Saturday, November 23, 2024

Escaping the News Encourages Tyranny

 


Dr. Alice C. Linsley

The quote from British blogger, Steve Aitchson, seems to recommend escapism. That appears to be his personal path. Steven Aitchison spent years teaching social media growth to internet entrepreneurs. Then, he moved on to teaching how to invest in cryptocurrencies before pursuing fiction writing. He has written a number of books with the word "Witches" in the titles. The latest series is The Witches of Scotland available on Amazon.

It is the nature of journalism to report on disturbing events. Often those events have little to no impact on the lives of most people. If someone choses to dwell on real crimes, that is a matter of preference.

Were people to follow Aitchson's advice, we would become easy prey for tyrants. Tyrants must control the flow of information. They restrict access to news that implicates them or exposes their crimes.

Aitchson's attitude may reflect his views on the British media. However, a recent report on that country's leading news agency, the BBC, makes it clear that the British public generally trust that source. According to that report, the BBC journalism is "slightly less trusted by people who identify with the political right than by people in the centre and on the left." However, "it is still as trusted on the right as major conservative newspapers."

The situation in the USA is different. The major news sources represent opposing political leanings. This helps to polarize the nation. Some are so tired of the polemic that they escape by tuning out the media entirely. 

Why not try to find balance instead? Determine what you wish to know about and read what intelligent, well-informed people might say about it. Fast from the frivolous and the provocative, and from entertainment that poses as "news."

Read world news from a broad variety of online sources. I recommend these:








Rather than escape from the news, engage with news sources that provide different perspectives and remain a free thinker!


Thursday, October 24, 2024

Facial Recognition and Your Privacy




There is no anonymity in a world where the individual's face is catalogued using facial recognition technologies. Privacy is not guaranteed and is hard to define. In an 1890 Harvard Law Review article it is defined as "the right to be let alone." The authors of the article, Samuel D. Warren, Jr. and Louis D. Brandeis, wanted the right to privacy to be protected by law, along with those other enshrined rights.

"Concerns about facial recognition had been building for decades. And now the nebulous bogeyman had finally found its form: a small company with mysterious founders and an unfathomably large database. And none of the millions of people who made up that database had given their consent. Clearview AI represents our worst fears, but it also offers, at long last, the opportunity to confront them." - Kashmir Hill

Kashmir Hill's book Your Face Belongs to Us: The Secretive Startup Dismantling Your Privacy has been shortlisted for the 2024 Royal Society Trivedi Science Book Prize.

The other side of the conversation comes from Clearview AI which states that its mission "is protecting our families, making our communities more secure and strengthening our national security and defense. We help law enforcement and governments in disrupting and solving crime, while also providing financial institutions, transportation, and other commercial enterprises to verify identities, prevent financial fraud, and combat identity theft."

Clearview AI collected 30 billion images from social media platforms to share with law enforcement. A photo you may have on Facebook or Instagram is likely part of Clearview’s database, enabling potential tracking and identification without your knowledge or consent. At the present moment, Clearview AI has over 50 billion images.

Tuesday, August 27, 2024

A Change Coming for TEC?

 


Dr. Alice C. Linsley


It can be argued that the crisis of authority in the Anglican world is evident in the shift from the biblical understanding of divinely appointed clergy to a corporate model of business. Divine appointment took the form of a calling on the man's life to serve God in the Church. The "call" was to be confirmed by his home congregation, discerned by a diocesan committee, and tested through seminary training, liturgical studies, prayer, the moral quality of the candidate, and Ember Day communications with his bishop. 

The shift began well before the 77th General Convention of the Episcopal Church decision to restructure in July 2012. It began at the peak of the Episcopal Church's cultural influence in the 1950s. Episcopal Church bishops perceived of their body as an entity resembling the "Established Church" of the USA. Bishop Paul Hewitt notes in his book The Day-spring from on High that "The Episcopal Church was a de-facto state church until the 1960s." (p. 29)

The bishops worked hard to build a perception of prestige, and they took measures to secure it. The college of bishops resembled an elite club in which the members were expected to guard the club's reputation. 

