0

0

•IMrlM1S

Hillsdale College Hillsdale, Michigan 49242 Vol . 13, No . 2February, 1984

THE CRISIS OF MODERN LEARNIN GBy Carl F. H. Henry

Editor's Preview : It was Nathan Pusey, former presi-dent of Harvard, who remarked at commencement exer-cises a generation ago that "the least that can b eexpected" from a university graduate is that he or sh e"pronounce the name of God without embarrassment. "

That minimum is no longer being met in America to -day, warns the distinguished theologian and curren tvisiting professor at Hillsdale, Carl Henry .

Is man but a physically upright and mentally cleve ranimal or does he bear the image, however tarnished, o fa holy and merciful personal Creator?

Are we but complex creatures evolved from matter onan inconsequential planet, itself the product of an un-conscious collision of blind forces ; or is the universe th ework of a solicitous Creator who summons us to entrus tour well-being and destiny to Him ?

Contemporary education, dominated by a col dnaturalism and an illogical, shallow humanism, seems toevade such issues . In so doing, it shortchanges learnin gby trivializing truth and the good . It may even be en-dangering our survival as a society .

But signs of campus spiritual renewal are appearing ,Dr. Henry says, with students, professors, and adminis-trators all doing their part . The Christian Studies Pro-gram at Hillsdale College, for which this compelling lec-ture was delivered, is one notable example .

The most sudden and sweeping upheaval in beliefs andvalues has taken place in this century . No generation inthe history of human thought has seen such swift andradical inversion of ideas and ideals as in our lifetime .

At the outset of this century the instructional progra mof the great Western universities frequently referred t othe God of the Bible, the living self-revealing God .Courses in moral philosophy gave prominence to the Te nCommandments and to the Sermon on the Mount, an dpresented Jesus of Nazareth as the perfect example of

morality . Studies in social philosophy stressed that forhistory to attain a utopian future some change in man' sinner disposition or character is necessary, if not becaus eof original sin (which was increasingly questioned o nevolutionary assumptions) then at least because of man' ssupposed inheritance of brute propensities and animalinstincts .

By the late 1920s a striking shift of perspective ha dprevailed . References to deity no longer focused on th eGod of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the self-revelator yGod of biblical theism, but rather on an anonymou sGod-in-general, a John Doe god . God was now inferre dfrom the not-God . Philosophers of religion argued fro mthe existence of the cosmos to a divine Cause, and/orfrom the design of nature or pattern of history to a divin eDesigner, and/or -from human conscience to a divineLawgiver, or from the mind of man to an Absolut eReason. Instead of the One God there emerged varietie sof gods, both infinite and finite, personal and imper -

im•pri•mis (im-pry-mis) adv. In the first place, from Latin in primis, among the first things . . .

Imprimis is the journal of Hillsdale's two outreach programs seeking to foster clear thinking on the problems of our time : the Cente rfor Constructive Alternatives in Michigan and the Shavano Institute for National Leadership in Colorado . A subscription is free on request .

sonal, even growing gods . Naturalists, meanwhile ,dismissed God entirely except as but a convenient sym-bol for man's supreme social or private values. Faced bythis vanishing theoretical consensus, American educator sabandoned the concept of God as the integrating facto rin modern university learning .

Instead of God, shared moral values became th ecohesive force in liberal arts studies . This emphasis o nethical norms was not, however, associated with biblica limperatives and divinely revealed commandments . Man' sdistinctive nature, it was said, requires a hierarchy ofvalues that in preserving material realities subordinate sthem to ethical duties ; these ethical duties, however, mayor may not in turn require spiritual or theologicalillumination .

The shift of educational perspective concerned not onlythe vision of God and of moral imperatives, but also thenature of the dawning future and the means of imple-menting utopia . No longer was an internal change i nman's nature or character considered necessary, an despecially not the supernatural regeneration of fallen ma non which Christian theism insisted . Instead education ,politicization and socialization of the human race wer eto be the catalysts of a new age . Western learning wouldbe carried to the ends of the earth, democratic ideal swould be exported to all the nations, and the realities o fhuman brotherhood in one world would facilitate th etriumph of universal peace and justice .

