Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Armageddon, the Great War, and the Prince of Peace

By R. A. Torrey
Scriptorium Daily

Q: Is the tremendous battle now going on between Germany and the allies the battle of Armageddon prophesied in Scripture?

A: No, certainly not.

That battle is to be fought in Palestine (Megiddo, in the Plain of Jezreel; restored Israel the people of God are arrayed on one side and ‘the kings of the whole world’, i.e. as the Greek signifies, “the inhabited earth” or Roman world) on the other. (Rev. 16:14-16, especially v. 14; 19:11-21; Isa. 10:28; 29:3; Joel 2:11; 3:9; Mic. 1:6).

Ex-President Roosevelt used the word Armageddon in his late campaign because it caught his fancy and seemed a good word to conjure by, but apparently without any understanding whatever of the real Bible teaching about Armageddon.

The present war may be, and probably is, a preparation for Armageddon. The war will very likely result in a restoration of Palestine to the Jews. Magog (Russia?), Meshish (Moscow) and Tubal (Tobolsk) are to play an important part in the last day (Ezek. 38:2).

Q: Did not Pastor Russell definitely prophesy years ago the war now raging in Europe and that it would occur in the year 1914?

A: No.

He prophesied something entirely different. He prophesied that the “end times” would “close” in 1914 and the Millenium begin (vol. 3, p. 23 following). He taught that Christ had already come in October, 1874. In a number of his paper appearing just before the war broke out, he was trying to hedge on this prophecy as 1914 was so rapidly passing, by saying that the change might not be of such a character as to be at once manifest to all.

When 1914 closes Pastor Russell will be an entirely discredited teacher to all but the utterly duped as he is already to all really intelligent students of the Bible.

Q: How is it possible for one who knows his Bible and what is predicted in the Bible about the wars that shall precede the coming of our Lord to respond to President Wilson’s call to prayer and pray for peace?

A: While any one who really understands his Bible knows that there are to be wars up to the end of this present dispensation, and that this dispensation is to end in the most terrible war of all, it does not follow that there must be war all the time.

While it is true that abiding peace will not come until the Prince of Peace Himself comes and takes the reins of government, there may be periods of peace. The present war is not the final war predicted in the Scriptures. There will be an entirely different alignment of forces in that war, and the center of that war will be Jerusalem. Of course, it is possible that that war may grow out of the war now on, but this present war is not that represented in the 19th chapter of Revelation.

Furthermore, it is possible for the intelligent student of the Bible who believes in the coming of our Lord as the only solution of all our political, commercial, and other problems to pray for peace, for in praying for peace, he is praying for the soon coming of Him who is the Prince of Peace, just as we can pray for God’s kingdom to come, knowing that the kingdom cannot come until the King comes.

Q: Does not the present great war prove that the Lord is coming at once?

A: It does not.

Our Lord says distinctly in Matthew 24:6, “And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.” He went on to say that nation should rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines and pestilences, and earthquakes in divers places. All these things are the “beginning of sorrows.” Further down in the chapter we have a picture of the Great Tribulation that precedes the coming of Christ to the earth, but Christ is coming in the air to receive His Church to Himself (1 Thess 4:16, 17) before He comes to the earth and He may come in the air for His people at any moment as far as we know.

But the present war is no reason for stating positively that He will come this year or next. The believer’s attitude is to be watching and waiting and longing, but it is a snare of the Devil when he undertakes to predict positively that the Lord will come within any certain period of time. It is not for us to know the times nor the seasons which the Father hath put in His own power (Acts 1:7). Days such as we are now passing through are days when we should “lift up our heads because our redemption draweth nigh” (Luke 21:26-28). But they are not days when we should undertake the part of a prophet to the extent of predicting what is not predicted in the Scriptures and setting times which we are expressly forbidden in the Word of God to do.

Originally published in the October 1914 issue of the King’s Business, p. 527, and the November 1914 issue, p. 632.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Lord, Help Me to Be Grateful

By Allen Yeh
Scriptorium Daily

I am in Nairobi, Kenya, right now, and I have been in this country for a little over a week. This is my first trip to Sub-Saharan Africa, and I am here to do ministry, to do research for an Intercultural Studies class I’m teaching this Fall, and to plan a potential Torrey Kenya trip in the future. It’s mostly been good, with some frustrations thrown in. We have had the privilege of seeing a lot of wildlife (everything from elephants to giraffes to flamingos), preaching in various churches, visiting Christian schools, hanging out with a Biola missions team composed of ten undergrads, eating crocodile and ostrich, and seeing different parts of Kenya like the coastal city of Mombasa. The frustrations mostly came from dealing with people who were trying to rip us off. This is not the first country I’ve experienced this in (even the U.S. has plenty of con-artists!) but because we don’t have a local guide, we’ve been scammed a couple of times already. Mostly they are things such as the taxi charging us double what we should actually pay, but nothing serious—it’s not like we’ve been mugged or gotten violently ill or lost our passports or anything. So for that, we should be grateful. But I still couldn’t help getting frustrated every time we got scammed. It seems like, because we are Americans, any interaction with the locals somehow comes around to the topic of money. It got to the point where I wanted to say to people around me, “Hey! I’m a person, I’m not an ATM machine, all right?!”

I want to recount what happened today which really opened my eyes and helped to reorient my attitude. I’m here with two Biola University professors, Tim Stranske and Fred Ramirez, and my good friend Sean Doyle who is a professor at Geneva College. We met up with Benjamin Musyoka, a native Kenyan and a wonderful man of God who had done his Ph.D. in education at Biola about twelve years ago. He was a member of Grace EV Free Church during his time there. Tim Stranske also happens to be a member of that church currently.

Benjamin and his wife Judith took us four professors to his church plant “out in the bush.” I’m not kidding you, from Nairobi it took us five hours each way to get there. I think it’s the second-most remote place I’ve ever been to (the first was when I was up in a tiny rural village on a mountain in southwestern China). We traveled three hours east to where the road ends on the map, then we went offroading for two extra hours, to the point where we were just covered in fine red dust, and then ended up in the middle of nowhere! At least that’s how it felt. The journey itself was exhausting to say the least, but when I saw the plight of the people there, I felt even more burdened. Imagine: no electricity, no food (they have to rely on emergency relief supplies to come in to feed them once a week!), corrupt officials, and no hope. All my indignation at having been scammed $20 by the taxi driver the previous day (I was thinking, “There goes my meal money for the next day!”) melted away. There is no rain out there, no way to grow crops, and people have no jobs. I asked Benjamin, “Why don’t people leave this place and go to the cities?” and he said, “Some of them do—and they just end up in slums, the girls get pregnant, they discard their babies in an orphanage, and there is no more hope for them in the cities than out here in the bush.” Wow. Makes my $20 seem so trivial—I’m going to go back home after this, and that $20 won’t matter so much in the grand scheme of things. I’ll go back to a nice home, plenty of food to eat, and a wonderful job. Talk about injustice! Seeing it firsthand was sobering.

There are some bright spots, however: this church plant (Makongo Community Church) had a wonderful church building. I wondered how they could have built such a thing, given the poverty that was rampant all around them. Benjamin explained that it was Grace EV Free Church in La Mirada, California, who had contributed $12,000 to build this building. Although that is not the church that I attend, a lot of Biola people go there, and I could not be more proud of them!! It was amazing to see firsthand the fruits of their financial contribution, and to see the ripple effects from that—basically, once people started attending this church, local businesses saw that there were a lot of people congregating so they moved into the area, and it has become a revitalized economic region (relatively speaking)!

When the church service began, a couple of church members came up and gave their testimonies. Despite the utter destitution of the area, one of the ladies in the church talked about how faithful God has been to her. I was dumbfounded—how can she have such great faith amidst so little? But I realized it’s precisely because she has so little that her faith can abound. How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven! All my education, my money, my privileges, just seemed so inconsequential at that moment. Then Benjamin stood up and said, much to my surprise, “Dr. Allen will now bring us the Word of God!” I was definitely caught off guard—but having done missions in India (where they also frequently spring this kind of thing onto Western visitors!), this wasn’t the first time this had happened to me. I quickly thought of a Bible passage I could preach on (I remembered Benjamin’s advice: these people are uneducated, so preach on stories rather than abstract theological concepts). So I chose the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Meanwhile, I was thinking, I would so much rather have heard their pastor preaching! They think I have so much to offer them, when in reality, in their context, I have so little.

As I preached, I realized that in the African context, the Parable of the Prodigal Son was not just about the sinful squandering of the younger son and the Pharisaism of the older son; it was also about the haves and have-nots. Those whose lack is obvious, like the younger son, can easily run to the Father. Those whose lack is inward rather than outward, like the older son, have the hardest time coming to God. No wonder that these Kenyans, who have so few possessions, seemed to love God so much more than Americans, who have so much materially!

Lord, help me to be grateful for what I have. Our love for God should flow out of gratitude, not duty. It is ironic, though, that those who have the least are often the most grateful. What a way to put life in perspective—and how humbling it is.

Friday, June 26, 2009

Everything You Think About Contentment is Wrong

By Fred Sanders
Scriptorium Daily

Tim Challies hosts a “Reading Classics Together” blog event, and the book he’s working through now is The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment, by Jeremiah Burroughs (1600-1646). This week’s reading is the second and third sermons in the book.