This is one reason Bishop James Pike was never held accountable for his apostasy. Pike wrote that the Church was no longer relevant in an essay published in Look magazine in December 1960. He was a growing embarrassment to the bishops who were glad to see him depart the Episcopal Church in April 1969. His parting shot was to describe the Episcopal Church "a sick - even dying- institution."

As the Episcopal Church lost ground to the counter-cultural movements of the 1960s and 1970s, it sought to create and deliver a revision of itself that would capture the public's attention. This required a business model for strategic decision-making and business operations. The new model sought to make the headlines by claiming to be the first at every turn. The Episcopal Church would be the first church to have women priests. It would be the first to consecrate a woman bishop. (And even better if that first female bishop be an African American!) The Episcopal Church would be the first to have a female Archbishop in Katharine J. Schori. In 1977, Bishop Paul Moore (NY) ordained the lesbian Ellen Marie Barrett to the priesthood. She served as Integrity's first co-president along with the late gay activist Louie Crew. Not surprisingly, the Episcopal Church was the first to elevate a partnered homosexual to the episcopacy. All these made for dramatic, attention-getting headlines.

The trend-setting bishops launched innovation after innovation. The theological leanings of the trendy Episcopal Church included Process Theology, Liberation Theology, and Feminist Theology.

There would be a new prayer book. From the outset, it was recognized as a departure from all former Anglican Books of Common Prayer. The 1979 prayer book presents what Urban T. Holmes termed a "differentiated" theology. An Episcopal priest and theologian, Holmes understood that the liturgical revisions of the 1970s drew more on Process Theology and modern philosophy than on Scripture, Tradition, and the Church Fathers. In reference to the 1979 Prayer Book, he wrote, "It is evident that Episcopalians as a whole are not clear about what has happened. The renewal movement in the 1970s, apart from the liturgical renewal, often reflects a nostalgia for a classical theology which many theologians know has not been viable for almost 200 years. The 1979 Book of Common Prayer is a product of a corporate, differentiated theological mind, which is not totally congruent with many of the inherited formularies of the last few centuries. This reality must soon ‘come home to roost’ in one way or another."

In the final analysis, spiritual pride and ambition turned a Christian body into a prime marketing agency for all things culturally relevant. The veneer of Christianity has worn thin over the past decade, exposing a church that is, as Pike predicted, a "dying institution." 

Presiding Bishop Michael Curry's suggestion is to make The Episcopal Church the Anglican version of the 1960s Jesus Movement. He said, "Our work is actually the work of participating in the Jesus movement, which seeks to realize God's dream and seeks to accomplish God's mission in this world." 

When a body has exhausted all the new relevancies, it will try to resurrect some of the old ones.

Yet there are stirrings that suggest a change is coming. There is hope! Pray that the bishops repent of their pride and ambition. Pray that they stop promoting a false gospel that "love" covers a multitude of sins. Pray that the Holy Spirit will convict, renew, heal, and direct a new generation of faithful Episcopalians who are done with false Utopian promises.




Friday, August 23, 2024

Dropping the Word "Church"


Dr. Alice C. Linsley

The First Amendment of the US Constitution prevents the government from creating or establishing a religion, and thereby guarantees religious freedom to all US citizens. The First Amendment protects the right of the individual to worship or to not worship. However, the separation of church from state does not require a separation of religious conversation, signs, signals or language from politics.

On the other hand, diverse religions have been protected by the state in many countries. Examples of state religions include The Church of England, Lutheranism in the Scandinavian countries, Roman Catholicism in Italy and Spain, Judaism in Israel, Islam in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran, and Buddhism in Thailand.

In the 16th century, Catholic and Reformed churches vied for state sponsorship. The principle Cuius regio, eius religio (state follows the ruler's religion) somewhat ameliorated the unrest, but rulers often put political interests above religious convictions. It was written that "an Established Church is only a political machine." (Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, Chapter XVIII)

At best, the mutual support of Church and State can help to preserve a religious tradition. At worst, it can become tyrannical and exclusionary. This happens when the leaders of both Church and State do not uphold Church dogma or retain the meaning of words. Some suspect that the recent study called "New Things: A theological investigation into the work of starting new churches across 11 dioceses in the Church of England" reflects this condition. The study was conducted by the Centre for Church Planting Theology and Research in Durham. 

The Reverend Dr. Will Foulger is the main author of the report. He has been vicar at St Nicholas' Church in Durham since September 2023. His parish website identifies the church simply as "St Nic's Durham." Prior to September 2023, Foulger taught theology and mission in Durham, and gained experience in church planting in Nottingham.

According to the study, words like "community" and "congregation" were preferred over the word "church." Even though more than 900 new C of E congregations were established by 11 dioceses in the past 10 years, none of them used the word “church plant” or “church.”

According to Dr Foulger, the findings of the new report may suggest language change is “forcing us to redefine what we think a church is in the Church of England.”

Dr. Giles Fraser, vicar of St. Anne's in Kew, expressed to the Telegraph that the sudden drop of the term "church" reflects "a misplaced desire to be relevant and modern-sounding."


A Tempest in a Teapot?

Ultimately, it is certain that the Church of England will never change its name. It will never be called the "Community of England" or the "Congregation of England" because those designations are meaningless. 

Would the disestablishment of the Church halt the trend of seeking to be culturally relevant? If the USA experiment is a measure, the answer must be no. In the USA, there is no shortage of nontraditional names for Christian congregations.

Speaking of his Messianic Christian congregation, Ben Frostad, explains, "You may have noticed that I avoid using the word 'church' to describe the corporate body of believers in Messiah."

In New Hampshire, an example involves two congregations simply called "Converge." One is located in Lebanon and the other in New London.

"Gather Asheville" doesn't use the word "church" when talking about themselves, said the lead pastor, Rev. John Redwine.

Fr David Epps has observed, "in order to market the church, the very word, 'church' is often dropped altogether." Among the new nomenclatures are words such as fellowship, world outreach center, chapel, ministry, and tabernacle.

In a time when the indeterminate label "woke" is often applied to studies, proposals, theories, religious trends and politics, it is wise to investigate matters for oneself. Having done so, I conclude that the uproar over the "New Things" study will fade as quickly as the next uproar appears. 


Sunday, June 30, 2024

Changing the Church by Stealth

 


In affirmation and celebration of The Episcopal Church’s LGBTQ+ members, the Office of Communication is pleased to unveil a new Pride shield.

Dr. Alice C. Linsley

The shrinking Episcopal Church welcomes all. It prides itself on diversity and inclusion. In 1976 the General Convention of ECUSA affirmed homosexual behavior when it passed the “we are children of God” resolution.

In 1977, Bishop Paul Moore (NY) ordained the lesbian Ellen Marie Barrett to the priesthood. She served as Integrity's first co-president along with the late Louie Crew.

Most Episcopalians slept through these changes, many of which were launched with great stealth, as Crew admits in this statement from his paper Changing the Church: "More 'irregular' ordinations of women took place… after our convention. In Washington at the time, on a missionary journey to our new chapters in the east, Jim Wickliff and I yielded to the counsel of friends who advised that our visibility at the ordination might put in jeopardy lesbians among all early ordinands."

However, the consecration of Gene Robinson in November 2003 stirred many to wakefulness, but by then it was too late to reverse the disastrous course of the Episcopal Church.

There is a popular saying Lex orandi, lex credendi. It means that there is a direct relationship between the law of praying (lex orandi) and the law of believing (lex credendi). Change the prayers of a community and you can change their beliefs. Innovation can direct people's thoughts away from the received tradition. That happened when the Episcopal Church introduced its 1979 prayer book. It should have been called "A Book of Alternative Services" as was done in other Anglican Provinces that introduced experimental liturgies in the 1970s.

By comparing the ECUSA/TEC prayer book to the Book of Common Prayer 1928 one sees the degradation of orthodox theology and the exultation of TEC's social justice agenda. Even advocates of the 1979 prayer book recognized that it presents heterodox theology, what Urban T. Holmes termed a "differentiated" theology. An Episcopal priest and theologian, Holmes understood that the liturgical revisions of the 1970s drew more on Process Theology and modern philosophy than on Scripture, Tradition, and the Church Fathers. In reference to the Episcopal Church 1979 Prayer Book, he wrote, "It is evident that Episcopalians as a whole are not clear about what has happened. The renewal movement in the 1970s, apart from the liturgical renewal, often reflects a nostalgia for a classical theology which many theologians know has not been viable for almost 200 years. The 1979 Book of Common Prayer is a product of a corporate, differentiated theological mind, which is not totally congruent with many of the inherited formularies of the last few centuries. This reality must soon ‘come home to roost’ in one way or another."

