Protestantism's Institutional Problem

A serious hurdle to Protestant academics

Dr. Jordan Cooper is a thoughtful Lutheran theologian. He posted this interesting essay on his own Substack, and graciously gave me permission to republish it. You should subscribe over there, and also give him a follow on X. Since he asks for your thoughts on his piece, I’m opening comments to everyone - Aaron.

---

As my readers know, I have interacted quite extensively with converts to the Roman Catholic Church. There are a variety of reasons why such moves happen, not all of which I will delve into here. While some do so for intellectual reasons (especially among those who were never deeply involved with any Confessional Protestant tradition), I find such cases to be a significant minority, even when it is claimed that the move across the Tiber was theologically driven.

It has often been the case when someone I know personally informs me that they have decided to make the swim, that they justify such a move with claims of intellectual persuasion based upon the strength of RC arguments. In many cases, they have never brought any of these claims or questions to me at all before making a decision. If someone really wanted to evaluate the truth claims of two traditions, and that person had a friend who examines these issues for a living, one would think they’d at least hear that person out prior to committing. But alas, it often does not happen. It is the same story every time: someone has watched some RC apologetics videos online, has decided to join the RCC for whatever reason, and is unwilling to hear any critique. Theological reasons are constructed post hoc. This person is already convinced and uses theology to justify a conclusion already arrived at.

This should not be so surprising, as human beings are not as rationally driven as we sometimes assume. As Theodor Adorno contends, we often use reason instrumentally, as a tool to get and do what we want, rather than causally, as a basis for belief or action. We have to recognize how it is that human beings actually operate if we are to engage in trends among populations, such as the recent surge toward the RCC and EO churches. There is an element of that trend that I want to highlight here, which has perhaps not been discussed as often as some others: the difficulty of being an academic or intellectual within conservative Protestantism in the United States.

Laying Out the Problem

I recall a conversation with a student at an Ivy League University (I am keeping the details as vague as possible so as not to reveal this individual’s identity) who was raised in a traditional Protestant church prior to making a decision to convert to the RCC just prior to graduation. This student was highly intelligent, strongly motivated, and desired to pursue graduate studies in philosophy. When I asked him about his decision, I was surprised by his honest response, as he confessed simply that the RCC actually has opportunities for job placement for someone who desired to study philosophy. They had an intellectual ecosystem that Protestants simply do not have.

One might mock such a move as absurd, since commitment to truth should not be dependent upon job placement. That, however, was not my initial response. In fact, it resonated with me in a significant way, as he highlighted something that is a genuine problem for conservative Protestant academics.

This is mirrored in my own experience. When I committed to the Lutheran tradition, I did so for theological (and to some extent, existential) reasons, without thinking all too deeply about what this would mean for my own academic pursuits. In my prior Reformed tradition, there were more opportunities to teach at seminaries across the country, several publishing houses that print Reformed material, and a whole system of large conferences to speak at. I was naïve to institutional dynamics when I was young, and had a bit of a rude awakening when I began writing.

When I began my first call as a parish pastor, I started looking into doctoral programs with the thought that I might be able to eventually teach at an undergraduate institution or seminary. After a significant amount of time looking at the doctrinal statements of Christian universities throughout the United States, it became apparent that there were very few options where I would actually be able to teach, as even the most broadly Christian universities often have statements of faith that preclude Lutheran commitments (especially sacramentally). If I had chosen a field of study other than theology, this would not have been a problem, but nonetheless, this is where I was.

I then ran into an unexpected roadblock within my Lutheran tradition as I published my first book, The Righteousness of One: An Evaluation of the New Perspective on Paul in Light of Early Patristic Soteriology, in 2013. Like any new author, I was excited to get my first work into print and awaited my first review. Well, that review came, and it was an absolute hit piece, accusing me of all sorts of heretical views which I did not (and do not today) hold. In my naïveté, I had written things that were apparently controversial due to all sorts of Synodical politics in a church body I was not even in. Downstream of this, I had positive reviews of my books blocked from publication in certain journals, had multiple individuals contact congregations telling them not to allow me to speak, and had all sorts of other bizarre events occur as a result of this.

