"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August
10. He gives you your grade by casting a vote on the phone.
9. He writes on your paper: “You started off kinda rough but you pulled it off at the end.”
8. He asks, “Were you auditioning for ‘Who Wants To Be A Baptist Pastor’”?
7. He writes the following sarcastic, Simon-esque comments about your performance:
- “If your ministry was as a lifeguard, a lot of people would be drowning.”
- “If you would have written this paper two thousand years ago, Stephen would have stoned you.”
- "That was terrible, I mean just awful. Don’t even try to improve; you have to have an inkling of competence to progress. I don't believe you have any hermeneutical competence. You’re completely wasting Cooperative Program money. Sorry."
- "This paper isn't even half over and I have already forgotten the subject matter.”
- "My advice would be if you want to pursue a ministry in God’s church, don't."
- "Awesome! Another paper on Hebrews 6!”
- “Are you drunk?”
6. He advises: “With your hermeneutics you might want to consider Bob Jones Idol next time.”
5. He writes, “Is that your final answer?”, marks it out, writes, “You are the weakest link,” and marks it out, writes, “You’re fired,” and marks it out, and settles on “You chose the wrong pericope.”
4. He writes: "I was wrong. Booze doesn't make this paper better."
3. He writes: "Where's the remote?! For the love of God, where's the remote?"
2. He writes: “Clay Aiken wrote a better paper than this.”
1. He considers the following paper title as an ill-advised subject matter: “Those who can’t do, teach. Those who can’t teach, grade.”
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
the Conservative Re-Resurgence (2006)
One of the architects of the Conservative Re-Resurgence (2006) has offered me a professorship at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary if I proimise not to join their side. She said that she would have offered me the position of Dean of the School of Theology but since I am 28 I am far too old for that position. I suggested that they form a Paul Tillich Chair of Theology and place me in the position under unanimous vote by the trustees. She said that once they find trustees who will vote that way then I am in. I asked who the trustees would prefer to be President of the SBTS. She said that the other architect who intends on becoming Southern Baptist Convention President (who we shall refer to him as Dr. Q) will appoint a whole new set of trustees led by a newly appointed chairman (who we shall refer to as Dr. R). They will choose the right man for the job and after Dr. Q is chosen as President of SBTS, then Dr. R (who is only 17) will be chosen as Dean of the School of Theology. Naturally, Dr. R is young enough to be Dean and also has the benefit of not being indoctrinated by secular colleges.
Dr. R was born just outside of Wedlock, Indiana. He majored in girls at school and minored in boys. Having received his doctorate in creationism from Southern Presbyterian Institute of Theology (a four year Christian academy attached to Bob Jones Day Care School in Kissoff, Florida), Dr. R wrote his dessertation on the subject of the 600,000 uses of the letter “B” in the King James Bible. He is soon to complete a book on the 450,000 uses of the letter “S” in the King James Bible. He will soon join the ranks of many a distinguished scholar who has studied “BS” at a Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Dr. Q is a well known scoundrel of enhanced fund raising abilities. He recently helped lift the endowments at Vasser School for girls in Footmouth, Maine, but, having offered to cop a plea, Vasser decided to settle the matter out of court. Recently Dr. Q has been noted in the latest issues of Who’s Who, What’s What and How’s That? with much acclaim and suspicion. He was also called by Time Magazine as one of the Top Ten Up and Coming Cult Leaders of America.
Having started out as a mild game hunter at the local arcade, Dr. Q went to Duke Affinity and studied literature and cocktail waitresses with a major in love and a minor in penicillin shots. Having graduated magma come lately, Dr. Q attended the doctoral program at Wipeout College, in Oxford England as a Rouges Scholar and gold-digger. Having left out the “l” in “gold-digger” on a career assessment form, Dr .Q taught on “god” at Waterloo school for Ani Difranco Girls and Mommas’ Boys. Three lawsuits later found Dr. Q extradited back to the U.S. to face crimes against monogamy and as a job at Union Theological Seminary as a serial therapist.
Today, Dr. Q has his sights set on the seat in front of him. But once he leaves the plane, his sights will be set upon reclaiming his rightful place as head of the SBC which he learned of from a Christian Index newspaper he was given in a holding cell in Atlanta, Ocean.
He hopes to groom the SBC into the shape of a clam and perhaps groom a few poodles that might wind up on his door in the District of Columbia State Sanitarium for the Criminally Same.
Note: The architect has told me that he is not a she (as stated above) but that I simply had a bad email connection. He urged me to use dial-up next time to avoid further confusion. I told her I would.
Dr. R was born just outside of Wedlock, Indiana. He majored in girls at school and minored in boys. Having received his doctorate in creationism from Southern Presbyterian Institute of Theology (a four year Christian academy attached to Bob Jones Day Care School in Kissoff, Florida), Dr. R wrote his dessertation on the subject of the 600,000 uses of the letter “B” in the King James Bible. He is soon to complete a book on the 450,000 uses of the letter “S” in the King James Bible. He will soon join the ranks of many a distinguished scholar who has studied “BS” at a Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Dr. Q is a well known scoundrel of enhanced fund raising abilities. He recently helped lift the endowments at Vasser School for girls in Footmouth, Maine, but, having offered to cop a plea, Vasser decided to settle the matter out of court. Recently Dr. Q has been noted in the latest issues of Who’s Who, What’s What and How’s That? with much acclaim and suspicion. He was also called by Time Magazine as one of the Top Ten Up and Coming Cult Leaders of America.
Having started out as a mild game hunter at the local arcade, Dr. Q went to Duke Affinity and studied literature and cocktail waitresses with a major in love and a minor in penicillin shots. Having graduated magma come lately, Dr. Q attended the doctoral program at Wipeout College, in Oxford England as a Rouges Scholar and gold-digger. Having left out the “l” in “gold-digger” on a career assessment form, Dr .Q taught on “god” at Waterloo school for Ani Difranco Girls and Mommas’ Boys. Three lawsuits later found Dr. Q extradited back to the U.S. to face crimes against monogamy and as a job at Union Theological Seminary as a serial therapist.
Today, Dr. Q has his sights set on the seat in front of him. But once he leaves the plane, his sights will be set upon reclaiming his rightful place as head of the SBC which he learned of from a Christian Index newspaper he was given in a holding cell in Atlanta, Ocean.
He hopes to groom the SBC into the shape of a clam and perhaps groom a few poodles that might wind up on his door in the District of Columbia State Sanitarium for the Criminally Same.
Note: The architect has told me that he is not a she (as stated above) but that I simply had a bad email connection. He urged me to use dial-up next time to avoid further confusion. I told her I would.
Monday, April 03, 2006
A Review of Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul, by J. P. Moreland.
I am working on my thesis this week while negotiating grades with a stack of exegetical papers on a pericope in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Therefore, instead of having to brainstorm a hurried essay on some half-hearted topic this week, I decided to post my review of a chapter from the J.P. Moreland book.
Introduction
This paper will critically evaluate the first chapter of the book, Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul, by J. P. Moreland. The chapter is entitled, “How We Lost the Christian Mind and Why We Must Recover It,” pages 19-40. As outlined in the course syllabus, special note will be made on the strengths found in the chapter, followed immediately by an explanation of why the strength is such. Furthermore, special note will be made on the weaknesses found in the chapter, followed immediately by an explanation of why each weakness is such. As evident from the chapter title and even a cursory read of the material, the basic problem that Moreland believes needs to be addressed, and to which his book is attempting to do so, is set forth in this introductory chapter. Therefore, a focused evaluation of this particular chapter and its strengths and weaknesses is warranted to justify all the arguments that follow in the subsequent chapters.
Moreland’s book title comes from Matthew 22:37: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” The stated purpose of the book is to “demonstrate how the church must overcome the neglect of this critical area of the development of the Christian mind, perhaps the most integral component of the believers sanctification” (p.22). He further states that “[if] we are going to be wise, spiritual people prepared to meet the cries of our age, we must be a studying, learning community that values the life of the mind. The rest of this book develops the case for why this is so and presents resources for making it a reality …” [emphasis his](p. 39).
The stated purpose of the chapter is to “demonstrate that that a major cause of our current cultural crisis consists of a worldview shift from a Judeo-Christian understanding of reality to a post-Christian one” (p. 21). He begins by presenting his view of what brought about the “Loss of the Christian Mind in American Christianity”.
