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.

http://www.philipvickersfithian.com/2009/12/yet-another-piece-on-evangelicals-and.html

Not sure if I’ve answered your question. Did I?

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.

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

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

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. :)

Is it any wonder that the public defines Evangelicalism by Televangelists, Culture Warriors, and Political Activists?