Jeremy Lin, the Harvard educated, Asian-American, basketball phenom who makes public proclamations about his Christian faith, is all the rage right now. There are a variety of questions his success raises, yet surely the most unique (or esoteric) analysis must go to David Brooks who takes a Straussian spin on the New York Knicks point guard. In yesterday’s Op-Ed, Brooks uses Lin’s sudden fame as an opportunity to discuss the possible tension between Greek Magnanimity and Biblical humility:
“The modern sports hero is competitive and ambitious. (Let’s say he’s a man, though these traits apply to female athletes as well). He is theatrical. He puts himself on display. He is assertive, proud and intimidating. He makes himself the center of attention when the game is on the line. His identity is built around his prowess. His achievement is measured by how much he can elicit the admiration of other people — the roar of the crowd and the respect of ESPN….The religious ethos is about redemption, self-abnegation and surrender to God…The odds are that Lin will never figure it out because the two moral universes are not reconcilable.”
Brooks doesn’t buy Lin’s argument that he is motivated to excel for the sake of God’s glory, but the Christian synthesis of magnanimity and humility has a long pedigree which goes back as far as Aquinas. Either way, it should be a good topic for conversation when you’re having friends over for the Knicks game.
February 18th, 2012 | 12:38 pm
or for intro pol. philosophy students who are being asked to consider the Christian contribution to political philosophy Thanks, Jason
February 18th, 2012 | 4:31 pm
But doesn’t slavery to God lead to defiance of tyrants–including the rejection of the devil and all his works (to pick up on the latest Santorum flap)? That’s still not the same as the pride of classical political philosophy, but it is not simple meekness either. Nothing about Christianity that would hinder Lin from crashing the boards or Tebow from barreling over a defender.
February 18th, 2012 | 6:42 pm
Great and witty reminder, Jaffanese American. But perhaps pounding the boards for rebounds and breaking tackles (even on Sundays) is a much easier thing for the Christian than preaching popular resistance to tyrants?
February 19th, 2012 | 2:19 pm
To take an example of Christian popular resistance to tyrants Brad, I think the dissenters against Communism in Eastern Europe were motivated by Christian humility, not pagan pride. Vaclav Havel was a great souled man in Aquinas’ sense, the sense of a human knowing what he is in the universe (not God but a creation of worth), and that tyrants who pretend that they are God deserve to go down. Havel and the others sufferred because of their dissent, but Havel didn’t throw a hissy fit about injustices done to him personally because there was a larger common cause at stake. A magnanimous pagan probably would have thrown a hissy fit. Mary Keys wrote a great chapter arguing this exact point in “Aquinas, Aristotle, and the Promise of the Common Good” that I highly recommend
February 19th, 2012 | 2:28 pm
Lin and Tebow are all about the team, and it makes sense that their Christianity and teamwork go hand in hand. If the Knicks and the Broncos had been failures in spite of Lin and Tebow, their behavior probably have gone unnoticed by the world. But the success of these -teams- really is interesting
February 19th, 2012 | 5:28 pm
I like the V. Havel example (and description), Dr. Wolfe. And I’ll check out the Key’s chapter too, thanks. But curious: would this gloss on what the dissenters of communism were up to work equally well when it comes to to describing our own dissent against British tyranny? Sorry for such a huge question.
February 20th, 2012 | 1:13 am
That is a great question, Brad. I think the character in the American revolution we’d have to investigate is (of course) George Washington. Jaffa has argued that Washington fits the Aristotelian mold of magnanimity, but I’m not sure that he doesn’t better fit the mold of well-understood Christian humility. In Jaffa’s “Thomism and Aristotelianism” (p136) he points out that there is one part of Aristotelian magnanimity that Thomas doesn’t even try to fit into Christianity- the disdain and “looking down” of the great souled man. It’s pretty clear that Aristotle meant he would be “disdaining” inferior people, while Thomas interprets it as the great souled man “disdaining” inferior external goods like money. Now, my question is, did Washington show a disdain for people lower than him? I haven’t heard much evidence of that; in fact, I think Washington seems pretty similar to Havel in his long-suffering approach to the hotheads and arrogant men who surrounded him, for the benefit of the country
February 20th, 2012 | 9:23 pm
Interesting you go straight to Washington’s character when speaking about the character of the American Revolution? You’re saying Jaffa does the same but for different Aristotelian ends? Is Washington’s (and Havel’s) Christian humility a purer expression of the truth about the proposition of equality in the Declaration? Thanks for this.
February 20th, 2012 | 10:40 pm
Here is Tocqueville discussing Classical and Christian views on equality:
“All the great writers of antiquity belonged to the aristocracy of masters, or at least they saw that aristocracy established and uncontested before their eyes. Their mind, after it had expanded itself in several directions, was barred from further progress in this one; and the advent of Jesus Christ upon earth was required to teach that all the members of the human race are by nature equal and alike.”
Another line worth reflecting on is the last sentence of the Declaration of Independence:
“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
Sacred Honor? Sounds Classical AND Christian.
February 21st, 2012 | 6:04 pm
Great thread, all.
Carson Holloway has a fine essay on the GSM here: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/Carson-Holloway–Magnanimity?keyword=Carson+Holloway%2C+Magnanimity&store=book Clears up a number of questions, IMO.
On Brad’s (dangerous, for American Christians serious about Romans 13) revolution question, the key I think is how we judge the Declaration’s judgment that Britain’s actions “evince a design” towards despotism-establishment, such that the normal avoid-revolution rule of “Prudence” (and of Romans 13, albeit moderated by several famous passages in Aquinas?) doesn’t apply. Washington’s character does help illustrate the character of the Revolution, but it cannot provide its ultimate justification from a Christian perspective.
February 21st, 2012 | 8:35 pm
Let’s bring it back to Mr. Joseph’s initial suggestion about Jeremy Lin: that the honor he seeks (and is paid well for seeking) is capable of being synthesized with a true Christian humility. The problem with this,as I see it, is that the honor culture of the eighteenth-century colonies and the honor culture of the contemporary NBA are two very different things. Magnanimity was possible in the former because they also privileged and fostered the many virtues that are necessary prerequisites to magnanimity (at least, acc. to Aristotle)–the cardinal virtues, certainly, but also many smaller ones. In the NBA, on the other hand, only a few virtues are cultivated, and even these are practiced only fleetingly, during and for the sake of the time they are on the court. So there’s honor there, but no magnanimity.
So I wonder whether Aquinas would be really be following along with us here.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact