A conference on the work of Dietrich von Hildebrand is scheduled for May 27-29, 2010 in Rome. There is a student essay contest, and five winners receive lodging, meals, and money for travel expenses to the conference in Rome. The conference website is www.hildebrandlegacy.org.
Every February, Oklahoma Baptist University celebrates Founders’ Day with a special chapel service. This year’s service was particularly special, commemorating the 100th anniversary of the school’s founding. The service included a reenactment of W.P. Blake and G. Lee Phelps kneeling in prayer on the site in Shawnee, Oklahoma that was to become Oklahoma Baptist University.
To be honest, I can now remember only a single sentence from either prayer, but it is a sentence that I don’t think I will ever forget: “Deliver us from the luxury of cheap melancholy.”
These words may be more relevant now than they were at the time of the founding of OBU. We find ourselves struggling to recover from a recession, embroiled in two wars, worried about the future of the environment, and burdened by spiraling health care costs. Melancholy, or depression, seems to be an unavoidable response. As Phelps said, though, it is both cheap and luxurious; cheap because it costs us nothing, and luxurious because it prevents us from doing what is truly costly. Giving in to the luxury of cheap melancholy is an acceptance of the status quo, an admission that we will simply do nothing.
The alternative is to remember who we are and what God has called us to be, people of hope and grace. I was reminded of this as I witnessed a baptism at church on Sunday. In our church, before the baptismal candidate leaves the water, she places a finger in a bowl of salt and then touches the salt to her tongue. She then receives a candle, which she carries out of the baptistry. We who are witnesses are reminded that we too are called to be salt and light, to reject the luxury of cheap melancholy, and go into the world believing that we can, by the grace of God, make things better.
May it be so.
Al Staggs will be in chapel today at OBU presenting his Bonhoeffer monologue. I saw him last year at the “Red-Letter Christians” Conference at Baylor. Don’t miss this one.
Recently, I posted a quote on the Tumblr page from Jaroslav Pelikan: “The only alternative to tradition is bad tradition.” At the time, I realized it needed some explanation, but posted it anyway. Some comments show that the quote is meaningless without some context.
John Mouracade pointed out that it looks like a false dilemma. A false dilemma is a fallacy committed when one asserts that at least one of two different alternatives must be true, but ignores other alternatives that might also be true. Now, if Pelikan meant to say that the only alternative to good tradition is bad tradition, then it’s clearly a false dilemma. Surely, some tradition is neither good nor bad. Pelikan didn’t say that, though. He said that the only alternative to tradition (unqualified) is bad tradition.
Is that claim a false dilemma? On the surface it looks like it is. The claim is that one is either bound by tradition or by bad tradition. What about breaking from tradition completely? Surely that’s an option. Pelikan has asserted two alternatives and ignored a third.
Of course, it were a simple logical fallacy, the claim wouldn’t be very interesting (and Pelikan probably wouldn’t have deserved that prestigious chair at Yale!). Notice that Pelikan has not asserted that one of two different alternatives must be true. Since every instance of bad tradition is an instance of tradition, they are not two different things. Instead, he has asserted simply that there is no escaping tradition. That may be false, but it’s not a false dilemma. If it were a false dilemma, then every false assertion commits the fallacy of a false dilemma. To say that either all roses are red or all roses are red is simply to say that all roses are red.
In the interview that I quote from (an episode of Public Radio’s Speaking of Faith), Pelikan is discussing the relationship of belief and church tradition. His claim is directed toward those who deny that tradition should play any role in our belief. A church could decide that tradition should play no role in the context of belief, or “We don’t let tradition determine what we believe, we decide ourselves.” Does this constitute an escape from tradition? In a sense, yes, but it really just constitutes the establishment of a new tradition. “It is our tradition not to pay any attention to past traditions….”
It is best to intentionally critically examine one’s tradition and keep the best parts of that tradition. There are two other likely alternatives, one is a break with past tradition that simply establishes a new tradition. The other is one that continues to hold on to the less desirable components of past tradition. Neither are likely to result in the best outcome. The latter keeps the things that we should be breaking from, while the former breaks from things that we should be retaining. So, indeed, the only alternative to tradition is bad tradition.
For philosophers, that means we shouldn’t stop teaching Plato and Aristotle. For Baptists, it means that we ignore the study of Baptist history at our peril. I guess the moral of the story is this: if you are a religion major and one of my advisees, don’t ask to be excused from that Baptist History requirement. Keep in mind, though, there’s no Baptist History requirement for a philosophy major.
My darling wife, Sheri, is watching the PBS version of Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey this evening. I have a set of wireless headphones that I call the “Jane Austen Specials” to wear at such times. Unfortunately, I didn’t make sure that they were charged this afternoon. A great mistake on my part.
The only alternative to tradition is bad tradition.
What is the first business of him who philosophizes? To throw away self-conceit. For it is impossible for anyone to begin to learn that which he thinks that he already knows.
Epictetus, Discourses, Book II, Chapter 17.