In Philippians 4, Paul says “I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content,” and goes on to add that this is because “I have learned the secret.”

Burroughs wants to know what that secret, that “art,” that “deep mysterie” is. It seems impossible to be equally content with bad times as with good times. But that is because we have not learned the secret. If a simple, untrained person walks into a mechanic’s shop, or any place where skilled craftsmen are at work, he will think he could never do the kind of work done there. It seems magical to him, impossible. “But,” says Burroughs, “that’s because he understands not the art of it; there is a turning of the hand so as you may do it with ease.” It’s all in the wrist, just a simple trick. And, he adds, that’s why he’s writing this book: “That’s the business of this exercise, to open unto you the Art and Mysterie of Contentment.”

What comes next is a series of 13 apparent contradictions. Burroughs plays the game of Chestertonian inversion, showing you a paradox and then explaining how it makes perfect sense. Some examples:

*Most people think contentment comes by adding. In fact, it comes by subtracting. If your situation doesn’t match your desires, subtract from your desires.

*Most people seek contentment through removing burdens. Grace teaches that we get contentment by adding a burden. Remember your sinfulness well enough and you will be content. “If thou canst get thy heart to be more burdened with thy sin, thou wilt be less burdened with thy afflictions.”

*Most people think contentment comes because of outside influences. But it really comes from interior healing. A sick man (”with aguish humor” or “a bitter choleric humor within”) tastes bitterness in every drink. He shouldn’t call his wife to sugar his drink, he should call the doctor to purge his bitter humor. Only then will the drink be sweet.

But above all these “everything you know is wrong” tricks, Burroughs teaches one key truth about the mystery of Christian contentment, and he wraps it in his best paradox: A contented Christian is “the most contented man in the world, and the most unsatisfied man in the world.”

Most contented, but least satisfied. How is that?

A little in the world will content a Christian for his passage: Mark, here lies the Mysterie of it, A little in the world will content a Christian for his Passage, but all the world, and ten thousand times more, will not content a Christian for his Portion: now a Carnal heart will be content with these things of the world for his Portion; and there is the difference between a Carnal heart and a Gracious heart…

In the journey from here to heaven, a contented Christian can get by with very little. But when it comes to his heavenly reward, his portion, he cannot settle for anything less than God. Or, if it helps you to think about the experienced reality of it, without reference to the afterlife, consider this: The Christian can eat very meager food and live in an inadequate place, but he must know that God is with him there. “That Soul that is capable of God, can be filled with nothing else but God; nothing but God can fill a Soul that is capable of God: Carnal hearts think of no reference to God; but a Gracious heart, being enlarged to be capable of God, and enjoying somewhat of him, nothing in the world can fill a gracious heart, it must be onely God himself…”

We are to be easily contented in our passage, but never satisfied except with our portion, which is God himself.

The carnal heart is too easily satisfied with outward things, and as a result is never contented with any thing. Even when a carnal heart seeks peace, it seeks political peace, family peace, and interpersonal peace rather than peace with God or the peace of God. But the heart that knows grace wants more:

But mark how a Godly heart goes beyond a Carnal; all outward peace is not enough but I must have the peace of God. But suppose you have the peace of God, Will not that quiet you? No I must have the God of peace, as the peace of God, so the God of peace, that is I must enjoy that God that gives me the peace, I must have the Cause as well as the Effect; I must see from whence my peace comes and enjoy the fountain of my peace as well as the stream of my peace.

What we want is God. That is the key to the mystery of Christian contentment, and the reason for all the other paradoxes Burroughs lists.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Staggered by Bible Trouble

By R. A. Torrey
Scriptorium Daily

Q: I want to believe in every word taught or inspired by the Holy Spirit, but I am simply staggered when I read statements of I Kings 20:30 and I Samuel 6:19. Can you give me any relief? If the figures are incorrectly translated why did not the revisers make the necessary alterations?

A: The doctrine of “Verbal Inspiration” is not that the Scriptures as translated in our Authorized Version, or any other particular version, were inspired in every word, but that the Scriptures as originally given were inspired in every word. There have been errors in manuscripts and errors in translation, though now the correct manuscript readings are practically settled, and no doctrine is affected by any questions as to correct readings, and furthermore, scholars agreed as to the correct translations as far as they affect any fundamental doctrine. There is no doctrine now in doubt because of questionable translations.

In regard to 1 Samuel 6:19, the revisers did make an alteration; instead of reading as in the Authorized Version, “He smote of the people 50, 000 and three score and then men,” the revisers read, “he smote of the people seventy men and 50,000 men.” They put “and” in italics to indicate that it is not in the original, which it is not. In the Hebrew as we have it, it reads, “He smote of the people seventy men fifty thousand men.” There is no “and” at all. The construction is very peculiar. Many explanations have been given of it.

One is that the seventy men who were smitten were as valuable as 50,000 men because they were priests. This to me is not a very satisfying explanation. Another one is that the seventy men that He smote were seventy of the Bethshemites and the 50,000 were those that were slain by the ark while it was in the land of the Philistines. At all events the record does not say that He slew “fifty thousand and three score and ten men,” nor even as we read in the R.V., ‘seventy men and 50,000 men.” It simply says that “He smote among the people seventy men,” then 50,000 men are mentioned without any “and” and apparently without being connected with the verb “smote.”

The Syriac and Arabic read 5000 and seventy men; the Chaldee reads seventy men of the elders and 50,000 of the common people. Josephus says only seventy were smitten. Whatever is the correct interpretation there is no reason for being staggered. While neither the Authorized or Revised Version is the exact rendering of the Hebrew text as we have it, it is not impossible that there were 50,000 men and seventy men of “the people,” i.e. of Israel present at Bethshemesh at that time. You will notice that it does not say that He smote 57,000 of the men of Bethshemesh. It says He smote of the men of Bethshemesh because they had looked into the ark of Jehovah without stating the number of men of Bethshemesh; then it goes on to state that He smote of (the “of” would be more accurately rendered “among”) the people (i.e. Israel) sevently men 50,000 men.

In regard to 1 Kings 20:30 the Revised Version again makes a change because the Authorized is not an accurate rendering of the Hebrew text as we have it, the Hebrew text does not say that the wall “fell upon twenty and seven thousand of the men that were left.” It says, “the wall fell upon twenty and seven thousand men that were left,” i.e. the wall fell upon the remnant, not twenty and seven thousand of the remnant. This, of course, does not mean that it fell upon every one of them but that there had been such an awful slaughter of the Syrians, 100,000 footmen, only 27,000 were left and as they fled into Aphek the wall fell upon the company that was left. How many of them were hit and killed by the wall we are not told. There is nothing impossible nor improbable in this and so certainly you do not need to be staggered by it.

Q: I am also greatly disturbed in mind when I read the imprecatory Psalms. Were these awful prayers taught by the Holy Spirit or are they the outpourings of a heart filled at the moment by unholy passion written by the will of the Holy Spirit but not approved by Him?

In the Psalms, as we see by a careful study of them, we have not only the prayer and praise inspired by the Holy Spirit, but in some instances the Holy Spirit’s record of the prayers that uninspired men offered and of God’s comments upon those prayers. But in regard to the imprecatory Psalms, Dr. Scofield’s words in his introduction to the Book of Psalms set forth the truth well. He says:

“The imprecatory Psalms are the cry of the oppressed in Israel for justice–a cry appropriate and right in the earthly people of God, and based upon a distinct promise in the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 15:18 and other passages); but a cry unsuited to the Church, a heavenly people who have taken their place with a rejected and crucified Christ.”

It might be said in addition to this that many of these imprecatory Psalms are prophetic, prophecies inspired by the Holy Spirit and to be fulfilled literally. It might be said further still that it is far better to refuse to avenge yourself upon your adversaries with your own hand as David did and to commit vengeance to God to whom it belongeth as is done in the imprecatory Psalms.

Originally published in The King’s Business “Questions and Answers” by R.A. Torrey, August-September 1914, pp. 483, 490

Revisiting Russell Kirk’s The Roots of American Order

By Lee Edwards
First Principles

From the University Bookman (46:4) Symposium: Remembering Russell Kirk.

Nearly four decades ago, Catherine Bowen wrote a delightful little book about the Constitutional Convention of 1787 entitled Miracle at Philadelphia. The “miracle” was that a diverse group of strong-willed, political leaders could, within a few months, produce a document that has served as the foundation for the most successful and enduring experiment in democracy in human history. British Prime Minister William Gladstone described the American Constitution as “the most wonderful work ever struck off, at a given time, by the brain and purpose of man.”

America itself is a miracle. While other nations have declined or fallen over the centuries, America has survived economic upheavals, civil wars and world wars, racial and ethnic divisions, and a virulent counterculture to become the most powerful and envied nation in the world.

What is the source of America’s strength and endurance? Its abundant, natural resources? Its educated, highly skilled people? Its fortuitous geographical location midway between Europe and Asia? Its national will? Whence comes our limited government, individual freedom, free market system, and fundamental values?

In The Roots of American Order, first published in 1974, Russell Kirk provides a convincing answer: America is not only the land of the free and the home of the brave but a place of ordered liberty, which made its freedom and prosperity possible. Using the device of examining five cities—Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London, and Philadelphia—Kirk traces the roots of American order to long-standing traditions in human history.

First came the Hebrews, who recognized “a purposeful moral existence under God.” For the prophets, the hill-town of Jerusalem was the eternal city for salvation. Next came the Greeks who strengthened the roots with their philosophical and political self-awareness. Athens was where Western philosophy was born, and from it came the Western views of science and the conviction that all areas of knowledge are within the ability of the mind of men. There followed the Romans, with their emphasis on law and social awareness. Rome was the seat of a great empire, and its political administration and stability echoed down the centuries. The roots of these cities were intertwined “with the Christian understanding of human duties and human hopes” and were joined by medieval custom, learning, and valor.

The roots of order were then enriched by two great political experiments in law and liberty centered in London and Philadelphia. But they did not come to pass overnight. Indeed, the British contribution was made possible by six-and-a-half centuries of political experimentation from the Magna Carta in 1215 through the Glorious Revolution of 1689.

The Roots of American Order

The first part of the British experiment took place during what are so often called, erroneously, the Dark Ages. In The Roots of American Order, Kirk lists the contributions of the Middle Ages: our system of common law, the essentials of representative government, our language, our social patterns, and the foundation of our modern economy. Too often forgotten today, they illustrate Kirk’s view that political order reflects custom, mores, and belief.

According to the French political philosopher Montesquieu, the only “grand change in the art of government” since Aristotle was representative government. And its first sign was the Great Charter, the Magna Carta, which the English barons extracted from a reluctant King John. Its lasting principle is simple and yet profound: The law is supreme and must be obeyed by all, even the King.

The Middle Ages was followed in swift and often chaotic succession by the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Counter-Reformation. Man proposed a new “humanism,” Kirk writes, driven by ego and enlightenment. Protestant reformers returned to the stern teaching of St. Augustine: man loving himself above everything can only be saved by the grace of God.

Out of the Protestant Ethic, Kirk says, came self-reliance, self-examination, endeavor in the secular world, and democracy. England, thanks to Richard Hooker and others, found a middle path between warring factions on the continent and passed it on to America: It consisted of law, liberty, and tolerance. But the passage was not an easy or swift one, in part because of the conflicting ideas of philosophers like Hobbes and Locke.

Hobbes has been called the father of modern political philosophy (although not by Kirk), but his is the politics of authoritarianism. Hobbes argued that the individual’s motives in society are not love and loyalty but self-interest and fear. There is little in Hobbes, Kirk says, of Madison’s idea of carefully calibrated checks and balances. Hobbes would have rejected the moral precepts that Madison and other Founders insisted were essential for a Republic.

Locke is a more relevant influence on America, Kirk writes. His Second Treatise on Government is really an attack on Hobbes’ Leviathan. Locke emphasizes the Social Contract between the governed and the governors and stresses the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. But Locke was an ardent apostle of individualism, Kirk points out, and had no deep affection for the Christian concept of a “community of souls.” There is no warmth in Locke, no sense of consecration. “Utility, not love,” Kirk remarks, “is the motive of Locke’s individualism.” And the Founders of the American Republic, Kirk insists, had a vision beyond mere self-interest and utilitarianism.

The last Englishman that Kirk mentions, and with obvious affection, is the Anglo-Irish statesman, Edmund Burke. Burke, he says, went far beyond John Locke’s utilitarian Social Contract to talk of an eternal contract between the dead, the living, and the unborn. Burke argued that we all participate in this spiritual and social partnership because it is ordained of God.

Before leaving London and traveling to Philadelphia, Kirk underscores the importance of the Bill of Rights drawn up in 1689 and the fruition of English constitutional development during the preceding four centuries. Much of the language of the English Bill of Rights appears in the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

The author then takes up the first of America’s founding documents—the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration was a revolutionary document, Kirk says, a bill of particulars for going to war against George III, but it was not an open-ended justification of revolution under any and all circumstances. It was, in fact, primarily a political document, meant to set forth grievances against the King and the justifications for the political separation of the colonies. Among its 27 specific complaints, not one touched on social and economic conditions.

The Declaration was a conservative document in that it spoke of changing the “government” but not the “state.” As Kirk points out, “government” implied the ministers and other temporary possessors of political power while “society” meant the establishment civil social order. Still, the Declaration was a radical document in the sense that it reasserted a political autonomy rooted in the North American continent ever since the landings at Jamestown and Plymouth.

Eleven years later and now citizens of a new nation, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia met to revise the Articles of Confederation. They wound up producing a whole new constitution. It was a practical document, says Kirk, attempting to resolve the conflicting demands of freedom and order. Its composition demanded balance, firmness, and yet a willingness to yield because the delegates had to (a) uphold order but not reduce true liberty, (b) produce a reasonably strong national government while not reducing the states to mere provinces; and (c) provide for an effective chief executive who could not, however, become a king or dictator.

Montesquieu would have applauded America’s brand of federalism, Kirk writes, and its careful separation of powers within the national government. The delegates assembled in Philadelphia had formed a government of laws, not men.

The Declaration and the Constitution are complementary, not conflicting, documents. In Martin Diamond’s words, the combination of the Declaration’s “heady rhetoric of revolution and freedom” and the Constitution’s “necessary forming, constraining and sustaining system of government” produced our uniquely successful form of government.

“Whatever the failings of America in the eighth decade of the twentieth century,” Russell Kirk wrote thirty years ago in The Roots of American Order, “the American order has been a conspicuous success in the perspective of human history.” As he summed up: “Under God, a large measure of justice has been achieved; the state is strong and energetic; personal freedom is protected by laws and customs; and a sense of community ensures.”

Would Kirk be so generous, so optimistic today? I am not certain, as the heritage of these five cities has been badly battered. But I know he would draw strength and confidence from the lessons of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London, and Philadelphia and from the observation of a president he much admired, Ronald Reagan, who once said to a group of student leaders:

“My young friends, history is a river that may take us as it will. But we have the power to navigate, to choose direction, and make our passage together.”

Monday, June 22, 2009

Fundamentalism

By Greg Peters
Scriptorium Daily


“Fundamentalism” is a bad word in most circles and, perhaps, rightly so. No one minds being called “orthodox” or even “conservative” but being called a “fundamentalist” is like having the neighborhood bully call you names while you walk home from school. It’s derogatory and, most often, demeaning. Of course, some own up to the title (think Independent Fundamental Churches of America) but most of us shy away from it. What I find interesting, however, is how frequently churches tend towards a kind of functional fundamentalism even when their espoused church structure and/or theology is antagonistic towards fundamentalism (which I’ll define as a strict adherence to a narrowly defined set of secondary or tertiary beliefs and adiaphora).

For example, Anglican churches have an episcopal form of church government. That is, each local church has a vestry which makes the day-to-day decisions but it’s the local bishop who is the spiritual head of the congregation. According to some theologians (and I tend to agree), the bishop is actually the pastor of each local church with the oversight of the parish committed to the bishop’s co-pastor, the local priest. The bishop pastors the priest, who in turn pastors the people. It’s been this way since the formation of the Anglican church. So, to act like it is other than this appears, well, abnormal and less than Anglican. For an Anglican priest or parish to suggest that he/they reject their bishop’s authority is incoherent and certainly against the letter and the spirit of Anglican theology. To reject a bishop’s teaching is to presume that the parish (and the priest) is over the bishop, that is, that the bishop is not the rightful pastor of the congregations committed to his oversight. Now, please understand, heretical bishops are to be rejected outright. Why? Because a heretical bishop is not a bishop, he’s just a man in a purple shirt. Heretical bishops (and unorthodox parish pastors for that matter) are to be rejected because of their very heresy which removes them from the office to which they’ve been appointed. However, to say that a heretical bishop is still a bishop and then to say “I reject his teaching,” is tending towards fundamentalism.

My experience with fundamentalist churches is that they are the beginning and end of themselves. It’s not that they reject the Scriptures or Jesus Christ, its that they reject anyone else’s interpretation of the Scriptures or anyone else’s “version” of Jesus. The fundamentalist motto is: Our way or the highway! In fact, I once heard a fundamentalist pastor say, “I don’t know all the truth. But the truth I know is the truth.” Isn’t that the same as saying, “I know everything and I’m always right”? This kind of thinking, of course, is arrogant, insidious and divisive. Please hear me, I’m not suggesting that truth is relative. I’m simply affirming that truth, which can be known, is not the preserve of any one person, local church or Christian tradition. God himself is the Truth – end of story. The rest of us, this side of Paradise at least, continue to hobble along looking for a fuller clarity of the Scriptures and God’s providence in the world. All of us, that is, except for the fundamentalist. He’s always in possession of the truth and he’s most often willing to let you know so.

Now, for those churches that are avowed fundamentalists (and, often, unapologetically so) – so be it. They know what they are and they live into that reality. However, what perplexes me is when a non-fundamentalist church begins acting like one. Such as the Anglican parish who begins to view itself as less Anglican and more fundamentalist and then begins to act accordingly. A local church that says, “We know what is best in all circumstances and we accept what we judge to be good theology and reject what we perceive to be bad theology at our own discretion,” is tending towards, if not already espousing, a fundamentalist perspective of the church of Jesus Christ. It’s the same as saying, “What we do is what the church has always done. We’re right and you’re wrong.” They too are guilty of the I-know-everything-and-I’m-always-right mentality. These churches seem to always crouch their criticisms of others in less than precise language, such as: “The church has always believed that…,” or “The catholic faith teaches that….” Despite the fact that hundreds of brilliantly-minded theologians have given and continue to give their lives to the task of discerning and describing sound, orthodox theology yet still disagree with one another is swept aside with a mere wave of the hand. That John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas saw things differently about many areas of theology seems irrelevant to the fundamentalist who appears to possess the fullness of the faith at any given moment. Fundamentalists have an uncanny ability to trivialize 2,000 years of church history and theologizing. Such behavior should certainly give us reason to pause.

