Interview Thursday: Micah Tillman on Calvinism, Postmodernism, & Libertarianism

About a year ago I ran across Micah Tillman's website, http://www.micahtillman.com, which espouses a very similar topic range as my own and after reading through a few of his posts, I discovered that he is indeed a most formidible scholar and a valuable voice regarding politics, religion, and philosophy. I immediately subcribed to his blog feed and I've been reading his posts ever since.

Micah is a Lecturer in the School of Philosophy at the Catholic University of America and is currently writing a dissertation on Edmund Husserl’s theory of empty and filled intentions. He's also been kind enough to answer a number of my own personal questions through his blog and also by e-mail.

The other day I asked if he's be willing to answer a few questions for my readers and he was kind enough to share his insights on life and his ideas on philosophy in the form of a casual interview. I'm really pleased that I'm able to post it here on my blog, today, and I'd encourage you to check out his website and his other writing if you enjoy what you read here.

* * *

Nathan Key: First question, you're teaching philosophy, which totally puts you in a different class than say, myself (I'm looking into grad schools for the future), but whenever I tell people about my own interest in philosophy, they always counter with some sort of "what are you going to do with a philosophy degree?" statement. So, let's go ahead and entertain that question for a moment. Other than just teach philosophy, what's the big goal of yours? What do you hope to accomplish with your PhD?

Micah Tillman: Teachers have a strange role. Rather than going out and "having lives" themselves, it's their job to help other people live better (live more intelligently, more skillfully, more virtuously).

A teacher of politics teaches other people how to govern, rather than governing for herself. A teacher of architecture teaches other people how to build buildings, rather than building buildings herself. Etc.
 
A teacher doesn't make things; a teacher makes people -- or, rather, a teacher helps people make themselves -- who then go out and make things.

A teacher doesn't shape things; a teacher shapes people who then go out and shape things.

So, it looks like teachers do nothing, make nothing. Everything that is done and shaped is done and shaped by students. But that just means you measure a teacher's success in terms of people, not things. Teachers change the world for the better by changing their students for the better. Or, rather, teachers change the world for the better by helping their students change themselves for the better.

And that means that being a teacher is both arrogant and humiliating . You have to both think you can help your students become better than they are, and accept the fact that your profession relegates you to role of "having once had an influence on" the movers and shakers (rather than being a mover and shaker yourself).  (But to be honest, I'm not sure anyone would want to see me either move or shake, so it's probably best for everyone that I'm just a teacher. . . .)

So, what's my big goal other than teaching? I want to be a writer. I want to write books that will help people think more clearly about their lives, as I gradually learn to think more clearly about my own. And it really helps to have a "Ph.D." after your name, when it comes to getting people to read your books.

Nathan Key: On your blog, you've been writing an ongoing commentary on Paul's letter to the Romans, which I've really enjoyed. Can you tell my readers a little bit more about this project and why it's so important to you?
 
Micah Tillman: Thanks! I'm trying to figure out whether I have to become a Calvinist ("Reformed"), you see. I'm scared that I'll have to.

My formative years were spent in a Baptist church that was part-Reformed, part-Anabaptist.  We were kind of Calvinist, and kind of anti-Calvinist. But I didn't know enough at the time to be as thoroughly confused as I later became.

Things came to a head, as they say, when recently I found a lot of lectures on iTunes U from Reformed Theological Seminary. I "go running" every day, and needed something intellectually-stimulating to listen to. So, I started listening to RTS lectures.

It's been both wonderful and infuriating. The Reformed Theologians are remarkable for their systematic, philosophical approach to theology. I really like that. And Tim Keller, of whom I've recently become a big fan, is a Presbyterian (a Calvinist/Reformed Theologian).

However, the more I listened, the more it became apparent to me that I had some serious problems with some of the central tenets of Reformed Theology.

So, I had to figure out whether the problems I had were legitimate. When I try to "figure something out," I have to write about it. That's how I work through things, explore ideas, develop arguments, and whatnot. That led to a lot of blogging about Calvinism and Reformed Theology, and eventually brought me to Romans.

