Feeling Stupid

Every quarter I get the latest issue of The Anglican Theological Review (ATR). Now, just to be clear and honest up front, this does NOT mean that I actually read said issue when it arrives; I'm slightly behind on my reading. Just to be clear there . . .

Currently I am making my way through the Summer 2009 issue.

There is an interesting article by James Gould entitled Earning, Deserving and the Catechism's Understanding of Grace. It's an interesting article and he makes a good argument for why we deserve grace, as opposed to the Catechism's definition that "Grace is God's favor towards us, unearned and undeserved."

And while he does make a compelling argument, what I found to be annoying (not just a little annoying but seriously major annoying) was his use of the word 'desert.'

The only definition I have of that word revolves around arid regions (the Sahara desert), areas devoid of life (the Challenger Deep), or a strong lack of something (as much as it pains me to say it, the Washington State Cougars are a desert of football skills). Desert, to me, has a particular definition.

Which made it hard to get through this article when Mr. Gould uses desert in a philosophical sense that makes no sense to me.

"Human desert expresses a fundamental principle of morality: respect for persons."

I can't wrap my head around this. Does this mean that human "lacking-areas" express a fundamental principle of morality? Does this mean that human areas devoid of life offer respect for persons?

What I ended up doing was just reading the article and ignoring any discussion of human desert experiences. I did try to figure this out. I went to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to learn this new definition. It didn't help.

So, if any of my three readers can define desert in a philosophical sense that makes sense, feel free to let me know.

Thank God this wasn't on the GOE's.