Finally, fundamentalism is, I believe, the equivalent of a name brand. That is, Nike will always have their “swoosh” and BMW will always have their silver airplane propeller against a blue sky. It’s what identifies these brands from a distance. Every version of fundamentalism is a name brand. The fundamentalist says, “This church, in this place believes X, Y and Z. We have a robust ministry to families, are characterized by our adherence to the true faith of the apostles, are diverse while orthodox, are steadfast amidst the winds of change and will remain this way until Christ comes again. We’re a brand and you can recognize our brand by these traits. And, by the way, we’re the best brand and you should never change brands.”

My experience with fundamentalists is quite negative. I think fundamentalists, ultimately, are divisive and harmful to the larger project of spreading God’s kingdom on the earth. Fundamentalists often lack the charity to recognize true believers who are led to worship and be active in those “other” churches. Because fundamentalists often view their own local church as the true church of Jesus Christ, they are isolationists and create a spirit of disunity. Again, truth is important. The church that Jesus Christ’s established on this earth will always be characterized by its possession of the Truth and orthodoxy, even if her pastors and theologians don’t have it all figured out. That church, however, is not synonymous with any one local church; therefore, fundamentalism stands against the very spirit of God’s “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.”

Friday, June 19, 2009

Discerning Idolatry in Desire

By John Piper
Desiring God

12 Ways to Recognize the Rise of Covetousness

Most of us realize that enjoying anything other than God, from the best gift to the basest pleasure, can become idolatry. Paul says in Colossians 3:5, “Covetousness is idolatry.”

“Covetousness” means desiring something other than God in the wrong way. But what does that mean—“in the wrong way”?

The reason this matters is both vertical and horizontal. Idolatry will destroy our relationship with God. And it will destroy our relationships with people.

All human relational problems—from marriage and family to friendship to neighbors to classmates to colleagues—all of them are rooted in various forms of idolatry, that is, wanting things other than God in wrong ways.

So here is my effort to think biblically about what those wrong ways are. What makes an enjoyment idolatrous? What turns a desire into covetousness, which is idolatry?

  1. Enjoyment is becoming idolatrous when it is forbidden by God. For example, adultery and fornication and stealing and lying are forbidden by God. Some people at some times feel that these are pleasurable, or else we would not do them. No one sins out of duty. But such pleasure is a sign of idolatry.
  2. Enjoyment is becoming idolatrous when it is disproportionate to the worth of what is desired. Great desire for non-great things is a sign that we are beginning to make those things idols.
  3. Enjoyment is becoming idolatrous when it is not permeated with gratitude. When our enjoyment of something tends to make us not think of God, it is moving toward idolatry. But if the enjoyment gives rise to the feeling of gratefulness to God, we are being protected from idolatry. The grateful feeling that we don’t deserve this gift or this enjoyment, but have it freely from God’s grace, is evidence that idolatry is being checked.
  4. Enjoyment is becoming idolatrous when it does not see in God’s gift that God himself is more to be desired than the gift. If the gift is not awakening a sense that God, the Giver, is better than the gift, it is becoming an idol.
  5. Enjoyment is becoming idolatrous when it is starting to feel like a right, and our delight is becoming a demand. It may be that the delight is right. It may be that another person ought to give you this delight. It may be right to tell them this. But when all this rises to the level of angry demands, idolatry is rising.
  6. Enjoyment is becoming idolatrous when it draws us away from our duties. When we find ourselves spending time pursuing an enjoyment, knowing that other things, or people, should be getting our attention, we are moving into idolatry.
  7. Enjoyment is becoming idolatrous when it awakens a sense of pride that we can experience this delight while others can’t. This is especially true of delights in religious things, like prayer and Bible reading and ministry. It is wonderful to enjoy holy things. It idolatrous to feel proud that we can.
  8. Enjoyment is becoming idolatrous when it is oblivious or callous to the needs and desires of others. Holy enjoyment is aware of others’ needs and may temporarily leave a good pleasure to help another person have it. One might leave private prayer to be the answer to someone else’s.
  9. Enjoyment is becoming idolatrous when it does not desire that Christ be magnified as supremely desirable through the enjoyment. Enjoying anything but Christ (like his good gifts) runs the inevitable risk of magnifying the gift over the Giver. One evidence that idolatry is not happening is the earnest desire that this not happen.
  10. Enjoyment is becoming idolatrous when it is not working a deeper capacity for holy delight. We are sinners still. It is idolatrous to be content with sin. So we desire transformation. Some enjoyments shrink our capacities of holy joy. Others enlarge them. Some go either way, depending on how we think about them. When we don’t care if an enjoyment is making us more holy, we are moving into idolatry.
  11. Enjoyment is becoming idolatrous when its loss ruins our trust in the goodness of God. There can be sorrow at loss without being idolatrous. But when the sorrow threatens our confidence in God, it signals that the thing lost was becoming an idol.
  12. Enjoyment is becoming idolatrous when its loss paralyzes us emotionally so that we can’t relate lovingly to other people. This is the horizontal effect of losing confidence in God. Again: Great sorrow is no sure sign of idolatry. Jesus had great sorrow. But when desire is denied, and the effect is the emotional inability to do what God calls us to do, the warning signs of idolatry are flashing.

For myself and for you, I pray the admonition of 1 John 5:21, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols.”

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Ask Dr. Torrey

By R. A. Torrey
Scriptorium Daily

“Are we in the time of which our Lord speaks when He says, ‘When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh?” (Luke 21:28).

There are many things that would seem to indicate that we are. Certainly men’s hearts are “fainting for fear and for expectation of the things which are coming on the world” (v.26). Certainly, there is upon the earth “distress of nations with perplexity” (v. 25). But it is never safe to conclude that because in some ways our times closely resemble the picture of the last times as given in the Scriptures (see, for example, 2 Tim. 3:1-5) that therefore our Lord will immediately come.

Time and time again in the history of the world since the ascension of our Lord, many things have seemed to indicate the very near approach of our Lord. Martin Luther, for example, in his day saw many things that were then occurring on the earth what appeared to him to be indications that the coming of the Lord was very near. So have man other mighty men of God thought throughout the centuries. And they were not mistaken; the ones who were mistaken were those that thought that the coming of our Lord was so far away that they let it have no practical effect upon their lives.

There is reason to hope that the coming of our Lord is very near, but we are not warranted on that account in saying that He will come within a certain specified time, nor even in teaching positively that He will come during our lifetime. The entire matter of setting dates is strictly forbidden in the Word of God (see, for example, Acts. 1:7). In the light of what our Lord says in Acts 1:7 anyone who tries to set times or seasons is going directly counter to the revealed will of God. There is reason to hope that our Lord will soon come and certainly every intelligent Christian heart must cry, “Even so, Come, Lord Jesus” (Rev. 22:20). But there is no ground for prophesying that He will come at once or even that He will come in the lifetime of the present generation.

“How may we know that the soul of the unregenerate is immortal (in the sense of never ending, conscious existence) in view of 1 Timothy 6:16 and the fact that eternal life is promised only to believers in Jesus Christ?”

The soul of the unregenerate is not naturally immortal, but all men get resurrection and endless existence in Christ. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:22, “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,” which clearly means, when taken in its context, that as all descendants of Adam lost life in Adam, so in Christ shall all the same persons be made alive, i.e. they shall all be raised (as the context shows).

Whether this resurrection is a resurrection unto “eternal life” or whether it is a resurrection unto everlasting shame and contempt (see Dan. 12:2); or to put it in another way, whether it is a “resurrection of life” or a “resurrection of judgment” (see John 5:29) depends altogether upon what those who are raised have done with the Christ in whom they get resurrection. We must furthermore remember that “eternal life” does not mean merely endless existence; it has to do with the quality of existence as much as with its duration (see John 17:3). Existence is not life (in this sense). We are told in 1 Timothy 5:6 that “She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.” She exists bust she has not life. All persons, good and bad, believers and infidels, get endless existence in Christ, only believers get “eternal life” in Christ.

“Was Cornelius a saved man before Peter was sent to him? In other words, would he have been lost if Peter had not gone to him?”

Cornelius was not a saved man before Peter went to him. He was distinctly told when he was directed to send for Peter that Peter would speak to him words “whereby thou and thy house shall be saved” (Acts 11:13, 14). Cornelius was a sincere seeker after truth and as such was “acceptable to God” as one to whom the way of life should be revealed.

It is utterly futile to ask what would have become of him if Peter had not gone to him; for Peter did go to him. Cornelius was seeking light; he went to God for light, his prayer was heard (Acts 10:4), as the prayer of every sincere seeker will be heard, and God sent Peter to him and he was saved, and so God will send some messenger to declare the Gospel to every one who is in Cornelius’ position. The trouble with men out of Christ is that they are not seeking the light. Indeed, as a rule they are doing their best to avoid the light.

