This post was written by Patrick Rist on April 22, 2008
In our last posting, we mentioned what Ken Myers calls “Adverbial Christianity” – the notion that so often the world dictates the nouns of our lives, while Christianity is brought in so that we can pursue these pre-established goals “peacefully,” or “graciously,” or “honestly,” and the like.
This is an anemic vision of the Christian life, but it is quite often the status quo for believers in academia. The way out of it is not easy – there are not any quick fixes. But surely we can all affirm that we have been called to something higher, something better, and that faithfulness means at least trying.
It is in that spirit that I’d like to offer some thoughts on how to begin the process of integrating one’s scholarly work with historic Christian thought. On one hand, it would be hard to improve upon Paul Gould’s essay, “The Two Tasks Introduced: The Fully Integrated Life of the Christian Scholar,” in The Two Tasks of the Christian Scholar, but what I’ve been considering would probably be considered prolegomena (even to Gould’s prolegomena).
§ At the most basic level, integration means thinking theologically about one’s academic discipline. This presupposes that theology, and the Bible upon which valid theology is based, actually has something to say about things other than “religion” and “spirituality.” The Bible is not a science textbook (as we are so often and so tiresomely reminded), yet it presents itself as a true and accurate account of the world and the human condition. Therefore, unless we are willing to buy into a truncated, impoverished view of truth, we must take the Bible and theology seriously and allow it to speak into our understanding of our scholarly endeavors.
§ Once we take this step, then the hard work really begins. It is my belief that Christian scholars, whatever their discipline, should become lay theologians to the best of their abilities. There are far too many “Christian scholars” who are Christian by virtue of their confession but not by virtue of the “Christian-ness” of their scholarship. Scholarship that is thoroughly Christian is the product of much analysis (and judgment) of the reigning paradigms in a given discipline, not a little Christian jargon spread over the top like mayonnaise (and that goes for amorphous, often inane verbiage about “justice,” too).
In order to do this sort of analysis, it seems to me that Christian academics should begin to humbly learn theological categories. This is a process of replacing one’s mental furniture with new concepts – and training oneself in a different style of thinking.
It would seem that this would be a better preliminary step than going directly to books written by Christians in one’s field – if there are any. Having grounding in theological convictions would enable one to better ascertain the validity of what another Christian has written, and also to recognize the positive contributions that they are making.
§ Finally (at least for today’s post!), a key part of the integration process that is so often ignored, or at least left unstated, is reflection. What we have been describing – the serious study of theology, the replacing of mental furniture, the analysis of the presuppositions of one’s field – these are not things that can be simply checked off a “to do” list. These are ongoing, difficult projects, which require strenuous mental effort and time – time to digest, assimilate, and perhaps harmonize what one is learning. And only after lengthy reflection can one hope to actually produce something as a result.
I must state it boldly: There can be no integration without reflection. If you find that you are simply too busy, too “pro-active” to take the time to reflect, you may think that you want to do integration, but you’ll have to be satisfied with the adverbs.
This post was written by Patrick Rist on April 15, 2008
Recently I was talking with a Christian professor at a large state university, and asked her how her faith had informed her practice of her discipline (she was a sociologist). She replied that she tried to be a conscientious teacher and treat her students well. She also said she discouraged profanity in her classroom.
This was a good person, who undoubtedly is a sincere, pious Christian. But I was reminded of what Ken Myers (of Mars Hill Audio) calls “Adverbial Christianity.” The world sets the overall agenda of our lives, providing the nouns: the work, the goals, the purpose. The church only gets to provide the adverbs, so that things are done “peacefully,” or “lovingly,” or “gracefully.”
This adverbial posture is far cry from the vision of academic integration. And yet one suspects that this is where we might find the majority of Christian professors, whether they are at secular or church-related schools.
