E-mail to my students
February 21st, 2012 12:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lunadelcorvo(They are gonna get good and riled over this one!) I recently assigned an essay where my students have to advance a position either in agreement or disagreement with Calvin's Predestination. I have gotten a couple of questions, and my classes have struggled with this essay in the past, so I decided to give them some nudges. It's a care theological question, and one which, to my mind, exposes some of the inherently irrational nature of 'traditional' thinking on the subject of God. So I thought I'd share:
"In response to a student question on Essay 3, I thought is might be helpful to share part of my response.
Consider the augments for predestination we have discussed in class, according to Calvin's Formulation (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, Limited Atonement, Perseverance of Saints) as well as anything you have learned or experienced that seems to argue against it. Then choose a position, and argue it using the critical thinking with which we began our course. Regardless of which side you choose, however, you need to argue your case from a logical, rational, critically-based position, not solely from a faith perspective. Naturally, your position may be informed by your experiences or things you have learned, but one cannot make a rational argument based only on belief.
As you proceed be careful; whether you argue for or against predestination, you must address the very real questions and corollaries that each a position entails. If you argue for predestination, it follows that one does not have the choice to believe or not believe; that too is predestined. Effectual calling turns you to belief irresistibly, you cannot 'not believe.' This is a very different thing than feeling you are a believer because you have been raised to be a believer, or feel strongly about your belief.
If one is predestined to be as you are today, are you in effect, 'running on a rail,' following a course set out for you? Are you able to deviate from that course? If you argue for predestination, you must also defend the fact that you are unable to deviate from the course set out for you, much as a train cannot deviate from its track. You may regard decisions along the way as forks in the track, but remember, it is not the train that chooses which route it will take, but the switcher, who routes trains where he wants them to go. Similarly, if salvation is predestined, and grace is irresistible, you do not choose which route you will take; the Holy Spirit moves you in that direction irresistibly. This does in effect deny free will, or at least functional free will (e.g. you can want to deviate from the course set out for you all you like, but you cannot actually do so).
Consider, too, how the notion of God having a plan for each individual life interacts with predestination. Is God's plan for you like those rails, from which you cannot deviate? Or do you have the free will to choose only among possible routes on those tracks? What if you choose a path that does not take you to your predestined destination? Could you even choose such a route? Or is it God's plan a 'plan' in the same way that we might make vacation plans, only to be foiled by the unexpected? Can things turn out differently than God plans them? Can we 'surprise' God? Can we 'foil' God's plans, by will or by accident? If we cannot, can we really say we have free will?
But if we can make choices which God does not expect, does not desire, or did not plan, then we are back to Elie Wiesel's question in the face of the Holocaust, and that of Europe in the face of the Black Death - if God is not in control, then why call him God? If we have the free will to act in ways that God does not anticipate, can we say that God is omniscient? If we have the ability to do things God does not want us to do, or to violate his plan, is he omnipotent? Certainly we would think God's plans far better devised than our own, so how could they go wrong merely because of choices we humans might make? If the fate of each soul is NOT predestined, is God able to save all humans, but chooses not to? Or is he unable to? These are some questions you must address if you argue against predestination.
Remember, these are difficult questions, and theologians have debated them for centuries. However, as scholars and thinkers, as people with curiosity and intellectual honesty, we cannot choose to back down from questions because they are difficult. We cannot simply shrug our shoulders, call it a mystery and walk away. Don't feel you need to solve the riddle (you'd be the first in human history to do so), but reflect on the problem with reason and critical thinking, not faith. Remember, for the purposes of our course, we approach questions as thinkers, not believers."
(P.S. I will take this chance to strongly urge each and every one of you to read Max Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. It is an absolutely seminal work, and one that I think is of supreme importance an relevance in Western Society, now more than ever. It's a dense read, but worth the work. Really. Go, buy it now! :D
"In response to a student question on Essay 3, I thought is might be helpful to share part of my response.
Consider the augments for predestination we have discussed in class, according to Calvin's Formulation (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, Limited Atonement, Perseverance of Saints) as well as anything you have learned or experienced that seems to argue against it. Then choose a position, and argue it using the critical thinking with which we began our course. Regardless of which side you choose, however, you need to argue your case from a logical, rational, critically-based position, not solely from a faith perspective. Naturally, your position may be informed by your experiences or things you have learned, but one cannot make a rational argument based only on belief.
As you proceed be careful; whether you argue for or against predestination, you must address the very real questions and corollaries that each a position entails. If you argue for predestination, it follows that one does not have the choice to believe or not believe; that too is predestined. Effectual calling turns you to belief irresistibly, you cannot 'not believe.' This is a very different thing than feeling you are a believer because you have been raised to be a believer, or feel strongly about your belief.
If one is predestined to be as you are today, are you in effect, 'running on a rail,' following a course set out for you? Are you able to deviate from that course? If you argue for predestination, you must also defend the fact that you are unable to deviate from the course set out for you, much as a train cannot deviate from its track. You may regard decisions along the way as forks in the track, but remember, it is not the train that chooses which route it will take, but the switcher, who routes trains where he wants them to go. Similarly, if salvation is predestined, and grace is irresistible, you do not choose which route you will take; the Holy Spirit moves you in that direction irresistibly. This does in effect deny free will, or at least functional free will (e.g. you can want to deviate from the course set out for you all you like, but you cannot actually do so).