Originally from The King’s Business “Questions and Answers” by R.A. Torrey, July 1914, pp. 402, 418

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Finding Free Money

By Don Steinmann
Don Steinmann's Investment Tip of the Week

There is a lot of money out there the has been turned over to state or federal government that might have your name on it. If a bank account was closed, a relative died who has some government bonds, a rebate check couldn't be delivered, it's turned over to state or federal agencies and held waiting for the owner to show up. Fortunately it's free and easy to find out if you have some money coming.

To check for EE US government bonds that are being held by the Treasury, visit www.treasuryhunt.gov. This includes bonds held by deceased relatives and bonds that have matured and are no longer paying interest.

To look across many states for property held by many state governments at one time, go to www.missingmoney.com. and select the 'all states' option.

But the best place to search is www.unclaimed.org. Click on the map for your state, and follow the directions on how to search for your missing money.

I just found some cash my sister and her son were owed by doing a quick search. Look for all your friends and relatives even if there is nothing for you. You might get a nice dinner out of it if you call them and tell them the government owes them money!

Q&A: Soul and Spirit, The Mark of Cain, This Generation

By R. A. Torrey
Scriptorium Daily

Please explain the difference between soul and spirit.

The Bible clearly teaches that man possesses not a two-fold nature as it is ordinarily put but a three-fold nature, not merely soul and body but Spirit, Soul and Body (1 Thess. 5:23), though in some instances what is true of the spirit seems to be spoken of the soul.

The soul is the result of the union of the spirit and the body. We are taught in Genesis 2:7 that God formed man of the dust of the ground, thus his body was produced, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, that is the spirit, and man thus became a living soul.

There are those that maintain that only regenerate men have a spirit, but this position will not stand careful investigation. At the death of the believer the body crumbles into dust, the spirit, the real and essential man departs to be with Christ in conscious blessedness, “absent from the body, at home with the Lord” (Phil. 1:23; 2 Cor. 5:1-8). What becomes of the soul during the period in which the spirit is absent from the body and before their reunion when the body of the believer is raised at the resurrection, we do not seem to be told.

It is difficult to distinguish in every instance between the soul and spirit. They are well nigh indivisible and inseparable, This is brought our very strongly in Hebrews 5:12, R.V. “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joint and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

What was the mark that God set upon Cain?

We are not definitely told further than that it was a mark for Cain’s protection; the passage reads,

“And Cain said unto Jehovah, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou has driven me out this day from the face of the ground; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth; it shall come to pass that whosoever findeth me shall slay me. And Jehovah said unto him, “Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him seven-fold, and Jehovah appointed a sign for Cain lest any finding him should smite him.”

The mark was not a penalty but a protection. In it the grace of God and not the judgment of God was manifested. Of course, in ordinary, every-day speech the mark of Cain is spoken of as if it were a sign of scorn and judgment. This entirely perverts the Scripture teaching.

What is meant by “this generation” in Mark 13:30?

The generation living when these signs mentioned in the context begin. Our Lord is comparing the final culmination of things to the fig tree which when it becomes tender puts forth leaves showing that summer is near at hand. So when the things mentioned in the context begin to come to pass the consummation will be close at hand and the generation then living shall not come to an end until all these things be accomplished.

There is another interpretation that “generation” means race (as the Greek word often does) and that what Jesus taught was that the Jewish race should not pass away until all these things be accomplished. The Jewish race has been wonderfully preserved and there may be this added meaning in the passage, but the interpretation given above is the one that gives the most natural force to the words used and is in strictest accord with the context. It is the view held by Frederick Grant and other eminent commentators who have specialized on the subject of our Lord’s return.

Originally from The King’s Business “Questions and Answers” by R.A. Torrey, June 1914, pp. 353

Friday, June 05, 2009

The Challenge of Moral Machines

By Wendell Wallach
Philosophy Now

If a train continues on its current course, it will kill a workcrew of five down the track. However, a signalman is standing by a switch that can redirect the train to another branch. Unfortunately, a lone worker will be killed if the train is switched to the new track. If you were the signalman, what would you do? What should a computer or robot capable of switching the train to a different branch do?

You are hiding with friends and neighbors in the cellar of a house, while outside enemy solders search. If they find you, it is certain death for everyone. The baby you are holding in your lap begins to cry and won’t be comforted. What do you do? If the baby were under the care of a robot nurse, what would you want the robot to do?

Philosophers are fond of thought experiments that highlight different aspects of moral decision-making. Responses to a series of different dilemmas, each of which poses saving several lives by deliberately taking an action that will sacrifice one innocent life, illustrate clearly that most people’s moral intuitions do not conform to simple utilitarian calculations. In other words, for many situations, respondents do not perceive that the action that will create the greatest good for the greatest number is the right thing to do. Most people elect to switch the train from one track to another in order to save five lives, even when this will sacrifice one innocent person. However, in a different version of this dilemma there is no switch. Instead, you are standing on a bridge beside a large man. You can save five lives down the track by pushing the man to his certain death off the bridge into the path of the onrushing train. With this variant, only a small percentage of people say they would push the man off the bridge.

Introducing a robot into these scenarios raises some intriguing and perhaps disturbing possibilities. For example, suppose that you built a robot who’s standing next to the large man. What actions would you want the robot to consider? Would you have programmed the robot to push the large man off the bridge, even if you would not take this action yourself? Of course, the robot might come up with a different response to achieve a similar end – for example, by jumping off the bridge into the train’s path: a rather unappetizing solution for us humans.

Given that ‘driverless’ trains are already common at airports and in the metro systems of London, Paris, and Copenhagen, it’s not unlikely that a computer system will some day face a challenge similar to the example at the top of this article. While the prospect of a robot nurse’s actions affecting the lives of many is less likely, the development of service robots to help care for the elderly and homebound, and eventually for children, places such scenarios also within the realm of possibility. Of course, computer systems can be responsible for harming people too. Present-day harm to a number of people is most likely to arise from computer systems that control power grids, financial networks, or lethal weapons systems.

(Ro)bots is a term my colleague Colin Allen and I coined to represent both physical robots and virtual agents (bots) roaming within computer networks. The new field of machine morality or machine ethics focuses on the practical challenge of building (ro)bots which explicitly engage in making moral decisions. The values programmed into (ro)bots are largely those of the engineers and designers who build the system, or those of the companies for which they work. For simple applications, the designers and engineers can anticipate all the situations the system will encounter, and can program in appropriate responses. However, some method to explicitly evaluate courses of action will need to be programmed into any (ro)bot likely to encounter circumstances the designers could not anticipate. Machine morality is concerned with the values, principles and mechanisms that support these evaluations. It is not necessary that (ro)bots simulate human moral decision-making. However, the ability to be sensitive to the ethical considerations informing the choices humans make will certainly be front and center as criteria for evaluating the actions of ‘Artificial Moral Agents’ (AMAs).

Ensuring that autonomous (ro)bots are safe has made building moral decision-making faculties into systems a practical necessary. Either that, or we must stop autonomous (ro)bots being developed to encompass an ever-broader array of activities, including weapons systems and service robots.

To date, machine morality has largely been a series of philosophical reflections peppered with a few experiments implementing aspects of moral decision-making within computer systems. But the field touches upon a broad array of philosophical issues and controversies. These include questions regarding:

• The function of ‘top-down’ theories of ethics. Do rule-based ethical theories such as utilitarianism, Kant’s categorical imperative or even Asimov’s laws for robots, provide practical procedures (algorithms) for evaluating whether an action is right?

• (Ro)botic moral development and moral psychology. How might an artificial agent develop knowledge of right and wrong, moral character, and the propensity to act appropriately when confronting new challenges?

• The role of emotions. Will (ro)bots need simulated emotions in order to function as adequate moral agents? How? For what purpose? When? Perhaps more obviously philosophical, how can one reconcile the negative impact of emotions on moral decisions (as emphasized by the Greek and Roman Stoic philosophers) with the motivating power of moral sentiments (David Hume) and the apparent need for emotional intelligence?

• The role of consciousness. Can machines be conscious or have (real) understanding? Would an experience-filled consciousness be necessary for a machine to be a moral agent?

• Criteria for ascribing moral agency. What faculties does an agent require in order to hold it morally responsible or legally liable for its actions? Should society grant rights to those agents it deems responsible for their actions?

Machine ethics approaches these and other questions with a consideration of the practical challenges entailed in building and evaluating AMAs that function within specific contexts. Such practical necessity forces at least some discipline upon philosophical thought experiments. As Daniel Dennett noted in a 1995 paper:

“These roboticists are doing philosophy, but that’s not what they think they’re doing… In philosophers’ thought experiments, the sun always shines, the batteries never go dead, and the actors and props always do exactly what the philosophers’ theories expect them to do. There are no surprises for the creators of the thought experiments, only for their audience or targets. As Ronald de Sousa has memorably said, much of philosophy is ‘intellectual tennis without a net’. Your [roboticists’] thought experiments have nets, but they are of variable height. ‘Proof of concept’ is usually all you strive for.” [from ‘Cog as a Thought Experiment’]

In building AMAs, a dialectic emerges between the theories of philosophers and the experimental testing of these theories within computational systems. Computers are beginning to serve as testbeds for the viability or practicality of various theories about decision-making and ethics.