Holmes added, "The church has awakened to the demise of classical theology."

Holmes admitted that the 1979 prayer book is not orthodox, and it does not align with what Anglicans have always believed and how they have always prayed.

The sacrament of Baptism was turned into a pledge of allegiance to the social justice agenda of ECUSA (TEC).
Celebrant: Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?

People: I will, with God's help.

The baptismal liturgy of the 1979 book virtually deleted the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. It barely gets a nod in this sentence: "Through it [water of baptism] we are reborn by the Holy Spirit." Contrast that with this from the Book of Common Prayer: "Dearly beloved, forasmuch as our Saviour Christ saith, None can enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of Water and of the Holy Ghost; I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous mercy he will grant to this Child (this Person) that which by nature he cannot have; that he may be baptized with Water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ's holy Church, and be made a living member of the same."

And this: "We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this Child (this thy Servant) with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own Child, and to incorporate him into thy holy Church. And humbly we beseech thee to grant, that he, being dead unto sin, may live unto righteousness, and being buried with Christ in his death, may also be partaker of his resurrection; so that finally, with the residue of thy holy Church, he may be an inheritor of thine everlasting kingdom; through Christ our Lord. Amen."

The 1979 book moved around some collects so that, depending on the church calendar, some do not get prayed. This is one: " Blessed Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning; Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace, and ever hold fast, the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen." 

The ECUSA prayer book deleted 5 convicting sections from the Decalogue. This was removed: "for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, and visit the sins of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and show mercy unto thousands in them that love me and keep my commandments."

This was removed: "for the Lord will not hold him guiltless, that taketh his Name in vain."

This was deleted: "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all that thou hast to do; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt do no manner of work; thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, thy cattle, and the stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it."

Following the commandment to honor thy father and mother, this was deleted: "that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."

Following the commandment not to covet, this was removed: "thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his servant, nor his maid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his."

The collect for the Circumcision of Christ (Jan. 1) was deleted. After all, circumcision is a touchy topic these days.

Episcopalians who wanted to hold on to the historic Anglican Eucharistic prayers were told they could do so in Rite 1. However, except for the older language, Rite 1 is essentially the same as Rite 2, Prayer A. The Prayer of Humble Access, one of the most profound Anglican prayers is preserved in Rite 1 as optional. It does not appear in Rite II (the contemporary language text), but it is noted as an option.

Two good features of the 1979 prayer book are the inclusion of Old Testament readings at the Eucharist, and a short but worthy Noonday Prayer.

We do well to wonder how orthodox Anglican scholars reacted to the 1979 prayer book. Peter Toon and Louis Tarsitano were experts on the history of the Anglican liturgies. Peter Toon had this to say:

"People who have the time and inclination to read my little tracts and books will have noticed that consistently over the years I have referred to the official Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church, USA, as “the 1979 Prayer Book.” This is a reasonable title to use and it is used by me for one basic reason -- in order to avoid using the official title as given to it by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in Minneapolis 1979 which was “The Book of Common Prayer….”

Why do I seek to avoid calling this Book by its official title? The answer is simple. I cannot in conscience or historical judgment see it as “The Book of Common Prayer.” It is most certainly a Prayer Book, but to my eyes it is not “The BCP.” If we actually take note only of its internal contents which are characterized by variety and choice, we see very clearly and quickly that they belong to the new class of Prayer Books which were produced from the early 1970s onwards in the western/northern parts of the Anglican Communion, after the Lambeth Conference gave its moral backing to this enterprise. These new Books were intended to provide experimental, alternative forms of public services alongside the received, historical, Book of Common Prayer. Thus they usually contained the word “alternative” in their titles – e.g., An Alternative Service Book (England 1980).

