This morning’s Wall Street Journal has an article by Jonathan Fitzgerald of PatrolMag on the development of the evangelical intellect.
I have had my differences with Patrol before, but I enjoy dialoging with them and have found them to be gracious in listening to my critiques. I have dialoged with Jonathan extensively, and have found him to be warm, engaging, and very, very sharp.
Fitzgerald offers such an even-handed analysis that disagreements will inevitably come across as quibbling, which I have no desire to do. He is justly critical of the mega church movement and its emotionally-laden appeals, and happily affirms the notion of Christendom that Dr. Reynolds put forward in The City. He is at his best in highlighting the various ways and places that evangelicals are attempting to cultivate the life of the mind, and contends (rightly, I think) that the ‘intellectualist’ posturing of younger evangelicals is “merely be a way station on the path to rigorous thought.”
But Fitzgerald’s framing of the developments obscures the fact that a generation of evangelical Christians paved the way for younger evangelicals like us to value of the life of the mind. Noll’s book was published in 1994, well after the renaissance in philosophy was underway (which was based on the work of Alvin Plantinga and others). While this renaissance has yet to be replicated in every discipline, as someone close to the world of evangelical higher education, it is clear to me that we younger evangelicals are the heirs, and not the founders, of a renewed tradition of evangelical intellectualism.
But unfortunately, it seems that Fitzgerald cuts off his ability to inherit–and possibly, see–this tradition when he implies that the the road to a healthy intellectualism necessarily leads one out of the movement. He writes:
Christine Smallwood was less certain that [an evangelical intellectual] could exist. She asked: “Is there something anti-intellectual at the root of an experience-based movement?”
The answer is yes, and that must determine the course of evangelicals’ progression from decidedly anti-intellectual to intellectualist to intellectual. And, as this movement evolves from self-examination and moves into the public square, it may be that to fully achieve a robust intellectual culture, the “experienced-based movement” that is contemporary evangelicalism must recede, thus making way for Christendom.
Anti-intellectualism only goes “all the way down” if we discard the witness of those evangelicals, both now and throughout history, who wholeheartedly engaged the life of the mind while keeping the experiential character of their faith. Our man Wesley, we should remember, was an Oxford man.
What I would propose is not that the experience-based aspect of evangelicalism recede, but rather that it mature–and that we properly locate it in the context of sound doctrine, a robust ecclesial life, and the practices of the spiritual disciplines.
Let every heart be warmed, as they were for Wesley, and then let them go read as many books as Wesley read and pray like Wesley prayed. There is nothing intrinsic to evangelical theology or culture that suggests a properly evangelical intellectualism is impossible.
All this aside, Fitzgerald’s piece is a helpful and fair snapshot of the emergence of the evangelical intellect, and for that I commend it highly.
December 18th, 2009 | 11:30 am | #1
I am working through A Passion for Truth – The Intellectual Coherence of Evangelicalism by McGrath right now – it is a very good book that seems to address many of the same issues.
Of course as an Anglican, I am sure that there are some of the truly reformed that will flame his work, without ever reading it (and proudly do so), but it is a fine book.
December 18th, 2009 | 12:15 pm | #2
I think this is an especially worthy point.
December 18th, 2009 | 12:40 pm | #3
DAC,
Thanks for mentioning the McGrath book. I haven’t read nearly enough McGrath (Justia Dei is a massive work that I’ve read excerpts from).
Albert, thanks.
December 18th, 2009 | 1:46 pm | #4
Matthew,
Thanks for this post. I’d be interested in hearing more of your thoughts about this subject, but particularly in comparison with Jonathan Leeman’s 9 Marks post dated 20 October 2009 entitled “Beware Your Seminary Professors.” Per Leeman’s article (which I think is overly negative in places), do you think that Christian intellectuals typically do an excellent, fair or poor job at seeking out pastoral accountability in the course of their work? Moreover, does the work of a Christian intellectual or academic require more hands-on pastoral accountability than, say, the work of Christians who are police officers, construction workers or accountants?
Best,
Brian Auten
December 18th, 2009 | 1:56 pm | #5
I was pleased to see reference to my friends and protégés working at Cardus: “And Comment, a publication of the Canadian Christian think tank Cardus, recently considered Christian perspectives on psychology.” The man largely responsible for the psychology issue is my friend and colleague, Russell Kosits, whose office is two doors down from mine at Redeemer University College.