A Comprehensive Approach to Ethics

Overall, machine ethics is itself a grand thought experiment; an enquiry into whether moral decision-making is computationally tractable. And building moral machines forces both philosophers and engineers to approach ethics in an unusually comprehensive manner.

Philosophers commonly approach moral decision-making as an activity based in the mind’s capacity to reason. Applying rules and duties or considering the consequences of a course of action, is essential for determining which actions are acceptable and which are not. However, for most moral challenges that humans respond to in daily life, the capacity to reason is dependent on a vast reservoir of knowledge and experience. Emotions, conscience, an understanding of what it means to be an actor in a social world and an appreciation of the beliefs, desires and intentions of others, contribute to working rationally through challenges, especially where values conflict. Furthermore, unconscious processes often drive responses to many challenges.

When considering human moral behavior, we tend to take for granted the underlying thought mechanisms that support the ability to reason morally or exercise a virtue such as courage or honesty. However, computer scientists understand that building systems to perform even simple tasks requires the painstaking implementation of the underlying mechanisms that support complex functions. Part of the engineer’s art lies in recognizing what subsystems are necessary and what architecture will support the integration of these subsystems. The control architecture of a (ro)bot ensures that its actions fall within safe parameters. This control architecture must increasingly cover cases where sensitivity to moral considerations is essential. And (ro)boticists have learnt through experience that overlooking even one small consideration can be the difference between whether a project is successful, fails to perform adequately, does not function at all, or functions destructively.

Machine ethics is a multi-disciplinary field that requires input from computer scientists, philosophers, social planners, legal theorists and others. The different contributors to the design of an Artificial Moral Agent are likely to focus on very different aspects of moral decision-making. A moral philosopher would stress the importance of analyzing the computational requirements for implementing a theory of ethics, such as Kantianism, within the (ro)bot. An evolutionary psychologist would underscore the way in which evolution has forged innate propensities to act in a social manner, perhaps even forged an innate moral grammar [see last issue]. A developmental psychologist might seek a method for educating the (ro)bot to be sensitive to moral considerations by building on one stage of learning after another. A mother, on the other hand, might emphasize the importance of the machine being empathetic and caring. Gaining access to and interpreting cases that illuminate the application of law to differing circumstances would be important from the perspective of a lawyer or judge. It would also be desirable for the system to have a way to evaluate its actions and learn from past mistakes.

In particular, a roboticist would want to know how the system can acquire the information it needs to make good decisions. What sensors and memory systems will the (ro)bot need? How will it integrate all its information in order to forge an adequate representation of each situation? Which responses to features in the environment can be built into the system, and how will it recognize challenges it will need to deliberate upon?

The engineers building the (ro)bot will design different modules or subsystems to handle each of these tasks. However, combining these into a working system whose behavior is safe and honors human values requires a more thorough understanding of the mental mechanics of ethical decision-making than presently exists.

People are rather imperfect in their ability to act morally. But even if moral (ro)bots will need some form of emotional intelligence, they need not be subject to the desires, prejudices or fears that get in the way of people honoring their better angels. This raises the possibility that artificial entities might be more moral than people. Furthermore, (ro)bots may be less bounded than humans in the number of options they can consider in response to a moral challenge. They might select a better course of action than their human counterpart could conceive. However, it’s also possible that human moral decision-making is facilitated by something essential that can not be simulated in (ro)bots. Some theorists argue that (ro)bots are not the kind of entities that can be true moral decision-makers because they lack consciousness, free-will, moral sentiments, or a conscience. However, even if this is correct, it does not obviate the practical necessity of implementing some aspects of moral decision-making in robots in order to ensure that their choices and actions do not harm humans or other entities worthy of moral consideration.

Top-Down, Bottom-Up, and Supra-Rational

Three broad categories are helpful for teasing out various dimensions of moral decision-making important for machine ethics. These are:

Top-down approaches. ‘Top-down’ refers the use of rules, standards or theories to guide the design of a system’s control architecture (eg the Ten Commandments, the utilitarian maxim, or even Isaac Asimov’s ‘Three Laws of Robotics’). But what, for example, would be the computational requirements for a computer to follow Asimov’s laws?

Bottom-up approaches. Rules are not explicitly defined in bottom-up approaches – rather, the system learns about them through experience. In a bottom-up approach, the (ro)bot explores various courses of action, is rewarded for morally praiseworthy behavior, and learns. The theory of evolution inspires some of the bottom-up techniques adopted by computer scientists. With the advent of more sophisticated learning algorithms, theories of moral development, such as those of Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan, will inspire other bottom-up approaches to building Advanced Moral Agents.

Supra-rational faculties. ‘Supra-rational’ refers to mental faculties beyond the ability to reason. Agents require faculties in addition to the capacity to reason in order to act morally in many situations. Emotions, consciousness, social acumen, and embodiment in an environment are among the supra-rational faculties essential for much moral decision-making.

In his robot stories, sci fi writer Isaac Asimov proclaimed three Laws that he said should guide the behavior of robots (don’t allow humans to be harmed, obey humans, and self-preservation). Asimov’s Laws are what many people think of first when they think about rules for robots. However, in story after story Asimov demonstrated that even these three rather intuitive principles arranged hierarchically can lead to countless problems. For example, what should the robot do when it receives conflicting orders from different humans? Asimov’s stories illustrate the limits of any rule-based morality.

While the history of moral philosophy can be read as a long debate about the limitations inherent in the various ethical theories proposed, top-down theories are nevertheless an obvious starting place for discussing the prospects of building AMAs. The Golden Rule, utilitarianism, and Kant’s categorical imperative are among the attempts to make all ethical rules subservient to a single over-riding principle. However, theorists are discovering that implementing such principles in a computer system is by no means a straightforward exercise. Even the utilitarian proposal that one calculate the net benefit of different courses of action to determine which maximizes the greatest good for the greatest number is far from trivial. To perform such a calculation the computer would require extensive knowledge about the world, about human psychology, and about the effects of actions in the world. The computational load on the system would be tremendous. One cannot reduce ethics to a simple algorithm.

Bottom-up approaches also have their limitations. Artificial life experiments, genetic algorithms and robotic assembly techniques inspired by evolution are far from producing the complex and sophisticated faculties needed for higher-order cognitive processes such as moral decision-making. The learning algorithms computer scientists have developed to date are far from facilitating even the kind of learning we see in very young children. However, the future promise of taking an artificial agent through a process of moral development similar to the way children learn about right and wrong, is alive, even if the technologies required to do so are not yet available.

David Hume famously warned against deriving an ought from an is. Some moral philosophers take this to mean that one cannot determine what is right and good from moral psychology, from the way people actually make decisions. These philosophers struggle to keep at bay the game theorists and evolutionary psychologists who propose that evolution has built inherent biases into the structure of the mind determining much of what people believe to be right and good. Such philosophers are correct in their desire to separate reasoning about what we ought to do from the study of the psychological mechanisms that influence decisions. However, their excessive stress on the importance of moral reasoning has contributed to a fragmented understanding of moral decision-making.

The reasoning skills of (ro)bots will need to be supported by an array of other cognitive mechanisms that will serve as sources of essential information and will help frame the essential features of any challenge. Engineers have already come to recognize that emotional intelligence, sociability and having a dynamic relationship with the environment are necessary for (ro)bots to function competently in social contexts. For example, a (ro)bot will need to read facial expressions and other non-verbal cues in order to understand the intentions and beliefs of people with whom it is interacting. This understanding necessitates the (ro)bot having functional skills that are often associated with being aware (as opposed to being merely computational, merely running a program). The (ro)bot will also need a theory of mind – ie, need to appreciate that others have minds which differ from its own and so will have beliefs, desires, and intentions that differ from those of the (ro)bot.

How far will engineers progress in building distinctly human attributes into their (ro)bots? The rich engineering projects already begun in fields like affective (‘emotional’) computing, social robotics and machine consciousness surprises many people who view computers and robots as mere machines. However, emotions, social skills and (self-)awareness are unlikely by themselves to be sufficient to build AMAs (even if engineers can build sub-systems into (ro)bots that create supra-rational faculties). Top-down approaches, bottom-up approaches and supra-rational faculties will need to be combined. The challenge for philosophers and engineers is to determine the necessary cognitive faculties, the computational requirements necessary to support those faculties, and the available techniques for building those faculties in a (ro)bot.

The Future of Machine Morality

Eventually we may have artificial systems with intelligence comparable to humans’ – a subject which engenders a great deal of interest, and some anxiety. Might such systems be deemed moral agents with both rights and responsibilities? Would it make sense to punish an artificial agent when it performs an immoral or illegal act? Can society ensure that advanced forms of Artificial Intelligence (AI) will be friendly to humans? If not, should we ban research into AI? The prospect that future intelligent (ro)bots might want to override restraints suggests that moral propensities should be integral to the foundations of complex computer systems, and not treated as add-ons or secondary features.

Reflections on the possibilities can serve as fascinating and illuminating thought experiments. For example, philosophers and legal theorists find that considering the criteria for eventu ally granting (ro)bots rights and responsibilities contributes to a better understanding of when any agent should be held culpable.

Given the relatively primitive state of AI research, machine morality tends to be highly speculative. Yet themes that border on science fiction often mask more immediate considerations. For example, fears that superior (ro)bots will one day threaten humanity underscore a societal fear that science is untrustworthy and technology a juggernaut already out of control.