No Place for God ?Today much of that kind of thinking is gone . No

significant place remains for God or the gods in th e

About the Author

Carl Henry is Distinguished Visiting Professor o fChristian Studies at Hillsdale College for the 1983-84year. The founding editor of Christianity Today anda past president of the American Theological society ,he holds a permanent appointment as lecturer-at-large for World Vision International, an inter -denominational Christian humanitarian organization .

Dr . Henry has taught and lectured in colleges ,seminaries, and forums throughout the United Statesand on every continent of the globe . He is the authoror editor of some 40 books, capped by his masterfulsix-volume God, Revelation, and Authority .

Born in New York City, he now makes his hom ein Arlington, Virginia . He is a graduate of Wheato nCollege and holds two earned and three honorarydoctorates .

Carl Henry delivered this presentation at HillsdaleCollege in September 1983 as part of a Christia nStudies convocation entitled "Imago Dei: A Chris-tian Vision of Man."

university classroom . Courses in science afd in histor ydismiss deity as irrelevant . Psychology texts usually in-troduce God only as a psychic aberration .

£ven ;some re-

ligion departments still rumor the "death o 0*" Phi-losophy departments are in the grip of Ist-p,Psitivisti canalysis and tend to sidestep supernatural -toncerns ;others disown the supernatural and creatively restructur eultimate reality . The literature department alone seem sat least to reflect the great theological concerns in aliterary context .

In the absence of unrevisable absolutes, universitie svainly expected that common values would nonetheles sintegrate modern learning . What we actually have is anormless tolerance of diversity, of deviation which is link -ed with a democratic outlook and often with respect forminorities ; moral absolutes are associated only with to-talitarian bureaucracies . A relativistic morality given t oself-assertion lampoons the truth that tolerance withou tnorms destroys even tolerance and that democracy with -out norms invites chaos .

Not only have the pluralistic gods and shared mora lvalues become pale ghosts of the campus, but confidencehas broken down as well in education and politics a sdynamic catalysts of social change. Instead of reliance onorderly means of social change, including respect for la wand deference to established conventions, the mood o fcontemporary social transformers is increasingly open t orevolutionary coercion and violence as the preferred alter -natives that assure rapid and radical alteration .

Meanwhile education itself succumbs to pressures tocurtail the humanities, a course that would even mor eabridge the already reduced common intellectual experi-ence of students . These pressures come not only from th eside of the physical sciences which are now the sine quanon of modern learning, but also from the vocationalneeds of students . The liberal arts have impoverishe dthemselves by their neglect of enduring spiritual concern sand by their studied exclusion of Judeo-Christia nperspective in a radically secular age .

The drift of twentieth-century learning can be succinct-ly summarized in one statement : instead of recognizingYahweh as the source and stipulator of truth and thegood, contemporary thought reduces all reality to imper-sonal processes and events, and insists that man himsel fcreatively imposes upon the cosmos and upon history th eonly values that they will ever bear . This dethronementof God and enthronement of man as lord of the universe ,this eclipse of the supernatural and exaggeration of th enatural, has precipitated an intellectual and moral crisi sthat escorts Western civilization despite its brillian ttechnological achievements ever nearer to anguished col -lapse and atheistic suffocation .

Naturalism, the New Orthodox yThe shaping ideas of contemporary university learning

can be readily identified . Its key concepts are dependency ,transiency, relativity, and autonomy . These terms hav e

2

i)

always had a proper place in the explanation of man an dthe world, and all the more so in a generation that know sthe space-time universe to be immensely older and im-mensely larger than even our grandparents suspected . Bu twhat distinguishes the modern view is its antitheologica land antisupernatural stance . The modern view affirm sdiffuse dependency, total transciency, radical relativity ,and absolute autonomy .

In affirming the independence of God, classical educa-tion denied the comprehensive contingency of all reali-ty: the Creator of the universe has the ground of his be-ing in himself, that is, has aseity, whereas the universein its totality is dependent upon its Maker and is per-vasively contingent . The current view, by contrast, depict sall reality as a matrix of contingency ; all existence reducesultimately to nature in some form, that is, to physica lprocesses and events .

Earlier education affirmed, further, the reality of a neternal spiritual and moral world grounded in the super -natural being of God ; it denied that reality is complete-ly in the clutch of time . By contrast the current viewaffirms the transiency of the whole of existence . Thebiblical conception of an eternal Logos who shaped all

) worlds it considers mythology and without explanatoryimportance . All that exists, we are told, bears an expira-tion date; man and beast alike move toward death as thei rfinal destiny .

Earlier education affirmed that truth and the good ar efixed and final ; it denied that right and wrong are culture-relative. The current view, on the other hand, asserts thatall ideas and ideals are relative to culture : all ethical im-peratives, all philosophical pronouncements, all theo-logical doctrines, are partisan prejudices of the socio-cultural matrix . It rejects outright eternal and reveale dtruths, divinely given commandments, unrevisable reli-gious doctrines .

Given this emphasis on the culture-relativity of truth ,certain other tenets of the current view seem somewha tarbitrary, for example, its confident dogmas of completecontingency and total transiency . The fact is, that a con-sistent espousal of culture-relativity would lead not tosuch speculative finalities, but to skepticism, since per-vasive dependency and total transiency would be doc-trines rooted in our own particular cultural perspective .

But the current view also affirms, aggressively so, th eabsolute autonomy of man. Its test of whether modernman has truly "come of age" turns on whether one re-pudiates all external, objective, and transcendent authori-ty, and affirms instead the ultimacy of personal decisionand creative selfhood . Man is considered his own lord i nthe area of truth and morals ; the only values that thecosmos and history will ever bear, in the current view, ar ethose that man himself insinuates into the course o fevents .

These premises have become the masked metaphysics, th ecovert conceptuality of modern liberal learning . Almos tevery sampling of student reaction to liberal arts studie sin the mainstream colleges and universities in the las tdecade evokes the overwhelming verdict that recent stu-dents considered themselves intellectually constrained t oshape their worldview by these controlling emphase swhich so authoritatively permeate classroom teaching anddiscussion .

This naturalist outlook notably differs from theatheistic Communist view only in secondary details ,rather than in basic assumptions . The official teachingof Communism is that nature and history are objective-ly structured by a pattern of economic determinism, adeterminism that assures the ultimate triumph of the pro-letariat . Free-world naturalism, by contrast, views thisclaim as pure mythology, and considers nature an dhistory instead to be intrinsically unpatterned . But bothperspectives are equally antitheological, both repudiat ea divinely-given truth and morality, and both reject asupernatural purpose in nature and history . While Com-munism views the state as the authoritative stipulator o ftruth and right for the collectivity of mankind, free-worl dnaturalism on the other hand elevates creative individualselfhood .

It is a fact, of course, that the present student genera-tion is less idea-oriented than job-oriented . Some report sestimate the number of seriously intellectual students a tonly ten percent . Some improvement is under way as

3

women students aspire to careers in medicine, law an dother professions long dominated by men. As othercoveted vocational opportunities presuppose academi ccompetence, serious students competing for scholarshipsare once again returning to long-forsaken libraries .Scholars who consciously accept the naturalisti cworldview are frequently encouraged by their mentors topursue graduate studies and to become universit yteachers . Among most students, the pressures o fnaturalistic theory serve actually to dull the force of theinherited Judeo-Christian view or at very least topostpone individual commitment to its high moral an dspiritual demands .

What specially attracts liberal arts students t onaturalism is its emergence in the form of humanism, aphilosophic system that adds to the naturalistic agend aa program of social ethics . Humanism emphasizes notonly man's duties to his fellow man and to nature, bu talso certain expectations from his fellow man and fro mnature . Human beings ought to champion social justice ,promote human rights and racial equality and be con-cerned, we are told, about poverty; they ought, more-over, to preserve natural resources and avoid pollutingthe cosmos. Humanism emphasizes also certain humanexpectations from nature, which is assumed somehow t ouphold personal worth and security . Although most sec-ularists abandon any expectation of individual immortali-ty, some have assigned their bodies to deep freeze atdeath in the hope that science in the next century will b eable to retrieve them for endless life on earth .

Parking-Lot Hypocris yThis correlation of a humanist agenda of social ethics

with a naturalistic worldview has been attacked fromright and left as a philosophical monstrosity that defieslogical consistency. A system that denies that personali-ty has decisive significance in the origin of the univers eand considers personality but an accidental by-produc tof blind and unthinking forces can hardly affirm tha tnature specially defers to man or that man is bound b yenduring duties . The consistent outcome of naturalistictheory is not a special status for mankind but the essen-tial purposelessness and meaninglessness of huma nexistence .

The inconsistency of the humanist is perhaps most ap-parent in his existential response when he is wronged bya fellow human being. If a humanist professor at NewYork University were to park his new Jaguar in a park-ing lot and to discover upon returning that an unknowndriver had done massive damage to the side of his car ,he would predictably not offer a public eulogy to th elatest defector from objective values who, having emerg-ed from ethical adolescence, now considered all ethica limperatives culturally relative and creative selfhood to bedecisive for morality . Far from it . He would, instead ,suddenly inherit a vocabulary with eschatological over -tones that his naturalistic metaphysics does not logical-ly accommodate .

From the right, that is, from the side of biblical theism ,the humanist emphasis on social ethics has long beenassailed as a borrowed fragment of the Judeo-Christia nheritage which the new theorists were unable complete-ly to disavow. Christian theism by contrast affirms no tonly a program of social ethics ; it affirms also an agen-da of personal ethics and, moreover, insists that love fo rGod holds priority over love for neighbor and for self .Modern secular philosophy, as D . Elton Trueblood con-tended, promoted a "cut-flower civilization," one destin-ed to wither because severed from its biblical roots ;moreover, it preserved only preferred remnants of th eJudeo-Christian moral imperative .

Evangelical criticism of the humanist program was not,however, a powerful intellectual classroom force . Onlya minority boldly voiced its claims against the counter -pressures of comprehensive naturalism . Evangelicals ,moreover, were themselves embarrassed by propagan-distic fundamentalist claims that humanists, in view o ftheir atheism and tolerance of deviant lifestyles, were theenemies of morality .

More recently, therefore, criticism of the illogic o fhumanism has proceeded increasingly from the left .Radical students who identify themselves with the nat-uralistic worldview have pressed university professors t odefend their espousal of "conventional morality" in th erealm of social ethics given the controlling tenets onwhich humanism rests . As Karl Lowith remarks, natural-ism provides no real basis for man to feel "at home "amid statistical averages in a universe born of an explo-sion. A cosmos in which personhood emerges only as anoddity and as an accident cannot sustain as its primar yvalue an agenda of man's objective duties to nature o rto his fellow beings . The consistent implication o fnaturalism is that man does not matter and that natur ehas no special place for personality .

The Inescapable Revelatio nThe humanist modification of naturalism to accom-

modate an agenda of social ethics is evidence enough thatwhile naturalism as a metaphysical system is thinkable ,it is not humanly livable—because naturalism dissolve sthe worth and meaning of human survival .

The reason humanism adjusts naturalistic beliefs ex-perientially to universal ethical imperatives is that lik eevery other human being the humanist is related to alarger realm of being and life and value, one that heneither creates nor controls . He cannot wholly escap eGod in his revelation nor wholly suppress the claim of theimago Dei upon his psyche. He is informed about in -escapable moral obligation far more than the naturalisti ctheory implies . The New Testament clearly affirms thatthe Logos of God lights every man (John 1 :9) and thatthe revelation of the Creator penetrates to the very be-ing of even those who would suppress or excise tha tdisclosure (Rom . 1 :18 ff ., 2 :14 f .) . Despite his intellec-tual and moral revolt against the supernatural, fallen ma n

4

is unable to fully free himself of God's counterclai mupon his mind and conscience .

The humanist perspective, therefore, is nurtured in partby hidden resources . At the crucial point of the natureand destiny of man the humanist forsakes the consisten tdemands of naturalism and incorporates instead alter -natives that only a theistic view can coherently and ade-quately sustain . The Bible clearly illumines the tensio nthat besets the humanist's refusal to opt either fo rthoroughgoing naturalism or for thoroughgoing theism .On the one hand the universal general revelation of God ,in which the humanist shares, explains his concession sand departures from a consistent naturalistic account ofman and the world; on the other, spiritual rebellion orsin explains his theoretical exclusion of the supernatural .The humanist seeks to suppress God's claim but canno twholly eradicate it . Like all other human beings he stand sperpetually related to God in his self-disclosure and can -not totally obscure the imago Dei that by creation stampsman with special dignity and worth .

Given the intellectual dominance of naturalism in th econtemporary university, one would expect that if eve ra student generation were to be wholly lost to a super -natural faith, and especially to the Judeo-Christia nheritage with its distinctive revelatory claim, the presen tcollegiate masses would be doomed to that fate . Yet it isone thing to say that on balance the university classroommost influentially promulgates the view that impersona lprocesses and events comprise the ultimately real world ,and quite another to say that atheistic naturalism ,whether humanist or nonhumanist, has captured the stu-dent mind .

In the Steps of Augustine and Lewi sWhile most students, even many who pursue studies i n

philosophy, delay any serious wrestling of metaphysica lconcerns, there are tens of thousands in the America nevangelical movement whose personal faith in Christ andcommitment to Christian theism date back to high schoo land university . Their exposure to Judeo-Christian realitiescame not in connection with classroom studies, but main-ly on the margin of formal studies, through associatio nwith fellow students whose devotional vitality and moraldedication contrasted notably with the spiritual apath yand ethical permissiveness prevalent on the secula rcampus .

In large part ecumenical student activity had wanedbecause of concessions to the speculative climate ; doc-trinal and evangelistic concerns were replaced by radica lsocio-political protest . But evangelical movements lik eInter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, Campus Crusade fo rChrist, Young Life, and Navigators left their mark despit econtrary academic pressures . Even on mainstream secula rcampuses scores and

the presuppositions of secular philosophy are no tnecessarily infallible, and with disarming confidenc espoke of supernatural realities and staked their lives onthe eternal verities . Like C . S. Lewis, they affirmed thatone can be Surprised by Joy in an intellectual climat ehostile to or oblivious of God and literate only aboutspace-time relativities .

To be sure, the evangelical resurgence reflected forsome perhaps little more than a semipopular interest inideas . The electronic church was led in large part bycharismatic personalities more gifted in inspirational tha nin theoretical and apologetic concerns . Religiousbooksellers capitalized on the conservative advance b ypromoting bestseller works dwelling on personal experi-ence, doctrinal controversy, eschatological speculation ,and the like . Evangelists established universities as rivalsto secular institutions .

The Christian day school movement zoomed into hig hgear, often depicting public schools as essentially godlessand amoral, even as champions of public schools oftendepicted private schools as elitist and racist . Newly form-ed evangelical universities often portrayed the secula rcampus as essentially atheistic and permissive in perspec-tive, a judgment whose severity went far beyond that o flong-established American evangelical colleges . For thelatter, the recovery of secular institutions for traditionaltheistic commitments remained an objective .

In such a climate of extremism secular educators tend-ed to dismiss the growing evangelical movement as a nemotion-ridden aberration too intellectually impoverishe dto endure . They continued to regard humanism as th efirmly entrenched and quasi-official philosophy of th esecular campus .

There are indications, however, that this verdic tseriously misreads the facts . For one thing, the most re -cent Gallup poll indicates that spiritual interest on th epart of university students has not run its course but re -mains a campus phenomenon . Four in five students con-sider religious beliefs important, two in five atten dreligious services weekly, one in three affirm that thei rreligious commitments are deepening rather than weaken-ing. While this religious inquiry takes a variety of turns ,and includes an interest in cults like Hare Krishna and theUnification Church as well as in Islam and all branche sof the Judeo-Christian movement, evangelical concern sstill remain prominently at the center of the movement .

Meanwhile, more and more spokesmen from withi nthe secular universities lament the decline of interest i nthe humanities and the attrition of educational core con -tent that increasingly deprives students of a shared aca-demic experience . They also fault the campuses for indif -ference to the persistent problems of philosophy, amon g

then hundreds of students emerg-

them the reality of God and the objectivity of moral im -

ed to witness that they had found the crucified and risen

peratives . As Stephen Muller, president of John s

Christ a living reality and now treasured the Bible as

Hopkins, puts it, the universities may be producing a

God's written Word . Like Augustine they declared that

generation of "highly skilled barbarians . "5

A further sign of continuing spiritual resurgence is th efact that three recent leaders of the American Philo-sophical Association, in their presidential addresses ,placed the subject of Christian theism once again on th eagenda of the society . From within the APA has emergeda Society of Christian Philosophers which will soo npublish a thought journal. The Institute for AdvancedChristian Studies has begun issuing ten paperback text sat junior-college level ; written mostly by professors at BigTen and other mainline universities, the series gives Chris -tian perspective on various liberal arts disciplines .Evangelical texts are appearing also in philosophy an dtheology that underscore the importance of Christiantheism for the intellectual as well as social life of th eculture and reach beyond empirical and historical meth-odology in probing ultimate reality . A growing conflu-ence of literature by Jewish, Catholic, and Protestan tscholars is now emerging as well ; in a secular societ ywhose pluralism lacks purpose and whose normless toler -ance invites chaos it is reaffirming the importance o fbiblical convictions and values .

