What is the True Scandal of the Evangelical Mind?

Professor of History at the University of Notre Dame, Mark A. Noll suggested almost 20 years ago that the Evangelical Christian church had headed down a path towards anti-intellectualism. He opens his challenging book ‘The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind’ with the confronting words:

“The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind…They have nourished millions of believers in the simple verities of the gospel but have largely abandoned the universities, the arts, and other realms of ‘high’ culture’.”

While many Christians found his book helpful and challenging, its central thesis has been contested by many and for varied reasons. While some would agree with his most obvious point - that many Christians have failed to engage culturally and have spent even less time thinking theologically about their life in the world - some might question the justification for his thesis. Certainly, Creation Scientists and American dispensationalists would question his arguments, for they bear the brunt of much of his criticism.

Carl Trueman in his eBook 'The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind'  has sought to turn Noll's claims on their head by making another obvious point; there is no clear definition of what we mean by an Evangelical. For Trueman, the real scandal is that for too many Christians, there has been a disconnect between their intellectual and moral lives and their biblical and theological foundations. Trueman argues well that Christians who claim to be Evangelicals have failed to spend time grasping even the most basic elements of the faith and avoiding engaging their minds about issues that matter. Many have failed to consider God's nature and character, our personhood as his created beings, moral issues as basic as gender and sexuality, biblical authority and so on. Instead, we have avoided awkward discussions and distilled what are seen as the essentials of being an evangelical to anyone who "sees the Bible as a jolly good book and that Jesus was a decent bloke". 

Theologically I find myself in agreement on many things with Carl Trueman and I share his view that the term evangelical has become so loosely defined as to be unhelpful or useless for communicating with other people. But, I'm not prepared to so easily dismiss Noll's point. Both Trueman and Noll manage to put their fingers on two aspects of the problem of the disappearing influence of Christians in public life. For me, this isn't a matter of academic vanity or lamenting Christians becoming "less important, more marginal, and increasingly despised" (as he 'gently' puts it). I don't think the point can be won that easily. It is important for Christians to have a voice in all aspects of life and be able to offer a biblically informed view of the things they believe and the actions they take.

There is certainly some evidence in Australia to suggest that Evangelical Christians are less visible in the secular academies than they once were, but evangelicals have not abandoned university campuses, they have simply become ‘outsiders’ involved primarily in chaplaincy and student-based ministry. And those Christians left on university staff on campus have often made themselves small targets, keeping their religious views and often even their faith, well hidden. The Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students (AFES) with its ministry to university students has experienced phenomenal growth in the last 10 years. But the number of Christian staff on faculties appears to have declined. This could be claimed of other professions and other social institutions.

Noll’s point is not that theologians and theological colleges have shown no intellectual muscle, quite the opposite, but that evangelical Christians while placing a primacy on the serious study of the Bible, have spent much less time considering “sober analysis of nature, human society, and the arts.” Evangelical Christians he suggests have neglected the ‘life of the mind’. By this Noll means the effort to think like a Christian about the world, that is, to think within a Christian framework or worldview. His challenge is for the Christian to consider, critique, understand and think about the physical world, as well as the nature of human structures like government, education, the economy, the past, the aesthetic, and the nature of humanity.

Of course, Trueman might be right in his claim that the reason so many have become impotent as Christians in the academy and other places is simply that they have ignored the fundamentals of their faith and have failed to grasp the deep things of God.

We know that as Paul reminded the Corinthian Church, that we do not impart "...a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory"(1 Cor 2:6-7). No, with Paul we come in weakness, fear and trembling with knowledge of nothing "except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Cor 2:1-5). But of course these deep things must change us and lead us to live our lives under God's authority. Lives that are informed and shaped by his Word to us, surrendered to his Son and lived sacrificially for his glory.

The purpose of CASE

The formation of ‘CASE’ at my own college within a major secular university was motivated by the desire to encourage Christians to addresses the relationship between theology and other forms of knowledge and learning. In the process, we have sought to engage with people who do not share the Christian faith. We don't see our primary goal as evangelism, but we see intelligent application of biblical insights to all of life as foundational to evangelism.

Organizations like CASE have an important role to play. We are not alone; there have been other groups attempting such work for a long time. One which comes readily to mind is the 'Institute for the Study of Christianity in an Age of Science and Technology' (ISCAST) which is an Australian organization dedicated to exploring the interface between science and the Christian faith. Its membership consists of scientists, theologians and professionals with standing in their own fields and a commitment to the Christian faith.

