I guess my life is pretty much downhill from here...

Michael Symon retweeted me over a month ago (January 7), and I didn't even notice.

Earned a Ph.D., sired six children... But today this boy from Cleveland COOKED WITH HAM HOCKS. I hope @chefsymon is proud of me.
— Matt Jordan (@emjayphd) January 7, 2013

A Question about Christian Theology

I've been thinking fairly seriously about the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism for some time now -- the topic has occupied rather a lot of my attention over the last two years. I've been meaning to post the following question for a while, and with today's big news being the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, this seems like as good a day as any. Here goes.

Every thoughtful Christian has to deal with theological questions at two distinct levels. There are first-order questions about theology per se; and second-order questions about the relative importance of particular theological issues, the way one ought to relate to those with whom one disagrees about theology, etc. The problem isn't as esoteric or abstract as that description may make it sound. As a Christian, I may ask questions about who Jesus really is, what "saving faith" looks like, how to understand the doctrine of hell, and a host of other issues. Those are all first-order questions. I may also ask whether it really matters if someone rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, or whether I can truly have Christian fellowship with someone who understands justification differently than I do. Those are second-order questions.

Got it? Okay.

What's on my mind is a second-order question about the division(s) between Catholics and Protestants. 

A friend with whom I was discussing this issue referred me to the following comment made by a fairly well-known Christian author. (I am not providing a citation here, because I don't want the author's name to affect anyone's assessment of what he or she wrote. If you know who the author is, please keep that information to yourself.) It has been claimed that:

"The process whereby ‘faith and works’ became a stock gag for the commercial theatre [in the sixteenth century] is characteristic of that whole tragic farce which we call the history of the Reformation. The theological questions really at issue have no significance except on a certain level, a high level, of the spiritual life; they could have been fruitfully debated only between mature and saintly disputants in close privacy and at boundless leisure. Under those conditions formulae might possibly have been found which did justice to the Protestant—I had almost said the Pauline—assertions without compromising other elements of the Christian faith. In fact, however, these questions were raised at a moment when they immediately became embittered and entangled with a whole complex of matters theologically irrelevant, and therefore attracted the fatal attention of both government and the mob. When once this had happened, Europe’s chance to come through unscathed was lost. It was as if men were set to conduct a metaphysical argument at a fair, in competition or (worse still) forced collaboration with the cheapjacks or the round-abouts, under the eyes of an armed and vigilant police force who routinely changed sides. Each party increasingly misunderstood the other and triumphed in refuting positions which their opponents did not hold: Protestants misrepresenting Romans as Pelagians or Romans misrepresenting Protestants as Antinomians."

The italics here are mine, and it is the italicized sentence which interests me. What do you think?

All relevant comments from interested parties are welcome; please be gracious. I don't promise to chime in, my ownself, and I don't promise not to.

The Marriage Controversy

With CA Proposition 8 in the news again (having been found unconstitutional), I thought I'd post some of my thoughts about the marriage debate. I'm leery, however, of making quick comments of the kind suitable for a blog; they're too easily misconstrued. The only thing I'm willing to say in this format is that it is shocking to me how ill-informed so many people are about this topic. (Take that as you will.)

So, here's a link to the essay version of a talk I gave a couple of months ago titled "Liberal and Conservative Views of Marriage."* It's long. It's boring. It's mostly unoriginal. There are no pictures. Nevertheless, if I may say so, I think that it's a pretty dang good overview of the issue. The shockingly ill-informed person may read it and still be ill-informed. But he or she will not be shockingly ill-informed, and I think that counts as real progress.

Comments are welcome; please keep things civil, and if it is your conviction that someone would have to be stupid to be a marriage liberal or stupid to be a marriage conservative, please save yourself the trouble and refrain from commenting. I'd be especially glad to hear from anyone who thinks that I've misrepresented either position, or who thinks that I've overlooked an important point. I promise to read and consider all comments. I do not promise to respond.

*Update 26 March 2013: A slightly revised version of this talk has been published in the Summer 2013 issue of Think. The citation is as follows --
 Matthew Carey Jordan (2013). LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE VIEWS OF MARRIAGE. Think, 12, pp 33-56. doi:10.1017/S1477175613000067.

Lecture on God and Morality

Below is the flyer for a talk that I'm giving this Thursday at AUM. For folks who live in Montgomery and are especially interested in this kind of thing, I will be teaching a whole course on this topic in Fall 2011.

“God and Morality”

An MLA Lecture by Dr. Matthew Jordan

Many people—theists and atheists alike—think that morality must depend upon God. This idea is often expressed with the slogan, “if God does not exist, then everything is permissible.” But is that right? If atheism is true, then would there be nothing wrong with theft, torture, or murder? In this talk, Professor Jordan will discuss some of the philosophical issues surrounding ideas and questions like these.

  

Thursday, April 28, 6:20-7:35 in Goodwyn 110

Dr. Jordan’s lecture, which is part of the MLA lecture series, is free and open to the public.  Everyone at AUM and from the community is welcome to attend.

MLA Lecture Advertisment

I can't attend this because I agreed to dislocate my knee and probably break an ankle play in a student/faculty basketball game at AUM the same evening, but many of my Montgomery friends may be interested to know about this event.  (Aaron Cobb is the other philosophy professor at AUM.)

Christianity and the Question of Authority in 18th-Century England

An MLA lecture by Dr. Aaron Cobb 

"The Protestant Reformation caused a crisis in Christianity in Early Modern Europe.  In this presentation, I will address one difficult question engendered by this crisis: who or what is the proper authority for religious belief?  Addressing this question provides a fruitful approach for distinguishing the various branches of Christianity at this time and for understanding the bitter divisions in England between Roman Catholics, Puritans, and members of the Church of England at the turn of the 18th Century."

Monday, February 7, 6:20-7:35 in Goodwyn 110

Dr. Cobb’s lecture is free and open to the public.

Fifteen Minutes of My Life That Are Gone Forever

Welcome to DISH Network Chat.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): How may I help you Matt?

Matt Jordan:  Hi! There's a problem with my bill.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): Sure I'd be glad to help you setup autopay with paperless billing on your account.

Matt Jordan:  The problem is with the amount.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): Sorry for the typo.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): I'd be glad to assist you with the bill explanation, could you please tell me which part of the bill is confusing?

Alvin (ID:  6C2): For security purposes, can you please verify the last four digits of the Social Security Number on the account?

Matt Jordan:  XXXX. Every month, I get a statement saying that my bill is $54 and change. But it's supposed to be $47. I talked to Jason (5J0) on August 9 and to Rachel (F39) on November 30, both of whom confirmed this.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): All right.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): Yes please, I have checked your account.

Matt Jordan:  And...?

Alvin (ID:  6C2): One moment please.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): As of now your monthly charges are $52.99 plus taxes.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): Your actual monthly charges are $73.99 plus taxes.

Matt Jordan:  There should be comments on my account from both Jason and Rachel,explaining that I'm supposed to have an additional $7/month credit for the first twelve months.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): But as you have $15 credits on the account and also $6 credit for the service plan are being applied on the account.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): Therefore the monthly are lower than the actual monthly charges.

Matt Jordan:  Um, okay. Those are indeed among the credits I was promised. But there should be another $7/month credit for the first twelve months.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): Yes please, there are additional $7 credits also on the account.

Matt Jordan:  Okay, so it should be around $47, right?

Alvin (ID:  6C2): Yes please.

Matt Jordan:  Yes please indeed.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): You have been charged for the charge of $47.40 only.

Matt Jordan:  Excellent. Is there a way to ensure that this is what my electronic statement says from now on?

Alvin (ID:  6C2): Only $47.40 was deducted from your account.

Matt Jordan:  Great. Will my bills reflect this from now on?

Alvin (ID:  6C2): Yes Matt, you can view the credits and charges applied on the account on your online account bill statement.