December 18th, 2009 | 3:59 pm | #6
David,
I was happy to see the Cardus folks mentioned too. They do good stuff. Someday when I grow up I’d love to write for them.
Brian,
Thanks for the questions, as you have me rather conflicted over how to respond to them. That, I take it, is a good thing.
I remember Leeman’s article and thinking that it was provocative, though not satisfying. I have a lot of thoughts there that I’ll leave aside for the moment, lest someone start talking about the MD.
That said, I’ll take the latter question on first. I tend to think that many of the disciplines stand in the same relationship to the Church as policework or any other vocation. Not all knowledge disciplines are equal–and while I think there is ways to do economics ‘christianly,’ I don’t think it has the same import as theology.
I would argue, then, that seminary profs do have an obligation to conduct their work beneath the submission of their local church in a unique way (though EVERYONE needs to conduct their work in ways that are submissive to their local church).
But Leeman also suggests that the people he heard are conducting their work in a ‘non-pastoral way’ (it seems) because he disagrees with their academic approaches and conclusions.
This gets me on to your first question, but I think am more optimistic about the overlap between the spiritual/ecclesial lives and the academic lives of most seminary profs than Leeman. Most of the profs that I talked to–even those outside of theology departments–were very engaged in their local churches, a fact that has been true both at my alma mater (Biola) and of those Christian academics that we know in St. Louis and elsewhere.
But then, I could have a different experience than Leeman has had. I’ve been really blessed on the higher education front in terms of studying with and knowing many integrated academics, and it makes me sad that not everyone can have the experience I have had.
If Hunter is reading this thread, I’d be curious to hear his thoughts on Leeman’s piece as well, or any of the other academics (David, John Mark) here.
Best,
matt
December 18th, 2009 | 5:54 pm | #7
When I read this article, I sighed and my eyes rolled. Every couple of years, some writer–usually under 40 and wet behind his or her ears–discovers, and is shocked, that there is an intellectual life within Evangelical Protestantism. And the writer then tells the whole world about this wonderful find: the Bible-thumping, gun-toting, creationists have some folk that went to graduate school, and guess what, graduated.
Can you imagine if the WSJ had published an article with this headline?: “Incredible Find: Jews are Smart.” We would, rightly, be bristling with offense at such a thing. And yet, this present piece, which is about Evangelicals rather than Jews, is praised? Unless you think condescension is a quality you admire, Evangelicals should be stinking mad that someone at the WSJ thought that this had to be written at all. And Evangelicals should be even more livid at how poorly their own academic culture cannot get its message out in a way that would make this WSJ piece and others like it unnecessary. Take, for example, John Mark’s program at Biola, or what they’ve done at Biola in philosophy at the seminary. Why isn’t the leadership at Biola beating the pavement at CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox to get its professors to be experts on a variety of subjects that are in the public square? It is a scandal that someone like John Mark or J.P. Moreland or Scott Rae are not frequent guests on these networks to discuss issues of public concern, ranging from rational faith to bioethics.
I’m livid that Evangelical institutions are not front and center pushing back against the stereotyping of Evangelicals that made this WSJ necessary.
Who, among us, is not sick of seeing Brian McLaren, Jim Wallis, or Pat Robertson representing Evangelicals on national TV?
Rant over.
December 18th, 2009 | 7:07 pm | #8
JP for sure . . . he has earned the right to represent us.
December 18th, 2009 | 7:29 pm | #9
Dr. Beckwith,
With respect, and not being an “intellectual”* myself, just a very grateful beneficiary of their labors, I’m one evangelical who doesn’t mind at all what the mainstream media thinks of me or the men and women who work faithfully in academia, even friendly media like the WSJ. As I’ve said recently at Frank Turk’s blog, God uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. He gets more credit that way.
What I would love is if more pastors worked more dilligently to get their congregations to take the intellectual community’s work more seriously. More women reading more D.A. Carson and less Twilight would do far more good for the church and the world than if the New York Times suddenly decided to take John Piper seriously and ignore Rob Bell. (Not that I would mind that, though.)
*not having read a consistent definition of the word “intellectual”, in this article or elsewhere, it’s a little tough to determine who is one and who isn’t. I’m assuming the term refers to those who work fulltime in theological study and research at serminaries and universities.
December 18th, 2009 | 8:17 pm | #10
“As I’ve said recently at Frank Turk’s blog, God uses the foolish things of the world….”