Calvinists cited so many verses from Romans to support their Doctrine of Total Depravity, that I decided I was just going to have to study the whole letter.

And that meant I was essentially going to have to write a "commentary" on Romans.

It's been fascinating for me so far. I'm five or so chapters in and have already found things -- things that seem hugely important to me -- that I had never noticed before. So far it's not looking good for the Calvinists, but there's a lot of Romans left.  I never know quite what's going to turn up in the next block of verses, so you may get to watch me become a Calvinist before your very eyes. Or you may get to watch me get to the final verse of Romans and say, "Ha!  I knew I was right!"

Of course, once I'm done with Romans, I'll have to then get back to the list of specific verses that I was going through when I ran into the block from Romans (and got sidetracked).

Nathan Key: Hey, I'll definitely be looking forward to those other commentaries, too!

OK, here's a question that I'm interested in. It seems like Twentieth Century Philosophy is often associated with atheism and agnosticism- especially since some of the more preeminent twentieth century philosophers were so adamantly anti-god or anti-religion. But lately, it seems like there's been a renewed interest among Christians regarding philosophy. Why do you think that is?

Micah Tillman: There are at least two reasons: Brian McLaren and the New Atheists.

First: It's Brian McLaren's "fault." Or, rather, it's the "Emergent Church Movement's" "fault," of which McLaren is a prime mover.

As best I can tell, it was McLaren who decided that Protestant Christianity needed to do two things: (1) admit it was living in a postmodern world, and (2) embrace postmodernism. (You can do the former without doing the latter, but McLaren thinks we need to do both.  See his A New Kind of Christian series <http://www.amazon.com/New-Kind-Christian-Friends-Spiritual/dp/078795599X/>.)

Once the word gets around that we don't live in the modern world (like everyone thought!), but in fact are living after the modern world, people start to get curious. What is postmodernism? How is it different from modernism? What in the world is modernism, anyway? (I'd suggest Crystal Downing's, How Postmodernism Serves (My) Faith <http://www.amazon.com/How-Postmodernism-Serves-Faith-Questioning/dp/0830827587/>, in response to those questions.)

And once you start asking questions like that, you have to start studying philosophy. Without postmodernism as a philosophical movement, McLaren would have had to turn somewhere else.  Without Derrida and Foucault, there would be no McLaren. Or, rather, McLaren would be a different McLaren than he is today. And that means everyone who is now caught up in the Emergent Church movement would have had to frame what they were doing in completely different terms.

In other words, the legitimacy of the Emergent Church rests on the legitimacy of postmodern philosophy. It's in the postmodernist's critique of modernist ways of thinking that McLaren & Co. found a way to respond to what they thought was wrong with the Christianity they grew up on.

Second: It's the New Atheists' (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens) "fault."

After 9/11, and in the midst of the presidency of George W. Bush, the atheists of the West felt under attack from "Religious Extremists." So they fought back with a series of books against the idea of God and the fact of religion.

That, in turn, led American Christians, at least, to feel under attack. After all, the New Atheists represent enlightenment, reason, toleration, etc. They're smart, well-respected people. They are the intelligentsia.

So prominent Christians began to respond with their own books. (See, for example, Tim Keller's The Reason for God <http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/0525950494/>, and search for "new atheism" on Amazon for any number of others.) 

The New Atheists were claiming that certain ideas (about God, religion, the world) have massive real-world effects (like terrorism, war, political injustice). So, suddenly, philosophical issues weren't just esoteric curiosities. These guys were claiming your way of life is produced by your way of thinking, and that the way Christians think leads to oppression and war.

Naturally, Christians would want to defend themselves.  But to do that, they'd have to get philosophical. They would have to defend themselves in the arena of ideas.

NK: I can't help but make the political leap, now that we've covered some philosophy and religion... Iwas somewhat surprised to find another philosopher who leans libertarian on the political spectrum since I honestly don't meet a lot of libertarian philosophers (I suppose this could be due to the influence of Mill and Marx). Anyhow, I was wondering how you came to believe so strongly in individual liberty? Was that something that you picked up through your study of philosophy or was that something you brought with you?

MT: I came to be a libertarian for a few different reasons.

First: I'm a libertarian because I'm not sure I'm right. Since I'm not sure I'm right, I don't feel comfortable forcing other people to do what I say. And thus I'm surprised at other people who are willing to force other people to do what they say. How could they be so sure that they're right, when I'm not sure that I'm right?  I find it offensive!  Do they think they're better than me?

I'm a smart guy, you see; I've thought long and hard about political issues. I married a person who fundamentally disagrees with me, and go to a church where everyone disagrees with me. I can't help but think long and hard about political issues.

And yet, I'm still not sure I'm right. After all, I live and worship with extremely intelligent people who think I'm wrong! So if someone as intelligent and engaged as I am can't be sure he's right, how could anyone?

Libertarianism, of all the political philosophies (besides anarchism, which many libertarians ascribe to), takes most seriously the idea that people shouldn't force each other to do things.

Second: I was raised a "Back-to-the-Constitution!" Conservative, so that predisposed me to believing in things like "individual liberty" and "limited government."

Third: I got really, really sick of people blaming me for things I hadn't done just because I belonged to some "group" like "America," "Christians," or "Baptists" that had done something. It made me question the entire notion of groups -- and I eventually came to the conclusion that they were an artificial construct.

But if groups don't exist, then what does? Persons. Not individuals, but persons. Here, the work of the Boston Personalists, and some Catholic philosophizing about the dignity of human persons really influenced me.

(A person, for example, can need other people and enjoy traditions without ceasing to be her own person; but an individual has to be different from everyone else, has to be unique, has to be an island.  There can be independent standards for a person, but not for an individual; an individual has to follow his own rules.  And that means you can tell a person that she has to respect your rights, but you can't tell an individual that.  An individual can't accept any norms that come from outside himself, or else he ceases to be a true individual.)

The more I thought about all this, the more it seemed to me that libertarianism was closest to being right.

NK: Obviously the libertarian lens effects (or affects, I never get this right) how you read and study other philosophers, right? So, do you see any apparent difference in your own approach to philosophy and religion because of the libertarian leaning?

MT: Indeed.  First and foremost, libertarianism is the idea that politics is fundamentally secondary, that government is not and should not be central to life. Politics and government are important only insofar as they have the power to impede the real business of living.

Therefore, I am inclined to be very skeptical of any philosophy or religious system that makes politics central, that treats political life as the highest kind, or that claims a person's personhood depends in some way on the political system in which she lives, or the government under which she lives.  I find it difficult to believe anyone who would claim that a person can only find fulfilment in a political group or community (e.g., in a nation, a city, a state.).

Furthermore, being of the libertarian persuasion keeps me on the lookout for the ways in which an idea, or system of ideas, could be used by people to strengthen or expand the use of physical force (by government, or by whoever).  That is, it makes me more sensitive than I might otherwise be to the ways in which ideas are connected with power.

And, being a libertarian makes it harder for me to accept even those places in a philosophy or religion where the idea of groups might be used legitimately. I find, for instance, Paul's talk about the "body of Christ" to be hard (but not impossible!) to swallow, because of how similar it is to the (dangerous) idea of the "body politic."

So, in some ways, my libertarianism puts me at a disadvantage. So, I have to remind myself that even though I feel or believe very strongly in libertarian ideas, I am not certain of them.  I have to remember that one of the reasons I'm a libertarian is that I don't think I've gotten everything figured out. And therefore some ideas that may not make me happy at the moment, may actually be legitimate. 

NK: I think we're on the same page in this regard, and I really like how you said that libertarians are often those who have strong opinions that they DON'T want to impose on others, even if those ideas aren't ideally "Libertarian." Micah, thanks so much for sharing these thoughts with us. I really glad to have a voice like yours to learn from and brainstorm with.

MT: Thanks for the honor!