For the past two days I attended a conference at Gordon College on “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind—Fifteen Years Later.” The conference aimed to assess the relationship between evangelicalism and intellectual life, the topic of Mark Noll’s book
First, I was encouraged to see how many evangelicals there were in New England’s colleges and universities, both at evangelical schools such as Gordon College and at other schools such as Harvard. Some acknowledged that the academy is not encouraging to evangelicals, though probably no more hostile to evangelicals than society generally.
Second, several of the presentations provided insights into the actual working of evangelical intellectual life. Jon Roberts explained the difference between how evangelicals and Americans generally define what it means to be an expert. Society generally defines an expert as someone who has mastered a difficult body of knowledge. Evangelicals tend to define an expert as someone who convincingly says things that match what they already believe to be true about a body of knowledge. The evangelical definition of expertise needs to be reformed, but not, I think, completely abandoned. For evangelical scholars to be persuasive to their fellow evangelicals, it will be necessary for them to take into account what evangelicals regard as expertise. David Hempton, author of a recent book titled Evangelical Disenchantment: Nine Portraits of Faith and Doubt
Third, I found a discouraging strain of evangelical anti-intellectualism embedded in the conference itself. One of the issues of discussion was evangelical views of the origins of the world, either through young-earth creationism or some kind of theistic evolution. This was a topic both because it is a crucial question for evangelicals and because it was specifically an issue raised in The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Though I am a convinced young-earth creationist, my quarrel here is not with the theistic evolutionary position that many of the conference presenters held, but the way in which they arrived at and maintained that position. Some assumed that a Christian approach to science precluded any belief in young-earth creationism, and they buttressed that assumption with a discouraging number of ad hominem arguments. To be fair, those presenters were discussing why evangelicals believe what they do about science, rather than trying to establish the reasons for their position. There are, in fact, young-earth creationists who are also rigorous scientists. A more profitable line of discussion would have investigated the varying presuppositions of young-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists held by evangelicals whether scholars or not.
Fourth, for a conference intended for self-reflection on the evangelical mind, there was a healthy sense that we don’t need to be overly concerned about the scandal of the evangelical mind. Self-reflection is good, but not to the point of obsession. There was also a sense that we need not obsess about what the academy thinks of evangelical scholars. One presenter observed that minority groups often make the criticisms of dominant groups a part of their own identity. In other words, there is a danger that evangelical scholars will make too much of the criticisms of others in the academy. That danger, however, can be avoided through faith—primarily a faith in the truth of Christianity, but also a faith that truth, and thus evangelical scholarship insofar as it conforms to truth, will eventually prevail.
Fifth, there was a genuine, and I think nearly pervasive, sense of humility that whatever gains evangelicals have made intellectually have been due to God’s grace.
Sixth, I was able to draw some conclusions about the way forward for evangelical scholarship. That way forward is to do work that is rigorous at the highest standards of the academy, but that is also distinctively Christian, even distinctively evangelical. And that way forward is also to be concerned, not just with the quality of evangelical’s academic work, but also with the quality of their life as evangelical scholars. In other words, we must learn not just how to be scholars who happen to be evangelical Christians, but evangelical Christians who are scholars.
Thank you for the report. It was of special interest to me as a Christian chemist and YEC to hear how the YEC position was treated at the conference. It’s been my observation that Christian intellectuals in the humanities allow themselves to be intimidated by the secular scientific establishment into some kind of theistic evolutionary framework. Your report also impressed on me the great importance of making sure that every student at BJU, no matter what their major, has been exposed to a throughly Biblical and scientific treatment of origins. If the creationist foundation is undermined, it won’t matter how great a scholar the evangelical becomes. His thinking will be off base, his conclusions at odds with Scripture and his testimony for Christ muted.
Dr. Matzko,
Thanks for you comments. Hearing an argument with which one strongly disagrees can be discouraging. On the other hand, hearing such an argument can actually be encouraging, if one is able to satisfactorily refute it in his own mind. The best example of this is Russell’s Why I Am Not a Christian, which makes such a poor argument that it can actually strengthen a Christian’s faith. Without comparing theistic evolutionists to Russell, that’s how I felt about their argument.
Ideally, all Christians would be able to sort out the arguments over the origins of the earth and life for themselves. But looking at it more pragmatically, that’s simply not how the bulk of people make their decisions about intellectual matters. Other than genuine scientists, evangelicals generally and also evangelicals in other academic disciplines tend to make their decisions based on the experts that are available to them. Regrettably, the most prominent young-earth creationists tend to have sketchy scientific credentials. I think the best way forward for young-earth creationism is to increase the number and prominence of evangelical scientists, like yourself, who are doing genuine scientific research on the basis of explicitly Christian presuppositions.
All that said, my inclination is to shift academic debate away from origins and towards other issues. Perhaps I have that inclination because I’m more comfortable in the humanities, apologetics, and theology than I am in the hard sciences. But I hope that inclination is motivated by a concern to face up to the more important scandal of evangelicalism. If there must be an evangelical scandal, let it be the scandal of the cross.
