Bennis's book is a classic for a reason. His articulate advocacy for authenticity, making mistakes and understanding the context in which leadership f...moreBennis's book is a classic for a reason. His articulate advocacy for authenticity, making mistakes and understanding the context in which leadership functions are seminal ideas, even if they are not new. Particularly the advice to know one's self and to be loyal to that persona is quite good. The way he describes his subjects as eternally energetic optimists about their own visions make for compelling examples. Optimism, trust, and transparncy, in fact, become the central qualities of a leader who expects good things of his people.
In spite of his eloquence, much of what Bennis has to say remains cryptic. The unmeasurables that he espouses do not argue well for his assertion that leaders are made, not born. Observing that people born to leadership often fail is not enough to prove the point, since they were not, in the most essential sense leaders at all. The "X" factor of leadership remains unexplored. As close as he comes to the mark is his observation that a great personal crisis often forges leadership ability ... thus not birth but fate chooses leaders.
Bennis also wears his liberalism on his sleave, from his treatment of notable liberals like Norman Lear and Gloria Steinham to his anti-George W. Bush tyrade in the epilogue of the Twentieth Anniversary Edition. To be fair, though, he does deal relatively even-handedly when he observes both successful and failed presidents, marking both conservatives and liberals in both categories.
In spite of the liberal bent of the book, it contains much truth. Though he does not call it "servant-leadership" the flattening of organizations he describes as progressive contains much that corresponds with servant-leadership. It is a good book for anyone who can get past his bias. Once the reader transcends that, he or she will learn much about themselves.(less)
This is not a book for the easily bored or anyone who fears getting in over their head. I do highly recommend it to anyone well versed in psychology ....moreThis is not a book for the easily bored or anyone who fears getting in over their head. I do highly recommend it to anyone well versed in psychology ... and I do mean well versed.
The biggest drawback to my reading it is that I am not. However, the authors work hard to draw attention to the fact that the psychological community largely gives credibility back to the idea of personal agency. The meaning of agency seems relatively simple: the idea that we have freedom of choice.
We are not absolutely free, that is, our freedom is not the only element in the mix. The authors posit that out of the infant development of memory and imagination inexplicably emerges the ability to decide. That decision is mitigated by biological and sociological influences but is, nevertheless individual and ultimately unpredictable.
Human agency both effects and is effected by sociocultural forces placing the humanity of humanity squarely in a social context. In other words in their model, it is impossible to fully understand a person aside from their culture, family, and political, or indeed from the biological forces that interact with human personality. But what psychology needs to account for is the irreducible choice. They go a long way to keep it from being mystical, so they wrap it in terms like irreducible and emergent.
Not everyone will agree with the necessity of the quasi-collectivist angle, but the withdrawal from the pretensions of the psychological community that, according to the authors, tries to treat as if they are a conspiracy to dehumanize their science. It is true that the effort to reduce humanity to deterministic, non-sentient chemistry and physics deserves its own has to have something to offer.(less)
I find myself a little out of my depth, both philosophically and psychologically. I am widely read in neither discipline. However, let me see if I can...moreI find myself a little out of my depth, both philosophically and psychologically. I am widely read in neither discipline. However, let me see if I can give a prosee' of what Evans observes in Kierkegaard.
We travel through life in three stages or spheres: aesthetics, ethics, and religion. As we mature out of the aesthetic state and emerge into the ethical, we encounter difficulties, anxieties. We are limited and we are infinite. We are presented with possibilities and necessities. We will usually err on one side of these continua or the other.
To state it differently, when I am confronted with both the vast possibilities that lie before me and with the necessities of life, I will usually choose one or the other rather than live in the tension between. If I choose the possibilities, I become a dreamer. If I live in the necessities, I become a pedant. To emerge in a healthy way from my childhood state of aestheticism, I must live in the balance, accepting that ethically I must make decisions that account for both ends of the spectrum. I must take risks and I must commit to some levels of safety. Emerging into a healthy ethical state, I will usually discover some rules to help me make these choices. To do this, I will probably see the irony of living for the moment and for pleasure at the expense of good things to be gained by patience and seeing the bigger picture.
Then I must mature into a "religious" state. For Kierkegaard, the only healthy person is a consciously spiritual person, not "existentially" spiritual, but spiritual in the Christian sense. I will come to the point that I will realize legalistic ethics has its limitations too, but living above human ethics is only the preroggative of God. I can approach this paradox with a sense of humor since in Christ all can be forgiven. However, to fully embrace the religious life, I must be fully engaged in a relationship with God through Christ, living with a heightened immediacy that is based not in pleasure (as with the aesthete) but in the ultimate dynamic purpose God has for me.
This is heady stuff, and I am sure it has strong implications for a purposeful therapy like Frankl's that has a powerful base not in insight but in the future and the next steps a person needs to identify for their life.
I would love to put some of this material into practice. Unfortuneately, I think I am, like the author, not a therapist and to attempt to do so would be naive in the extreme. However, if, as he says, Kierkegaard's main purpose was evangelistic, then I may be able to develop a "midwife" approach to helping people along the next stage of their developement.(less)
Man's Search for Meaning is an amazing achievement. I am not one to dwell on the holocaust. I am of the opinion that the attempted Genocide of the Jew...moreMan's Search for Meaning is an amazing achievement. I am not one to dwell on the holocaust. I am of the opinion that the attempted Genocide of the Jewish people, as terrible as it is, has overshadowed the absolute magnitude of the attrocity, the murder of more people than live in many nations of the world, five times the number of Jewish people killed. I don't feel the need to emphasize this fact because, unlike those who do, I am not of the opinion that we will soon forget the horror of it all. It is not the forgetting that is the problem, for the tendency still persists and is tolerated as people from Somalia, Croatia and other war torn nations will attest. It is the human spirit that needs rescuing, not education of a past attrocity.
Frankl, though he tells his story with deep authenticity, does not play on the emotions of the reader. He is not saying, "never forget this, lest it happen again." He is saying, "Horrors will come, but they need not destroy you." In fact, the truth he gleans from his own horror is not that horror should be prevented (though I'm sure he would be first in line to see it happen), it is that in the midst of life's suffering, bearing responsibility for one's own attitude and maintaining a fix on one's own life meaning is a human achievement in itself. He is so insistant on the importance of responsibility in this matter that he proposes a Statue of Responsibility on America's West Coast to balance Liberty on the East, a project that has a certain following.
This insistance on responsibility I see as one of the reasons that though this book has gained respectable status, it has not taken its place in the world cannon as it should. In these degenerate times, people like Freud's pleasure principle more than Frankl's purpose principle. If I have purpose I have responsibility. It is easier to slough it off and live in misery and the apparent pathos of our personal tragedies. Our neuroses give us the excuse we need to suffer for no reason at all, a situation Frankl says should be changed immediately.
The other reason I think Man's Search for Meaning does not gain the readership it deserves is the same reason people reject the solutions to their mental distress offered by faith. They dislike thinking that they can so "easily" overcome something that seems to them (and they have been told is) so deep. Surely my depression has a more complicated solution than merely admitting my guilt or grasping responsibility to discover my life's meaning. These solutions depend on my conscious choices, not on something out of my control. We can feel so much better about ourselves if we are hapless victims and acting on our conditioning.
But Frankl denies all this. He insists that we are responsible. This book has colored my preconceptions about existentialism in general and about Nietzche in particular. I am sure that I will still disdain his conception of a superman, but the grasping of a "why" to overcome the "how" in which we live is powerful enough to inspire Frankl and he is no nihilist, in fact, he utterly rejects it.
Read Man's Search for Meaning when you are old enough to fix your own philosophical plate. I had begun to question myself, whether I was living in the past and allowing cynicism to color my present too darkly. It had been a good many years since a book had moved me so much that it rose without question to the top of my library as a favorite. For me, this list is relatively (I insist on that qualification) short. My favorite books are what I consider to be better than great, but absolutely essential; books that deserve a reading by everyone if at all possible. I admit that some of these books are rather lighthearted, nevertheless they say something to the human spirit that needs saying. Frankl's book has answered the question I posed myself, whether I was still capable of being completely captivated by a book.(less)
Cross-Cultural Servanthood is a good book for anyone considering Christian ministry. Chances are, your calling will take you to unfamiliar places, and...moreCross-Cultural Servanthood is a good book for anyone considering Christian ministry. Chances are, your calling will take you to unfamiliar places, and should at some point, take you to another country to serve. Either way, you are bound to find yourself dealing with people whose ways are strange. When this happens it is best to remember Duane Elmer's simple observation that "most of life is a matter of nonessential differences." Too often we like to see our own ways as the right ways and quickly judge others to be not simply different but wrong. Elmer's pattern of openness - trust - learning - understanding - serving may not be the only way to approach the complexities of working with others, but it's pretty good. I kept thinking of Stephen Covey's axiom "seek first to understand, then to be understood." Elmer nearly dismisses the idea of "servant-leadership" out of hand in favor of simple service for everyone and an acknowledgement that most will not find themselves in positions of leadership, that our culture pushes us to expect that we will, and that it is possibly better to find ways to work alongside people (even if we are leading) rather than to find ways to exert control. No doubt, Cross-Cultural Servanthood is designed for introductory missionaries, but it is also good as a primer to working with people in many ways. Anyone who is ever transfered to another state for his job will soon discover it is true.(less)
More than Wright, Holmes ascribes to an ethic that involves rules as means for an external control on moral habit formation. He too, however, follows...moreMore than Wright, Holmes ascribes to an ethic that involves rules as means for an external control on moral habit formation. He too, however, follows an Aristotelian emphasis on the Telos, goals in the ultimate human virtues: Courage, Self-control, Wisdom, and Justice; drawing in Aquinas's Faith, Hope and Love (which are so clearly drawn from Paul that one wonders why they are attributed to Aquinas). But Holmes leaves his "list" of virtues open mentioning the Fruit of the Spirit and even vaguer sources. He agrees with Wright that these virtues are goals that need to be cultivated through choice and habit creating a second nature.
Holmes, however denies that these are exclusively products of reason but also arise out of the will, out of a nurturing responsibility, relational and deeply connected to emotion (as attributed to Gilligan). In this way Gilligan's feminist model counterpoints the traditional masculine models and, Holmes says, brings together the male and female, the rational and emotional, the objective and subjective, justice and love. He draws upon Augustine and others to support his thesis that reason alone is not enough to account for the choices people make, even the good choices.
Holmes extends his ethical base into a few practical frameworks: Human rights, criminal justice, the legislation of morality, and marriage and sexuality. These broader human concerns, he demonstrates, benefit from the kind of goal based ethic he outlines. He does, however, qualify that his social ethic is not an exclusively Christian construct, but must account for a more pluralistic model that observes the personal sphere as liberated from social scrutiny. That said, he still sees some "personal" activities such as sexual behavior as being socially significant, and therefore not necessarily exempt from legislation.
Holmes's book is not for the intellectually relaxed. Dive in expecting a grand web of classical philosophy that sometimes is confounding. Ethics is very good, but I wouldn't elevate it to the point of excellence. It lacks the wit and appeal of a truly excellent work. It is challenging, but not engaging. Even a challenge can be engaging if the author makes you want to step up. Holmes makes me want to examine my values, but he makes it seem a chore, not a priority. However, Holmes is clear about what he likes and does not like and why and winds up reconciling, to a very limited degree, even Plato and Aristotle ... but only with Aristotle being clearly preferred.(less)
N.T. Wright may be one of my new favorite authors. It's hard to say since I've only read this one book, but what a book, and what a mind. It doesn't h...moreN.T. Wright may be one of my new favorite authors. It's hard to say since I've only read this one book, but what a book, and what a mind. It doesn't hurt that this Anglican Bishop seems so fond of C.S. Lewis, but it is for his own wit and insight that he should be read.