It was at this point that I really delved into podcasting and publishing, as it was quite evident that I simply had no path to pursue in a traditional route without appeasing this or that faction of a given church. So, with my punk rock DIY toolkit, I just decided to do it myself. I was never going to get a position at a high-powered institution as a conservative Protestant. Yale Div is not exactly looking for Confessional Lutherans to teach their students. I also was not going to get a position at a university in other Lutheran church bodies, as there were all sorts of political obstacles that would have forced me to compromise on things I was not willing to.

As I began making decisions about the direction of my doctoral studies, I began to teach at American Lutheran Theological Seminary (a position I still hold), but I knew this was likely never going to be a full-time gig. Feeling as if I had no other options, I decided to focus on teaching on podcasts and then YouTube.

I do not say all this just to share details about my personal life, but to provide an example of the kinds of journeys many others have similarly taken. I have had several conversations with Protestants, both Lutheran and Reformed, who have asked what path to take when they have clear intellectual gifts, but no obvious path toward receiving an academic position, along with a significant lack of funding for academic projects. Some become pastors, others teach overseas, and yet others try to get involved with one of the few functional theological educational institutions that are not seminaries (usually part-time).

This highlights a major issue for Protestantism’s intellectual life, which I break down into three distinct problems.

Problem One: Intellectual Curiosity

I don’t know that it is unique to American Protestantism, but it seems particularly prominent in American churches that there is an unending skepticism toward academics within the church. Intellectual pursuits are viewed as inherently ego-stroking, or as dangerous, as if Rationalism or Postmodern subjectivism are the only possible results of academic study. This leaves the academically inclined theologian to continually justify his own existence, something that is not exactly encouraging for one who is oriented toward the life of the mind. The constant critique of anything and everything that is said by one with a public position makes constructive theological work difficult.

To clarify here, I am not saying that one should have academic freedom to simply say whatever the individual academic feels like saying. Churches have Confessional boundaries, and to be within a church is to remain within those boundaries. Yet, those boundaries do not define absolutely everything, and it is not the case that any new formulation is to be automatically rejected. As the church moves from age to age, there are new challenges to be addressed, which means new ways of articulating the truths of Scripture in response to such challenges. There must be a place for academic disputation, debate, and the working out of complex issues, instead of just shutting down any and every conversation at the outset, or making assumptions about what someone means before actually listening and asking questions.

This skepticism about asking too many questions is present in American church life for some valid reasons. The twentieth century saw the battles over Biblical authority, which led to the downfall of nearly all of the influential previously-Protestant ecclesial and educational institutions in the United States. Seminaries prized academic freedom to such a degree that dogmatic commitments, while remaining in force on paper, were largely ignored. These memories are painful for some who fought through many of these battles, and they live with an eye toward the same dangers arising from various corners. This diligence in protecting theological fidelity is positive, but it must not approach the world with a skeptical pessimism, constantly trying to read between the lines to find errors of the past.

It is not the case that Rome faces no problems in this regard. There are plenty of divides within it; the theological debates between Dominicans and Jesuits are often just as fiery as those between conservative Protestants and mainline liberal theologians. Rome also allows for far more institutional laxity than I think is appropriate for a church, especially on matters related to the authority of Scripture. Nonetheless, while any Roman theologian is bound to work within a broadly Thomist framework (though that label can be stretched quite widely), there is a sense of freedom which is not only valued, but is protected institutionally. The Roman theologian can definitively point to the teaching of the living magisterium as a kind of protection for theological or philosophical arguments, as they remain within the bounds of church teaching.

There are theoretical ecclesial boundaries and protections for theologians within Protestant churches as well, but the unfortunate reality of denominationalism in the United States makes the enforcement of these things significantly difficult. By its very nature, Protestant churches simply do not have leaders who speak with the same kind of authority as the Roman magisterium, and however strict or loose a bishop or other ecclesiastical leader/leaders may be, they always open themselves up to criticism in a way that the Roman magisterium (theoretically) does not. With this said, I am thankful for my Bishop’s leadership and willingness to defend me and others when unnecessary controversies arise. I have always felt significant freedom to explore ideas within my church body, so long as I work within the bounds of the Confessional standards of the Lutheran church (and I have no desire to do otherwise).

Problem Two: Institutional Funding

The second problem faced by Protestant intellectuals is a rather pragmatic one: funding. In recent years, there have been several theological organizations formed with the purpose of publishing, educating, and writing on theological issues among Protestants that are not specifically designed to train pastors or church workers. Along with my own organization, Just and Sinner, there are pan-Protestant groups like the Davenant Institute, Theopolis, and London Lyceum, which serve this end. These organizations are essential to the intellectual life of the church in the present age, especially as seminaries are continually closing or moving to alternate models to deal with the present world situation. The unfortunate reality is, though, that these organizations do not have the requisite funding to sustain major intellectual projects in the same manner as many Roman institutions do. I have far-off dreams of doing all sorts of projects with multiple employees and Just and Sinner, but the fact is that the funding is simply not available for those who might be interested in this work.

An element of this is that Protestants in America tend to prioritize mission work, evangelization, and (for some) political activism. The life of the mind is always of secondary concern, and there is generally no valuing of intellectual projects for their own sake, but only for practical ministry. This latter point is not entirely mistaken, as theology does ultimately serve a practical end. That does not mean, however, that every theological disputation or piece of writing must provide some specific actionable directive. As Johannes Museaeus contends, all theology is practical, but not all dogma is formally practical. Other dogmas are virtually practical, meaning that right theology always forms the soul toward its proper end, while this may not consist in clearly evident moral imperatives. This is not exactly the easiest thing to convince a potential donor of.

Problem Three: The Lack of Academic Orientation In Protestant University Ministries

There are several Roman Catholic intellectual institutions in American universities that provide clearly formed conceptions of the spiritual, moral, and political order for students, while broadly Protestant groups often focus on creating student fellowship and training for evangelism. Those who are more intellectually engaged are going to be drawn far more to the Thomistic Institute or Newman Center than CRU or Intervarsity. There simply is no equivalent to these institutions in any Protestant context. This is not to say that no churches provide something more academically-oriented, but not so extensively and coherently as happens within these Roman Catholic organizations.

It is true that there are Christian organizations that engage in the intellectual element of university life, like Veritas Forum or various Christian study centers that exist across university campuses. While I appreciate the intent of both of these efforts, and have been involved with both of them, they are often more focused on working with Christian faculty on the university campus than forming a coherent dogmatic or philosophical outlook with which the Christian student is to view the world. Speakers are often chosen at these events who have no strong conception of the boundaries of orthodoxy or of the integration between their discipline and Christian theology. It is a very different thing to give the message “you can be Christian and smart too!” than to say, “Catholic theology provides a comprehensive view of social life, the sciences, and ethics which helps you navigate your chosen field of study.”

I recall a couple of university events occurring in the same semester when I was involved in campus ministry: one that was Protestant, and another that was Roman Catholic. The Protestant organization invited a prominent scientist to speak, who told his story about becoming a Christian, followed by comments about how immaterial souls do not exist. The Thomistic Institute hosted a lecture by Ed Feser on the relation between Thomistic metaphysics and quantum physics. If one desires a coherent Christian worldview, it is not difficult to see the appeal in the latter.

With the Roman Church, this strong institutionalism, especially on a university level, has created systems of social climbing and influence as students move into the workforce. There is nothing (yet) like the Witherspoon Institute for Protestants. Nearly all the important conservative intellectuals in the political sphere in recent history have been Roman Catholic (Buckley, Kirk, George, etc.). The most significant exception to this is Roger Scruton, who was not confessionally Protestant in any historic sense. This divergence between RCs and Protestants here creates a significant disadvantage for the Protestant. The RCC has a pipeline for gifted students to be nominated to the Supreme Court. Protestants simply do not.

Conclusion: What Do We Do About This?

The point of this article was simply to lay out the problem, rather than to offer some clear singular solution. It is born mostly out of my trying to understand why it is that so many intellectually oriented students feel the pull to the RCC, even when they are not entirely convinced of the veracity of their claims.

It is important to recognize these shortcomings rather than ignore them. I expect that I will hear responses like, “well here’s one important guy who is Protestant,” which does not fundamentally change the point here. There is no financially-backed eco-system within Protestant communions that offers clear paths to academic positions, or provides extensive social teaching to aid students in providing a coherent view of social life and philosophy on a large scale. When those things do exist, they are often run part-time or with an extremely small staff with limited resources.

Let me know your thoughts.