The scandal of the liberal mind

[FireDragon76]

A provocative title, I know... but it's actually a reference to Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.

The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think this cuts both ways across the eclessial divide in the US. It's not like liberal churches are exempt from anti-intellectualism, or more commonly, pseudo-intellectualism. Particularly as Mainline Protestantism declines, it seems to be retreating into the same kind of hardened, defensive posture that Fundamentalist churches once hid behind, albeit one with prettier walls and bigger endowments.

I've recently been in the doldrums. The faith presented at my church is not intellectually engaging. In fact it seems to be intellectually shallow in so many ways, heavily burdened by vibes and 'common sense' born of a certain kind of cultural elite that drinks deep from the dank end of postmodernism.

I'd be curious to hear the perspectives from other Mainline Protestants. Is Christianity just a spent force, a dead letter for the intellectuals in our society, rendered devoid of vitality?

 

[RileyG]

[posting in fellowship]

I LOVED reading "Turning Points" when I was taking a college course in Church History back in 2015.

This is something I will definitely have to check out!

Peace.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A provocative title, I know... but it's actually a reference to Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.

The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think this cuts both ways across the eclessial divide in the US. It's not like liberal churches are exempt from anti-intellectualism, or more commonly, pseudo-intellectualism. Particularly as Mainline Protestantism declines, it seems to be retreating into the same kind of hardened, defensive posture that Fundamentalist churches once hid behind, albeit one with prettier walls and bigger endowments.

I've recently been in the doldrums. The faith presented at my church is not intellectually engaging. In fact it seems to be intellectually shallow in so many ways, heavily burdened by vibes and 'common sense' born of a certain kind of cultural elite that drinks deep from the dank end of postmodernism.

I'd be curious to hear the perspectives from other Mainline Protestants. Is Christianity just a spent force, a dead letter for the intellectuals in our society, rendered devoid of vitality?

Some views of Christianity could be on their way to becoming passe in our modern culture, but I think we need to keep in mind that the current views among evangelicals can do little to verify whether Christ is or isn't actually existing and sitting on His Throne of Authority.

I like your reference to Mark Noll's book since I've referenced it too over the years. Similar authors like Christian Smith, George Marsden or Os Guiness have offered their own angles on the same problem that Noll cites, with most of their work being ignored.

The shallow or anti-intellectual strain that runs through evangelical theology and praxis is a frustrating political block to have to bump into, but we know what drives it: a need to feel epistemic certainty as a part of one's Christian faith. It's also an outcome of the bandwagoning of evangelical 'Rapture Fever.' This is a rather sad state of public affairs for Christianity at the moment because it compels people to think they have to have absolute certainty or else the vaunted Slippy Slope argument or Lessing's Ditch will surely cause the 'truth' of Christianity to unravel before our very eyes.

I think this is mistaken and a wrong-headed approach to take, but take it they do.

 

[FireDragon76]

Some views of Christianity could be on their way to becoming passe in our modern culture, but I think we need to keep in mind that the current views among evangelicals can do little to verify whether Christ is or isn't actually existing and sitting on His Throne of Authority.

I like your reference to Mark Noll's book since I've referenced it too over the years. Similar authors like Christian Smith, George Marsden or Os Guiness have offered their own angles on the same problem that Noll cites, with most of their work being ignored.

The shallow or anti-intellectual strain that runs through evangelical theology and praxis is a frustrating political block to have to bump into, but we know what drives it: a need to feel epistemic certainty as a part of one's Christian faith. It's also an outcome of the bandwagoning of evangelical 'Rapture Fever.' This is a rather sad state of public affairs for Christianity at the moment because it compels people to think they have to have absolute certainty or else the vaunted Slippy Slope argument or Lessing's Ditch will surely cause the 'truth' of Christianity to unravel before our very eyes.

I think this is mistaken and a wrong-headed approach to take, but take it they do.

What I am troubled by most is the lack of awareness of psychological complexity I see in alot of American Protestantism, whether in its conservative or liberal forms. This seems to result in an overwhelming emphasis on performativity, oblivious to the dangers of hypocrisy, which is actually at odds with alot of early Protestant concerns. And also something that is an emerging contemporary concern as well.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What I am troubled by most is the lack of awareness of psychological complexity I see in alot of American Protestantism, whether in its conservative or liberal forms. This seems to result in an overwhelming emphasis on performativity, oblivious to the dangers of hypocrisy, which is actually at odds with alot of early Protestant concerns. And also something that is an emerging contemporary concern as well.

40 years ago, it became obvious to me very quickly that many people, even Christians whom I thought that of all people would have the capacity to love and graciously understand others, actually had little ability (and sometimes willingness) to understand or comprehend the wide field of Psychology.

 

[FireDragon76]

40 years ago, it became obvious to me very quickly that many people, even Christians whom I thought that of all people would have the capacity to love and graciously understand others, actually had little ability (and sometimes willingness) to understand or comprehend the wide field of Psychology.

In many ways, I think people are going backwards in understanding of psychology in the general population.

I am gravitating back towards the continental European Evangelical tradition just because I think it's one of the few Protestant traditions that seems to intuitively understand that human capacity for self-deception is much greater than what we can be consciously aware of.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In many ways, I think people are going backwards in understanding of psychology in the general population.

It may feel like they're going backwards, but from my social vantage point, they're just getting more polarized within the same positions they've always [essentially] had.

I am gravitating back towards the continental European Evangelical tradition just because I think it's one of the few Protestant traditions that seems to intuitively understand that human capacity for self-deception is much greater than what we can be consciously aware of.

This is one reason why I don't firmly attach myself to any one denomination, and I instead consider and evaluate the entirety of Christian History, drawing the best points out from various Christian sources as I go along. I still get "traditional Christianity" without having to jettison ongoing provisions of science or philosophy. It's also another reason that folks like Malcolm Jeeves or Christian Smith are the sort of folks I'm drawn to.

 

[FireDragon76]

It may feel like they're going backwards, but from my social vantage point, they're just getting more polarized within the same positions they've always [essentially] had.


This is one reason why I don't firmly attach myself to any one denomination, and I instead consider and evaluate the entirety of Christian History, drawing the best points out from various Christian sources as I go along. I still get "traditional Christianity" without having to jettison ongoing provisions of science or philosophy. It's also another reason that folks like Malcolm Jeeves or Christian Smith are the sort of folks I'm drawn to.

I still think of confessionalism as an historical touchstone that gives a certain shape, but I am drawn to "weak" interpretations that are more open-ended and not crystalized.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I still think of confessionalism as an historical touchstone that gives a certain shape, but I am drawn to "weak" interpretations that are more open-ended and not crystalized.

I'm not much on defining historical touchstones in that way, but each of us will conceptualize our engagements with the Christian faith as we do.

For me, it's mostly a matter of hermeneutical and historical abduction to the best explanation. And I don't feel required to necessarily believe and adhere to everything other Christians tell me I must adhere to. No, I think we each have to do our best to answer the perennial Christological question as we are able to do. The question is today: are we doing our best to do so, or are we just hodge-podging our beliefs in accordance to our respective, personal struggles and/or preferred political and social affiliations? This is the question I wrestle with each day that I'm alive .....