Lincolm:
Thanks for your reply. I can’t agree with you about the academic credentials of prominent creationists. That may have been true in the early days (the fifties and sixties and earlier) but active creation scientists that I know are very well credentialed. Unfortunately, many of them can’t write under their own names for fear of losing their jobs. I would encourage you not to shy away from the origins debate because of the scandal of a young earth position. There is a certain comfort in the “scandal of the cross” in that you stand with the large majority of evangelical thought (past, present and future; right and left) but when you take on the scandal of a “young earth position” and the literal reading of the Genesis account, you find yourself in opposition to the bulk of evangelical thought and a pariah in intellectual evangelical circles. It’s easy for me to say I’d rather be outside the gate bearing His reproach at my age and at Bob Jones because there is little cost to pay. But for someone like you or Paul to take that position there will be a heavy cost in future opportunities and that is how it should be.
I should clarify my meaning, since what I wrote isn’t very clear. I do think that there are well-credentialed young-earth creationists. My only point about that was that such scientists are not in the public consciousness of evangelicals. I wasn’t aware of scientists not writing under their own name. Thanks for that information.
About the juggling of family and scholarship (of which I know something)–the faulty thinking of most people, not just evangelicals, is that a mother is the parent primarily responsible for bringing up children. That idea doesn’t have sound biblical foundations. Fathers and mothers must assume their proper (biblical) responsibilities (not “roles”) in nurturing children. No one asks a father whether his job gets in the way of his family, even though our culture pays some lip service to the idea that fathers are important for children.
Our society needs to see balanced families, and Christian families should be those examples, regardless of the professions of the parents.
I am curious about whether Bendroth addressed the issue of how men in evangelical circles discourage (in subtle and open ways) scholarship from young women students and professionals because such men hold fast to a patriarchal view of society and leadership.
And thank you, Lincoln, for such a thorough report.
I don’t recollect whether Bendroth said anything about the discouragement of women students. Perhaps one of the other people there will remember.
If memory serves, she cited some data at the beginning of her paper to the effect that the number of women faculty in evangelical as in secular schools is roughly comparable to the number of women faculty, but that there is a disparity in the rank of women vs. men.
Paul’s impression was that “Bendroth is an evangelical feminist, but she attended the conference because she’s an evangelical rather than a feminist.”
Via a review of my own notes, I’ll contribute the following summary. Bendroth suggests that evangelical “power structures” are tied to a mixture of “cultural and theological” traditions. When evaluating why so few evangelical women participated in the “intellectual life of the mind,” Bendroth is disheartened by the few evangelical female professors teaching at evangelical schools despite disproportionate numbers of female students. (She also hints that female “flight” to secular colleges, where more opportunity and support exist, contributes to the gulf.)
She specifically wonders whether the evangelical definitions of “expertise” marginalize women. While she admits that women are encouraged to fulfill utilitarian roles (i.e., counseling degrees, missions), she warns that such pragmatism often remains the only acceptable mode of feminine influence. This heavy emphasis on practical ministry encourages a woman to reduce her worth to “what I can do” for the cause of Christ and deemphasize “who I am” in Christ.
Bendroth’s greatest fear is that the abrasive voice of 20th and 21st century feminism threatens to dissuade the theological academy from taking alternative perspectives seriously. She feels that few women can raise their voice or speak an opinion in the theological academy without being charged of “feminism.”
I should note that the creationists that the presenter singled out for criticism were mostly not men whom we would want in our corner during a fight. Guys like Kent Hovind are an embarassment to both science and, more importantly, to the cause of Christ. Even Ken Ham, though a significant improvement over Hovind, brings a knife to a gun fight; he is a popularizer, not an expert.
We have an image problem. You and I both know that there are top knotch scientific minds who are young earth creationists, people like Eugene Chaffin, Russell Humphreys, etc… but they are not the face of young earth creationism. Ken Ham’s cartoons about evolution reach millions while the Creation Research Quarterly reaches a couple thousand. Is it any surprise then that our budding intellectuals choose theistic evolution?
The CRS, ICR, and other young earth creationist groups need to spend more time criticizing the excesses of the fringe. This distancing can help move young earth creationism into the intellectual mainstream. This is the same process that transformed political conservatism from fringe John Birch radicalism in the 1950s to mainstream ideology by the 1980s.
I am in middle of reading Noll. He is quite hostile to the creationist movement. My sense of him is that he accepts evolution and assumes that it is the only plausible position for a Christian.
This is a late response, I realize, and I appreciate the additional comments here. I would have to agree with the statement that “the abrasive voice” of feminism prejudices the “theological academy” (and the prevailing leadership in churches) and drives them all into more defensive positions than are necessary. Those men (and even some women) will throw the f-label at women who dare to speak up. I’ve been on the receiving end.
I echo that many Christians, and many Young Earth Creation advocates in academia will not openly state their views. One acquaintance of mine, a Young Earth Creationist biologist, has received tenure since our last conversation. He keeps his mouth shut. Unfortunately, many Universities no longer mean “universal diversity”. Today, he would be canned, as have a great many who have shared their personal Christian views. Sometimes, even an accusation is enough. Isn’t that persecution anti-intellectual? Are we free to think?