Good but not best is the man's well rounded knowledge of so many ideas. His ideas are drawn from the worlds of sports, music, politics, art and other sources, especially philosophy. Of course, he's a talented and studied theologian.
Establish a goal Determine the best path to reach the goal Discover the steps appropriate to the path
This process is the logical and practical way of changing and improving. He pits against each other the opposite ideas of "doing as comes naturally" on the one hand and rules on the other. There must be a way to develop an integrated ethic.
Instead of these two bankrupt methods he discusses an ethic based on principles using virtues instead of rules. Intentionally practicing the virtues are steps to a "second nature", the key to living a life consistent with God's kingdom.
I understand Wright has some unconventional theological ideas. I'll have to read more before really deciding, but as far as his reasoning and his style goes, I'm on board with him for the time being. More importantly, I don't remember seeing anything in this book I disagreed with, so he'll definitely get a second reading from me very soon.(less)
This book is much more for somebody in the beginning throes of an appreciation for reading than I am. He was preaching to the choir most of the time,...moreThis book is much more for somebody in the beginning throes of an appreciation for reading than I am. He was preaching to the choir most of the time, and though I can shout a hearty "Amen!" I didn't learn much that was news to me. Instead, the book served to organize some thoughts that are a part of my daily, background bibliophilia. I don't need anyone to tell me that there is value in great books, or even in underlining them (which I seldom do).
However, he does raise at least that point for debate. Adler too (from whom he gains some important thoughts) speaks convincingly of reading slower and marking for thinking. And all that is fine and good, but it does not necessarily follow that reading slower and more thoroughly is better than reading prolifically. It is eminantly easy to say we must slow down and read with attention, but then in the next dip of the nib say we must make more time to read. Doing both is not so easy. Which will it be? Will I make more time so I can read more, or make more time so I can read the same amount or less? For me the answer is not so obvious. There is too much reading to be done to try to read so thoroughly.
Reinke sounds like a conservative evangelical. His objectives read like a cautionary tale. I love his enthusiasm for books, but I'm not sure it is all that helpful. He speaks much of reading non-Christian books, but does not name many. He speaks of important authors, but he could have peppered his chapters with many more recommendations. I found his direct references to good or great books to be far too lean to accomplish his goal.
His chapter on encouraging children to read was well considered. He is right in this chapter and another about the dangers of electronic media toward reading habits. Unfortunately it came across sounding like an old geezer complaining "these kids spend too much time with their nose in a flashing screen." If Plato was wrong about the value of books (an interesting reflection), then what's to say our hidebound culture is not wrong about electronics, being as prejudiced against this new way of learning as Plato was about his. Of course, Plato was not threatened by a nuclear EM pulse.
Lit! is a good book to suggest to someone who likes books but is struggling to figure out how to philosophically guide his reading habits or who is frustrated with guilt over enjoying a broad reading diet. It's a good book to encourage those who are discouraged by the vast sea of non-readers we are all surrounded by. I'm not sure it will change anybody's life.(less)
Once again, to a book I read in my youth and had forgotten far more than I realized. It is a sad book, if not as disturbing as it should be. In Squeal...moreOnce again, to a book I read in my youth and had forgotten far more than I realized. It is a sad book, if not as disturbing as it should be. In Squealer I see every sad person aligning themselves against the president in the last election. President Obama is Snowball, responsible for everything from the machinations of OPEC to Hurricane Sandy. And if they are not willing to quite be so ignorant as that, he is still a terrible bogeyman of whom I should be afraid than Satan himself. The sad part is that Mitt Romney was not Napolean. In fact, the supporters of Obama did not do nearly as good a job of reminding the world of his very real evil as they might have. I am shocked at how little I heard anyone acknowledge his expression of faith in a sect that evangelical Christianity explicitly opposes. Squealer represents, for me, the most insidious abuses of power: revisionism, propaganda, fear mongering, malicious nosiness. He not only tells bald-faced lies, but associates the worst possible scenario with every opposition to power. His recasting of Snowball a villian instead of a hero is the kind of problem we create with our current neglect of objective truth. If truth is now relative, and is reduced to the status of opinion, then what happens when we rewrite history? What happens when we try to see the Crusades as bad, the American Revolution as good, McCarthyism as invasive and Abraham Lincoln as the Emancipator? Are we not simply parroting opinions, looking at only one history book, not as an expression of interpreted facts, but as just another person's truth? The kind of totalitarianism expressed in Animal Farm is not a current threat in the West, but it has been from time to time, especially in the 20th century when the book was written. Orwell's voice came alongside those of others like Robert A. Heinlein, Ayn Rand, Sinclare Lewis, and, sadly, eventually, Alexander Solzenytsin to warn us of the danger. Napolean's power was the product of many abuses, not just the tool he made of Squealer. His use of brute force, of adoption of the practices of the enemy, his elitism are all dangers to every leader. The reality that recurs most ofen in even our society is that we forget the lesson of Magna Carta, that even power is subject to the Law. It is an easy boundary to violate, both by leaders who want priveledge and "subjects" who allow it with too little vigilance. It is the mark of a good leader that he keeps his intermediary leaders in check. Not only does Napolean not do this, he reclaims the vacuum left by Jones, the vacuum of abuse, cruelty and avarice. One very important historic example of this lesson is in the Cromwellian protectorate. When King Charles was deposed and the monarchy was abolished for a short time in England, Cromwell simply stepped into the void and filled the same position under another title. For a time, the agenda of the party that empowered him was followed, but eventually, he was indistinguishable from a king, complete with hereditary ascension to the Protectorate. Though John Milton was an initial supporter of this development, it is safe to say that it was corrupted into something the champion of free speech and free press would not have approved. Of course, one of the obvious ways to avoid these abuses is for the leader to assume the intelligence of the people he leads and empower them, rather than assume their stupidity and exploit it. (less)
(i)The Elements of Style, though witty does not fully escape the tedium that is the natural habitat of grammar. Of course, nobody expects otherwise. W...more(i)The Elements of Style, though witty does not fully escape the tedium that is the natural habitat of grammar. Of course, nobody expects otherwise. While Misters Strunk and White are right most of the time, they are right in a venue that most find compltely uninteresting and arcane. Most people would rather be wrong about style than right if being right requires them to learn and practice rules. What is more, being right is out of style. Still it is the right writer who wins the day most of the time. The trendy, sloppy, and the trier-too-hard do not gain a readership where the clear emerges most readily. The reason is that amateur writers often believe they know how to communicate, and forget that the common vernacular of speech is no substitute for the common vernacular of the written word. Ideas on paper need structure to make up for body language, tone of voice, and verbal pacing. This structure is Strunk and White's bread and butter.