I’m not touching that one. ;-)
December 18th, 2009 | 9:06 pm | #11
To comment further along the lines of what Dr. Beckwith said, why is it assumed that intellectual activity requires either a public intellectual or a professional academic? There are lay-evangelicals who for years have been thinking and analyzing as a way of life, who laugh (or roll their eyes) when the “next big thing” comes down the pike from the intellectuals or so-called Evangelical spokespeople, as if no one ever thought of these things before. Not to disparage those very worthy voices and minds. But they’re not the only ones out there.
December 18th, 2009 | 9:33 pm | #12
If one is not an Evangelical of the Conservative Protestant persuasion and lives outside the South and/or some distance away from a megachurch, then when does the opportunity present itself to see/hear an Evangelical?
Is it any wonder that the public defines Evangelicalism by Televangelists, Culture Warriors, and Political Activists?
December 18th, 2009 | 10:08 pm | #13
Thanks for the props, Dr. Beckwith.
December 19th, 2009 | 12:21 am | #14
Oh. Wow.
Can’t believe I walked Frank right into that one. What kind of fool does that make me???!! :)
R Hampton and Bonnie,
I think the problem, as I alluded, is how on earth the WSJ, or any of us, for that matter, defines an intellectual, let alone an evangelical onel. The article didn’t do it, the comments here and elsewhere haven’t done it (that I’ve seen). It’s kinda like trying to define, oh, an evangelical.
And for the record, R Hampton, I live in the south tip of Silicon Valley, and the world would happily define me as an evangelical of the Conservative Protestant persuasion. Some so-called evangelicals might even call me an intellectual, simply because I read Carson and Piper. Not to mention the Bible on occasion. (I get big points off for reading Frank’s blog, though. Even more because I’m a full-time mom and look a little like Sarah Palin. That probably puts me in the trogolodyte category.)
But I certainly don’t define myself as an intellectual. And I run from the term “evangelical” whenever possible.
There are plenty of us kind of diaspora’d all over the place. But our inherent distrust of unregenerate media types , and confidence that God doesn’t need them to advance His Kingdom, means that you won’t find a lot of us intentionally pursuing agents and table space at Costco and spots on the morning talk shows to get out the message about the five Solas.
I’m guessing that true evangelical intellectuals (who, yes, have always existed and thrived and been a blessing to the Kingdom, if not basking in academic glory) already know that the fruit of their work will be in the lives of the pastors and lay people who take what they study, appropriate it personally, and turn around and plant the seeds of that appropriated truth in their churches and homes, to the glory of God.
The othe stuff – the need to continually publish and teach and speak and “put yourself out there” in the academic world, I can’t speak to. Because I’m not an intellectual. :)
December 19th, 2009 | 8:27 am | #15
Okay, so many good comments here…
Frank,
I agree with you about the scandal of evangelical institutions not getting profs out there. It’s a horrendous failure. However, don’t you think that your generation of scholars has advanced the Christian mind within evangelicalism in a way previous generations did not? I think even of Torrey, which was only started just over a decade ago. Certainly, there are more Christians in philosophy than ever before, and the emphasis on worldview type stuff has bled over to other realms.
So…I think the developments that have gone on the last 20 years are significant, and somewhat ‘new.’ But that’s why I wanted to say that my generation is heirs of what you all started. And we know that you guys didn’t make it up on your own, either, but it just seems that there are a lot more Christians pursuing academics than before and they’re a lot more vocal. Think also in this context about the rise of the Christian university in the last 20 years–attendance has exploded, especially relative to secular universities.
Matt
December 19th, 2009 | 8:47 am | #16
Racheal and Bonnie,
I think you are exactly right about the ambiguity of ‘intellectual.’ I would suggest for more context reading John Mark’s response in The City that the article mentions. It’s there that the distinction between posturing and the proper intellectual life is made, and that formed the backdrop not only of the article, but my response above.
That said, I think you’re both exactly right of the possibility and existence of the ‘lay intellectual class.’ I would also say that this class is expanding, but by no means as prevalent as you both seem to suggest–especially within the baptist/charismatic wings of evangelicalism, though that too is starting to change.
But let’s give the media a break on that. After all, before the advent of blogs, it was hard to know who those lay intellectuals were and whether they were actually out there without doing serious sociology….but then there were no Christians in sociology taking religion seriously and viewing it sympathetically, which has changed dramatically in the last 20 years through the work of Christian Smith, Mark Regnerus, W. Bradford Wilcox, and others.
