Jeff is an ordained minister in PCUSA, graduate of Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School (MDiv, MA in New Testament), and a Phd ABD from Duke
University (New Testament / Early Christianity)
His comments are prefaced below by some general remarks he has made on
"evolution vs. creation."
Gordon Simons
Jeff's Preface
==============
Feel free to pass my notes along to the review forum. I know that the
issue of evolution vs. creationism was prominent in Hamilton's review, and
I didn't address the subject in any depth. I don't consider myself a
scientist, but I also don't have any particular sympathy for the so-called
creation science position.
My take on the various creationism / evolution debates, ASA vs CRS, etc.
is that this is a touchstone issue. It is a place where much deeper
questions about human cognition and experience, biblical interpretation,
and the various methods by which God chooses to involve himself in the
physical aspects of Creation, come to the surface. I think the population
of (evangelical) believers in America contains large groups who approach
these deeper issues in very different (if not altogether incompatible)
ways, and that is the real fuel that keeps creation / evolution debates
going among evangelicals.
Jeff's Comments on: The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind
=======================================================
Thanks to Gordie for posting Bill Hamilton's review of Mark Noll's book.
I haven't read Noll's book, so I am probably being unfair to comment on it
by way of Hamilton's paraphrases. Nonetheless ...
Noll is a good historian of American Christianity and his observations are
informed and provocative. He's also been involved as a participant in
evangelical discourse for many of the years about which he is writing, so
there may be a certain lack of objectivity when he labels some trends
"sterile" and others "productive".
Anti-intellectualism as a powerful force in Christianity has reared its
head in every century, if not in every generation, since the Apostolic
age. Egyptian monks rioting in 3rd century Alexandria, the 2nd Century
Papias who viewed written documents with skepticism, and collected the
oral memoirs of the apostles and their followers, the followers of the
prophet Montanus (3rd Century charismatics), even the golden tongued
Tertullian (who was certainly familiar with the tools of rhetoric) were
active anti-intellectuals or furthered their agendas by appeals to
anti-intellectual sentiments.
The anti-intellectual tradition was echoed by popular movements against
the renaissance popes, German pietistic movements, some of the anabaptist
and Scandinavian free church traditions. Right down to the American
legacy of John Wesley -- the Methodists. Note that many of these groups
were started by well educated individuals, but they distrusted their own
learning, and the learning of others, and they encouraged their followers
to trust more in the authority they could see and touch and feel (gifts of
the Spirit, rousing words, appeals to common moral principles), than in
abstract ideas or a broad vocabulary that went over their heads.
Is evangelicalism of the last 50 years anti-intellectual and sterile?
Billy Graham crusades in the 1950s? Ken Kantzer's vision of Christian
ministry and culture in the magazine Christianity Today? Francis
Schaeffer's apologies throughout the late 60s and 70s for Christian faith
in an unbelieving world? How about contributions to our culture that
aren't directly aimed at the mind -- Jimmy Carter's work for international
peace, the Sojourners community in Washington and their work for social
justice, ... I guess if I keep going this list will get very long.
The "Genesis Flood" was one of the first books I read after I became a
Christian, and my undergrad degree is from Liberty University ("Moral
Majority U"), so I think I have some understanding of that sub-group
within evangelicalism. And there is a lot of bad science in that crowd.
And there is a lot of sentimental mush that passes for theological
insight. And sometimes there isn't much room given to experiment with new
or progressive ideas, so I guess the environment can seem sterile.
The only issue I would take with Noll, as presented through the words of
Hamilton, is this. I don't think that a rigid and sterile evangelicalism
has produced a generation of anti-intellectual and closed-minded bigots.
Rather I think that a broad stream of tradition within Christendom, which
has always been at or near the surface, has incarnated itself within
late-20th Century evangelicalism. A tradition that values the status quo
and puts more stock in things that can be touched and seen and understood
than in abstract or esoteric learning.
I guess this has gotten to be something of a ramble, but I'd be interested
in hearing any other thoughts on the subject. Thanks.
Jeffrey William Gillette
Enterprise Computing Solutions
jeff@jgillette.pdial.interpath.net