Read (i)The Elements of Style to polish writing that has already had the advantage of an education. Neither Strunk nor White can save a writer trying to swallow before he has sipped. I have read it twice, and both times found it hard to get through. Never the less, I would highly recommend it to anyone who has a strong ... very strong desire to write well. In order to benefit from Elements, you must read them, and only the most motivated will get through this short but meaty and demanding book. (less)
Philosophy and Education: An Introduction in Christian Perspective by George R. Knight
Philosophy and Education is an overview of the intersection of C...morePhilosophy and Education: An Introduction in Christian Perspective by George R. Knight
Philosophy and Education is an overview of the intersection of Christian thinking with Education. Knight begins by taking the reader on a tour of various philosophical perspectives. He then relates those perspectives to educational theory. He surveys the current trends in educational theory with an eye to their philosophical influences. And finally he addresses the question: What does a Christian Worldview and what might an Educational theory based on that worlview look like.
Knight emphasizes the "might" of his survey, expressing that this is one approach. He does, however, emphatically state that a Christian approach cannot be an eclectic smattering of secular practices with Bible classes thrown in to round out the curriculum. Instead he insists that a Christian system must be developed from the ground - up. Such a system acknowledges the general revelatory nature of creation and the importance of the Bible in any system that would be faithful to a Christian worldview. He argues for the integration of Christian ideas especially in History, Literature and philosophical studies. He acknowledges that the intersection grows thinner as the curriculum designer moves toward the more objective sciences.
Finally, Knight acknowledges that the teacher in secular schools must temper his or her content with legal restrictions.
The strength of Knight's book is the insistance on an integrated system. The weakness is in his leaning too hard on the Bible and not trusting enough the General Revelation truths that he inisists give the broader curriculum a spiritual character. A philosophy that insists "all truth is God's truth" need not directly relate everything to the Bible. In that regard, his outline of a Christian Educational approach looks more like a Bible integration system. This comes across very much like an endorsement of the conservative Christian school movement of the past few decades. In this way, the end of the book seems quited biased and even preconceived. However, an integrated Christian approach would include many of the ideas Knight proposes. It must.(less)
Great Leader Great Teacher is a pretty good book. It is above average, but not excellent. It is above average in that it does give some helpful insigh...moreGreat Leader Great Teacher is a pretty good book. It is above average, but not excellent. It is above average in that it does give some helpful insights that should be considered:
The difference between values and virtues The competencies of the Leader, such as: methodology, clarity, and team dynamics Philosophical leadership paradigms Church characteristics and styles
These are all good reflections, bringing the leader to examine his or her own situation and ensure a high level of awareness.
However, one of the things that keeps the book from being excellent is its uneven and trite treatment of important ideas. Bredfeldt has no trouble affirming a power paradigm of Sigmund Freud's even though he acknowledges the overwhelmingly negative reputation Freud has in evangelical circles. He says: "I would encourage the reader to not discard everything Freud has theorized without giving due consideration to his research" (208). This is good, as it should be. However, he does not give the emergent church the same consideration. His blanket and unsupported statements against A Generous Orthodoxy gives the (I must assume false) impression that Bredfeldt hasn't read McLaren's book. I acknowledge freely that I strongly disagree with some of the directions McLaren leans, but that should not prevent me from seeing his point that legitimate, orthodox denominations have disagreements over theology that a humble person should consider and not reject out of hand, but rather examine the points of difference to see if we can learn something. McLaren is not saying "Let's all just toss out good theology and join theological hands with cults." He is saying, "what can we learn from the various good theologies to be found in legitimate Christian expressions?" Again, he may take this idea too far, and on those points I disagree, but why can we not give him and some other Emergent leaders the same consideration given to Freud who was explicitly anti-Christian? It seems disingenuous, distrustful of other believers, and needlessly divisive. Again, I am not saying we should simply endorse everything any emergent says, but we should not smother them all with a blanket condemnation either. Part of the hallmark of the emergent movement is its eclectic nature, it's tenacious resistance to endorsing a single path. Though the existential flavor of such a stance is philosophically foreign, it should also be enough to tell us that even within the movement there is broad disagreement and a need for evaluating individuals for their own views.
The second problem I see with Great Leader Great Teacher is the over-simplified presentation of some very good ideas. This is to some degree a personal bias. Bredfeldt is way too married to alliteration. Alliteration has been valued in popular but unsophisticated circles as a mnemonic, and it does work. It is also a poetic device, but one that is seldom used in poetry for a reason. It does not lend itself to precision. A person who uses alliteration too much seems willing to sacrifice accuracy for pithiness. Bredfeldt's ideas are good, but his over-use of this device trivializes his material. In my own mind, I have to get past that self-trivialization before I can give the ideas the credit they deserve. I have to ask what Bredfeldt would have said if he had felt free to use the most accurate words possible in his constructs instead of feeling bound to five Es, five Ss, four Ms, four Ps, four Vs, and four Es. The preoccupation with the number four also leads me to believe that he may be forcing his ideas into a pattern that makes it useful for various reasons, but may also mean that it is less precise than it might be otherwise. To give him his due, Bredfeldt does not always resort to this pattern, and when he doesn't his alliterative tendency is also muted. That is all to the good, but his own model could stand to be self-evaluated to see if additional complexity and precision could also lead to greater effectiveness of the model. The abandonment of imposed simplicity could lead to a more significant success.