Educators Facing Judgmen tModern liberal learning is at a decisive crossroads . In

accepting the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion ,Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put the issue bluntly : "If I wereasked today to formulate as concisely as possible th emain cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed u psome sixty million of our people," he said, "I could notput it more accurately than to repeat : 'Men have forgot -ten God; that's why all this has happened . '

This forsaking of God Solzhenitsyn proceeded to iden-tify as "the principal trait of the entire twentieth cen-tury . . . . The entire twentieth century is being sucked in -to the vortex of atheism and self-destruction ." It is on ething, he observed, that millions of human beings "hav ebeen corrupted and spiritually devastated by an officiall yimposed atheism" ; it is another, hardly less disconcerting ,that "the tide of secularism . . .has progressively inundatedthe West" so that "the concepts of good and evil havebeen ridiculed . "

It "has become embarrassing to appeal to eternal con-cepts, embarrassing to state that evil makes its home i nthe individual human heart before it enters a politica lsystem," Solzhenitsyn remarked; "the meaning of life inthe West has ceased to be seen as anything more loft ythan the 'pursuit of happiness . '

Judgment for this eclipse of spiritual realities and fo rpreoccupation with the space-time problematics of natur emust fall more severely on us educators than upon ou rstudents ; indeed, students now often excel their pro-

fessors in probing the transcendent world . Whether thi sinterest will be permanently shunted to the edge of th eclassroom is simply another way of asking whether th eworld of liberal learning is willing to restore academi cvisibility once again to the priority of God and to ethica limperatives .

At a meeting of the American Association of Univer-sity Professors shortly after Watergate, some member sproposed a resolution condemning the political amoralitythat precipitated the national scandal . The proposal wa squickly withdrawn, however, when someone observe dthat all major Watergate personalities had attendeduniversities whose faculties are affiliated with A .A.U.P .

If the role of professors does not extend beyond socia lcriticism to involve perpetual vigilance in grappling wit hand clarifying influential ideas and ideals, are we not ac -countable, at least in part, for a nation's loss of integri-ty and moral cohesion ?

Is man but a physically upright and mentally cleve ranimal or does he bear the image, however tarnished, ofa holy and merciful personal Creator? Are we but com-plex creatures evolved from matter on an inconsequen-tial planet itself the product of an unconscious collisionof blind forces, or is the universe the work of a solicitou sCreator who summons us to entrust our well-being an ddestiny to Him? Does human existence move only towardcessation of life or are there, in fact, transcenden tfinalities and ultimate destinies in the offing? Contem-porary education seems to escape, if not to evade, suc hissues and in so doing, shortchanges learning by trivializ-ing truth and the good .

While the verdict that intellectuals give on God and th egood may not decide the ultimate destiny of contem-porary culture, it will nonetheless judge their competenceas intellectual and moral analysts to whom are entruste dthe fortunes of oncoming generations . When the RomanEmpire collapsed in ignominious ruin, it was not thenobles and sages who perpetuated the moral fortunes o fthe West but rather the scattered people of God who livedaccording to spiritual and ethical imperatives . What maywell be at stake in the crisis of modern learning is no tsimply the significant survival of society but especially th esignificant survival of the university . Academia must re-cover the conviction and promulgation of shared values ,of which in the West that of God has been supreme abov eall . Unless it does so, the fading space-time relativities wil lby default replace what was once the vision of God andof the good, and will doom man to mistake himself an dhis neighbor for passing shadows in the night, transien toddities with no future but the grave .

Founder & President : George C . Roche III . Editor, John K . Andrews, Jr . Managing Editor, Peter C . McCarty . Assis-tant, Patricia A . DuBois . The opinions expressed in Imprimis may be, but are not necessarily, the views of Hillsdal eCollege and its outreach divisions . Copyright ©1984 . Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, pro-vided the following credit line is used verbatim : "Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, the monthly journal of HillsdaleCollege featuring presentations at Hillsdale's Center for Constructive Alternatives and at its Shavano Institute fo rNational Leadership ." ISSN 0277-8432 .