Maybe all I’m getting at here is that while “intellectuals” can obviously exist outside the academy, the academy still matters for shaping the intellectual culture of evangelicalism.
One final related (I hope!) point: I embrace the term evangelical in part because I don’t want to acquiese to the media’s definition and analysis of the term. But I also think the media’s terms and imaging matters, since the people I meet draw their understanding of evangelical from 30 Rock, not JP Moreland. So I think articles like Jonathans, even if they are redundant, are still important and helpful for giving the media a more accurate understanding of the robust evangelical intellectual–both academic and otherwise–life we all know exists.
Best,
matt
December 19th, 2009 | 5:58 pm | #17
Matt, I understand what you’re saying. I just think it’s too bad that the two “classes” — the intellectual elite and the more ordinary thinking people — can’t be less separate. And I don’t worry so much about the media, although I understand their influence. I just think that the way to fight the celebrity/media culture isn’t to raise up more Christian celebrities :-). But that’s probably not an either/or proposition either.
December 19th, 2009 | 6:08 pm | #18
I’m guessing that true evangelical intellectuals…already know that the fruit of their work will be in the lives of the pastors and lay people who take what they study, appropriate it personally, and turn around and plant the seeds of that appropriated truth in their churches and homes, to the glory of God.
Rachael, I’m no ev. intellectual, but your comment reminded me of something my husband said recently. He reminded (and reassured) me that the fruit of my work, intellectual and otherwise, will be in the lives of those around me and especially our children, whom we homeschool. They are the ones who will receive and pass on whatever of value I might have to offer.
December 21st, 2009 | 5:28 pm | #19
Rachael Starke,
I live across the Bay, on the other side of the Dumbarton Bridge, and I had no idea of your existence (or anyone else like you). How would I?
December 22nd, 2009 | 12:38 am | #20
Well, I’m not sure if you’re asking rhetorically or personally. But the way we found our church (West Hills Community Church in Morgan Hill) is through much prayer, a few conversations with friends, and then visiting it in person. In God’s providence, the very first sermon we heard was so mindblowingly rich and simple, at the same time, I knew this was where God wanted us. Interestingly, it’s the kind of church Matthew and the folks at the WSJ would probably use as a case study in a few years – “Recovering” evangelcals, hungry for something more than seven steps to a happy marriage, discovering the doctrines of grace (without even knowing that’s what they’re called) like kids on Christmas morning. The word spreads as friends of these people wonder what on earth has gotten into them. :) And all this has happened because we have a faithfully praying, faithfully preachin pastor who actually believes that God is mighty to save.
Not sure if I’ve answered your question. Did I?
December 22nd, 2009 | 10:41 am | #21
I could not agree more with Francis Beckwith’s original post on this thread. It is time that evangelicals stop talking about being intellectuals and start doing real intellectual work in the public sphere. I have some half-baked thought on this WSJ piece at:
http://www.philipvickersfithian.com/2009/12/yet-another-piece-on-evangelicals-and.html
December 22nd, 2009 | 8:19 pm | #22
Rachael Starke,
John Fea’s post contains the answer to my question; ‘How would I [know of of your existence]?’ It is time that evangelicals … start doing real intellectual work in the public sphere. That’s how I, and everyone else not acquainted with the West Hills Community Church, et al., will come to know “intellectuals” – that is, an Evangelicalism beyond the Televangelists, Culture Warriors, and Political Activists.
December 22nd, 2009 | 11:42 pm | #23
R. Hampton, in response to your first question in #12: when one goes to a bookstore to find & read their books. When one looks up churches in the yellow pages, newspaper, or online, and then goes to them.
December 23rd, 2009 | 3:56 pm | #24
Bonnie,
Do you really believe that the Public will learn about Evangelical Intellectuals from bookstore shelves and phone books? I sincerely doubt the success of such a strategy. That’s not how Televangelists, Culture Warriors, and Political Activists came to the Public’s attention, nor is it the way Jesus came to be widely known.
If the “emergence of the evangelical intellect” is to affect the Public, it/they will have to make themselves known to hundreds of millions of people.
January 2nd, 2010 | 10:21 am | #25
[...] great writing by really young Christian writers already writing for major publications (ex: 1, 2, 3). How did they break-in there? The only answer I hear is that they wrote a lot for along time [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact