[ This guest essay is by Dr. Benjamin Mabry. Mabry holds a Ph.D. in political science from Louisiana State University. He’s the author of newsletter #67 on aesthetics and hosted a subscriber only webinar on
Excellent piece. One quibble is that I don't think the mainline Protestant meltdown started in the 60's. Your reference to J. Gresham Machen is a clue to when the divergence began.
Many have noted that the distinction that arose between fundamentalism and evangelicalism is that fundamentalists retreat from the world while evangelicals are trying to convert the world. The evangelical pitfall is trying too hard to reach the world, and selling out. Every time an evangelical leader sells out (e.g. Francis Collins), then we hear that he was no true Scotsman, anyway. Fundamentalists are unlikely to produce intellectual leaders, and evangelicals are predisposed to be sellouts.
As to the definitional problem, starting with the Machen era, we had the divide of mainline Protestants, evangelicals, and fundamentalists. We can refute the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind only by citing the counterexamples that are definitely not from the more liberal view of scriptures that we see in mainline Protestantism. Such lists have been made in previous articles by Aaron.
I suspect the real issue that triggered Noll was not the absence of an elite cadre of thinkers, but the emotionalism and anti-intellectualism that permeates evangelicalism right down to the man and woman in the pews.
Thank you for the review, but something about it is making it a tough read for me. You're covering a lot of ground very quickly and not really spending enough time on any given point to drive it home and properly refute Noll. I think this essay would read better if you either narrowed and tightened its focus or more patiently expanded upon your points, while preserving a clear organizational structure.
I also think Noll's diagnosis of a problem deserves more respect here -- anti-intellectualism is an actual problem in many Evangelical circles, and Catholicism and Orthodoxy continue to draw many intellectual converts away, in part because many broadly curious intellectuals don't feel at home within Evangelicalism. As I understand it, this is partly what American Reformer exists to address. Perhaps Noll tried to steer the conversation towards cures that are worse than the disease -- perhaps, we might even say, cures that could have worked in Positive World but not Negative World and maybe not even Neutral World -- but I think it would be good to spend a little more time on what Noll got right.
I admit that it seems a bit rushed, but I was asked to cut a third by a previous editor before Aaron decided to take over this essay. It included points about the apostasy of American Protestant universities, a more recent example being Mercer, as being much more significant to the topic of Evangelical thought than closed-minded church-ladies in the pews, who Noll blames.
But I'd also point out that we should be saying "is" and not "was," since Noll is still active today. I used at least two of his books in this review, iirc, and argued with him about these very topics until my university president gave me the stink-eye for publicly disagreeing with the guest speaker.
And you are right, I could write an entire essay by itself on the problem with the idea that "science" is this neutral thing that we all study, Christian and secular, and that secular standards are the neutral way of approaching these topics. And probably another on the way that contemporary Christian social science is flooded with ideological assumptions from the secular world that aren't compatible with an authentic Christian worldview. But I'm not being paid by an Evangelical-Protestant college to write such things anymore, so what does that tell you about why Evangelical scholars are slowly drifting towards the Tiber?
Thanks for the explanation. It seems a lot could be done with the higher-ed angle and to me that's the most interesting part of the discussion.
On one hand, American Protestant universities liberalizing and secularizing is a phenomenon that at least dates back to circa 1700 when a little New England college called "Harvard" started to do so.
One question worth asking is, "How does Notre Dame remain elite by secular standards and yet also remain half-orthodox?" I think a large part of the reason is that "half-orthodox" has been the mostly stable state of Catholicism for a while. Catholics place more value on unity than Protestants. When a Protestant organization starts to tip left or heretical, it's never a stable situation. There either needs to be a decisive reaction or the whole thing will be quickly lost.
There will be a reckoning for schools like Mercer, which after its secularization falls into the category of "schools with no reason to exist". That is to say, without a meaningful Baptist identity, a non-elite private school like Mercer has nothing important to distinguish it from UGA up the road aside from a much higher price tag. In the demographics-driven college enrollment crash that will accelerate around 2025, I expect non-elite secular private schools like this will take the brunt of the damage.
As I argued recently regarding the American Medical Associations “scientific” pro-abortion studies, don’t buy into the neutrality myth. Don’t leave your faith at the door. Pace C.S. Lewis, “There is no neutral ground in the universe. Every square inch, every split second is claimed by God, and counterclaimed by Satan.”
Excellent piece. One quibble is that I don't think the mainline Protestant meltdown started in the 60's. Your reference to J. Gresham Machen is a clue to when the divergence began.