One of my own frustrations with the pastorate has been the impression I had as a young man that the pastor's primary role was teaching. When I actually entered the profession, I found that people placed a higher value on other pastoral roles than I anticipated, roles I was ill equipped to fill. As a person with a definite spiritual bent toward teaching, this development has been drastically discouraging. Bredfeldt's paradigm is encouraging in that it affirms my initial impression, but does not help because it is not broadly recognized and valued. As a leader it makes little difference what my core values are if they are not in harmony with the core values of my constituency.
However, read Great Leader Great Teacher to see how Bredfeldt draws the values of his paradigm into sharp relief. Use it to refine your ministry. I will. It is only one view, communicated with some flaws, but it contributes good material to the overall philosophy of the leader.(less)
Ok, finally, this has been a marathon read, not in terms of how long it took me to read the book, but in subjective time it would take me to grasp it....moreOk, finally, this has been a marathon read, not in terms of how long it took me to read the book, but in subjective time it would take me to grasp it. The mile to the top of the mountain is still only a mile, but it is hard.
Ethics suffers from three major difficulties. One, it is unfinished. This biggest problem means that some things, especially near the end of the book, that Bonhoeffer says need further reflection do not get it and are therefore unclarified. Bonhoeffer was executed before finishing this work, so he is not to blame, and Ethics would be interminable had he been able to finish, I think. Second, the book is a translation. The vocabulary of theology in German is quite refined (I am told) and is therefore difficult to translate. Ethics is, therefore, punctuated by parenthetical German words that interrupt the flow of thought. This is probably wonderful for those who are fluent in German, but for those of us who are not it is distracting. Finally, it is a difficult book because it is a difficult topic. Philosophically, Bonhoeffer dismantles the idea of Ethics as a boundary marker for behavior defined by rules and principles, and attempts instead to construct an ethic based upon freedom in Christ. That is, the human being is only fully human in relationship with God in Christ, and when the human reaches this place, he is free to be fully human, unhindered by rules and principles. He will, in loving action toward others, incur guilt upon himself, but in so doing he will transcend the limitations of a traditional ethic and act in the nature of Christ who also incurred guilt out of love. It is important to note that Bonhoeffer denies that this is simple licentiousness, but rather is a freedom to live in integrity and purpose. It is a dangerous doctrine, but more true than not. It does give rise to a certain level of situation ethics that many will find disturbing, but still has a certain cohesion that makes it attractive.
I think Ethics must be taken in the context of Bonhoeffer's broader work. I read it alongside Life Together which clarified much of his thinking about Church and the Divine Mandate that gives it shape. I have not read others of his work, but clearly The Cost of Discipleship is high on the list for understanding Bonhoeffer in his own right. Someday perhaps.(less)
Creswell, John. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Ltd., 2009. Research Design as...moreCreswell, John. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Ltd., 2009. Research Design as an introduction to dissertation planning is a rather difficult and technical read. In that way, it is probably quite appropriate, since a dissertation is a massive undertaking and deserves to be introduced in all its complexity. The introduction of the philosophies behind the different methods is a little like jumping into the deep end of the pool. Fortunately the explanations in the book tend to enhance the reader's understanding of these philosophical bases for research. In that way, one gathers that there is no one way to study for a particular philosophical leaning. Instead, the approach is guided by the question being answered, by the purpose stated. The primary value of Research Design is as a reference tool. Like many such tools, it is only useful once a familiarity with it has been established. So, though reading Research Design was tedious and fraught with much the average researcher will never use, in order to discover what is useful, the survey is necessary. I am hoping that as I research for my dissertation, I will find returning to it to be a helpful practice. I suspect, however, that its usefulness may be in merely introducing an idea and then guiding me to further resources to understand that idea better.(less)
From the beginning, Life Together has the ring of truth. There is much in this book that is helpful to the Christian who wants to understand both the...moreFrom the beginning, Life Together has the ring of truth. There is much in this book that is helpful to the Christian who wants to understand both the value and the limitations of Christian community. Chapter 4 should especially be taken to heart by anyone who either is in leadership or who aspires to leadership in the Church. Unfortuneately chapters 2 and 5 are less helpful. For anyone who comes from a non-liturgical expression of the church, the structure of the hours and the insistance on the value of mutual confession will come across as overly demanding. In the first case, the office of hours with its structure of involved family devotions is not very much in keeping with the religious practices of the modern family. I found the suggestion that a'capella, unison singing as the most spiritual brand of religious music offensive. Does the inducement of timbrel, dancing and stringed instruments found in Psalms also contribute to the pride of worshiping with more complex music? In the case of confession it will sound like an adaptation of a very catholic practice. This adaptation is idealistic at best and quite harmful at its worst. I do not trust any other person with the confession of my most shameful sin. I don't trust them to keep it to themselves (since they have no inducement to do so beyond their respect for me ... which can change in the blink of an eye), and I don't trust them to leave it out of their own need for power. Bonhoeffer may be right in his assessment that absolution from a fellow Christian is better than the assumed absolution of private confession to God, but it is a risk I will not take ouside some kind of structured assurance that it is as selfless and loving as Bonhoeffer describes.
On the other hand, his description of the servanthood needed in a leader, and the warnings against the desire for power over others are accurate to a fine measure. I also love his warning that folks look to community to be something it is not and never should be. His balancing of silence with community is also good, reminding us that none of us are alone and none of us should be without solitude. He warns us of the self-deception involved with our fear of solitude and encourages us to welcome the time alone with God, even to incorporate the distraction that frustrates us into intercessory prayer until we come back around to the original meditation.