For the immediate future, machine morality research will be grounded in the challenges posed by presently available or imminent technologies. It will thrive as a continuing enquiry into the prospect for computerizing moral decision-making, spurred on by both practical and philosophical challenges. As (ro)bots with explicit moral decision-making faculties are developed, new markets for ingenious products will open up. However, some of the most significant research into machine morality will be philosophical in nature, and comprehensive reflection on teaching (ro)bots right from wrong will focus attention on many aspects of moral decision-making that have often been taken for granted. The building of moral machines provides a platform for the experimental investigation of decision-making and ethics. The similarities and differences between the way humans make decisions and what approaches work in (ro)bots will tell us much about how we humans do and do not function, and much about what, and who, we are.

Great Books and Undergraduate Education

By Michael M. Jordan
The Christendom Review

Generally speaking, we can say there are two major philosophies of education: an older model which addresses moral and spiritual concerns of the mind and heart of man, and a newer one which trains us to manipulate and control the material word for the good of the body. The older model requires the acquisition of intellectual skills (critical reading, thinking, and writing skills) as a means to reach its moral and spiritual end. The modern model requires the same skills to improve man’s physical estate. It generally applies these skills in service to professional and vocational interests in business and industry, in science, technology, and medicine. Both models intend to improve man’s estate. Both are worthy and important. However, material well being is not the chief or highest end of man. Therefore, the older model, designed to make us better human beings, should not be abandoned or replaced by the newer one. Indeed, the first must be pursued to properly orient and order the second.

The Means and Ends of Education

In the opening of the first chapter of the Book of Proverbs, Solomon urges the young to acquire intellectual skills so that they can “understand a proverb and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles.” With critical reading and thinking skills, they will be able to “know wisdom and instruction, understand words of insight, receive instruction in wise dealing, righteousness, justice and equity (Proverbs 1:2-6). It seems to me that Solomon correctly identifies the means and the aims of higher education: an intellectual means to an ethical end. By grappling with the grammar, logic, diction, and rhetoric of texts, students develop intellectual skills that enable them to reach the aims of higher learning: the acquisition of wisdom and virtue, and the capability to seriously pursue knowledge and truth. These foundational means (acquiring critical intellectual skills) and ends (discerning spiritual, ethical, and epistemological realities) are readily met in reading and studying Great Books.

By Great Books I mean those works of literature generally recognized as having formed the Western world’s understanding of man’s nature and destiny. They are found in a variety of genres (sermon, dialogue, drama, epic, lyric, autobiography, essay, short story and novel) and disciplines (biblical studies, theology, philosophy, ethics, history, and literature). Though I have mentioned specific academic disciplines, I should emphasize that Great Books are trans-disciplinary: they help us to see the relationships between the disciplines—they help us to reflect upon the whole. Additionally, they have a universality about them that makes them trans-cultural and trans-temporal: though they are Western texts written at specific moments in time, they are not “foreign” texts to readers from other cultures. The following list of books is illustrative, not prescriptive or exhaustive: from classical and Christian antiquity, the literature of the Bible, Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, Sophocles’ Oedipus the King and Antigone, Plutarch’s Lives, Virgil’s Aeneid, Plato’s Apology and The Republic, Aristotle’s Nichomachaen Ethics, Augustine’s Confessions; from the Middle Ages, Beowulf, Dante’s Divine Comedy, Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, the morality play Everyman; and from the Renaissance and beyond, works by Petrarch, Erasmus, Shakespeare, Machiavelli on down to Joseph Conrad, T. S. Eliot, William Faulkner, Flannery O’Connor, and the recently deceased Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Religion, politics, morality, cultural identity—our experience of these things has been shaped by the Great Books.

In order to get at the meat of these books (the wisdom and truth they contain), one needs skills, the ability to read and write--to carefully understand and skillfully use words and sentences. Dorothy Sayers tells us that the medieval trivium (grammar, logic, rhetoric) supplied the medieval student with the tools of learning. However the student obtains these skills--in home school, in grammar, junior high, and high school, in college; in language and literature classes; in workouts with the dictionary, the syllogism, and a grammar book—he will need them to understand the Great Books and to give an intelligent account of what he has read. And we must emphasize that carefully studying the Great Books is the best way to exercise and develop intellectual skill. With any text one can attend to the nuances of words, the logic of sentences, the relation of the parts to the whole. One can analyze and synthesize the ideas in a newspaper article or editorial. But one finds greater sophistication and complexity, deeper mysteries and more refined beauties in the Great Books. Reading them, the student can more readily understand the literary conventions of metaphor, parable, allegory, and riddle (Solomon again). He can comprehend the prophetic utterances of God’s prophets (“I spoke to the prophets; it was I who multiplied visions, and through the prophets gave parables”—Hosea 10:1). He will have the ears to hear the parabolic teaching of Jesus, and the ability, as Paul urged Timothy, to “rightly [handle] the word of truth” (II Timothy 2:15).

Whether one seeks the truth in sacred or secular writings, he must have literary training; he must have skill. Marion Montgomery puts it this way in Liberal Arts and Community: “The truth of things, which must be our concern always, is revealed through words rightly used and rightly taken. That revelation is the art of all liberal arts.” If one aspires to get at the truth of any academic discipline, he had better have critical reading and writing skills. I might add that the same is true of professional and technical disciplines: the student of law, medicine, divinity, computer science, business, or aeronautics will have to have some mastery of the use of language to succeed in his chosen field.

Classical and Christian Learning

Augustine can be our guide in this discussion of the means and ends of education. Let us look to his Confessions, one of the greatest of Great Books and the most famous autobiography of all time. In his boyhood Augustine was forced to study rhetoric so that he “might get on in the world and excel in the handling of words to gain honor among men and deceitful riches”—the unworthy utilitarian ends coveted by worldly men throughout the ages. Like many a schoolboy, he was reluctant to learn and occasionally inattentive in his studies. But as he advanced in his schooling, he grew to love reading, and he also began to excel in memorizing and declaiming passages from Virgil’s Aeneid and other classics. He tells us that the earlier study, acquiring skill with words, was better because more useful than the “empty studies” pertaining to the Trojan Horse, the wanderings of Aeneas, and Dido’s death. Later still, following the usual course of studies, he read Cicero’s Hortensius, “an exhortation to philosophy” and defense of intellectual cultivation that changed the course of his life.

This encounter with a Great Book gave Augustine a “new purpose and ambition.” As he confesses to God, “Suddenly all the vanity I had hoped in I saw as worthless, and with an incredible intensity of desire I longed after immortal wisdom. I had begun that journey upwards by which I was to return to You.” Another decisive turn in his life occurs when he takes up another Great Book, the Bible--in particular, he reads a specific verse from the book of Romans (Romans 13:13). Here he finds the Word of Life that enables him to turn from sin and convert to the Christian faith.

In the Confessions (completed around the year 400), we have Augustine’s early remarks about the means and ends of education. He defends the utility of acquiring skill with words, not because it brings honor and deceitful riches, but because it is a doorway to the truth of things. He scorns the “empty trifles” and errors of the poetic imagination, and he is moved, not by Cicero’s eloquence, but by his wisdom, for it opened the door to higher things. And it is his reading of scripture that brings him into the Christian fold.

But even in this early work, one clearly sees that Augustine has profited from his studies of Greek and Roman epics and Cicero’s eloquence. Immersed in the works of great writers and trained by imitating them, he memorably and masterfully used the scheme of antithesis, denouncing “the insatiable desire of man for wealth that is but penury and glory that is but shame,” and describing himself as “so small a boy and so great a sinner.” In describing his adolescent desires, he uses a cluster of cloudy, dark, hot, and restrictive images to paint a convincing picture of bewildering and enslaving lust. These images of lust are contrasted with the luminous and white light of love and friendship. Augustine presents a moving dramatic representation of the battle for his soul as he stands between his former mistresses and “the austere beauty of Continence.” Both the mistresses and Continence solicit him, but Continence does so honorably, and she is the fruitful mother of joys. On nearly every page of the Confessions, we see Augustine’s debt to his literary and rhetorical training. This training helped him to be eloquent and persuasive himself in his most famous work.

Later, in On Christian Doctrine (426-427), a more mature Augustine defends the study of rhetoric and the pagan classics. A chapter title tells why: “WHATEVER HAS BEEN RIGHTLY SAID BY THE HEATHERN, WE MUST APPROPRIATE TO OUR USES.” The study of rhetoric will enable the preacher to preach more effectually. Christians, Augustine says, should be like the Israelites in the Exodus, plundering the Egyptians, his term for accepting and using classical learning in a Christian curriculum. While he still decries the “false and superstitious fancies” of some pagan books, he emphasizes that “they also contain liberal instruction which is better adapted to the use of the truth, and some most excellent precepts of morality; and some truths in regard even to the worship of the One God are found among them.” Like Augustine, other Church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil the Great, and Jerome made classical learning (Great Books in rhetoric, philosophy, epic, and drama) a staple of higher learning in Christendom. Later “Church Fathers,” theologians and men of letters such as Aquinas, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, and Newman, did the same. (For an account of this Christian appropriate of pagan learning, see The Great Tradition: Classic Readings on What It Means to Be an Educated Human Being, edited by Richard M. Gamble).

G. K. Chesterton, J. R. R. Tolkien, and C. S. Lewis, among other Christians in our own time, have likewise “sanctified” pagan learning. They tell us that pagan myths, the fruit of the moral imagination, are not to be scorned, for these myths offer glimpses and shadows of universal and transcendent truths. The pagan poet no less than the Christian writer is made in the image of God: both use the God-given moral imagination to craft stories that reveal truths about man and God. C. S. Lewis offers this illustration: “The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history.” In other words, the pagan myths point to the true “myth”: the Incarnation—“God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (II Corinthians 5: 19).

Truth is truth, wherever it comes from: it may be glimpsed by the poet’s moral imagination, discerned by the philosopher’s reason and intuition, or revealed in scripture by God’s appointed prophets and evangelists. But to get at this truth, one must have intellectual skill. To effectively share this truth, as Augustine has done, one must have some mastery of grammar, logic, and rhetoric. And finally, the wisdom one gains in his encounter with the prophet, the poet, the dramatist, and the philosopher will instruct him in the proper use of his intellectual skills: not for the purpose of promoting vanity, pride, and avarice but to get at the truth of things.

The Place of the Bible in Education

The truth of things is most clearly revealed in the Bible, the greatest of Great Books. This book therefore deserves a central place in higher education, as it once did until education was secularized. From the Bible we learn the major outline of human history and destiny: Creation, Fall, man’s redemption through the Incarnation, Atonement, and Resurrection of Christ, and the Judgment to come. Scripture clearly and unequivocally presents physical, moral, and spiritual truths about God, man, and the universe. God is Creator, Lawgiver, Judge, and Redeemer. Men are body and soul, “intellectual souls incarnate,” to use Marion Montgomery’s term (thus the dualism of Platonism and the naturalistic anthropology of modern times both miss the mark). All men are fundamentally equal in that they are made in God’s image, yet fallen, prone to a host of vices and sins. When God made the world, he pronounced it good and placed man in it to exercise stewardship and dominion over nature (stewardship and dominion should always be linked together). Men invariably trespass, fail to honor the God who made them, fail to love one another. This calamity leads us to the most important truth in all the world: the Gospel message. God was in Christ lovingly reconciling sinful humanity to himself. Christ is the wisdom, truth, power, love, and justice of God. He is the way to knowledge and wisdom, to door to righteousness and salvation. And he is most fully revealed in the Bible.

In the Middle Ages educators recognized the importance of the word and Word of God. This is reflected in their belief and claim that theology is the Queen of the Sciences. Theology, a biblically based discipline, puts all other studies into perspective. Scripture certainly puts much of the Western world’s literature and culture into perspective. Consider European, English, and American literature. Think of some of the classic or great authors: Augustine, the author of Beowulf, Chaucer, Dante, Erasmus, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Milton, Donne, Herbert, Melville, Hawthorne, Twain, Faulkner, T. S. Eliot, O’Connor, and Robert Penn Warren (who once told aspiring writers, “All novelists, budding or otherwise, should read and mark their Shakespeare, also their Bible. These are the two greatest founts for writers”). These famous writers knew the Bible and filled their own writings with biblical quotations, allusions motifs, images, and symbols. We cannot understand these authors unless we have some understanding of what they assume and incorporate into their work. The Bible has influenced much more than Western literature: much of the art and music and many of the laws, principles, beliefs, customs, and institutions of people from the Middle East, Europe, England and America are derived from the Bible. Both our literary and our cultural heritage bear the Bible’s stamp. And it is a pedagogical crime, it is spiritual and cultural suicide to ignore the Bible in our studies.

Revolutionary Changes in the Focus and Philosophy of Education

For over two thousand years Great Books were the basis of education in the West. In antiquity Jewish youth studied Old Testament literature and commentaries on scripture; Greek students read Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, while Roman scholars studied Virgil’s Aeneid. At the beginning of the Christian era, classical and Christian books together formed the basis of education in Christendom. Through the Middle Ages and Renaissance, up until around the beginning of the twentieth century, the staple of higher education was great literature or the classics. The grammar school lad, the young scholar, and the collegian spent much of their time reading Great Books, memorizing and declaiming selected passages, and imitating in their own compositions passages noted for eloquence in style or potency in theme. These books gave them a way to see beauty and goodness, to come to terms with such concepts as love and liberty, and to understand historical, economic, and political events. They gave the student an intelligible picture of the world.

But revolutionary changes in the focus and philosophy of education have altered the curriculum. The elective system has vastly increased the number of specialized, usually pragmatic, instrumental, and utilitarian courses in the curriculum. The old core of the liberal arts college (humane studies in theology, ethics, literature, philosophy, and the fine arts—largely the study of Great Books in these disciplines) shrank as students elected to take specialized courses in specific disciplines, usually those that have practical ramifications in terms of career and cash. With the elective system (or the cafeteria-style curriculum), the student is not exposed to the best that has been thought, said, and made (to adapt Matthew Arnold’s phrase) but elects to take what interests him from a host of marketable degrees.

T. S. Eliot, writing in the 1930s, tells us of the consequences of the elective system. When students no longer study the same subjects and read the same books, they have no sense of “continuity and coherence in literature and the arts,” they have no shared “body of knowledge.” Consequently, “the idea of wisdom disappears, and you get sporadic and unrelated experimentation” (Christianity and Culture 32-33). William Butler Yeats describes a similar effect of the loss of cultural cohesion in “The Second Coming” (1919). As the old European order of Christendom disintegrates, “Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.” Eliot again, in lines from his Choruses for The Rock, describes the deracinated education and culture of modernity:

The endless cycle of idea and action,

Endless invention, endless experiment,

Brings knowledge of motion, but not of stillness;

Knowledge of words, and ignorance of the Word.

All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance,

And our ignorance brings us nearer to death,

But nearness to death no nearer to God.

Where is the Life we have lost in living?

Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?

Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?

This declension from wisdom to knowledge to information results when we ignore a common heritage that addresses crucial moral and spiritual matters. Some sort of center is required for information to rise to knowledge, and for knowledge to rise to wisdom. Great Books, especially the Bible, used to supply this center, this orientation: a moral compass, a sense of the common good, an understanding of what it means to be human.

The proliferation of college courses and degrees and the accompanying emphasis on research and innovation, on technology and business, are not the only changes that have diminished or removed the study of Great Books from the college curriculum. Increasingly, contemporary literature replaces the classics in literature courses, presumably because the modern is more relevant than the old. Furthermore, most college campuses have joined the revolutionaries in chanting “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Culture has to go,” thus substituting multicultural and politically correct studies for what had been a focus on the Western tradition. The result of these shifts in the focus and curriculum of education is to make us what Allen Tate calls provincials in time. Cut off from our classical-Christian heritage, we lose our “origins in the past and its continuity into the present, and begin every day as if there had been no yesterday.” Cut off from the past, familiar only with the present, we see in “material welfare and social justice the whole solution to the human problem,” and forget the role that “honor, truth, imagination, human dignity, and limited acquisitiveness” should play in any social order (Allen Tate, “The New Provincialism”).

Thus the purpose of higher education has been thwarted. The new model of education focuses on specialization, vocational training, certification, professionalism. This is what one would expect of a secular, utilitarian, and pragmatic education. Now I have maintained that higher education may legitimately address itself to the comfort, security, sustenance, and healing of the body, the improvement of man’s physical welfare. We should use knowledge and skill to improve the human condition. We have a biblical mandate to be good stewards, properly dressing and keeping the garden, exercising dominion over nature for man’s common good. Jesus himself in his ministry to man improved man’s physical well being by healing the sick, feeding the hungry.

But to properly apply this knowledge and skill (in business, law, economics, politics, medicine and every other discipline and vocation) requires wisdom and virtue. Otherwise the businessman and economist won’t be humane, attentive to the common good; the lawyer won’t be ethical but sophistical; the politician will be a mere functionary, demagogue, or ideologue, not a statesman; and the physician will violate human rights and dignity. Let me give one case in point. Our brave new world of reproductive and genetic technologies needs the moral and spiritual compass provided by Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” and Hawthorne’s “The Birthmark.” The economic projector in Swift’s fable regards one-year old children as consumer products, no different than cattle. The scientist Aylmer in Hawthorne’s fable is not content with the good that he has but wants perfection. In his attempt to achieve perfection, he destroys his wife Georgiana and hence his own happiness. With the intellectual skills acquired in reading great literature and the ethical discernment obtained therefrom, one can recognize the deceitful manipulation of language in the feminists’ and abortionists’ credo: Every woman has a basic right to reproductive freedom—the astonishing euphemism for a mother’s “right” to kill her unborn child.

Conclusion

The end of higher education is the acquisition of wisdom and virtue and the serious pursuit of knowledge and truth—this is the older model of education. Reading the Great Books helps us to get to this end. It is a good means to a good end. Informed by the wisdom, the beauty, the goodness, and the truth we encounter in Great Books, we can responsibly and humanely practice our vocation in life. Exposure to great literature forms our heart, mind, and soul. It enriches the moral imagination; it plants judgment, right reason, wisdom, and humility in the mind; and it opens the heart and soul to higher things, “the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith” (Matthew 23:23). The student needs insight, wisdom, and virtue to love and serve his fellow man. Let us not deny him the effectual means to this good end, an end that has bearing on his citizenship in both this world and the world to come.