The content of this post was part of an address I gave at St Mark's Theological Centre in Canberra at its commencement in March. Interestingly, St Mark's is one of the few Christian centres for the study of theology that is integrated fully into a university. You can read my paper titled 'Regaining Our Voice in the Secular University' HERE.

Other Posts

My recent post on 'The Christian Mind' also has relevance to my arguments in this post (HERE)

The Increasing Irrelevance of Universities

The title of this post isn't just a ploy to get your attention. In recent times many have argued that there is increasing truth to the title. Of course, universities still have relevance, but they have changed a great deal. Even in the 35 years that I have been in universities fulfilling a variety of roles - including student, teacher, researcher and university manager and leader - I have seen some loss of public relevance.

C. John Sommerville has offered some helpful insights into the changes that have occurred in universities in the last century and concludes that much has been lost in terms of relevance. In his book 'The Decline of the Secular University' Professor Sommerville considers the rapid growth in universities around the world and consequent changes. There has been growth in student numbers and staff, increasing wealth, an explosion of courses and increasingly specialised schools. He ponders why at the same time there seems to have been a parallel loss of influence in some areas. In particular, he questions the ability of universities and their staff to provide true leadership in society.  He comments:

If universities are exercising cultural leadership, why do they seem more attentive to pop culture than to the high culture they were nurtured in? If universities are offering scientific leadership, why do they mainly hire their labs out to government and business, with the goal being patents? If they are offering social leadership, why don't professors dominate the talk shows that try to embody our "public opinion"? Is it true, as we often hear, that universities have become trade schools, offering the credentials that students prefer to a rounded education? Why are they only maintaining booths in the intellectual marketplace rather than providing leadership of any kind?

While I believe that Sommerville exaggerates the situation, tends to smooth out the complexity that exists and speaks very much from an American perspective, his central thesis is worth consideration.  In essence he claims that "the secular university is increasingly marginal to American society and, second, that this is a result of its secularism". And he goes further, to suggest that the questions that should be central to the university's mission have a religious dimension that no longer can be addressed. The exclusion of religion or its domestication into increasingly rare theology departments and church-founded residential colleges has left universities with an inability to answer questions that matter.

Sommerville asks, why are universities failing to connect with our deepest interests? What does the average university professor or school have to say about what it is to be human? How do the increasingly large number of professional courses prepare graduates to deal with ethical issues? Why have many western universities removed courses that focus on 'Western Civilisation'? Can we continue to justify the fact/value dichotomy that has helped to expunge our universities of discussions about religious belief and values?

I don't for a minute think that universities can return to the past, nor do I seriously believe (or even want) religious groups to exercise greater control over universities. But we do need a more open discussion about what it means to be human, and the place of values, ethics and morality. Recent decades have seen matters of faith and belief driven underground and seen as irrelevant to learning and life. Nothing could be further from the truth. We need university staff members who are people of faith (and I mean all faiths) to increasingly consider how this faith relates to their personhood and how that influences all areas of life. In the process, they need to be prepared to challenge the fact/value dichotomy. That is, the philosophical concept that we should not to derive a value from a fact, or an 'ought' from an 'is'.  This has been an important foundation to the secularisation of the modern university. Sommerville rightly argues that line between fact and values, or put another way, reason and faith, is not as clearly drawn as might think. The unquestioning adherence to this dichotomy needs to be contested. There are some significant scholars who have done just this, including Harvard Philosopher Hilary Putnam, Nobel economist Amartya Sen and Frances Fukuyama who have questioned the ability of philosophers, scientists and economists to separate fact and value.  Any Christian who is part of the academy needs to be prepared to engage in discussion and debate, rather than simply allowing concepts like belief, values, ethics and truth to be marginalised.

Professors Who Believe

The personal testimonies of people of faith are always interesting. Paul M. Anderson's edited book 'Professors Who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of Christian Faculty' brings together the testimonies of 21 professors drawn from a wide variety of disciplines and North American universities. The book is helpful in an age where New Atheists are increasingly claiming that the only truth is that which can be 'objectively' measured, that science and reason are virtually synonymous, and that faith and belief have no relationship to either truth or reason. It was published in 1998 and so is not a new book, but it is still a helpful book for Christians or those considering the Christian faith. Anderson writes in the introduction to the book:

Some argue that science and faith are antithetical because religion (1) involves no experiments, (2) tests no hypotheses and (3) is committed beforehand to a set of beliefs. I have not found such arguments convincing. First, science is a process that people use to understand the world, whereas religion addresses questions of purpose and meaning. Both science and religion are interested in truth. Science represents human efforts. Religion, especially the Christian faith, looks to revelation - i.e., God's initiative. Galileo Galilei, considered the father of modern scientific inquiry, captured the essence of this distinction when he stated that "the Bible tells us how to get to Heaven, not how the Heavens go."