Christian Community for Bonhoeffer is a structured and focused proposition. Both may be too narrow to be practical. His ideas seem to me to arise out of an over all culture more enamoured with structure. There is little here of the practical outworking of the community, only little to be said of service or evangelism (though they are not completely ignored). The only way the Communal ideal of Life Together could work is if everyone was on the same page as to how and why community exists. Glitches in that mutual understanding would invevitably lead to conflict and dysfunction. The primary value of Life Together has to do with personal spiritual formation and not so much with community function. The more individuals in the community function with Bonhoeffer's personal and communal understandings, the more likely the community is to function as he envisions. Otherwise it would break down rather quickly and grow only very slowly.(less)
John Dickson's book is a welcome injection of variety to the general flow of leadership material I have seen, an endless march of studies in power and...moreJohn Dickson's book is a welcome injection of variety to the general flow of leadership material I have seen, an endless march of studies in power and optimistic influence. The place of humility in the life of a leader is seldom addressed, unless you count the studies in "servant leadership" that come along from time to time. The ones I know of focus on the ministry of Jesus and our call to emulate Him. This is good, but does not address the specific functions and challenges of leadership. Dickson does.
However, Dickson's approach is somewhat light weight. With an entertaining range of anecdotal evidence, he shows how important humility is in a great leader. This is good, but it is not balanced. He does not thoroughly address those leaders who might be considered great in spite of arrogance, except to say, in some cases, that their arrogance diminishes them.
Dickson's most helpful comments were concerned with the more relational aspects of leadership, being grateful for the work done by subordinates, listening, taking criticism well and taking it to heart. These will help any leader in his immediate circles, increasing, perhaps, her close influence, but they do not constitute greatness.
One of the take-away's of this book is the analysis of the difference between humility and tolerance. By comparison, tolerance comes across as weak minded or perhaps condescending. Holding convictions with strength and respecting people while disagreeing with theirs is more a mark of a civil society. If so, we are buying a superficial peace at the price of intellectual integrity and rigerous thinking.(less)
Adler and Van Doren are clearly fossils in our time. I do not say that in a disparaging way. I say it in terms of their general acceptance in our soci...moreAdler and Van Doren are clearly fossils in our time. I do not say that in a disparaging way. I say it in terms of their general acceptance in our society. They are far from a "reader response" school of thinking and require that we both respect authors and assume that they have something of their own to say that must be understood independently before a response be formulated. This is the way I think too, so I feel as on the outs as these two authors must be considered. Their insistance that some books are objectively great, apart from a personal appreciation for them (or at least prior to such an appreciation) is far from an accepted axiom.
I like their approach, though, their caution that it represents an ideal deserves much more ink than it gets. The level of attention given to reading they propose is beyond difficult. It constitutes an independent classroom situation, not merely reading a book but educating one's self in it, learning it. In that regard the title is a bit misleading. However, their point is well made, that examining books on this level does give a reader intellectual ownership of the book, mastery of it, and on at least one level makes him the peer of the author.
Another idea that deserves more ink is the difficulty of syntopical reading. The formulation of questions and problems to be solved by the cross-reading of texts and portions of texts is more difficult than they seem to indicate. The difficulty is illustrated in their final exercise in Appendix B. To draw the conclusions they draw about Aristotle and Rousseau is not as simple as asking a general question and then reading for the two authors' take on it. The process of coming to the conclusions they reach is not sufficiently elucidated (or maybe it is, and so, I think it looks harder than they suggest). The authors also do not address the difficulty of dipping into portions of books when one is accustomed to reading whole books and assimiliating the bigger context. That I am to be the master of the topic and the reading does not help me overcome the problems prsesented by skipping major portions of good or interesting books.
In the end, I think this book deserves an earlier reading, perhaps undergraduate level. It would help the student who is baffled by the process he has undertaken. If it were a part of a freshman curriculum, it might even save a considerable amount of struggle. Read it to enhance your ability to analyze and to learn how to evaluate in a preliminary fashion. It is a good book, but it is never likely to be a popular one.(less)
This is an excellent little book quantifying and systemitizing a type of thinking that is often lauded and encouraged in secondary education without e...moreThis is an excellent little book quantifying and systemitizing a type of thinking that is often lauded and encouraged in secondary education without ever being fully defined. I like the way the authors disect critical thinking into its components to help the reader improve his skills, learning how to ask questions and identify gaps in reasoning to come to solutions to problems. The last page came across a little propagandistically, more like a manifesto for a critically thinking humanity than an encouragement to the value and virtue in critical thinking. In fact, if the rules of critical thinking outlined in the booklet are applied to the booklet itself, one sees that there is an underlying assumption that critical thinking is intrinsically better than other less broad types of thinking. Is there nothing in a culture or philosophy that should be taken as axiomatic, giving guidance to all other considerations? Perhaps not, but it is a very humanistic view that bears crititical analysis.(less)
Rethinking Worldview is a good reintroduction to the concept as it was broached in the last century. If, in fact, as Bertrand says, the idea of worldv...moreRethinking Worldview is a good reintroduction to the concept as it was broached in the last century. If, in fact, as Bertrand says, the idea of worldview has fallen out of fashion, it is with a certain cynical self-superiority that such a position can be espoused. How can any of us say that we do not have some kind of internal and guiding view of the world? How can we claim that it does not have some unity with the culture around us, bearing the marks of the influence of others? Thus, Bertrand's book fills an important place in the intellectual life of the contemporary believer. If we live our lives unexamined we open ourselves to influences we would deny if confronted with them.
That said, Bertrand's four pillars (Creation, order, rationality and fear) seem to be convincingly argued but presented without alternative views. I find it hard to say that belief in Christ is central to salvation but claim at the same time that the biblical story of creation is precedent to a Christian world view. Is it not more likely that a person believes first in Christ and only later comes to appreciate the Creation account? Can we with certainty say that a person may not be a real Christian and yet not believe the whole Bible? Does that not relegate generations of true believers in early centuries who did not have a whole Bible to some odd place of spiritual ambiguity? I would rather have seen him present some kind of broader spectrum of ideas that can interact to form a Christian worldview. It seems to me that God Himself is more likely to be a pillar than His work or our response to Him.
