Anti-Intellectualism Is More Than a Weakness

Over the past four years my opinion of American evangelicalism has worsened far beyond that expressed in Mark Noll's jeremiad, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Even against the backdrop of America's idiot culture, all but a handful of those who've stuck out as the most insanely idiotic people I've personally encountered have been Christians. While the larger population appears largely apathetic to intellectual matters, seeing them as valuable only in so far as their pragmatic financial value, the evangelical community has seen fit to baptize its stupidity, revel in its ignorance, pit "heart knowledge" against "head knowledge," decry institutions of higher learning as bastions of deception, justify their intellectually isolationist tendencies with a martyr complex, and excuse it all by asserting that they're not of this world--all of which is both the product and result of blatantly ripping Bible verses out of their literary and cultural-historical context. That is, while there's no question that anti-intellectualism prevails throughout the larger culture, in my experience it is worse amidst the evangelical sub-culture because of its having canonized piety while deploring rigorous thought as virtually Gnostic. Where I think Noll's balanced albeit scathing assessment falls short is that he fails to take a hard enough stand theologically, so let me be even more frank than I already have been.

It's no where near enough to merely criticize evangelicalism's prevailing hostility toward the life of the mind as a weakness. The evangelical community's opprobrious anti-intellectual culture must rather be censured in the severest of terms. Our very Lord and Savior stated that the greatest commandment is to love God with all our hearts, souls, minds, and strength, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Thus, while few if any authors I've ever read have come right out and said it, I will: Anti-intellectualism is nothing short of open rebellion toward God and a grievous slight to His will. The manner in which evangelicals cling--at least publicly--to the transformation of the heart yet neglect that of the mind is straight contradictory to biblical teaching and ought be condemned in the harshest language possible.

In anticipation that some who read this will offer a number of common objections, I will attempt to charitably address those concerns:

Some may think that I make it sound as though Christians must be academics; that I make the christian faith sound like the religion solely for condescending, Victorian era country club types. That simply is not what I'm saying. A friend of mine once told me, "After dad left my mom has always had to work two jobs to provide for me and my siblings. She was too busy and too tired to spend much time thinking about heady matters. For her worshiping God with her mind have been as simple as reading Scripture during a work break. That was her equivalent of Luke 21 where the woman gave her last two coins." I heartily agree. My conviction is that Christians are called to worship God with their minds to whatever degree their abilities and life circumstances allow, which means it will necessarily take a different form with each and every person.

Some may suppose I'm elevating the mind as the single most important means by which one can/should worship God. Again, that's not what I'm saying. When Jesus said that the greatest command is to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love our neighbor as ourselves I think the point is that we're to worship God with the entirety of our being. The mind is but one of the essential parts of a Christian's holistic worship experience. Most would agree that if we seek God with our minds it must necessarily lead to our hearts or else it is pointless. Yet few put equal weight in the inverse. My aim is not to reverse the problem, but to correct the imbalance. Straight up, the Christian who disdains serious thought is a Christian whose faith is broken. Sorry, folks, but when we committed to be followers of Jesus the option of cognitive lethargy went out the window.

Some may say that I'm putting too much emphasis upon theory to the neglect of practicality. That is a valid concern, but it need not be the case. I have a few thoughts on the matter that I think will provide balance:

• First, in this world there are thinkers and doers; those of thought and those of action. In my estimate, neither is more important than the other. As we see in the Body of Christ metaphor, each member is individually essential while being collectively dependent upon the others. We all ought humbly recognize that tension while striving to become more well-rounded.
  
• Second, not all serious thought shares the same purpose. Imagine the disasters that would occur if carpenters built houses without first consulting architects. Likewise, architects are utterly useless without the carpenters who actually build the houses they design. My point? It's the epitome of foolishness to hold that either the blueprint or the wood and nails has greater value. Some people will worship God by creating the larger theoretical frameworks that influences how we see and interact with all the world. Others will worship God by figuring out how to tangibly feed the hungry and clothe the naked in their corners of the world. All such thinking is of equal value in my mind. The point is that we're simply thinking.
  
• Lastly, to quote the late, great Chris Farley, "for the love of all that is good and holy" it won't kill us to take the foot off the pragmatism pedal a smidgen and spend some more time thoughtfully considering things. Worrying that American evangelicals will become too theoretical is akin to worrying that Southerners will get too skinny if they eat less food. Not a problem. As Americans we're obsessed with the practical. We must first learn to slow down and truly get our minds around things. Then and only then ought we act. Much to our detriment, we have a habit of shooting first and asking questions later.

During a recent facebook discussion one person commented that the christian faith is simple and easy; that it doesn't require a whole lot of thought. The response another guy offered to this is one of the best I've ever seen, and I think it so exemplifies the need for Christians to seriously think that it's worth re-posting here:

"A Christian making the claim that salvation is simple is lazy. Think about it. There is an invisible man who lives in the sky. He has a son but his son is also another version of himself along with a mysterious spirit who is also said to be the same person. This confusing personage apparently knows every single thing that happens before it happens everywhere in the universe. He also is everywhere at once and stranger still, he has the power to make anything happen to anyone or anything at anytime, yet he refrains from acting to prevent most tragedies, from the molestation of children to wars of genocide. His 'children' are suppose to ask him for help but unlike the children of earthly fathers, they often have to beg for help and still don't get it. Supposedly the reason for this reluctance is that we are corrupted by something that the very first woman of our species did thousands of years ago. My parents always told me that their faults shouldn't hold me back in life but apparently the god of Israel doesn't share this family value. Anyway, to fix our problem caused by Adam and Eve god's son was born to a flesh and blood woman, lived a truly revolutionary life (this is indisputable) and because of this he was murdered by jealous religious people. This murder is called the Atonement and if we believe in it we will be come 'true' children of god. Of course, everyone else in the world, even if they've never heard this story and, of course, all the decent people who have but don't accept it will be sent to a place of eternal torture, regardless of the life they lived on earth. I mean, most people in the US don't agree with waterboarding, yet they believe that the god of heaven and earth gets a pass on never-ending torture. If you think all this can be explained simply because you had a special moment in church then I urge you to examine the long border that religion can share with psychological disorders. We're not told to 'work out our salvation with fear and trembling' for nothing."

Amen.

Here at the end I'd like to restate my intention with this post. My aim is to amplify the growing, negative sentiment about evangelicalism's anti-intellectual culture. It's not merely a weakness. It's a slap in God's face. It's time high time we recognize the offense and repent of it.

-----------------------

P.S. This post wouldn't end right without one more thing. One of my dad's oft-repeated comments that he reserved only for the conclusion of one of my angst-ridden rants: "It's not healthy to hold back so much, Carson. Why don't you tell us how you really feel?" Love ya, Dad.

Mini Blog #9: Tongues

Some words have a natural association. Whenever you use one, you use the other. It's kind of like using 'u' after 'q.' Likewise, have you ever noticed that whenever anyone talks about the gift of tongues they use the verb "speak"? I find this odd, for when I think of someone speaking the mental image that comes to mind is a person clearly articulating their thoughts in something of a comfortable manner. Or as dictionary.com defines it: "to utter words or articulate sounds with the ordinary voice; talk." In that sense, I've never seen anyone "speak" in tongues. I've seen people shout, scream, yell, holler, plead, testify, rant, rave, ramble, mumble, mutter, whisper, and occasionally elocute in tongues. Never any speaking.

Needed: Evangelicalism's Jackie Robinson

Last week a facebook friend posted TIME's 2005 list of the 25 Most Influential Evangelicals for discussion. Although more than a few failed to observe that it was an intentionally American list (TIME is not The Economist) and it's already dated by a half decade, it was a solid discussion that I thoroughly enjoyed. Since then I've been contemplating one comment in particular. One fellow offered, "Too many white males, though that probably does reflect reality as we know it." I keep going back and forth on this.

On the one hand, I'm wholeheartedly agree. There is no question that--at least in terms of the well-known movers and shakers--American evangelicalism is dominated by European-derived testosterone. Evangelicalism here is quite obviously in desperate need of voices with a larger perspective on matters of culture, race, gender, economics, politics, etc. What fool wouldn't encourage more diversity? On the other hand, when I survey some of the diversity that is on that list I'm less than enthusiastic about the prospect of increasing it. T.D. Jakes and Joyce Meyer, for example, collectively embody most of what I think is wrong with American evangelicalism. (If we stick Joel Osteen in right we'll have rounded out the outfield.)

Seems to me what evangelicalism needs is a Jackie Robinson. Branch Rickey knew that the first black player in MLB couldn't be just a decent player. His play on the field would have to be extraordinary both to unquestionably dispel the notion that African Americans, to employ an anachronistic term, were inferior and to encourage others to follow in his footsteps. Where this analogy crashes and burns is the lack of blatant racism within evangelicalism, and I'm also dealing with gender issues. Yet I think the general point remains. What is needed is a non-white and/or female equivalent to Billy Graham or Mark Noll. Shoot, I'd even settle for Rick Warren or Brian McLaren. Is it too much to ask for there to be non-white, European males who don't fit the T.D. Jakes/Tony Evans and Joyce Meyer/Beth Moore mold? Yes, I have a pretty solid grasp of the cultural and historical factors contributing to the dearth of excellent, influential, well-known female and non-white persons within the American evangelical movement. No, I don't expect that everyone is capable of simply pulling themselves up by the bootstraps and transcending their background. But I do think historically there is a pattern of people needing a trailblazer to follow before significant change can occur.

By the way, the ol' wheels are turning for a post about evangelicalism's worst possible lineup. I've already got my outfield and have Benny Hinn in mind for my pitcher since he's so good at throwing Holy Spirit fireballs.

Mini Blog #8: Blunders, Part II

So where am I going with all this? I have in mind a comparison of the Bush and Obama administrations in their respective handling of Hurricane Katrina and now this oil spill. As for Bush, I disagree with both the way Democrats placed the complete blame on his shoulders and the way his administration/party attempted to completely shirk responsibility. No doubt there was massive error, but it was indirect--an unforeseen consequence of the massive, post-9/11 restructuring of the government that neither party anticipated. (This is not to say that they couldn't have anticipated it, but that they didn't.) Liberals have made it sound like Bush was solely responsible for everything that went wrong in New Orleans, which is ridiculous. Today Obama is beginning to face the same sort of blame for this oil spoil. Where were the government regulations? Why hasn't the federal government stepped in sooner? Scientists are now predicting an ecological disaster on an unprecedented scale as countless gallons of oil reach the Gulf's Loop Current and are carried along the entire eastern seaboard from Florida to Maine. And, yet again, most of the impact will again be upon Louisiana. I'm willing to bet conservatives will hop on this despite their alignment with big oil while Democrats will argue that Obama isn't responsible. This whole thing will make for an intriguing case study of how one's political beliefs causes people to assess such blunders. Stay tuned...

Mini Blog #7: Blunders, Part I

As a history major and a moderate, I'm always interested in observing how people assess mistakes made by politicians. In all candor, what I usually see is hypocrisy. People are prone to automatically giving a free pass to those with whom they agree while condemning off-hand those with whom they disagree without much concern for first getting their facts straight. In other words, most seem to practice an inconsistent burden of proof. When the other guys commit perjury it's the end of the world, but when our guys are guilty the whole thing is being blown out of proposition. When the other guys fail to live up to their campaign promises they're liars, yet when our guys do the same thing they're men of integrity who refused to compromise their principles. I'd love to read about the psychology behind this. It fascinates me how one's ideology causes him/her to interpret events and motives in such a skewed manner. In terms of my own emotional response to this, it's far less annoyance than it is amazement. The degree of willful self-deception people exhibit baffles me. Call me an optimist (a charge I rarely face), but believe most of these people aren't being intentionally dishonest. Somehow they've developed the capability to BS themselves to the point of genuinely convincing themselves of this stuff. It's extraordinary.

Mini Blog #6: Baylor

In 2002 Baylor University's then president, Robert Sloan, initiated Baylor 2012--a comprehensive, decade-long plan to simultaneously renew its Baptist origins and transform it into the only top-tier, Protestant research university in the country. In layman's terms, the goal was to become the Protestant Notre Dame. What this means tangibly is that people on either ideological polarity are irritated, if not outright angry. Those to the left are branding it fundamentalist though it's not even conservative evangelical while their counterparts to the right are branding it mainline (and heretical?) despite the explicit reaffirmation of its historically-moored, orthodox christian identity. Meanwhile even those of a more centrist perspective tend to see the university's evolving identity as a weakness--instability and a lack of true identity. Now, it's true that the university's presidents seem to swing back and forth between the two extremes--the recent appointment of Ken Starr is a prime example--but I'm unconvinced that that's a bad thing. I think it's better that an institution constantly be reevaluating its ideological center (see: Derrida's "free play") than maintain a stagnant identity on either the right or the left, which is not unlike my favorable view of our government's two-party political system. That is, while my own political beliefs align with neither the Republican nor Democratic Party, I see immense value in their constant tension. They check one another in the short-term and producing balance over the long-term. Because neither party reigns supreme for very long their respective influence/power waxes and wanes, which demands compromise and fosters an overall moderating effect. As I see it, it's the same sort of deal with Baylor. Anyway, as Mark Noll pointed out in The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind nearly 20 years ago, for well over a century the United States has been in dire need of an excellent academic institution that is not only open to but encourages the integration of devout faith and rigorous learning. I remain hopeful that Baylor can fill that need in the future.

Mini Blog #5: Immigration

Pert near every generation of Americans has dealt with a massive influx of immigrants. Nearly without fail they've been met with mass resistance accompanied by sharp rhetoric about the demise of society--politically, economically, culturally, religiously, linguistically. The onset was the 1630s when British Catholics founded Maryland. Beyond that the colonial period witnessed grave fears over the Dutch in New York, Swedes and Finns in Delaware, Germans in Pennsylvania, and the French in Georgia to name a few. Starting in the 1850s near hysteria broke out over the Finnish, Swedish, and Norwegian Protestants, who weren't nearly as bad as the Irish, German, Italian, and Polish Catholics. Naturally even they were better than the unknown Orthodox from throughout eastern Europe, who were themselves better than the Christ-killing Jews. Then again, at least the Jews were monotheists, unlike the pagan Chinese and Japanese... That about covers it through the 1890s, but for the sake of brevity I'll refrain from surveying the 20th century.

My point is this: It's easy for people with intense political passion to get caught up in the moment, but I think that's because people lack a historical perspective. It's like the boy that cried wolf has become a rite of passage or something. Not to mention it's, eh hem, ridiculously hypocritical to condemn the latest wave of illegal immigrants when nearly all of us have ancestors who were illegal aliens. Awkwarrrrrd.

Mini Blog #4: Irony

According to historian Mark Noll, as intended by its chief architect, James Madison, the U.S. Constitution "rested on a realistic view of people but an optimistic view of republicanism." As such I find it most ironic that present-day conservatives, who advocate Constitutional interpretation along strict authorial intent, hold the position that government isn't the solution, but the problem. That is, their political philosophy that corrupt, inefficient representative government must be checked and restrained by the goodness of its citizenry is antithetical to their espoused method of Constitutional interpretation.

Do with that what you will.

Musing on Conservatives' Perception of the Poor

As I grew up in a lower middle-class home my parental units were always intentional about instilling within me a hard work ethic, ingenuity, and thrift. My appreciation for those values can hardly be put to words. What I'm no longer thankful for is that those values were so frequently given in conjunction with unnecessary and unbalanced criticisms of the poor. It was both explicitly stated and implicitly conveyed that the poor were slackers; the reason for their poverty was their terrible work ethic. They sponged off all the hard working, productive members of society via government welfare programs all because of sheer lethargy. It's not like I can blame Mom and Dad, though. It had to be exasperating to run themselves into the ground just to barely make ends only to watch lazy people who refused to work maintain a higher standard of living. As such I understand and will not condemn the knee-jerk conservatism of either my family and those who share their sentiments, but I do think a reappraisal of these issues is needed. My intention here isn't to declare *"the way things ought to be," but simply to think aloud about conservatives' perception of the poor.

About a year ago Philip Yancey's book The Jesus I Never Knew really screwed with my schema. Since then I've been trying to not only get my mind around these issues, but also try to **understand how in their own minds conservative Christians reconcile their blatant rancor toward the poor with Jesus' blessing--if not praise--of them in the Beatitudes. Among the minority who've remained level-headed enough to rationally respond to my query, the standard response appears to be that our own context is remarkably different than those of the biblical-era; that is, whereas people then were more or less permanently stuck in whatever socio-economic class they were born, ours is an upwardly mobile society. Thus, those today are directly responsible for their poverty in a way that those in Jesus' day were not. From there they usually proceed to rattle off a list of personal experiences when their perception of the contemporary poor was confirmed time and again. Fair enough. I won't challenge the reality of those experiences, but I will question their legitimacy as being representative of a larger trend. Specifically, I wonder about ***sampling bias.

Compassionate, balanced, and thoughtful Christians I trust have shared countless stories about poor people who constantly abuse the system "simply because they're too damn lazy to work," as one friend recently put it. These aren't CEO types who are rolling in the dough, either. They're individuals nearing retirement age down to 20-somethings who are just entering the workforce, many of whom are themselves struggling to financially stay afloat. And whether it's their job at the Social Security Office or their weekend volunteer work at a soup kitchen, they keep running into these economic and societal parasites. To be perfectly candid, I've shared the experience more than a few times and whatever part of my DNA remains conservative shares their anger. I think, 'Yes, Jesus did say that blessed are the poor, but didn't Paul also write that those who don't work shouldn't eat?' I get ticked when liberals with their Whig Interpretation of History and deconstrutionist philosophy always assume it's the righteous little guy against the greedy, oppressive corporation.**** Yet if for no other reason than my present job, I cannot categorically write off all poor people, either.

Most of the poor people who I proudly call my co-workers are too busy with the daily grind to make it to a soup kitchen or defraud the Social Security Administration. They show up punctually to work and hustle their butts off the whole time, then go home tired and do their best to raise their kids on their limited means. A couple are pursuing further education to help themselves get better jobs, but that's only because three (or four?) generations banded together and moved into one house, which collectively freed up enough money for one person to attend a community college. A number of them faithfully attend church, but there's little possibility for financial support as most of the congregation is in the same boat. They drive junkers that are 20+ years old, don't buy $200 Air Jordans they cannot afford, and I'm pretty sure the majority are alcohol, drug, and even tobacco-free. Have these conservatives not befriended and worked with such persons?

We're all prone to assuming the universality of our own experiences, right? I wonder if a lot of these conservatives aren't both failing to take into account people like my co-workers while simultaneously reading too much into those poor folks with whom they do interact. It seems to me that a) conservatives need to show more compassion and be more intentional about recognizing the limitations of their perspective and b) liberals need to stop accusing conservatives of being ignorant, drop the assumption of "victim until proven otherwise" view of poor people, and recognize that some/many people genuinely are poor because of errors they’ve made of their own volition. Perhaps both sides need to stop shouting from their soap boxes and step down to listen for a while. Pretty sure there's a Bible verse or two about that.

----------------------------------------

* The Way Things Ought to Be is the title of a Rush Limbaugh book.

** Contrary to popular opinion, understanding a thing is an altogether different thing than agreeing with it.

*** Sampling bias: A systematic error due to a non-random sample of a population, causing some members of the population to be less likely to be included than others, resulting in a defined as a statistical sample of a population (or non-human factors) in which all participants are not equally balanced or objectively represented.

**** Dear conservatives, Don't get too smug. I'm an equal opportunity criticizer. You tend to do the same thing jut in the opposite direction, which is equally bogus.

Mini Blog #3: Pansy

LeBron James is a wuss.

You remember the kid on the playground who'd fall down and hysterically weep minimum once a game, then come back in two plays later acting like he was heroically coming back to help the team? And there was never a noticeable limp or anything... until the game was safely secured, at which point the pain came shooting back. And long after recess was done the kid was still talking about playing through the pain. Often he was actually pretty competitive. Usually the kid was a pretty good athlete. Sometimes even the best player on either team. Problem is he loved the drama and/or had a ridiculously low pain threshhold. Yeah, LBJ is the grown up version of that kid.

You never saw McHale whining about his foot or Jordan about the flu, did ya? They represent the breed of athletes who are so competitive that the only way they can get through the pain is to zero in on the game and block everything else out. Kobe is another one of 'em. Then you've got the other breed of guys like Paul Pierce who play through and actually play well--unlike the closely related Ewing breed that still play, but talk non-stop about the pain yet inevitably are a detriment to their team because they play so poorly--but always have to make sure everyone knows just how brave they are. These guys talk so much about how competitive they are that you realize that while they're on the court their minds are constantly switching back and forth between legitimate competitive passion and self-conscious preoccupation with others' perception... Just like that kid on the playground. LeBron is that two-minded sort. I'll say nothing bad about his game, but the man is a straight up pansy.

Mini Blog #2: Consistency

I have the utmost respect and appreciation for those Christians who seek to engage the political sphere intentionally as Christians, but far too often I've witnessed the same glaring discrepancy among them. Too many seemingly well-intentioned Christians from all over the ideological spectrum come out guns-a-blazin' with ad hominem arguments, oversimplifications, and emotional rhetoric as they condemn their brothers and sisters in Christ. Surely conducting oneself as a Christian in these matters isn't only a matter of what positions one holds, but the manner in which one approaches the matter; that is, tone and cognitive rigor are of equal importance to content. How is it that we fail to see that our behavior can easily be just as repulsive to Christ as the positions we're so diligently critiquing? If one is genuinely attempting to approach these matters as a Christian, then wouldn't an emphasis upon leading by example with love, respect, humility, and grace--especially toward those with whom we disagree--be absolutely essential? I'm not suggesting that the Body of Christ be dispassionate, but we ought be consistent in valuing discernment as much as truth, advocacy, or the like. Seems obvious to me but perhaps it's not.