Anderson who is a Biochemist and Molecular Biologist goes on to suggest that some of the postulates can in fact be tested. At least one of the professors in this book came to faith by testing a premise of the teachings of Jesus. He also reminds us that to accept science as objectively pure is a mistake. We should not simply afford a blind acceptance of purity and objectivity to science.  Anyone who has taught research methods at university (as I have) will know that the concepts 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' are hotly contested. Anderson reminds us that Science is thought by some to be "...scholarship that is free from prior commitment to a particular answer or belief system. However, anyone with a few years experience in science knows that science is, in fact, often strongly influenced by pre-existing expectations."

However, this book is not an argument about objective truth, the objectivity of science and the scientific process, it is simply the story of 21 university professors and their reason for the hope that is within them. The book would be useful for Christians ministering to university students or who wish simply to encourage young Christians as they set off to university for the first time (as thousands will in Australia in coming weeks). It might also encourage other Christian academics to be prepared to share their own stories.

Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15but in your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behaviour in Christ may be put to shame. (1 Peter 3:13-17)

Related Posts

'Education  Based on Reason Alone Falls Short' (HERE)

Education based on reason alone falls short

The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has offered some interesting comments on the limitations of reason in education. The address was presented at Rikkyo Gaukin Anglican University in Tokyo on the 21st September. He was there to receive an honorary doctorate and to speak as part of the institution's 150th anniversary.

In his address, Dr Williams suggested that the record of universities in applying a purely rational approach to intellectual and academic life is problematic:

"Christian doctrine regards human beings as made in the divine image; and that has regularly been interpreted as meaning that human beings share something of the rational nature of God. But to use those words today instantly gives a false impression. We understand 'reason' as a way of arguing and testing propositions – usually so as to become better at manipulating the world round us. Because religious faith is not a matter of argument in this way, it is then easy to conclude that faith and reason are enemies, or at least operating in different territory."

He argues that faith has a place alongside reason in the modern university, whether Christian like Rykkyo Gaukin University or secular like most. He uses the concept of the 'reasonable' or 'rational' human being to discuss what it is that universities do and how faith has an important place on campus. The 'reasonable' person he suggests is one who seeks 'not first and foremost to master and control a passive universe around', but someone who seeks to discover the 'rhythms and patterns of reality' and so understand themselves more fully. He continues:

"Sadly, there are many in our contemporary culture who believe that because religious faith is not rational in their sense – simply a judgement based on evidence and argument – it is bound to be something that breaks relations and nourishes violence. But the sober testimony of the twentieth century is that the rationality of secular thinking is no guarantee of universal understanding and reconciliation. A rationality that has brought us into the age of nuclear weaponry and global economic meltdown invites some sharp questions, to put it mildly; which has something to do with the revulsion in some quarters against the very idea of reason, against science and the notion of universal values and much else besides. As the Pope has argued several times in recent years, the drift towards relativism and pluralism is not the triumph but the defeat of reason; and as he has also insisted, the response of religious faith should not be to glory in the overthrow of rationality but to reclaim the idea and set it on its ancient foundations once more."

He goes on to suggest that a purely functional development of education effectively misses the "true nature of that which is not understood":

"Relating to God requires of us a radical acceptance of the fact that we are dependent beings, that we always stand on the edge of mysteries we cannot fathom, and that the true direction of our lives is not necessarily what our own unexamined and selfish ambition might suggest. Relating to God creates in us the habits of silence and listening, the willingness to be questioned and to question ourselves. Specifically for Christians, relating to God means growing into the role of a child of God, called to maturity, to a life in which dependence and creativity go side by side, inseparably. Called to mature into a life that reflects that of Christ, the Christian believer seeks to live at once in a deep humility that is constantly aware of the possibility of failure and the reality of not-knowing, and in a sense of liberty, dignity and worth, grounded in the trust that God looks at each human person with an endless loving respect and a desire to nourish and fulfil that person. Out of this comes a whole scheme of ethics, a patient respect for one another and for the material world, a realism and a sense of the provisional that never simply gives way to cynicism or despair."

You can read the full text of the talk by following the link below.

