This Week at Regent and UBC

For those of you in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and particularly in the Vancouver area, here are a couple of events this coming week that might interest you.

Both are scheduled for Thursday, November 13.

1. “Must Scholarship Be Justified to the Poor?” I’ll be discussing this question with Dan Oudshoorn,  who has extensive experience with the Canadian streets and their people, both as a worker among them and as a former street person himself. Dan is a graduate of Tyndale College in Toronto and is a fine student here at Regent. He will argue the affirmative out of his reflection on theology and his experience among the poor. I will be arguing the negative, suggesting that God’s mission is not properly construed as being fundamentally about the poor, and therefore some activities, and scholarship in particular, can be justified without reference to them.

We’ll be stating our positions briefly, interacting with each other, and then going to the floor for further comment and question. Everyone is welcome: Regent College, Room 100, 11 a.m.

2. The Graduate and Faculty Christian Fellowship at UBC is sponsoring an event called “Multiculturalism in Canada: What Are We Talking About?” Prof. George Egerton, of UBC’s Department of History, will bring a short lecture on the social and political factors that led to the enshrinement of multiculturalism in the Canadian self-consciousness and the very cabinet of the federal government. I’ll be taking a quite different, philosophical, tack, arguing that the most popular form of current multiculturalist sentiment, what I call “multiculturalism as affirmation,” is incoherent and, ultimately, a severe form of hegemony.

Everyone is welcome: Woodward/IRC Lecture Hall 1 at 4 p.m.

0 Responses to “This Week at Regent and UBC”

  1. danieljdoleys

    Prof. Stackhouse,
    Do think it would be possible to record the first discussion mentioned. I would love to hear and be able to include it on my Audio Lectures page.

  2. poserorprophet

    Ooooo! That first discussion sounds really, really great. Boy. I’d book off work just to go and hear that!

    😉

  3. Anson Ann

    Prof. Stackhouse,

    Just wanted to follow up on your talk at UBC. I understand your suggestion that the harmony model may be the best among the three, but it requires restricted membership adhering to shared common grounds. However, when it is about citizenship or the right of abode in a country, it is not exactly the same as opting-in a “club” or some sort of membership-based society. No matter how bad or extreme or “totalizing” some people may have their beliefs in, don’t they still have the right to live in this piece of land, just because they are human beings?

    In the end, it seems like your position goes against Prof. Egerton’s, who supports true religious pluralism that tolerates and protects all faiths, including some forms of extremism, only that we need to deal with them carefully and learn to live with this messiness, but we cannot deny their right to live in this land given to all, because the constitution says all people are created equal, right?

    I hope to hear more interaction between your harmony position and true religious pluralism.

  4. John Stackhouse

    No, not everyone has the right to live anywhere they want. What sort of “right” is that? Grounded in what?

    Professor Egerton, furthermore, agrees with me in that not just any religious (or philosophical) outlook can be accommodated by Canada–or by any other conceivable polity, I would suggest. No society can exist without its members “signing on” in some important way to its constitutive ideals and practices.

    Which constitution are you referring to that says “all people are created equal”?! ; ) And what does that have to do with your conviction that everyone should be able to live anywhere they like?

    I think I’d like to live in a suite at the Four Seasons Hotel, or in a mansion on St. Vincent, or in a chalet in the French Alps, but I can’t, because the equality of human persons isn’t the only consideration in who lives where.

×

Comments are closed.