“Two major developments emerged in the late nineteenth century that contributed to the loss of the Christian mind in America. The legacy of the Pilgrims ands Puritans waned, and two new developments emerged from which the evangelical church has never fully recovered.” (p. 22)
The first development that Moreland cites is the emergence of anti-intellectualism. Moreland states that the two Great Awakenings that occurred early in American history and which produced numerous revivals of high rates of conversions focused too much on the “personal experience” of the individual convert without first teaching such individuals the rational reasons why the Christian faith is true. This lack of focus on the reasonings of the Christian faith is referred to as “emerging anti-intellectualism in the church” which created a lack of readiness for the widespread intellectual assault on Christianity that reached full force in the late 1800s” (p. 23).
The second development that Moreland cites is the withdrawal of evangelicals from the public square. He gives three reasons for such a withdrawal. First, he points to the Enlightenment philosophies of the 18th and 19th century with particular emphasis on David Hume who argued that “the traditional arguments for God’s existence were quite weak” (p. 23) and Immanuel Kant who argued that “human knowledge is limited to what can be experienced with the five senses, and since God cannot be so experienced, we cannot know He exists” (p. 23-24). Secondly, he points to German higher criticism and its questioning of the historical reliability of the Scriptures (p. 24). Thirdly, he points to the theory of Darwinian evolution as a major factor which caused the evangelical withdrawal for the public sphere. Moreland writes: “instead of responding to these attacks with a vigorous intellectual counterpunch, many believers grew suspicious of intellectual issues altogether …fundamentalists withdrew” (p.24).
Moreland then focuses on this anti-intellectualism’s impact on the church. He cites four prominent impacts: 1) a misunderstanding of faith’s relationship to reason, 2) the separation of the secular and the sacred, 3) weakened world missions and 4) anti-intellectualism has spawned an irrelevant gospel.
Moreland then focuses on the emergence of the secular culture in America and what the Christian should then do in “this hour of crisis.”
Strengths Found In the Chapter
The Focus on Reason
The primary thrust Moreland’s argument in this book is that renewed attention must be placed upon reason in the evangelical world. To those converted and already convinced by Moreland’s argument, the reasons given in this chapter as to why reason should be adopted with due enthusiasm is apparent. If the individual reader agrees with author that the current state of affairs in the American Culture is due to the lack of reasoned minds within the evangelical Christian community then certainly such attention to the subject by Moreland is essential to his book.
The Focus on How the Christian Worldview Effects Christian life
Moreland’s argument for why Evangelicals have “dropped the ball” when it comes to their cultural engagement and activism is that they have not taken into account the role that reason plays within the Faith. In order to address this fault, Moreland first must make it clear that what a Christian knows, understands and believes makes a profound affect upon that Christian’s life.
“our modern understanding of Christian practice underlies everything else we do, from the way we select a minister to the types of books we sell in our bookstores. It informs the way we raise our children to think about Christianity; it determines how we give money to the cause of Christ; and it shapes our vision, priorities, and goals for both local and parachurch ministry. If our lives and ministries are expressions of what we actually believe, and if what we believe is off center and yet so pervasive that it is seldom even brought to conscious discussion, much less debated, then this explains why our impact on the world is so paltry compared to our numbers” (p.25).
This is a strength because from this point on Moreland can then attempt to transform the Christian reader’s knowledge, understanding and beliefs with the reader’s knowledge of how such a transformation should be impacting their everyday lives. With regards to the subsequent chapters of the book, this understanding of how beliefs affect life is the foundational principle of both the method and argument of the book.
That Apologetics as a Tool of and for the Church
Moreland places due attention to the subject of apologetics. Early in this chapter and with particular attention in chapter six and seven, he gives his definition of this Christian discipline:
“Apologetics is a New Testament ministry of helping people overcome intellectual obstacles that block them from coming to or growing in the faith by giving reasons for why one should believe in Christianity is true and by responding to objections raised against it.” (p. 26)
While apologetics is an ever-increasing form of evangelism (of which more will be said), it is refreshing to see Moreland’s initial focus on apologetics as a tool of and for the Church. This is a strength because if his focus is on the reasoning minds of evangelicals as they combat an ever-increasing, then such attention needs to be placed upon apologetics as a tool that removes “intellectual obstacles” which prevent growth in the faith. As a matter of introduction this section of the chapter nicely prepares the reader for what will be more fully developed in chapters six and seven.