Related Links

Full text of the address can be found here

Apologetics and the University (here)

What J.K. Rowling gained from university (my previous post on 'The Benefits of Failure') here

Apologetics and the university

It won't surprise readers of this blog to hear that I believe universities are a key place for apologetics to be practised. At CASE we embrace and support apologetics in its varied forms. In its broadest sense, apologetics is concerned with giving a reason for one's faith. Often, this is due to a need to defend the faith (although apologetics doesn't have to be simply defensive) against various charges of biblical inaccuracy, inconsistency in our claims, challenges of application (e.g. If God does exist then how come....?) etc. The university is a place where ideas are shared and people challenged to consider truth claims and university students are typically people who want to know and who are keen to explore new ideas.

That's why CASE is situated within New College, that's also why New College was built in the 1960s and why we've just built a new building (the New College Village) as home to a postgraduate community at the University of New South Wales (Sydney). That's also why Issue #20 of Case magazine will explore the forms that 'Apologetics' takes.

Universities have served as key sites for debate and dialogue about matters of faith for over 800 years. When William Lane Craig spoke at the European Leaders Conference in 2002 he offered the following comment in support of the key place of universities for apologetics:

"....the single most important institution shaping Western culture is the university. It is at the university that our future political leaders, our journalists, our lawyers, our teachers, our business executives, our artists, will be trained. It is at the university that they will formulate or, more likely, simply absorb the worldview that will shape their lives. And since these are the opinion-makers and leaders who shape our culture, the worldview that they imbibe at the university will be the one that shapes our culture. If we change the university, we change our culture through those who shape culture. If the Christian worldview can be restored to a place of prominence and respect at the university, it will have a leavening effect throughout society."

I hold a personal view that in our rightful desire to challenge our brightest young men to pursue theological education and pastoral ministry, that we have effectively turned our backs on the strategic importance of the university as places for Christians to live out their faiths, and to apply a Christian worldview to their reading, writing, research, teaching and life on campus. It is ironic that at a time when we have such effective student ministry on virtually every university campus in Australia, that we have so few Christian academics giving reasons for their faith. We need more Christian academics that can bring their Christian worldview to bear on all the challenges that the world faces in the 21st century.

We have even fewer Christians on university campuses who are leaders in their fields and who actually see that their faith has relevance to what they have to say on physics, medicine, law, education, sociology, new media, economics, history and so on. Not surprisingly, there seem to be less and less Christian voices amongst the opinion makers, thought leaders and media spokespeople than ever before. As a university academic I know the challenges in applying one's faith to one's scholarship and how hard it is ensure that one's faith is not simply an adjunct to our intellectual pursuits in the academy. This is the greatest challenge that those who are academics on campus face. But what is clear, is that Christian voices do need to be heard on campus not just from the student body and from the visiting Christian staff workers, but from university academics who teach our students and whose views potentially shape how they view the world, how they view epistemology, what the nature of evidence is and so on. Ultimately, this is the sharp end of their preparation to at least hear and consider the claims of Christ.

In the same talk that Craig stresses the importance of a Christian worldview on our campuses he makes these comments about the way the Christian voice is sometimes heard on campuses:

"....the Gospel is never heard in isolation. It is always heard against the background of the cultural milieu in which one lives. A person raised in a cultural milieu in which Christianity is still seen as an intellectually viable option will display an openness to the Gospel which a person who is secularized will not. For the secular person you may as well tell him to believe in fairies or leprechauns as in Jesus Christ! Or, to give a more realistic illustration, it is like a devotee of the Hare Krishna movement approaching you on the street and inviting you to believe in Krishna. Such an invitation strikes us as bizarre, freakish, even amusing. But to a person on the streets of Bombay, such an invitation would, I assume, appear quite reasonable and cause for reflection. I fear that evangelicals appear almost as weird to persons on the streets of Bonn, Stockholm, or Paris as do the devotees of Krishna."

Since opening the doors of our new postgraduate community at UNSW we haven't faced quite faced the "are you weird?" reaction, but we have certainly been confronted by the challenge of defending a faith for which their is little preliminary knowledge and when the worldview of the listener is quite different from that of the Christian. With 315 residents from 55 nations (85% foreign students and just 15% Christian), we have experienced the exciting challenge of giving a reason for our faith to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists who have limited understanding and background to the claims of the gospel of Christ.

If you have an interesting in contributing to the next issue of Case on apologetics please contact me.

Related links

Dr William Lane Craig's paper at the European Leaders Conference (here)

Other talks and papers by Dr Craig at BeThinking.org (here)

Other CASE blog posts on Apologetics (here)