SUBSCRIBER LOGIN

Search
First Things

Loading

RSS

Masthead

Recent Comments

  • teleologist: Thanks you for the opportunity to express our opinions with the time that we had. Tongues will cease,...
  • Orthodoxdj: As Tolkien said to Lewis as they parted on that fateful night in Oxford, “Goodbye.”
  • Livingston Dell: I didn’t always comment as frequently as I had liked to on these articles, but I always...
  • Nikolai Volk: You know, we had a hell of a run in these comment sections. I’ve had many a great discussion with...
  • David Strunk: Hey Joe, I also appreciated what you guys did here, and always had this blog on my RSS feed to see the...
  • Amy K. Hall: Thanks for starting the blog, Joe. It was an honor to be included.
  • Archives

    Categories

    Monthly


    « Previous  |Home|  Next »         

    Monday, March 28, 2011, 6:15 PM

    In the most recent issue of First Things, Gerald McDermott writes about “Evangelicals Divided,” which explores current trends in evangelical life relative to what he describes as a struggle between traditionalists (who tend to be Reformed) and Meliorists (who tend to be Arminian). 

    A line that caught my eye, though, was not about this conflict but about the tendency evangelical thinkers have to seek the approval of the academy:

    “. . . evangelical theologians, like other orthodox thinkers, are susceptible to the peculiarly academic sort of ambition that seeks acceptance and recognition by their liberal colleagues.  We want the academy’s approval, and so we are tempted to write and teach a theology that will be consistent with its moral and theological sensibilities” (49).

    I heard almost the exact same line at the Making Men Moral conference my campus hosted in 2009, celebrating the anniversary of Robert P. George’s book by that title.  It was a warning that came from thinkers who held important posts at important universities (just check out that speakers’ list!) and resonated with many of those in attendance.  Cultural affirmation is a fickle goddess that never satisfies for very long.

    Ironically, I thought of the same thing this morning when I read that psychologists have identified a new problem with teenagers: obsession and potential depression over their facebook statuses.  I’m trying to decide if the phrase “evangelical thinkers” could be substituted for the word “kids” and “academe” for “Facebook” in this excerpt:

    But there are unique aspects of Facebook that can make it a particularly tough social landscape to navigate for kids already dealing with poor self-esteem . . . .  With in-your-face friends’ tallies, status updates and photos of happy-looking people having great times, Facebook pages can make some kids feel even worse if they think they don’t measure up.

    As a whole, evangelical scholars have problems with self-esteem as well and somehow turn into gigantic intellectual golden retrievers all too often, seeking approving pets from the rest of academe.  I have been a part of way too many conversations that have boiled down to this basic lament: “If only I could find a way to stop having to comport with these theological chains that prevent me from earning the approval of the larger academy.”

    That sentiment reminds me a good deal of another theologian who wrestled with this conflict, George Herbert.  Herbert’s poem “The Collar” (1633)  articulated his frustration with having to submit to theological and social restrictions, declaring “I will abroad!” and expounding on his frustrations before returning to his rationality with these closing lines:

    But as I rav’d and grew more fierce and wild,

    At every word,

    Methought I heard one calling, “Child”

    And I reply’d “My Lord!”

     In the end, Paul’s admonition seems to ring truest:  

    “Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God?  Or am I trying to please people?  If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10). 

    I just wish that courage were in larger supply, even, I must confess, within my own intellectual cupboard.   I have a feeling that like proverbial cleanliness, theological courage lies next to godliness and that my own timidity might be a barometer of whose approval I myself really seek.

    3 Comments

      Ken
      March 28th, 2011 | 9:27 pm | #1

      Fascinating. I just read your post and then went to the next unread article in my reader and came across this:

      “D. Michael Lindsay—named in 2006 the most promising sociologist in the world under the age of 35 by the World Congress of Sociology and the author in 2007 of the Pultizer Prize nominated Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite—has been named the new president of Gordon College.” (Justin Taylor)

      Hooray. Evangelicals have someone recognized by world class sociologists and the Pulitzer committee.

      Truth Unites... and Divides
      March 29th, 2011 | 12:39 pm | #2

      “As a whole, evangelical scholars have problems with self-esteem as well”

      Actually, this phenomenon has been noted and observed for quite some time. In fact, there’s a wry and funny and insightful joke about it. I’ll probably botch it up in my recall of it, but it goes something like this:

      Widely acclaimed Liberal Scholar to the Evangelical Scholar: “I’ll call you an intellectual if you’ll call me a Christian.”

      Jeremy Pierce
      April 9th, 2011 | 7:13 am | #3

      There are evangelical scholars who engage with the academy and end up changing their minds on certain issues, because they are convinced by the arguments (or at least they feel convinced). But I couldn’t imagine such a person seeing evangelical convictions as chains. They would either think the Bible doesn’t really require them to hold the more conservative view they’ve abandoned (in which case they wouldn’t consider themselves chained), or they would reject evangelical convictions and thus also not feel chained by them. Such an intellectually honest person strikes me as unable to say the kind of statement that appears in the post above.

      So I’m trying to imagine who would. Is it someone who feels peer pressure among academics to give lip service to a view they know is false? Then why would they call it a chain, if they know it is true? They would call it right, and they might see the academically-respectable view as the chain.

      I’m just trying to understand the psychology of someone who would say such a thing, and I’m drawing a blank. It’s nearly impossible for me to imagine someone thinking such a thing.

    Links

    Blogs

    Find Us

    Contact