of Lectures". Griffioen discusses Groen van Prinsterer's thought and makes a similar point to that made by Goudzwaard quoted in my earlier post. He writes:

For Groen history is irreversible; one cannot go back to pre-revolutionary days, and he introduces the distinction of counter- and anti-revolutionaries. The former desire a return to the pre-revolutionary period, the ancien regime, whereas the latter can decry the revolutionary spirit but accept the revolutionary status quo as a point of departure and as material for acting. Contrary to this, the counter­revolutionaries somehow refuse to acknowledge the revolu­tionary reality. Groen tried to find his own, position between the revolutionary and the counter-revolutionary position, in that he attempts to deal with the real situa­tion in order to transcend it. There are norms for the actual historical situation, without accepting the situa­tion as a norm in itself.

New Reformational Website

There are quite a few reformationals scattered across the UK, and a fair number of us are represented on the Web in various ways. Now a small group of us have put together a site to try and provide a focal point for our activities and to promote reformational ideas.

Please check out and log on to Reformational UK.

Anti-revolutionary not contra-revolutionary

The term 'anti-revolutionary', as Groen Van Prinsterer said many times, may not be narrowed down to protection of governmental authority against anarchistic threats. For the term includes an openness to any criticism which has as its aim a more responsible functioning of authority as true service; and it also includes an active working for the realization of that kind of authority.

When for examle, active resistance grows aganist governments of certain South American countries which allow social injustices to exist and afford protection only to the strong, then this resistance may very well be an expression of the upholding-in-deed of governmental authority, even if it manifests itself in the sharpest possible criticism of those in power. In circumstances such as these the words of Groen become fully actual again, even for 'anti-revolutionaries': "I must even be jealous of the title revolutionary, as soon as revolution means a just reformation according to the demands of the time and circumstances" (1847). One who blocks the reformation of authority under these circumstances must be called-using Groen's own words- a contra-revolutionary, not an anti-revolutionary because he doesn't choose the side of a just but of an unjust exercise of authority.

Bob Goudzwaard A Christian Political Option p.37

Choice and the market

“It’s true that the market can be formidably, ruthlessly efficient and do many things well. But it should not be allowed to make social and environmental choices in our stead. Through democratic debate, society has to set limits on the market, determine what goods and services should or should not be bought and sold in the marketplace and decide who pays the costs now externalised. These are political questions in the deepest sense because they touch upon the power to dictate the circumstances of everyone’s life.” (Susan George Another World is Possible If … page 36 )

There are similar problems with this reference to “society” to those pointed out in my previous post. On the positive side though is the emphasis given to the need for responsibility in our choices against the fatalism of “the market”. The very character of making choices requires us to move along a normative path and that in turn presses the question as to who has the responsibility to lead the way. In a complex and highly differentiated world we need to recognise different kinds of actors, James Skillen has helpfully set the tone on this point. It is a shame that Susan George misconstrues this question fundamentally and appears to take us down a pragmatic tunnel as she continues:

The real debate of our time, which almost never takes place, should concern these limits and, above all, who has the power to make the rules (my emphasis p.36)

Multidimensional Critical Theory

I have been reading Best and Kellner’s Postmodern Theory lately, it gives very clear exposition and critique of a number of important postmodern thinkers in relation to social theory. No doubt an important reason for their clarity is to be found in the development of their own position in the areas dealt with. In their last chapter they begin to outline this view which is described as multidimensional and multiperspectival.

Here’s what they say about its multidimensional character:

A multidimensional critical theory will provide an analysis of the relative autonomy of the various levels or domains of social reality and the ways in which they interact to form a specific mode of social organization. A multidimensional critical theory is dialecti­cal and non-reductive. It conceptualizes the connections between the economic, political, social, and cultural dimensions of society and refuses to reduce social phenomena to any one dimension. A dialectical theory describes the mediations, or interconnections, that relate social phenomena to each other and the dominant mode of social organization. (page 263)

Despite their admirable emphasis on a non-reductive social theory, their notion of a “social organisation” strongly suggests the presence of a whole-part scheme. Throughout the book, Best and Kellner have expressed their appreciation for the development of ‘micro-level’ analyses of society, yet time and again they bemoan the loss of a ‘macro-level’ analysis. One of their constant refrains is the “under theorization” of intersubjectivity/political economy/social hegemony and domination and other macro-level phenomena. This is why they need a notion of ‘social organisation’ to function as the ‘whole’ that substantiates macro-analysis, the “social dimensions” are the elements or parts that are the object of microanalysis, these then get connected dialectically in the macro-analyses to give a view of the ‘social organization’.

Reformational social theory rejects any view of society as a whole; there is no social community that encompass the whole of human life. Instead it insists on the plural structure of society with a differentiation of limited social tasks and responsibilities. The diverse social institutions that take up these tasks, as well as having a limited kind of competence, should be arranged non-hierarchically because they have their meaning within the temporal horizon of creation. An analysis of these diverse social tasks, with the relationships and institutions that respond to them should highlight their qualitative difference wherein is found a diversity of specific norms integral to the carrying out of the specific tasks.

While Best and Kellner recognise an irreducible diversity of social relations their whole-part scheme doesn’t allow them to discern the differentiation of social norms, so while they hold to a normative approach the norms they appeal tend to be quiet general: progressive-regressive, domination-liberation, justice etc.

Al Wolters on the meaning of "reformational"

I have been rereading Al Wolters Creation Regained. He spends some time discussing the meaning of the word "reformational" which compliments nicely the Seerveld quote I posted a while back.

Wolters notes two important connotations of the word ‘reformational’:

The first is this; reformation means sanctification, not consecration. Both words mean "making holy," but they are not strictly synonymous. To sanctify (or hallow, to use an Anglo-Saxon word) means "to make free from sin, to cleanse from moral corruption, to purify." To consecrate, on the other hand, generally means simply ‘to set apart, to dedicate, to devote to the service or worship of God.’ Consecration therefore means external renewal; sanctification means internal renewal. The word reformation refers to sanctification in this sense of inner revitalization (p.89)

A second feature of reformation is that the avenue of this sanctification is progressive renewal rather than violent overthrow … God calls his people to a historical reformation … to a sanctification of creational realities from sin and its effects. (p.91)

Negatively Wolters contrasts this strategy with revolution; the positive meaning of reformation, he states:

entails that the normative elements in any distorted situation (and every situation is distorted to some extent) should be sought out as a point of contact in terms of which renewal can take place … reformation always takes as its point of departure what is historically given and seeks to build on the good rather than clearing the historical terrain radically in order to lay an altogether new foundation. (p.93)

Zizek a hypothesis

David’s lecture the other night was really good and has had me thinking about Zizek’s ideas a lot. What follows is, in platonic terms, art, or in other words imitation of imitation.

Zizek is involved in a battle of ideas against Buddhism and all neo-paganisms. Such ideas give absolute priority to unity so that diversity comes to be seen as illusory and possibility even evil. Our individual existence itself and all that it is caught up with will return as in a cycle to the unity from which it came [in Vollenhoven’s terms this is Universalism or Mysticism]. Zizek however is an advocate for difference. He sees an ontology of unity as having terrifying moral consequences, even going so far as to evoke the Holocaust as an example of the kind of loss of moral conscious that such an ontology brings.

Zizek is interested in Christianity for a number of reasons. He believes that the “Christian experience” is necessary to being an atheist and he sees the “Judeo-Christian logic” as the best defence against Buddhism. David focused more on the former but said enough on the latter to provoke my hypothesis. It draws on the reminder that David gave us part way through his lecture. With the focus firmly on religion, and Christianity in particular, David reminded us that Zizek’s starting point is, nevertheless, as a materialist in the Marxist sense.

Now there seem to be two elements to the “Christian logic” that attracts Zizek. The first is that redemption means breaking the cycle of sin, Christianity is therefore a religion of rupture, of the Event or of the Other. His analysis of Jesus’ death is, however, mainly taken up with his claim about the “Christian experience” and atheism rather than redemption. David pointed out that Zizek disappointingly dismisses Jesus’ resurrection as a group hallucination, spiritualising the very material centrepiece of the Christian faith. The second element to the “Christian logic” that Zizek appeals to is the Holy Spirit as a force which brings community, Zizek though has no time for the church.

My hypothesis then is that Zizek is a Young Hegelian. Despite his avowed materialism Zizek has lost faith in the revolutionary community of the proletariat and fears Buddhism rather than capitalism. His appropriation of Christianity consists of an abstracted revolutionary logic, a dematerialised resurrection and an idea of community striped of its material embodiment. Might it not be the case that Zizek is only fighting phrases with phrases?

I expect this hypothesis is a little over stated, but it will be interesting to test it when I get the chance to read some of Zizek's work.

Later: David has posted on his lecture here.

Who the Heck is Zizek?

Well he is the fellow on the left.

David Henningham is giving a short lecture on Zizek as part of the Universettee series. David has just attended some master classes lead by Zizek so is now the local expert. He is also a rather bright fellow, so should be good.

David has written some interesting posts on the master classes 1, 2, 3 & 4

Wilberforce and Normative Politics

As I mentioned in my previous post, I went to see the film Amazing Grace. I must say I enjoyed it, perhaps it was just the novelty of going to the cinema, or even seeing a film which I haven't done much of lately. I liked the way Wilberforce was shown to have a broad range of political concerns beyond his driving passion to end slavery. There was a scene where Thomas Clarkson tries to persuade Wilberforce to embrace the revolutionary politics then going on in France, but Wilberforce is quite adamantly opposed to such an approach. I am hoping that The Wiberforce Connection might give further insight into his approach to politics. My fear is that the "Wilberforce model", while inviting prophetic opposition to the many injustices in the world, lacks the kind of positive normative vision that is needed to confront the complex issues we face today.

A really helpful starting point would be to ask what the task of the state is. This is vital if we are to hold the state to account as a servant of God, while also giving due regard to the responsibilities of other social institutions like families, businesses, schools and churches as well as the role of individual citizens. I just don't see Christians in Britain asking these kinds of questions. Hopefully Jonathan Chaplin will be able to prompt such necessary thinking. Without a view that clearly differentiates the kind of responsibility and authority that is proper for the state we will end up with all sorts of unrealistic expectations and muddled thinking.

An example of this is Julia Manning's contribution to The Difference on "Health and Stewardship" where she writes that "The government has the responsibility to provide for the health of the nation. Yet it also has the responsibility of maintaining economic vibrancy". While the government has some kind of responsibility towards public health, it is a limited and specific kind of responsibility that needs to be viewed along side the responsibilities of health care institutions, families, schools etc. which each have an important role to play. So we need some positive delineation of these diverse, but reinforcing social responsibilities.

Christian Political Thought in the UK

While in Exeter I came across this new magazine. They have a blog here. I also saw the film Amazing Grace, so I am thinking about the nature of Christian political thought here in the UK. What can I, as a novice reformational political thinker, contribute?

As a start here are some critical notes on Kay Carter's editorial:

She presents the issue of Christianity and politics in terms of a relationship falling apart, employing the metaphor of a divorce, but the terms of this relationship are very unclear. She begins by saying that "Britain and Christianity have grown apart", then refers to the growing gap between the "statute books" and "Christian values" and by the beginning of her second paragraph is addressing "the Church" as the divorcee with a choice to make. There are then real questions as to who we are to have a dialogue with, and who "we" are that might participate or instigate this dialogue.

One possible answer is that the dialogue is between church/es and state, but such a dialogue is already going on and The Difference is non-denominational. Perhaps it is best to read "the Church" not institutionally but as the body of believers. The implication then appears to be that 'Christianity' and 'politics' are, at least potentially, self-contained spheres that should nevertheless talk to each other. Now it may well be true that such an implication was not intended, but it is there nevertheless and until Christians start to think through and discuss politics as an integral and specific part of our responsibility to love God and serve one’s neighbour we will be stuck with a purely external moral approach rather than an internal normative one.