Consider, too, how the notion of God having a plan for each individual life interacts with predestination. Is God's plan for you like those rails, from which you cannot deviate? Or do you have the free will to choose only among possible routes on those tracks? What if you choose a path that does not take you to your predestined destination? Could you even choose such a route? Or is it God's plan a 'plan' in the same way that we might make vacation plans, only to be foiled by the unexpected? Can things turn out differently than God plans them? Can we 'surprise' God? Can we 'foil' God's plans, by will or by accident? If we cannot, can we really say we have free will?
But if we can make choices which God does not expect, does not desire, or did not plan, then we are back to Elie Wiesel's question in the face of the Holocaust, and that of Europe in the face of the Black Death - if God is not in control, then why call him God? If we have the free will to act in ways that God does not anticipate, can we say that God is omniscient? If we have the ability to do things God does not want us to do, or to violate his plan, is he omnipotent? Certainly we would think God's plans far better devised than our own, so how could they go wrong merely because of choices we humans might make? If the fate of each soul is NOT predestined, is God able to save all humans, but chooses not to? Or is he unable to? These are some questions you must address if you argue against predestination.
Remember, these are difficult questions, and theologians have debated them for centuries. However, as scholars and thinkers, as people with curiosity and intellectual honesty, we cannot choose to back down from questions because they are difficult. We cannot simply shrug our shoulders, call it a mystery and walk away. Don't feel you need to solve the riddle (you'd be the first in human history to do so), but reflect on the problem with reason and critical thinking, not faith. Remember, for the purposes of our course, we approach questions as thinkers, not believers."
(P.S. I will take this chance to strongly urge each and every one of you to read Max Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. It is an absolutely seminal work, and one that I think is of supreme importance an relevance in Western Society, now more than ever. It's a dense read, but worth the work. Really. Go, buy it now! :D
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: February 21st, 2012 05:43 pm (UTC)Perhaps your students should also read: 'Confessions of a Justified Sinner'!
I saw this the other day and I suspect you might find it exceedingly apt. I fell about! :o)
http://www.spacecoyote.com/art/fanart/johnthomas.jpg
Calvin & Hobbes :o)
no subject
Date: February 22nd, 2012 06:21 pm (UTC)I'm not familiar with 'Confessions' myself; I'll have to check it out, thanks! :)
no subject
Date: February 21st, 2012 07:19 pm (UTC)(Tongue firmly in cheek from your friendly neighborhood neo-Weberian)
no subject
Date: February 22nd, 2012 06:26 pm (UTC)And yes, they are stunned when college requires work. I suspect this is, in part, a result of NCLB. This class is one of the first that's been schooled under No Child Left Behind from K-12, and I can tell you from the final product, that program is worthless!
no subject
Date: February 21st, 2012 08:30 pm (UTC)Love the last paragraph (before the P.S.) BTW.
no subject
Date: February 22nd, 2012 06:28 pm (UTC)And if there was one statement I could tattoo in reverse on the forehead of every student I teach, it would be more or less that paragraph!
:D
no subject
Date: February 21st, 2012 11:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: February 22nd, 2012 06:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: February 22nd, 2012 03:12 pm (UTC)I wonder if it would be possible to argue the Deist point of view: that God made everything and then pretty much walked away to let us do as we wished. Yeah, God may be all-knowing and all-powerful, just... indifferent. So therefore no pre-destination.
That would be fun to argue.
no subject
Date: February 22nd, 2012 04:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: February 22nd, 2012 06:39 pm (UTC)It's one reason I begin with older stuff, like Arianism and Catharism - they can easily poke holes in those ideas from a safe remove. By the time we get to say, Baptists, they are a little more comfortable thinking critically...hopefully, anyway!
no subject
Date: February 22nd, 2012 06:36 pm (UTC)Not to mention, predestination pretty much requires that God is a gigantic, self aggrandizing S.O.B., and they hate that! Which is why it's so satisfying to make them consider the alternatives. Anything at all to get them thinking!
no subject
Date: February 23rd, 2012 02:59 am (UTC)You know, this is what education is supposed to do-- teach people how to think through things, not just regurgitate what they've heard before like obedient little recorders... Its nice to know someone in the academic field is encouraging that!
no subject
Date: February 23rd, 2012 03:50 pm (UTC)In addition to the content, each level has a different learning objective. Freshman focus on Critical Thinking and writing skills. Sophomore IDC classes apply these skills to some fact of American culture, history, etc., with a geography component. Juniors do the same with an international theme, and senior IDC classes deal with Catholic Social Justice. I know, bring on the jokes, right? But they do a good job in this program.
For the 300, my husband taught a class in Japanese Sword, and the students had to learn basic sword kata in a cultural context. For the 400, he did Sustainable Systems, and the students helped build composting and garden systems at a local community center while learning about things like pollution and food as a social justice issue. It's a really unique program, and it's really cool. It's a very small university, but they get tons of awards and attention for this program.
I don't usually put out names, but if you're interested, the course listings for Summer (which are kind of lean, but you get the idea) are here: http://tinyurl.com/75zsrv8
(Sorry to run on, but I really love this program, and I feel so luck to have the chance to be doing this - it's such a good approach, and it's SO much better from an instructor's standpoint than the usual '101 Intro to...' nonsense most beginning profs get!)
no subject
Date: February 23rd, 2012 05:01 pm (UTC)Thanks for the link!