How to pass any exam
I’ve told my students this exact advice so many times:
Posts
Book Review: The Gospel of Happiness
Introduction
I found out about this book from twitter, when James K.A. Smith mentioned anticipating it's release. I had never heard of the author before, but he's an ethics professor with his PhD from Notre Dame.
The aim of the book is stated on page 18:
In this book, I highlight the many ways in which positive psychology and Christian practice overlap. I point out empirical findings in positive psychology that point to the wisdom of many Christian practices and teachings. I also provide practical suggestions on how to become happier in everyday life and how to deepen Christian practice based on contemporary psychological insights. All of this points us toward deeper fulfillment in this life, and in the life to come. This is why I titled this book The Gospel of Happiness – because this is good news, very good news indeed (18).The argument is fairly obvious from chapter to chapter. The chapter titles are:
- The Ways to Happiness
- The Way of Faith, Hope, and Love
- The Way of Prayer
- The Way of Gratitude
- The Way of Forgiveness
- The Way of Virtue
- The Way of Willpower
Dr. Kaczor looks at the relevant psychological research concerning each topic as well the Biblical and historical teachings of Christianity and shows their coherence and overlap. After he makes these comparisons he makes recommendations for personal practice.
Mike Bird, Evangelical Theology, and the Sermon on the Mount
There are a lot of things Christians "need to know." For some it's predestination, for others, the age of the earth, or the order of end times events. In reality, the core of theology is simpler than that.Mike Bird in his, Evangelical Theology reminds us of the test for Christian theology:
The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5– 7) and the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6) are good test cases for any theological system.Contra some Reformed theologians, Jesus is not teaching people the law so they can see how they don’t measure up, wail for their sinful hearts, and realize their need for the imputation of Jesus’ righteousness. Contra some dispensational theologians, Jesus is not teaching what kind of law the Jews will keep in a post-rapture millennium. The Sermon on the Mount is Jesus’ manifesto for the kingdom. It is the ethical vision for God’s people if they are to live out the covenantal righteousness that comes from experiencing the kingdom’s saving power. This is what the new Israel of the new age is supposed to look like. Not the elitist micropiety of Pharisaic leaders who claim their tradition represents the true measure of righteousness, nor the compromised Jewishness of the Herodians who dress up Hellenistic values in a Jewish garb. The sermon is about new law for the new age.
The Hurt-Feelings Fallacy
The internet made me abreast of an informal fallacy which I have dubbed:
The Hurt-Feelings FallacyWhen a premise and/or conclusion of an argument hurts somebody’s feelings or hypothetically could do so in the future, then the argument is problematic. Because of this, the conclusion and the premises are all false. Similarly, if the corollaries of the argument could cause hurt-feelings then the whole argument is false. Also, and most important of all, if the person making the argument has or potentially could stimulate hurt-feelings, then all of the arguments that person makes are totally false.
Growth and Biblical Wisdom
Everybody has a self-theory, some hypothesis or doctrine about what/who they are. Some of these theories are simple sentences like, "I'm an athlete." Others are more fundamental, like, "I'm worthless." According to Carol Dweck and Daniel Molden, our self-theories lead directly to our self-esteem maintenance/repair strategies after we fail at a task or to reach a goal. (Dweck, 130-131). They have distilled the various self-theories into two helpful categories.
Burning off dead wood
What is a human being and how does it grow? Two men offer helpful and constructive answers can be found below. To be human is to be the sort of creature whose mind can incorporate struggles and trials into itself to become more. Marcus is commenting on the Stoic concept that human beings are rational animals, Peterson is commenting on Scripture in the first quote and on Jung’s understanding of Solve et Coagula[1] in the second. I hope what follows is helpful and encouraging:
How much can you know about yourself if you've never been in a fight?
So asks Tyler Durden in, Fight Club.
I think it's a serious question.
And even for men to prefer gymnastic exercises by far to the baths, is perchance not bad, since they are in some respects conducive to the health of young men, and produce exertion—emulation to aim at not only a healthy habit of but courageousness of soul...But let not such athletic contests, as we have allowed, be undertaken for the sake of vainglory, but for the exuding of manly sweat. Nor are we to struggle with cunning and showiness, but in a stand-up wrestling bout, by disentangling of neck, hands, and sides. For such a struggle with graceful strength is more becoming and manly, being undertaken for the sake of serviceable and profitable health.[1]
How to be boring
A popular blog managed not to conform to the zeitgeist. I found this treasure trove of ways to lose friends and alienate people:
- Negative egocentrism. The #1 most boring way of behaving was what the researchers described as "being negative and complaining, talking about one's problems, displaying disinterest in others."
- Banality. "Talking about trivial or superficial things, being interested in only one topic, and repeating the same stories and jokes again and again."
- Low affectivity. Showing little enthusiasm, speaking in a monotone, engaging in very little eye contact, behaving in a very unexpressive way.
- Tediousness. "Talking slowly, pausing a long time before responding, taking a long time to make one's points, and dragging conversations on."
- Passivity. Having little to say, not having any opinions, being too predictable or too likely to try to conform with what everyone else is saying.
- Self-preoccupation. Talking all about yourself.
- Seriousness. Coming across as very serious, rarely smiling.
- Boring ingratiation. "Trying to be funny or nice in order to impress other people."
- Distraction. Doing things that interfere with the conversation, getting sidetracked too easily, and engaging in too much small talk.
This list is interesting in light of what I would call the modern socio-sexual emergency, namely that marriages appear to be becoming less pleasant and less common over time, and I think it's because people are becoming less interesting and less pleasant. Several of these elements of being perfectly boring
Two Types of Honesty
There are two types of honesty:
- Frankness: Saying what you think/feel is true, simply. When one is being frank, you could speak complete untruths (objectively speaking) while still being honest.
- Scientific Accuracy: This mode of honesty is intentionally humble in the sense that you say what you think could provide evidence for, qualify what you mean, and admit which elements of what you say are unclear to you.
Loving your enemies does not mean neglecting to love your friends.
Jesus put love pretty high up in his list of priorities for human flourishing. The biggest problem for modern romantics who prefer to rhapsodize about love is that he said to actually do it. Look how one of his closest friends summarized his message:
1 John 3:18 Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.