Why? Is the notion of integrating one’s scholarship with a Christian view of life and reality that difficult to grasp, simply as a concept? While it may be a challenge to flesh out in practice, particularly for some disciplines, it is deeply troubling to encounter academics to whom this notion has never even occurred as a possibility.
It may be time for us to re-visit some basic concepts surrounding the pursuit of the integration of the Christian worldview and the academic calling. We’ll try to do this in the next few entries.
This post was written by Mark Hansard on April 7, 2008
Dear editors and publishers of Christianity Today,
I am becoming more and more dismayed at the editorial direction of your magazine, which appears to increasingly embrace the “emergent” or “emerging church” movement and promote it, as if this movement(s) will do our churches a valuable service. While it is true that today’s culture of young people is different than previous generations, it is not in their interest to abandon the life of the mind and the soul’s powers of reason in order to reach them. Much of what I read in CT and hear from youth leaders, is anti-intellectualism of the worst kind: the kind that dismisses logical thinking and apologetics as “modern” and irrelevant today.
For example, in Scot McKnight’s “Five Streams of the Emerging Church” (Feb. 2007), he says that postmodernity “cannot be reduced to a denial of truth” but instead “is the collapse of overarching metanarratives…like those of Marxism and science…because of the impossibility of getting outside of their assumptions.” But this is self-referentially incoherent, since postmodernity has a set of assumptions that, presumably, it cannot “get outside of.” If none of us can “get outside of” our assumptions, the only recourse is complete agnosticism about knowledge itself: an admission that radical skepticism is the only option. True, on his description, McKnight’s view of postmodernity doesn’t lead to a denial of truth. Rather, it leads to a denial that truth can be known. This is somewhat silly in my opinion, since McKnight is probably writing his article on a word processor, something he would not be able to do unless scientific presuppositions about physics had turned out to be true and led to the construction of microchips.
In another egregious example, Molly Worthen, in her article “Not Your Father’s L’Abri” (March, 2008), quotes John Sandri as saying, “I’m not an inerrantist, but I’m not an ‘errantist’ either. Both are wrong. Man makes these opposing points of view. The modernist agenda is behind both.” The problems with such a quotation are legion. For one thing, I assume that he holds to some middle position between inerrancy and “errancy,” but the way the quotation is constructed it appears he is denying the law of the excluded middle (either there is at least one error in Scripture, or there is not—no other logical option is available). Whether he intends to deny this law of logic is unclear, but it certainly leaves a muddleheaded impression that does your readers a disservice (besides—what’s wrong with inerrancy?!). Frankly, I grow weary of hearing youth leaders say that logic is “modern,” and thus something irrelevant to young people today. I suppose they get such ideas from professors like Sandri, but I find that exactly the opposite is true.
As I have occasion to speak to college students and 20-Somethings, I teach of the importance of reason, how Jesus used logic in his debates with the Pharisees, and how we can defend Christianity rationally. The response is often stunned amazement and interest, rather than hostility or indifference. Often, after the teaching time is over, students will rush forward to be the first in line to ask questions. It is as if the reasoning portions of their souls, which have to this point been anesthetized, are resurrected. Occasionally an emergent adherent will scoff, not because he does not have the same needs which this sort of teaching meets, but because he has been trained to think it will not work in reaching the unchurched.
Today’s leading literature departments are abandoning deconstructionism and a whole host of postmodern beliefs. At the same time, the emerging church movement (if it is even one movement that can be defined) is embracing many of these same postmodern beliefs. Instead of being counter-cultural like many emergentists believe, they are simply following academic ideas that are twenty years out of date. It is difficult enough to get today’s youth to use their minds without emerging leaders encouraging this sort of intellectual lethargy.
Today’s evangelical leaders have a choice: either to acquiesce in the anesthetization of the mind, or to take part in its rational resurrection. It is clear that Christianity Today has made its choice to go along with the anesthesiologist. For this reason, I will not be renewing my subscription to CT.
Sincerely,
Mark Hansard
|
