This came out last month when I was away, but I want to note it for any academics who read here who didn’t see it. Carl Trueman on “The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind“:
Third, there would seem to be a pervasive evangelical inferiority complex. This means that, while we do not wish to exclude anybody, we dread being excluded ourselves. Indeed, for the evangelical academic, in a world so ill-defined, it is always tempting to cut just a few more corners, or keep shtum on just a couple of rather embarrassing doctrinal commitments, in order to have just that little bit more influence, that slightly bigger platform, in the outside world. This is particularly the temptation of evangelical biblical scholars and systematicians whose wider guilds are so utterly unsympathetic to the kind of supernaturalism and old-fashioned truth claims upon which their church constituencies are largely built. In so doing, we kid ourselves that we are doing the Lord’s work, that, somehow, because we have articles published in this journal or by that press, we are really making real headway into the unbelieving culture of the theological academy. Not that these things are not good and worthy—I do such things myself—but we must be careful that we do not confuse professional academic achievement with building up the saints or scoring a point for the kingdom.
And later…
The day is coming when the cultural intellectual elites of evangelicalism—the institutions and the individuals—will face a tough decision. I see the crisis coming on two separate but intimately connected fronts. The day is coming, and perhaps has already come, when, first, to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, inspired, authoritative, and utterly truthful, will be seen as a sign at best of intellectual suicide, at worst of mental illness; and, second, to articulate any form of opposition to homosexual practice will be seen as the moral equivalent of advocating white supremacy or child abuse. In such times, the choice will be clear, those who hold the Christian line will be obvious, and those who have spent their lives trying to serve both orthodoxy and the academy will find that no amount of intellectual contortionism will save them.
You can read the whole thing. It’s not very long.
Since I can’t comment on his website, I’ll put in my two cents here.
I’m not sure if I entirely agree with him. Note the following quote, which sums up his paragraph on Evangelical ambition:
“Yet true ambition, true Christian ambition, is surely based in and directed towards the upbuilding of the church, towards serving the people of God, and this is where evangelical academics often fail so signally.”
When I first read this it sounded alright, but then I got to thinking: who says that evangelicals should focus all their efforts to primarily building up the church? Wouldn’t that sort of be like saying that all those involved in ministry should be church workers? But this surely isn’t the case. Evangelists aren’t primarily involved in serving the people of God. They deal more with non Christians than they do with Christians. Or what about someone who opens a soup kitchen and uses this as a platform to spread the gospel? Again, their focus is not on “upbuilding the church.” My point is that there is no one way to do ministry, and not all ministries have the same target audience. Couldn’t an evangelical scholar view his/her scholarship as a platform to share his/her faith? Is that wrong?
Or I could take another line of argumentation and say that if an individual can serve God by being a computer technician, why can’t an evangelical scholar serve God by being a scholar? Isn’t an Evangelical (who is primarily a) scholar fulfilling his/her command to be in the world and not of the world just as the computer technician is?
Benj – I think he would say that it serves the church to add to its numbers. It serves the church to open a soup kitchen to share the gospel. I don’t think he would say that you have to be a church worker in order to serve the church. But if you open a soup kitchen in order to spread the gospel, but it evolves primarily into a place where you make yourself lavish banquets or you use the position so you can look good in the eyes of others, then you are no longer serving the church.
An evangelical scholar can use his work in order to share his faith. And he can use it to help the saints understand Scripture. Etc. But some evangelical scholars, Trueman apparently feels, are more looking out for their own interests than for those of Christ Jesus. I think there are some difficult lines to walk here. How much can one “minimize” his commitments to controversial matters in order to gain a hearing? If a scholar states in his book that he believes Moses wrote the Pentateuch, many scholars will conclude/assume he is incompetent. So, do you just not say it? Or do you say it in words that suggest that you just may not believe it? Or do you just not believe it? Can you rationalize rejection of Mosaic authorship on the grounds that it will further your scholarly goals and allow you to gain a hearing from those who otherwise would not listen?
Todd,
Thanks for pointing out this very provocative article. I don ‘t know if I understand Trueman ‘s point, though; the reasoning seems muddled to me. The whole piece implies that Christian Bible scholars are tempted to compromise – or as you put it, “minimize” their evangelical commitments – in order to have more success in academe.
I don ‘t know about that. It sounds to me like Trueman is assuming that he understands the motives of such authors – which is completely uncharitable. Is it necessarily true that if someone publishes an article in a secular journal that doesn ‘t mention, say, the virgin birth or Mosaic authorship, that they have compromised in order to serve their own professional agenda? Of course not. This is like saying (as I heard from many sincere fellow students when I was in college) that if you are a Christian musician in a band, then either your band should play worship music exclusively, or you are worldly compromisers just trying to “make it big.” That ‘s total nonsense. There are God-honoring qualities in very secular music. Of course, if you are a believer, your world view will probably be reflected in your music. But it doesn ‘t have to come across in every lyric.
I think it is exactly the same with Biblical scholarship. I am going into this field because it is personally interesting to me, just like (as Benj said) being a computer technician (yuck!) is what appeals to others. The way I look at publishing is this: some articles are for the academy, and go to secular journals (computer technician); some are for the church, and go to theological journals (soup kitchen). They are two different subjects. I wouldn ‘t send an article about inspiration to a secular journal, just as I wouldn ‘t send an article on economics to a physics journal. (Okay, that ‘s hyperbole – there ‘s obviously overlap between confessional and secular biblical scholarship. But wherever the antisupernatural presupposition is relevant to the topic, then the audience should also be different.) I think it ‘s perfectly natural that evangelicals are influential in secular scholarship – as mentioned in the article – at precisely the points where their presuppositions don ‘t clash with those in the secular academy.
On the other hand (this is what ‘s confusing), Trueman seems to say that he has published in secular venues himself, and he says that publishing in such places is “good and worthy.” So, then, what ‘s the problem? Is it the relative balance between different types of publications? His last sentence (“the scandal is that there is precious little evangel”) makes it sound like the point of his article is that believers aren ‘t publishing scholarship which advocates Christian doctrine. Huh? There are scores of theological or seminary journals which are filled with confessional scholarship. Or is he really saying that believers should keep a confessional stance when publishing all of their work, regardless of where they try to publish it? That we should be, so to speak, evangelizing the academy with journal articles? If this is what he ‘s saying, I don ‘t really agree with his view of what evangelism should look like, and I daresay that most believers probably don ‘t, either.
Todd, Benj, and Danny,
I was challenged by the article and found it generally helpful. I would agree that we cannot automatically question a person’s motives for publishing something primarily for academia or for publishing something that does not trumpet our evangelical beliefs. Here is the basic issue to me. Where is the focus of my (or their) attention? Is my primary concern my reputation as a scholar to non-evangelicals or the presentation of truth? For a person to focus their work some, significantly, or exclusively on academia is not the main question. The issue is whether we are minimizing truth as a pattern in an attempt to receive the applause of non-evangelicals. I am committed to being involved in biblical scholarship. However, I do think it is a valid criticism that some are more interested in what non-evangelicals say than their evangelical brethren or the truth says. We could talk about different examples of this, but this is not the venue for that.
Again, I think it is beneficial to contribute to scholarly conversations that don’t require me putting my evangelical cards on the table, so to speak. However, I want to be careful that I avoid or give up truth for the sake of my reputation in academia as a pattern.
Todd, Benj, and Danny,
I would add that it seems with the NT emphasis on the local church, if a person’s life is focused on academia with little to no involvement in consistent local church ministry, that does seem to miss the point of God’s emphasis on the local church. It is not an either-or equation, but a both-and. The degree of involvement in either may vary, but both should be present.
Dr. Grisanti: Agreed. I emailed Dr. Trueman and pointed him to our comments, and he very kindly clarified what he meant in his article – which was more or less what you just said: do not compromise for base motives, and be sure that you are serving the church in some capacity. He also pointed out that the article’s format (short and provocative) precludes a nuanced evaluation of a fairly difficult issue. Fair enough.
Thanks to all for the thoughts.
I’ll submit one example that may illustrate what Trueman is getting at. This statement was written by an evangelical (member of ETS), published by an evangelical publisher (Baker), and in a book intended for an evangelical audience (college and grad students):
Concerning the ancestral figures and traditions of Genesis 12-36, “It is possible that some of these traditions contain elements that reach back to the middle of the second millennium BC” (emphasis mine).
Does the evangelical author really mean this? If he does, why does he consider himself an evangelical? If he doesn’t, why does he make dozens of statements in the book that I would characterize as non-evangelical. I don’t know his motivations, but I do know that the publisher put six rave reviews on the book jacket, all from non-evangelicals. Perhaps he was not motivated to compromise his beliefs in order to win kudos from the academy, but I believe that he did win kudos from the academy because he made statements I would call “compromising.” I do not feel that this approach is the best way to serve the church or to win the lost to Christ.
Todd,
I think the only charitable thing for us to assume is that the guy believes exactly what he wrote. You’re wondering how he can say such things and still consider himself an evangelical? Either a)his understanding of the genre of the patriarchal narratives is such that he can say these things and still (with a clear conscience) say he believes in inerrancy; b) his definition of inerrancy and/or evangelical is different than yours (as you know, both terms are notoriously difficult); or c) both of the above. My point is this: even though you disagree with him, his statements may only constitute a “compromise” for you, not for him.
Danny – the example I selected is but an example. If you intend to say that a guy is an evangelical if he thinks he is one, I disagree. I think that much of the confusion over the terms evangelical and inerrancy are caused by those who are trying to change their meanings (to be more inclusive). There is certainly a “range” that is within each of those categories, but there are also areas that are excluded. For more on what inerrancy means (and the range it includes), read the very long definition agreed upon by dozens (or hundreds?) of evangelical leaders in the 1970s.
One other point: all of the people that Paul fought against in the churches claimed to be orthodox. None wore a badge that said “false teacher.” But Paul called them false teachers and he pointed out their heresies. There are no Pauls among us today, but the church still has the responsibility to identify false teachers and to correct or expel them. We can become false teachers ourselves if we stray from the truth.