Therefore, as a historian of doctrine and of forms of Anglican worship, I see that the 1979 book was given the wrong title. It should have been something like, An American Prayer Book (1979) or A Book of Alternative Services (1979). When I enquire why it has the wrong title, I find a long and involved story about the ecclesiastical politics operative in the Episcopal Church from the 1960s into the 1970s and it is not necessary to tell that story here.

However, looking back over the history of the Episcopal Church from the new millennium back to the 1960s, I can see clearly how so often the General Convention is driven not by a commitment to biblical truth and historical orthodoxy, but by the desire to innovate to be relevant to a fast changing society and culture. So, it seems to me, the title of the new Prayer Book was a major innovation, a novel way of using an hallowed and distinctive title in order to make easy the speedy entrance of innovation and change of doctrine. And as such it worked as bishops took up the cause and pressed its use upon all dioceses of the Church."

Dr. Louis Tarsitano was an Associate Editor of Touchstone and the author of An Outline of an Anglican Life. He wrote, "Reformed catholicism is both evangelical and catholic, and when we remain loyal to it, as we should since it is the original faith of the historic Church, we cannot help but be both evangelical and catholic. If we find ourselves merely one or the other, we need to refine our own understanding of the great inheritance that we have been given by Christ and his Church, through the Anglican Way."

The Episcopal Church's 1979 prayer book does not strike the balance of catholic and evangelical. It has effaced the historic Anglican approach to common prayer. 

This from "Of Forms and the Anglican Way" by Louis R. Tarsitano is especially relevant.

"In 1976, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church made two fatal departures from the faith embraced in 1789. The first was the claim to legalize the “ordination” of women, contrary to the Scriptures and nineteen centuries of Christian formularies. The second was to introduce a replacement for the Book of Common Prayer, which it illegitimately called by that name, to be finally adopted in 1979. In hearings at the General Convention of 1997, in Philadelphia, Frank Griswold, then chairman of the Standing Liturgical Committee and soon to be elected Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, freely admitted that the American Church had replaced the traditional Prayer Book and that it was the only Anglican church in the world to have done so.
While this admission surprised some people, it should not have. As early as 1976, in a review article in The Anglican Theological Review, Aidan Kavanagh, a Roman Catholic scholar, had noted: First, the Book as a whole is clearly not a mere updated revision of its predecessors since 1549 [the date of the first English Prayer Book]. It is nothing if not a new formulary that contains some structural and phraseological traces of what has gone before but which goes quite beyond it (LVIII, No. 3, 362).
For this new formulary to be Anglican, it must be consistent with other Anglican formularies. It contains, however, merely “traces of what has gone before.” For this new formulary to serve as an adequate basis for the Episcopal Church in the United States to claim that it remains a true local church within the one Church of Jesus Christ, it must be consistent with the forms and formulas of the undivided Church. It fails in this regard as well, since its Trinitarian language, liturgical formulas, mistranslation of the Scriptures (especially in the “Psalter”), confused or false teaching (especially in the “An Outline of the Faith”), and unisex “Ordinal” all fall short of the requirements of the formularies of the undivided Church.
Furthermore, the adoption of this book and the approval of the “ordination” of women are clearly outside the authority of any national church to legislate for its people or to impose its will on the rest of the Church of Christ. These actions are null and void, and they cannot bind the conscience of any Christian. The real effect of these actions was to render the Episcopal Church, stripped of its proper formularies, tohuw bohuw (formless and void) as a national church of any description."




Wednesday, May 29, 2024

The Ethics of Franz Boas

 


Dr. Alice C. Linsley

Cultural anthropology and paleoanthropology focus on humans, both modern and archaic (before 300,000 years ago). Interpretations of anthropological data vary depending on one's ideological inclinations and personal experiences. Field studies throughout the discipline's history often reveal the attitudes of the investigators. 

Ruth Benedict (1887 – 1948) viewed a culture as having a cohesive construct of intellectual, religious, and aesthetic elements. She understood that "No man ever looks at the world with pristine eyes. He sees it edited by a definite set of customs and institutions and ways of thinking." She believed that science and the humanities were equally valuable in understanding human diversity which she valued. She wrote, "The purpose of anthropology is to make the world safe for human differences."