Of course, he did not, so what he did say must be judged on its own merit. Viewing his bent toward apologetics (though he protests that he is poor at it) it is easy to see why he would choose philosophical rather than theological bases for his pillars. They are mostly consistent with classical philosophical disciplines, at least the rules of logic, correspondence, and consistency. Branching out as he does to define wisdom as a union of right thinking and right practice and then to insist that belief and the support of belief is a stronger basis for witness than mere intellectual debate makes for convincing grist in the current milieu. I like his desire to draw a cohesive "philosophy" of engaging the culture with intellectual and moral integrity. I also like his emphasis on truth in art as opposed to morality in art as a basis for Christian creativity. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, more than Christian books we need Christian writers. I fully embrace Bertand's protest that popular Christian art is lackluster, cheap and say with him that we need more who are dedicated to excellence in their art.
Though his writing is quite accessible he does assume a certain level of competence with philosophical ideas in his readers. It would be a mistake to think a high schooler or freshman could fully benefit from this book, though if they were precocious, they could get past the unfamiliarities. Rather it is a good book for a student at least being introduced to philosophy. Unfortuneately, it would be a little too directed for an introductory class. Suffice it to say that as a speaker he can tailor his material to his audience. As a writer he must expect the appropriate audience to come to him.(less)
Creative Bible Teaching introduces much educational psychology and theory that would take too many classes to cover if a student was trying to develop...moreCreative Bible Teaching introduces much educational psychology and theory that would take too many classes to cover if a student was trying to develop and assimilate the skills piecemeal. It is written in an accessible style with a minimum of technical complexity, though it provides comprehensive tools for developing a competent method.
The book centers around a general lesson outline dubbed: “Hook, Book, Look and Took” (recommending a short, attention getting introduction, a biblical based lesson, an abstract application of the lesson to current situations, and a practical application the student can practice on her own). The book looks realistically at the particular challenges of teaching various age groups and offers helpful guidelines to developing each stage of the lesson. The authors also encourage a succinct, strongly student-based objective.
Although the recommended lesson pattern is consistent with long-standing biblical presentation conventions, it is a bit formulaic. The authors observe the relationship of the method used by Paul in Acts, but do not compare it with other biblical examples (particularly those of Jesus which would not so easily fit their pattern). It does not take a post-modern culture into account. In addition, though the methodology is theoretically very well considered and generously illustrated with anecdotes, it is not substantiated with studies that demonstrate its use and effectiveness. In other words, though the ideas may be good, researched, and well illustrated, they are not empirically validated. Finally, the authors admit that the Bible being a book written by adults for adults, their methodology is focused primarily upon teaching adults and older youth and must be adapted to younger children’s classes.
In general I like Creative Bible Teaching and the methodology espoused and I would recommend it as a resource. It is not accessible for the average Sunday School teacher who is not college educated or accustomed to reading textbook style materials. Nevertheless, as a person with an AA in Religion from a Christian University, I would have found a course using this textbook at that level challenging, but appropriate and helpful.(less)
This book, originally written in 1938 has some important things to say. That children are not built to sit for hours and listen to lectures, but rathe...moreThis book, originally written in 1938 has some important things to say. That children are not built to sit for hours and listen to lectures, but rather to be in motion. That experience is a more effective teacher than rote learning. That ignoring the voice of the student in education is to disconnect from the process by which she will learn. I think Dewey is right on many fronts, including the idea that a thoroughly planned and skillfully executed experimentally based education is more effective than a traditional face-front classroom model.
That said, I must observe a few things. First, if 75 years of promoting this view have brought us to standardized testing (measuring the conesequences of experience) and teachers that are pressed to account for every moment of every lesson we are somewhere missing a crucial point. In the modern classroom we shout for smaller class sizes, why? Because a teacher must give greater attention to individuals than he can do in the present circumstances. This is an unintended consequence of Dewey's method. Experience is a better teacher. Unfortunately, that means each student's previous experience and capacity for new experience must be taken into account more individually than Dewey seems to realize. The mechanism for teaching is much more tailor made and the general nature and capacity of public education is ignored. Certainly traditional methods may be less effective, but they do work on some level.
Also, Dewey decries a traditional classroom that places primary value on the past (cultural heritage) and says instead we must move the children into the future. This is hypothetically true, but ignores the fact that society and many of the people among whom the child will interact are products and expressions of that culture. Certainly we want everyone to be able to think creatively in unexpected situations, but Dewey does not adequately demonstrate that traditional learning lacks in this regard. After all, he must be a product of such an education and he seems quite able to formulate new ideas.
In fact the traditional classroom is not dead. This is a consequence of necessity. It is necessary for teachers to model what they themselves have learned and will resort to these paradigms when newer paradigms seem faulty. It is necessary because of the massive classroom sizes and the sheer volume of information that must be assimilated in the modern education. It is necessary because not everything can be experienced but some things must be learned in the abstract. At best Dewey preaches a method that needs to be given more and more thorough exploration but cannot be bought wholesale without risking the disintegration of the educational machine. There is no way our superstructure can handle the expense of an endeavor that would tax personal resources on such an atomic scale.(less)
I am presumptuous indeed to attempt a review of this book. I did not proceed to the objections because in them the philospher descends into the minute...moreI am presumptuous indeed to attempt a review of this book. I did not proceed to the objections because in them the philospher descends into the minutea of philosophical debate that I cannot right now indulge an attempt to keep up with. However, Msr. Descartes' initial thinking I thought it necessary to read.
This book is deeply distressing. So many quote "I think, therefore I am" that do not understand that this as a beginning point led directly to and primarily to the deduction of the existence of God. Everything else follows less certainly from that initial conclusion. Msr. Descartes admits that the dedcution of the body and the external world are nearly an absurd exercise. However when we dismiss the body and its senses as prejudicial to our conception of God and try to ascertain His existence (as someone who cannot be sensed) using only that part of ourselves which also cannot be sensed we are engaged in a pursuit which the Scriptures (Romans 1) insist should be possible. So few attempt it, are capable of attempting it. This alone leads me to the place where I am frustrated and bewildered by those who without due thought say "I don't believe in God."
Descartes is such a cornerstone of philosphy, mathematics and geometry that it is a crime he is not required reading for every person engaged in advanced education; if not this book, another, but this one is short and actually quite readable with a measure of the effort expected by anyone engaged in reading philosophy.
I have no real objections to Msr. Descartes. He heads off any who would try to critique a portion of his treatise out of the chain of reason of which it is a part. I have not had opportunity to digeest it well enough to even attempt a criticism. I do however have plenty of appreciation for a work with so much rational integrity tackling such a fundamental question. For me, my own doubts will rest easier. I am gratified to hear someone of such magnitude echo some ideas I have espoused on my own, if not with the thoroughness or profundity he expresses them.
It's not for everyone. Not many will have the patience. But for those that take the effort, the reward is wonderful indeed.(less)
This book is a philosophical guided tour through the reasons why Christians, particularly evangelical Christians, need to figure out that there is mor...moreThis book is a philosophical guided tour through the reasons why Christians, particularly evangelical Christians, need to figure out that there is more to our faith than evangelism and quiet time. The massive responsibility of seeing the world, life, humanity, history and all the disciplines thereby suggested in light of God calls for a more generalized approach to seeing and communicating the gospel. We cannot become so engrossed in the practical that we lose sight of the transcendent. God Himself expresses concern for many things the evangelical church feels comfortable ignoring.
Christian reason must become more disciplined and more informed, not just in its own narrow specialty but in the world at large. We must become more well-read and conversent in philosophies with which we may somewhat disagree, looking not for points of criticism but for points of commonality. Holmes' thesis that all truth is God's truth suggests that critiquing humanist thought is about more than debunking. It is about understanding and perhaps even agreeing. More than that, it is about analyzing and assessing, looking for errors, not in the interest of silencing those in error, but in the interest of finding their contribution to the whole body of understanding truth and therefore understanding Christ.
It goes against the evangelical grain to admit that somebody whose agenda differs from theirs may have a point. But that is exactly what Holmes is calling for, along side an increased integrity in the Church which contributes significantly to human thought.(less)
I took way too many notes on this book to try to put them all here. Suffice it to say it raises two important points in my thinking. One, that I am de...moreI took way too many notes on this book to try to put them all here. Suffice it to say it raises two important points in my thinking. One, that I am decidedly philosophically ill equipped to judge this book. I have too weak a background in the language of epistimology to state an opinion on whether or not this is a good book. It is certainly a complicated book and requires more careful reading than I am currently accustomed to. I found myself retracing my steps two and sometimes three time in order to gain even a little understanding of what I was reading.
Second, it gives a reasonable set of parameters by which to judge whether a personally held belief is valid: Consistency (internal freedom from contradiction) Coherence (whether or not the internal statements of the belief system are inter-related) Comprehensiveness (the applicabllity of the interpretive scheme to all experience) Congruity (how appropriate is the system to the experience it proports to interpret?)
Once this set of tests are forwarded, the rest of the book relates back to them, building them into an epistemological juggernaut. Wolfe even shows how they are used by Jesus, Paul and Moses. Once he got to this point in his discussion it became helpful. The reader could see how to apply them to his own thinking.
Finally Wolfe relieves the reader of two serious sources of doubt. One is the idea that doubt is valid when the only alternative to rejecting the criticism is adopting the critic's own view wholesale. This is not an arguement against the epistemology of the belief holder but against faith itself, and the critic also holds faith whether he admits it or not. The second is the idea that hearing criticism is tantamount to expressing a lack of faith. On the contrary, it is an expression that the ideas we have faith in can stand scrutiny.
I do not recommend this book for just anyone. It will be terminally boring and inaccessible to many. In addition, some will not agree with the author's idea that we do not hold faith in terms of certain knowledge and ultimate truth, but in terms of probability and likelihood. He does clarify that in every day terms, the former ideas still apply, but he likes to maintain an attitude of humility ... that he could be wrong.(less)
This is a book from a clearly conservative perspective. The author sees college in its primary educational role and does not much address the social o...moreThis is a book from a clearly conservative perspective. The author sees college in its primary educational role and does not much address the social or personal maturation role of college. This is ok, because it seems to me that most of what a college should do is developt the education and not the social or emotional person, though these cannot be neglected. The author knows he is writing for a limited audience, but he does not kowtow to the prejudices of that readership. He, for example, strongly emphasizes that the college is not the church and does not serve the "defense of the faith" function of the Church. I like Holmes' insistence that the college needs academic freedom both to teach and to learn, to explore the world and report on what it finds, not so much to judge as to evaluate. In this regard, he is typically idealistic as an academic. Since so many of our children are expanding the borders of their families to attend college in the first place, we cannot expect their non-college educated parents to understand the nuance of the difference between a class in theology and their own church-based theological experience. This seems to me to be a constant tension the Christian College will face. His insistence on a liberal education, a generalist approach to learning is very good in that it does have as its aim to develop in a humanist way, but not in a secular way. Rather, he constantly revisits the moral, ethical, spiritual and biblical responsibility of the Christian educator to nurture an intellectual framework that accepts not just empirical but revelatory knowledge, an epistemology that is difficult to maintain with a consistent integrity. Read it if you are a Christian educator or aspire to be one, even if you are not in a Christian institution. I could only wish that a book that introduced the student to the idea of liberal and Christian education as a value the way this one does for educators.(less)
Loading...