Matt Jordan:  Okay.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): Sure, your bills reflect this from now.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): I appreciate your co-operation and understanding in this regard.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): To view the statements online, please try the following steps once you log-in:

Alvin (ID:  6C2): • Please login to your online account and select 'Billing'. This will take you to the Payment and Statements page.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): • For previous statements, please select the Past Statement option and select a billing date (available for the last 12 months). Select View Activity to view the selected monthly statement.

Matt Jordan:  Thank you. I appreciate your co-operation as well. I will do those things you say.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): You're welcome.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): Thanks for the compliment.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): Please take the brief survey to rate the impact I had on your issue after you end the chat session.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): Is there anything else that I can assist you with?

Matt Jordan:  No, thank you very much. But this has been fun.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): You're welcome.

Matt Jordan:  Have a nice day.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): Thank you.

Alvin (ID:  6C2): You too Matt!!!!!!!!!!!

Alvin (ID:  6C2): Thank you for chatting with Dish Network, have a wonderful day!

Thank you for visiting Dish Network. You may now close this window.

Thomas Society Homework

If you're participating in the Quincy Thomas Society reading group, and you're interested in thinking some more about the topic of religious exclusivism, it would be worth your while to listen to this talk by Alvin Plantinga before our meeting on Thursday evening.

Of course, if you're not participating, but you're interested in thinking about religious exclusivism (can there be just one true religion?), you too should listen to the talk.

And if you're neither participating nor interested, what's wrong with you?

Manny Being Manny, and Moralizing

There's an essay in Tuesday's L.A. Morning News in which sportswriter Vincent Bonsignore criticizes Manny Ramirez's selfishness.  Apparently, Ramirez opened spring training this season by making it clear he's not playing for the Dodgers again after this season: 

 I won't be here next year, so I just want to enjoy myself.

I don't know (if I'll play next year). I just know I'm not going to be here.

Considered solely on their own, these statements are hardly worth getting worked up about.  But as Bonsignore points out, they fit into a pattern.  Ramirez has a long history of selfish behavior (read the article if you want more details), and Bonsignore has clearly had enough of it.  No doubt many people will agree with his take; me, for one.  In my humble opinion, what he says here is totally uncontroversial and well worth saying.


What interests me about the post, however, is the broader cultural context in which it's published.  Many people won't take Bonsignore's words to be uncontroversial.  For example, here's the very first comment posted in response to the story:

Bonsignore, in the tired tradition of pompous, omniscient "journalists," deigns to speak for the fans, repeating the tired, uncreative mantra of "Manny is selfish." Well, I have been a true blue Dodger fan for over 40 years, and I find Manny refreshingly honest. Yes, he is flawed, and clearly there have been disappointments, but I thank him for the entertainment value and excitement that he has brought to the Dodgers. Is he selfish and self-focused at times? Probably, but so are most professional athletes nowadays. Most just have a more socially acceptable way of covering it up (i.e., lying). Thanks, Bonsignore, for trying to speak for me, but no thanks. btw, that was pretty selfish of you to try to start the baseball writing season by bringing a cloud over the Blue; but you're just doing your job and having fun, aren't you?

In this reader's eyes, it's Bonsignore who is worthy of criticism.  Manny may be selfish, but hey, everybody's selfish these days.  At least Manny is honest about it.  Bonsignore is the selfish one; in fact, he's doing the very same thing Manny is doing.


This kind of reaction is depressingly common in our society.  It has two key features:

• a willingness to excuse, justify, and even celebrate selfishness; and
  
• hostility toward anyone who makes a substantive moral judgment about another person's behavior.

This has been on my mind a lot lately, because I've been teaching Business Ethics and have seen these attitudes expressed by more than a few of my students.  The notion that there might be legitimate constraints on a person's behavior that go beyond merely respecting the letter of the law, or--even more ridiculous!--the idea that sometimes a person might be required to sacrifice his or her own interests (say, in wealth or pleasure) for the sake of another...  These notions are seen by many as beyond the pale.

As I think about contemporary American society, however, it's hard to be surprised at this attitude.  Most of us who are under forty were raised in a culture in which we were explicitly taught that we could do and be anything we wanted to do or be, and that pursuing one's own fulfillment (understood, usually, as the satisfaction of one's own desires) is not merely a good and noble goal, but the main goal of human life.  We were taught that there are no moral truths--indeed, as many of my students' papers demonstrate, we have been taught that the word itself belongs in scare quotes, as in what's "right" or "true" for me may not be "right" or "true" for you--and that it is never, ever justifiable for one person to make moral assessments about another person's actions.  Perhaps most importantly, the only account of human nature that has been presented as a factual account that can be an object of human knowledge is the purely Darwinian account, according to which human organisms are the byproduct of an unplanned natural process that favors the strong over the weak.  We find ourselves motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, and an absurdly short time on Earth in which to achieve our meager goals.  Some people are "into" morality and/or religion, but morality and religion change from generation to generation and from culture to culture, so if you're not into those kinds of things, hey, that's cool too.

More could be said, of course, most of which has already been said (and said better) by others.  This is enough for now.  The point I want to make is simply this: a culture that teaches its children the lessons above is a culture in which we shouldn't be surprised to see Ramirez's behavior justified, excused, and even celebrated by others.

And the questions I find myself wondering about are these: Are Bonsignore's attitudes a relic of an older time, likely to disappear into traditionalist ghettos as the century progresses?  Or are we nearing a cultural tipping point, a point at which we as a people react against the worldview (or portions thereof) described a couple of paragraphs ago and move in a different direction?

From where I sit, it seems that the cultural winds are blowing in both directions simultaneously.  On the one hand, the students I teach seem deeply unwilling to treat morality as a domain in which knowledge is possible, and more and more willing to treat self-interested hedonism as a perfectly acceptable philosophy of life, one for which no apologies need to be made and in which no shame should be taken.  On the other hand, it seems like there are more and more folks who are willing to make comments like Bonsignore's in public.  I see people who are (or at least were) deeply moved by President Obama's appeals to the (objective?) importance of community, of working together to solve our problems.  And I see in my generation and the next an increasing willingness to talk about what justice requires, as, for example, in the debate over same-sex marriage.

So I don't know what comes next.  But this is what Manny has me thinking about today.

On Partisanship (of Various Kinds)

Like many people, I'm pretty weary of the vilification of political and cultural figures by those who disagree with them. I spent some time last night flipping back and forth between Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and Bill O'Reilly on Fox. I probably won't do this again, unless I'm feeling masochistic. I can't stand these guys. I have no solution to offer to the problem, but I'm so, so, SO tired of people who seem unable to acknowledge that there may be some semblance of wisdom or kernel of truth contained in the words of those who differ from them about _______. (You may fill in the blank however you like. Some suggestions: the economy, abortion, the BCS, same-sex marriage, theism, whether there is a moral right to health insurance, evolution, war.) What is it about our society that pushes us to this particular kind of extremism, according to which our intellectual opponents must be portrayed not merely as mistaken, but as stupid and evil?

Anyway, this morning I was reading an essay by C.S. Lewis that a friend recommended to me ("Religious Controversy and Translation," from his English Literature in the Sixteenth Century). I was struck by Lewis's assessment of a religious tract from around 1530:

"He [the author] is monotonously anxious to conquer and to conquer equally, at every moment: to show in every chapter that every heretical book is wrong about everything--wrong in history, in logic, in rhetoric, and in English grammar as well as in theology" (p. 174).

This is a great line. Substitute 'Republican' or 'Democrat' for 'heretical book' and 'policy' for 'theology', and it could apply to at least two-thirds of the television pundits and political bloggers I'm aware of. Preserve the quote just as it is and it applies to a similar percentage of the theologians (professional and lay alike) I've read or spoken with. [But not you, of course, dear reader!] Reflecting on Lewis's words and their context, it occurs to me that perhaps there's nothing about our society in particular that inspires this kind of silliness. Maybe it's just human nature.

Whether that is a reason to be encouraged or a reason to be dismayed, I don't claim to know.