Benedict was a student of the distinguished anthropologist Franz Uri Boas (1858 – 1942), a German-American anthropologist who has been called the "Father of American Anthropology." His work is associated with the movements known as historical particularism and cultural relativism. Among his contributions to anthropology was Boas' rejection of evolutionary approaches to the study of culture. He influenced the work of Margaret Meade, May Edel, and even the French Structuralist Claude Lévi-Strauss.

F. Pöhl wrote (2008), "In many ways Boas was influenced by Kant, but in his field research Kant's ethical position remained eclipsed; Boas' practice in the field did not respect humans as an end in itself. Rather, Boas subscribed to an ethical utilitarianism and sustained a strong separation of science and ethics." (From here.)

Boas also held a strong separation between his anthropological work and religion. It is not known if he read Kant's 1793 Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, but he probably did as there are clear connections between Kant and anthropology in mid-20th-century and early-21st-century scholarship. 

Though Jewish himself, Boas did not believe there to be a Jewish cultural identity. Instead, he stressed human plasticity and insisted that people not be “classified” in groups. This position is questioned by this writer whose research on the Hebrew ruler-priest caste suggests that Jewish cultural norms express a tradition they have received from their genetic ancestors going back to at least 2400 BC. 

In 1941, Lévi-Strauss became a visiting professor at the New School for Social Research in New York, with help from the Rockefeller Foundation. He called it “the most fruitful period of my life,” spending time in the reading room of the New York Public Library and befriending the Franz Boas.

The conversations between Lévi-Strauss and Boas would have involved a fascinating exchange. Both came to believe that the behavior of humans is shaped by their kin and culture. Certainly, Lévi-Strauss' structuralism would find a friendlier audience among many of Boas' students.

The concept of culture as developed by Boas provided largely became the basis of its modern anthropological meaning. In developing his argument against racist theories such as mental deficiencies of primitive peoples, Boas set out to show human behavior, regardless of race or stage of societal development, is determined by the society's unique historical development. He noted that culture is also shaped by received traditions which the people often credit to their ancestors. Since the received traditions vary greatly and all humans view life through the lens of their own culture, a culture cannot be posed as better or worse than any other. This is the meaning of Boas' cultural relativity.

Boas poked holes in E. B. Tylor's theories that religion evolved in stages from animism to polytheism to monotheism. Tylor attempted to trace this evolution of religion to support his theory. The relationship between "primitive" societies and "civilized" societies was a key theme in 19th century anthropological literature. The influence of this older humanist-evolutionist idea of culture was waning, and as Boas advanced the idea of culture as a primary determinant of behavior.

Friday, January 26, 2024

Peter Kreeft's Book "Ethics for Beginners"




Peter Kreeft has taught philosophy at Boston College for more than 50 years. In this book Ethics for Beginners, he provides a good introduction to ethics for people of religious convictions, especially Roman Catholics. Bishop Robert Barron (Word on Fire) recommends the book which he describes as "a digestible introduction to moral philosophy woven together with Kreeft’s trademark wit and humor."

The book presents the thoughts of 32 great thinkers of history. Kreeft believes that studying the ideas of the great philosophers helps people to take responsibility for their own thoughts and opens the mind to arguments on both sides of controversies. 

He asks:

What qualifies you for ethical wisdom? It is not your ideological beliefs or scholarly expertise but your character traits. And those character traits come in pairs, so that it is very easy and very common to emphasize one half of each pair and forget the other one. These traits include:

• Adamant, committed honesty and flexible, experimental open-mindedness;
• A hard (logical) head and a soft (loving, empathetic) heart; toughness and tenderness;
• Fair, unbiased, impersonal detachment and personal commitment and loyalty;
• Impatience (passion) and patience (maturity);
• Idealism and practicality; and
• Profound seriousness and lightness, playfulness, and a sense of humor.

Peter Kreeft asserts that ethics is real, that good and evil are knowable, and that we are happier people when we act well. Kreeft claims that the study of ethics is important in answering life’ questions: What is the meaning of life? How should I live? How should I treat other people?

This book is especially appropriate for use with high school students.

The book is available to purchase on Amazon.