Many have noted that the distinction that arose between fundamentalism and evangelicalism is that fundamentalists retreat from the world while evangelicals are trying to convert the world. The evangelical pitfall is trying too hard to reach the world, and selling out. Every time an evangelical leader sells out (e.g. Francis Collins), then we hear that he was no true Scotsman, anyway. Fundamentalists are unlikely to produce intellectual leaders, and evangelicals are predisposed to be sellouts.
As to the definitional problem, starting with the Machen era, we had the divide of mainline Protestants, evangelicals, and fundamentalists. We can refute the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind only by citing the counterexamples that are definitely not from the more liberal view of scriptures that we see in mainline Protestantism. Such lists have been made in previous articles by Aaron.
I suspect the real issue that triggered Noll was not the absence of an elite cadre of thinkers, but the emotionalism and anti-intellectualism that permeates evangelicalism right down to the man and woman in the pews.
Free proofreading: Something is off with the Noll quote at the beginning of the conclusion.
1994 Hardback Edition, page 239, second sentence in the second-from-the-bottom paragraph.
The version of this quote inside the dustcover is different. I used the one in the text.
Thanks for researching. Does the original actually say, “no mind arises of out evangelicism” or “out of” evangelicalism?
"no mind arises from evangelicalism." is the correct quote. My error.
Thank you for the review, but something about it is making it a tough read for me. You're covering a lot of ground very quickly and not really spending enough time on any given point to drive it home and properly refute Noll. I think this essay would read better if you either narrowed and tightened its focus or more patiently expanded upon your points, while preserving a clear organizational structure.
I also think Noll's diagnosis of a problem deserves more respect here -- anti-intellectualism is an actual problem in many Evangelical circles, and Catholicism and Orthodoxy continue to draw many intellectual converts away, in part because many broadly curious intellectuals don't feel at home within Evangelicalism. As I understand it, this is partly what American Reformer exists to address. Perhaps Noll tried to steer the conversation towards cures that are worse than the disease -- perhaps, we might even say, cures that could have worked in Positive World but not Negative World and maybe not even Neutral World -- but I think it would be good to spend a little more time on what Noll got right.
I admit that it seems a bit rushed, but I was asked to cut a third by a previous editor before Aaron decided to take over this essay. It included points about the apostasy of American Protestant universities, a more recent example being Mercer, as being much more significant to the topic of Evangelical thought than closed-minded church-ladies in the pews, who Noll blames.
But I'd also point out that we should be saying "is" and not "was," since Noll is still active today. I used at least two of his books in this review, iirc, and argued with him about these very topics until my university president gave me the stink-eye for publicly disagreeing with the guest speaker.
And you are right, I could write an entire essay by itself on the problem with the idea that "science" is this neutral thing that we all study, Christian and secular, and that secular standards are the neutral way of approaching these topics. And probably another on the way that contemporary Christian social science is flooded with ideological assumptions from the secular world that aren't compatible with an authentic Christian worldview. But I'm not being paid by an Evangelical-Protestant college to write such things anymore, so what does that tell you about why Evangelical scholars are slowly drifting towards the Tiber?
Thanks for the explanation. It seems a lot could be done with the higher-ed angle and to me that's the most interesting part of the discussion.
On one hand, American Protestant universities liberalizing and secularizing is a phenomenon that at least dates back to circa 1700 when a little New England college called "Harvard" started to do so.
One question worth asking is, "How does Notre Dame remain elite by secular standards and yet also remain half-orthodox?" I think a large part of the reason is that "half-orthodox" has been the mostly stable state of Catholicism for a while. Catholics place more value on unity than Protestants. When a Protestant organization starts to tip left or heretical, it's never a stable situation. There either needs to be a decisive reaction or the whole thing will be quickly lost.
There will be a reckoning for schools like Mercer, which after its secularization falls into the category of "schools with no reason to exist". That is to say, without a meaningful Baptist identity, a non-elite private school like Mercer has nothing important to distinguish it from UGA up the road aside from a much higher price tag. In the demographics-driven college enrollment crash that will accelerate around 2025, I expect non-elite secular private schools like this will take the brunt of the damage.
Well said!
As I argued recently regarding the American Medical Associations “scientific” pro-abortion studies, don’t buy into the neutrality myth. Don’t leave your faith at the door. Pace C.S. Lewis, “There is no neutral ground in the universe. Every square inch, every split second is claimed by God, and counterclaimed by Satan.”
More here, on Spartan science:
https://gaty.substack.com/p/this-is-science