The reading group book of the semester at IWU is Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. His basic premise is, well, that there isn't one (or at least hasn't been since Jonathan Edwards, blessed be he). I find the book pretty disappointing, Foucaultian in its typologies, and more than anything else a Nietzschean attempt for the disempowered (intellectual wannabies within evangelicalism) to shame the empowered (the vulgar crowd that has control of the college purse strings).
Of course that is not to say that I disagree with everything in the book--not at all. That my revivalist past was frequently anti-intellectual, absolutely. That its values detracted from serious truth inquiry, absolutely. I don't think I'll be reviewing the book, although some uber-reflections may eventually percolate through my darkened mind.
Two quotes captured my attention today:
"Those who don't learn from the past are condemned to write end times books" (174).
Corollary: "God doesn't read prophesy books."
"[I]f evangelicals continue to be influenced by historicist dispensationalism ... there is little intellectual hope for the future" (173).
Interesting...
P.S. I had to laugh when he mentioned Frank Peretti as an example of the forces working against intellectual life among evangelicals. We have a bust of him as a "world changer" in our rotunda here :-)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
When Mark Noll comes, we must keep him out of the library rotunda.
:-)
He'd probably say the same thing about Jim Dobson as well...so I think Dr. Lennox's idea is a good one.
Noll's book is compelling, however, when it is read in conversation with his other books "America's God" and "The Rise of Evangelicalism." Both books offer wonderful treatments of the rise of Christianity in America in relation to various intellectual movements. We can disagree with Noll, but he definitely knows what he is talking about.
I found Noll's points to be somewhat compelling. While I wouldn't classify the average evangelical as a member of a "vulgar crowd," I would say that there is a lack of intellectual depth pervasive in modern American evangelicalism, and this has perhaps done more harm to churches (and this country) than you would like to admit. After all, you don't have two Bush presidencies (and two wars, for that matter) without evangelicals.
Yeah Kevin, those freaking idiot evangelical bush voters. I can't think of one that ever had any semblance of intellectual depth, can you Dr. Schenck?
I wish my church was more intellectual. Of course, by intellectual, I mean read books by Jim Wallis, study foreign cultures, and drive a Prius. Only THEN will Christ's bride be compelling for the world. I just don't get why these dumb dobson people can't figure it out.
Kevin, I'm having trouble putting my finger on why exactly the book irritates me so much. Like I said, I agree that the revivalist tradition has tended to be anti-intellectual. With apologies to Dan, I do think that theological shallowness is a dominating feature of American Christianity.
But of course the people almost always win, eventually. I salivate at the thought of being at some (truly) ivory tower institution where I could pursue truth for truth's sake (despite Craig's frequent protests, IWU is not that place--we really are mostly interested in training ministers for our local churches).
Well, I'm doing this while my Greek class is taking a quiz and they're almost done :-) So I'll post the two main things that I've been able to conceptualize that I don't like about the book in a future comment.
Dan- I think you have misunderstood my comments and taken things to an extreme that my position is no where near. Your sarcasm is not only unnecessarily inflammatory, but also highlights one of the reasons Noll goes about writing his book. If discussions cannot be held in a charitable and convivial manner among evangelicals (among which I presume you and I to be), then there really is a certain amount of intellectual maturity lacking among our ranks.
I did not call anyone an "idiot" nor did I suggest that one becomes "intellectual" by driving a Prius, reading Jim Wallis, or by calling Jim Dobson "dumb." Those are your words, not mine, and I actually find them offensive.
What I did say was that the Bush presidencies, and evangelicals' up-until-recently rock solid support for them, highlights the way in which evangelicals Christians often have little use for theological reflection and an intellectual engagement with Christian historical traditions when it comes to one aspect of human existence- that is within politics.
Intentional and loving intellectual engagement within politics means that Christians interact with issues so as to keep a prophetic voice alive within the communion of the saints. Intellectual engagement means that Christians stop being "one-issue" voters. Intellectual engagement means that Christians enter into an intentional deliberation/discernment process, taking into account a wide variety of resources and voices, before they will lend the support of their community. Intellectual activity need not be made into a caricature of an ivory tower, but something that can take place on the ground in the local church. It's when we assume that training ministers and intellectualism are opposites that we will continue to embrace a decrepit discipleship and a mind for which we really have no use for.
Kevin,
Well, when you put it that way, I mostly agree with you. Sorry I misunderstood.
I guess what gave me a "rise" was not my belief that the church should not pursue truth through deep theological reflection, but a "generalizing" of an indefensible and in many ways undefinable group (evangelicals). Is your enemy some anti-intellectual "movement." with a leader I'm not aware of? I don't think one exists. I remember reading about it in my history book...about the church suppressing science and this type of nonsense...but that's not where we are today. I am NOT saying that Christians are running around getting divinity degrees just for fun, but I can't point anywhere right now (that I know of) on the left or right that is actually speaking against a pursuit of truth. Quite the contrary! EVERYONE lays claims to this...there simply is a lack of Christlikeness; a problem we've always had. I just don't think the point is necessary,(and is why I wrote you off initially in sarcasm) and is mostly destructive.(just like my post was)
I haven't read Noll's book, though I intend to. However, I'm suspicious of the "spirit" of a man that wants to write a book (and make money) by "scandalizing" a whole group.
Take the quotes that Dr. Schenck has listed here,. As humorous and as much I would like to make fun of the end times crowd...some small voice in me just doesn't think its right, just to point to the fact that they are not as smart as me.
All I'm saying is there should be a spirit of Christ (a spirit lacking in my previous post) in our "intellectual engagement"..and I think its a wrong path to spend time belaboring the (undisputed)fact that people aren't serious enough these days, or to tag all of American Protestantism with the dysfuntional poster child of George Bush. This doesn't make me love my (Lost Behind) neighbor more. It makes me dismiss him even more.
I know I'm not serious about my faith either, though I do crave it...so teach me...lead me (i think you're a pastor or studying to be one)...don't make me more jaded toward my parents and people that I will run into on Sunday. Maybe that was not your intention in your first post, but thats how I received it. Maybe the problem is you're thinking about pastors, and I am speaking as a "lay" person. That's what I get for being on blogs...such a flawed organism in so many ways...and my actions showed this quite well. Again, I apologize.
Dan, you hint at one of the features I don't like about the book. It uses the word evangelical in a way that I don't. It is standard in Noll's circles to trace a line from the Protestant Reformation to today and call "evangelical" those who emphasize:
1. authority of Bible
2. emphasis on need for conversion
3. emphasis on evangelism
4. emphasis on atonement
The first thing that bugs me about Noll's approach here and those like him is that 1) it tells history as if God skipped from the NT to Luther and 2) it privileges (usually) the Reformed tradition as the true heirs of Christianity. Paul passes the ball to Augustine who passes the ball to Calvin who passes the ball to Edwards who passes the ball to Noll.
This is what I meant by the book being Foucaultian. I don't like the plumb line he's using.
For example, the Quakers in his view are not simply a different Christian position, one that does not engage in culture. It is a deviation from true evangelicalism, defective.
That's how the underlying thinking of the book strikes me, my first point of question.
By contrast, when I speak of evangelicals, I speak of a sociological movement that began in the late 40's as a reaction to fundamentalism. This is a tightly defined social group, not a collection of overwhelmingly diverse groups held together as by products of the Reformation and a list of characteristics that end up varying quite a bit from group to group in specifics.
Again, these are my impressions. They are open to refinement and critique, for which I am always grateful.
Second critique maybe later today...
Ken- If you're saying that evangelicalism is a sociological movement in reaction to fundamentalism of the 40's, what are its specific marks? You obviously reject David Bebbington's 4-fold marks of evangelicalism, so I'm wondering what exactly you consider to be "evangelical?"
But I am a bit confused as to why you suggest that Noll's (and other historians like him) approach usually favors the Reformed tradition. Noll's own book, "The Rise of Evangelicalism," largely focuses on the work and ministry of the Wesleys. Also, Christine Heryman's book "Southern Cross," spends significant amount of time focusing on Methodism's role in the rise of evangelicalism in the south. And of course, Nathan Hatch's masterful "The Democratization of American Christianity" not only highlights Methodists but also Mormons and the Stone-Cambelite movement. All of this to say that while "Scandal" may not be Noll's best work (and it isn't), he, and other members of his guild, cannot always be accused to saying that the Reformed are the true inheritors of Christianity (even if their church membership seems to say otherwise).
It's not so much that I reject Bebbington's four criteria or that modern evangelicalism does not share common features with key characteristics of the Reformation. I just prefer to reserve the word evangelical in relation to what others call neo-evangelicalism.
This is a good discussion and thanks Kevin for all the good resources you're posting. I think I'll quick throw up a main post to get the discussion going more front and center!
Maybe the library rotunda should have a double purpose. On one side we can display the heads of those we approve of and on the other side we can display the heads of those that we give the axe.
I think it a shame to disengage the mind...for usually, the intellectuals are those who understand the foundations of an argument and can promote or be preventative in a discussion or dialogue before pragmatism "gets ahold"...and momentum builds...that is harder to change than minds ..because pocketbooks and numbers are "seen and felt things"...but those things are not the "change" of faith....
nominalism is the only way one can intellectually go, if they see and understand the complexities of the individual and community. It is by faith alone, and by grace alone....although we formulate our faith differently (conceptionalism)...our commitment is no less valuable...therefore we should not be each other's judge...but each other's advocate in edification....challenging, prodding, encouraging, embracing, enlarging, and above all responding in grace, mercy and above all allowing liberty....in things essential unity;in things non-essential liberty and in all things charity....the problem is in determining what is "essential" and "non-esstential"...
In regards to communalism, I understand that the tradition of Wesley is one of understanding "community"....in regards to the Church...but, how does one understand an individual from another context trying to assimulate within a communal understanding of "righteousness"? I believe that liberty must be perserved in the Church, and that the elements that are gauging factors to determine another's faith commitment, also must be rigorously evaluated....otherwise, we subvert another's understanding to their faith and undermine their reason to "go on" in their faith...I believe that all of us should evaluate faith's understanding and the resulting commitments based on a strong foundation of reason (that is still understood to be based on faith)....
The O.T. is understood as a communal approach to faith (which is based on tradition's assertions), while understanding Jesus as a moral model is individually assessed...
Post a Comment