That Science is Not the Only Avenue of Attaining Knowledge
Another refreshing strength in this introductory chapter is the steadfast rejection of what Moreland calls “scientism” or the naturalistic or materialistic philosophical belief that science alone can provide acceptable knowledge.
“What I do reject is the idea that science alone can claim to give us knowledge.” (p. 34)
“If knowledge and reason are identical with what can be tested scientifically or with scientific theories that a majority of scientists believes to be correct, then religion and ethics will no longer be viewed as true, rational domains of discourse because, supposedly, religious or ethical claims are not scientifically testable.” (p. 34)
This is really an essential point to the development of a consistent and plausible Christian worldview that Moreland rightly makes mention. This is a strength because it addresses a particular area of epistemology that forms the foundation of what the Christian worldview means by “faith” and establishes the basis for all replies to critical questions and arguments regarding Christian truth claims.
Weaknesses found in the chapter
Religiously, Culturally-Centric
The first weakness in Moreland’s introductory chapter is that while he continually states that he is addressing the marginalization of the Christian community in America, he is, in fact, entirely focused upon the conservative evangelical community of the Christian community in America.
On the one hand he states that “the church is no longer a major participant in the war of ideas” (p. 22). He also states that “[t]his withdrawal from the broader, intellectual culture and public discourse contributed to the isolation of the church, the marginalization of Christian ideas from the public arena” (p.24).
On the other hand:
“Two major developments emerged in the late nineteenth century that contributed to the loss of the Christian mind in America. The legacy of the Pilgrims ands Puritans waned, and two new developments emerged from which the evangelical church has never fully recovered” [emphasis mine] (p. 22).
It appears that Moreland at times associates the evangelical church with THE Church. While this in of itself is troublesome Moreland also appears to associate the Religious Right with THE Church.
“Not long ago, the newspaper featured a leading politician’s statement about the Christian political right in which he charged that the Christian right was populated by dumb, uninformed people who are easily led by rhetoric. While I would dispute the complete accuracy of this charge, nevertheless, we Christians must ask ourselves why, if there is not a grain of truth in it, someone would think to make this accusation of us in the first place” [emphasis mine] (p. 20).
The charge made by the politician was by the own admission of Moreland made toward the Christian political right, but Moreland himself treats such a statement as a charge against Christians in general. Moreland makes no distinction between his particular Christian culture and the Christian church in general.
“If there are fewer Christian intellectuals who write college textbooks from a Christian perspective, it must be because our evangelical culture is simply not producing such people because we do not value the intellectual life” [emphasis mine] (p. 28).
It is evident that Moreland’s concern about the reasoning faculties of the Church is directed towards evangelical conservatives in America and not Christians in general. For Moreland it is the evangelical church that must overcome these anti-intellectual characteristics (p. 25).
“‘Christian’ thinkers in his country held to liberation theology, a form of Marxism draped in religious garb. Evangelical missionaries would lead people to Christ, but the liberals were attracting the thinking leaders among the converts and training them in the Marxist ideology, which liberals identified as the true center of biblical theology” [Emphasis mine] (p. 29).
The quotes he puts around “Christian” speaks volumes. He then relates the following story:
“I met a man from Fiji who was won to Christ by an evangelical missionary and who, subsequent to conversion, wanted to come to the United States for seminary training … theological liberals gave him a scholarship to study at a liberal seminary in Texas. By the time that I met him, he had given up his faith and was going back to Fiji with an extremely secular view of Christianity. His mission: to pastor a church!” [Emphasis mine] (p. 29)
One wonders what this “secular view” of Christianity was. Since Moreland is associating American Christianity in general with evangelicalism in particular, a “secular view of Christianity” could mean a form of Christianity that is neither evangelical nor conservative.
Moreland needs to make clear that he is not addressing the lack of intellectualism that exists in Christianity in general or even American Christianity in particular. Moreland needs to make clear that he is concerned not with the reasoning of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopalians or various conservative and moderate to liberal denominations and believing bodies that do give adequate attention to the rational aspects of the faith, but, rather, that he is focused on the lack of intellectualism in the conservative to fundamentalist side of American Evangelical Christianity (perhaps just the Religious Right).
This religious, cultural-centricism on the part of Moreland can be chalked up to an unconscious slip due to his inconsistent tendency to use evangelical and Christian interchangeably. It is a significant weakness because he claims a target audience much broader than his work actually addresses. After all, moderate to liberal Christianity has never been generally accused of not using their God-given reason. If anything, moderate to liberal Christianity has relied too heavily upon human reason to the neglect of direct revelation from God. If Moreland wants to address the lack of anti-intellectualism among evangelical Christians then a proper focus on them in particular is far more effective than an indirect address while claiming to address American Christendom.
If Moreland actually does find “evangelical” and “Christian” as synonymous terms and that all non-evangelicals do not have claim to the label “Christian” then there exists an even bigger weakness.
The Cultural Complaints Are Old
“Our society has replaced heroes with celebrities, the quest for a well-informed character with the search for a flat stomach, substance and depth with image and personality. In the political process, the makeup man is more important that the speech writer, and we approach the voting booth, not on the basis of a well-developed philosophy of what the state should be, but with a heart full of images, emotions, and slogans all packed into thirty-second sound bites. The mind-numbing, irrational tripe that fills TV talk shows is digested by millions bored, lonely Americans hungry for that sort of stuff.” (p. 21)
All of these complaints leveled by Moreland are perennial complaints made by each generation about the age in which it lives. At most, the differences that Moreland sees today from that which once was is only a change in degree and method of communication. One can research newspapers and sermons throughout history (both American and European) and see such complaints leveled at culture.
To argue that a change has occurred from an idyllic culture of heroes, well-informed characters, reasoned political processes and intellectually-stimulating entertainment is hyperbole at best and naïveté at worst. To then see such an imagined shift as a result of the rise of anti-intellectualism on the part of evangelicals is false and unproductive. Moreland is enticing his readers to reclaim a culture that never existed. While such idealism is certainly worth pursuing one does not achieve it by trying to reclaim a position that was once held. Regardless of the success in reclaiming such a position, the ideal will not be reached because it never existed under such circumstances. Such attempts then become pointless and unreasonable.
A corollary weakness to Moreland’s antique complaints is his assessment of the modern television news media and why when they try to feature a Christian perspective on any issue, usually, “Christians watching the program feel misrepresented and misunderstood” (p. 32).
The problem with this complaint is that it is near universal and not subject to Christians only or evangelical Christians in particular. This is a red herring which does not result from the intellectual capabilities of evangelicals. Every group that is featured in news stories always voices this complaint and with the Christian faith this is no small wonder. Christendom is broad and highly diverse. If any believer from any denominational group appears on television and voices an opinion as THE Christian opinion then most of the other denominations may resent such an effrontery and feel misrepresented and misunderstood. However, as mentioned above, it appears that when Moreland refers to Christians he is narrowing this designation to only those members of the conservative evangelical community. It is then no small wonder that he would feel this way when members of any other Christian denomination are portrayed in the media.
Inappropriate Use of Scripture
Bad Exegesis
From an evangelical point of view this is perhaps a more serious weakness but one which needs less explanation. He himself states:
“We allow one another to get away with applying an understanding of a passage that is based on vague feelings or first impressions and not on the hard work of reading commentaries and using study tools such as concordances, Bible dictionaries, and the like” (p. 26).
Citing Matthew 5:13 and Jesus’ “salt of the earth” teaching, Moreland makes the point that the culture is in decline because Christians’ are becoming saltless with regards to their minds (p. 21). However, in context, it is difficult to make the case that Jesus was concerned with Christian intellect or, more precisely in Moreland’s arguments, the rational fortitude of the believer. The context of the passage follows immediately after the Beatitudes and is surrounded by verses and passages concerned with moral and social character.
Neglect of Scriptural Evidence
Moreland makes the astonishing claim in stating that his purpose is to “demonstrate how the church must overcome the neglect of this critical area of the development of the Christian mind, perhaps the most integral component of the believers sanctification” [Emphasis mine] (p.22). However, Moreland provides no Scriptural evidence to support this assertion. He deals with this assertion thoroughly in chapter three but never provides evidence from Scripture that his assertion is true.
Furthermore, Moreland states that, “biblically, faith is a power or skill to act in accordance with the nature of the kingdom of God, a trust in what we have reason to believe is true….Understood this way, we see that faith is built on reason” [emphasis his] (p. 25). He doesn’t provide any Scriptural evidence for this definition. Naturally, if one supplies one’s own definition of a biblical subject devoid of Scriptural support it will indelibly confirm the person’s preconceived argument. However, on page 60, he states that “faith is relying on what you have reason to believe is true and trustworthy.” He doesn’t cite Scripture here either yet argues against the distortion of the Biblical view of faith.
Also, Moreland makes a further odd assertion:
“From Old Testament times and ancient Greece until this century, the good life was widely understood to mean life of intellectual and moral virtue … When the Declaration of Independence says we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them the right to pursue happiness, it is referring to virtue and character” (p. 35).
His reference to “the good life” is somewhat puzzling and appears to be devoid of Scriptural support. Where is his evidence for this? Where in the Old Testament Scriptures? Why not in the New Testament? Ancient Greece? The ancient Grecians were pagans and highly immoral for their time. The Declaration of Independence? The phrase “pursuit of happiness” was an adaptation from the Boston's 1772 "Rights of the Colonists" phrase: “life, liberty, and property.” This phrase is a part of the same Enlightenment philosophy of Frederic Bastiat, John Locke and David Hume. However, unlike Locke and Bastiat, Jefferson followed the example of David Hume and rejected the idea that property was an inalienable right (a concept both Jefferson and Hume believed was tied to feudalism and the property claims of the state-run Church), replacing it with the right to the “pursuit of happiness”, ala David Hume.
These inappropriate uses of Scripture are a major weakness to Moreland’s argument. It is quite possible that his assertions may be true. It is quite possible that his assertions may be true and are indeed founded upon hard Scriptural evidence. However, such Scriptural evidence is not provided by Moreland in these particular areas. These are major weaknesses because the reference to intellectual “salt”, the mind’s role in sanctification and his focus on “the good life” are significant factors in his overall argument. What’s more, as an evangelical arguing for reasoned evangelicalism to a presumed evangelical audience based upon Biblical principles, establishing that all of these assertions are Biblical principles is vital.
General Aversion to the Subjective
One might also point to Moreland’s general aversion to the subjective (and the “heart”) (see especially pages 26 (the final paragraph) thru page 27 (the first paragraph)). He laments that in modern evangelical Christianity, “we test the truth of our religion not by a careful application of our God-given faculties of thought … but rather by our private experiences” (p. 27). Yet, according to Matt 22:37 both heart and mind are needed (subjective and objective). One could certainly make a case that the lack of the subjective or the “heart” in this work is due to the intended focus of the “mind” and the more objective matters of the faith. But, as chapter three indicates, Moreland appears hesitant to give Scriptural references to the “heart” their due. He states elsewhere:
“If knowledge and reason are identical with what can be tested scientifically or with scientific theories that a majority of scientists believes to be correct, then religion and ethics will no longer be viewed as true, rational domains of discourse because, supposedly, religious or ethical claims are not scientifically testable.” (p. 34)
While one could certainly agree that scientific knowledge should not be regarded as the sole measure of attaining knowledge, Moreland’s complaint is not that scientific knowledge is seen as the only permissible knowledge but that religious and ethical knowledge is not considered scientific knowledge. He argues that in modern Western thinking, “[i]f you can prove something scientifically, then it is culturally permissible or even obligatory to believe it” (p. 33). This is so because scientific knowledge is built upon the general consensus of a community of individuals that can objectively repeat an agreed upon test to prove that a particular aspect of nature is scientifically true. Because it is objective and accessible to a greater number of people than a subjective religious experience, scientific knowledge is a democratic society’s preferred method of obtaining knowledge. This primacy of this preferred method is enhanced in a society that offers freedom of religion to all peoples. All religions are recognized and all sects within a given religion are recognized as well. On the other hand, there is far more agreement and uniformity within the scientific community than within the religious community.
Moreland follows the Western and Modern cultural trend of holding rationalism as a superior form of epistemology and all acceptable knowledge as that which is provable by scientific method and, thus, objective, general, consensual and testable. It is a weakness because it seriously neglects the most important proof that can be given for the truth of the Christian Faith: the personal experience with God.
Reason (or Rational Argumentation) as Evangelistic Tool
Moreland argues that apologetics and reasoned arguments are effective means of evangelism. In fact, he focuses two chapters on this subject (chapters six and seven). Yet the question must be asked: is it reasonable to believe that reason is an effective means of evangelism? What Scriptural evidence can he point to? What experience evidence can he provide? This is a significant point because it is the basis of his entire argument. If reason can be applied by evangelicals than perhaps evangelicals can effective witness and change the culture.
Moreland focuses on Acts 17-20 only for his Scriptural evidence of Paul’s evangelical method, i.e., Paul’s reasoning: “He reasoned with and tried to persuade people intelligently to accept Christ” (p. 30). However, Paul was reasoning from the Scriptures, (Ac 17:2) which is different from other intellectual argumentation. This was a consensual agreed upon standard of divine revelation shared among the Jews, the God-fearing Gentiles and the Christians. Yet even in this Paul had limited success. In order to reason with anyone to conversion thru Scripture that person has to initially agree that the Scriptures are authoritative. Luke recorded numerous long proclamation speeches throughout the book of Acts but not once did he record Paul’s reasoning arguments.
Yet, while Moreland limits his focus to Acts, he ignores the rest of Scripture which does not have reasoned arguments bringing about conversions. Paul himself was not converted by reason! (Ac 9) Outside of this small stretch of narrative, Moreland provides no other Scriptural evidence to support his belief that apologetics and reasoned arguments are effective means of evangelism. What other evidence can Moreland provide?
“I have trained people to share their faith for over twenty-six years. I can tell you from experience that when people learn what they believe and why, they become bold in their witness and attractive in the way they engage others in debate or dialogue” [emphasis mine] (p. 31).
Notice that he cites personal experience and not objective reason. On page 31, Moreland gives an illustration from his experience about a man who sat silently at a dinner party but only engaged in active and exuberant conversation when the subject of motor boats came up. Why? Boats were the man’s hobby. Moreland concludes that the passionate response of this former wall-flower to the subject of boats was due to the man’s professed expertise on the subject. But why was the man an expert in a hobby? If the man was an expert in a particular occupation but hated his job would one expect him to be so passionate about joyfully discussing the subject? No, what made the man passionate about the subject he discussed was not his cognitive expertise of the boats but his love of boats. The man knew about boats because he loved boats. This was a hobby for him. He entered into this hobby to such a degree because he loved the subject. We as believers are knowledgeable about the Christian faith because we love the Faith and its object. Moreland is knowledgeable about cognitive reason because he loves reason and not vice versa.
Moreland’s focus on apologetics and reasoned arguments as effective means of evangelism is a significant weakness because it appears to be an unscriptural and unproven method of actually leading someone to Christ. To suggest such a method without proof that is works in unreasonable and Moreland provides no evidence to the contrary. It would be somewhat more beneficial to his argument if he could cite just one conversion due to the reasoned arguments of a Christian. Moreland can cite many arguments that have been won but no soul that has been won.
Conclusion
In conclusion, a careful and critical evaluation of Moreland’s first chapter and the subsequent chapters for which it speaks, presents a few definite strengths but many, major weaknesses to his argument. While the focus on reason is strong and appropriate within reason and while the focus upon the individual believers duty a witnesses and ministers in the world is surely necessary, the chapter and book suffers from a lack of support for the major assertions and arguments made within.
Introduction
This paper will critically evaluate the first chapter of the book, Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul, by J. P. Moreland. The chapter is entitled, “How We Lost the Christian Mind and Why We Must Recover It,” pages 19-40. As outlined in the course syllabus, special note will be made on the strengths found in the chapter, followed immediately by an explanation of why the strength is such. Furthermore, special note will be made on the weaknesses found in the chapter, followed immediately by an explanation of why each weakness is such. As evident from the chapter title and even a cursory read of the material, the basic problem that Moreland believes needs to be addressed, and to which his book is attempting to do so, is set forth in this introductory chapter. Therefore, a focused evaluation of this particular chapter and its strengths and weaknesses is warranted to justify all the arguments that follow in the subsequent chapters.
Moreland’s book title comes from Matthew 22:37: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” The stated purpose of the book is to “demonstrate how the church must overcome the neglect of this critical area of the development of the Christian mind, perhaps the most integral component of the believers sanctification” (p.22). He further states that “[if] we are going to be wise, spiritual people prepared to meet the cries of our age, we must be a studying, learning community that values the life of the mind. The rest of this book develops the case for why this is so and presents resources for making it a reality …” [emphasis his](p. 39).
The stated purpose of the chapter is to “demonstrate that that a major cause of our current cultural crisis consists of a worldview shift from a Judeo-Christian understanding of reality to a post-Christian one” (p. 21). He begins by presenting his view of what brought about the “Loss of the Christian Mind in American Christianity”.
“Two major developments emerged in the late nineteenth century that contributed to the loss of the Christian mind in America. The legacy of the Pilgrims ands Puritans waned, and two new developments emerged from which the evangelical church has never fully recovered.” (p. 22)
The first development that Moreland cites is the emergence of anti-intellectualism. Moreland states that the two Great Awakenings that occurred early in American history and which produced numerous revivals of high rates of conversions focused too much on the “personal experience” of the individual convert without first teaching such individuals the rational reasons why the Christian faith is true. This lack of focus on the reasonings of the Christian faith is referred to as “emerging anti-intellectualism in the church” which created a lack of readiness for the widespread intellectual assault on Christianity that reached full force in the late 1800s” (p. 23).
The second development that Moreland cites is the withdrawal of evangelicals from the public square. He gives three reasons for such a withdrawal. First, he points to the Enlightenment philosophies of the 18th and 19th century with particular emphasis on David Hume who argued that “the traditional arguments for God’s existence were quite weak” (p. 23) and Immanuel Kant who argued that “human knowledge is limited to what can be experienced with the five senses, and since God cannot be so experienced, we cannot know He exists” (p. 23-24). Secondly, he points to German higher criticism and its questioning of the historical reliability of the Scriptures (p. 24). Thirdly, he points to the theory of Darwinian evolution as a major factor which caused the evangelical withdrawal for the public sphere. Moreland writes: “instead of responding to these attacks with a vigorous intellectual counterpunch, many believers grew suspicious of intellectual issues altogether …fundamentalists withdrew” (p.24).
Moreland then focuses on this anti-intellectualism’s impact on the church. He cites four prominent impacts: 1) a misunderstanding of faith’s relationship to reason, 2) the separation of the secular and the sacred, 3) weakened world missions and 4) anti-intellectualism has spawned an irrelevant gospel.
Moreland then focuses on the emergence of the secular culture in America and what the Christian should then do in “this hour of crisis.”
Strengths Found In the Chapter
The Focus on Reason
The primary thrust Moreland’s argument in this book is that renewed attention must be placed upon reason in the evangelical world. To those converted and already convinced by Moreland’s argument, the reasons given in this chapter as to why reason should be adopted with due enthusiasm is apparent. If the individual reader agrees with author that the current state of affairs in the American Culture is due to the lack of reasoned minds within the evangelical Christian community then certainly such attention to the subject by Moreland is essential to his book.
The Focus on How the Christian Worldview Effects Christian life
Moreland’s argument for why Evangelicals have “dropped the ball” when it comes to their cultural engagement and activism is that they have not taken into account the role that reason plays within the Faith. In order to address this fault, Moreland first must make it clear that what a Christian knows, understands and believes makes a profound affect upon that Christian’s life.
“our modern understanding of Christian practice underlies everything else we do, from the way we select a minister to the types of books we sell in our bookstores. It informs the way we raise our children to think about Christianity; it determines how we give money to the cause of Christ; and it shapes our vision, priorities, and goals for both local and parachurch ministry. If our lives and ministries are expressions of what we actually believe, and if what we believe is off center and yet so pervasive that it is seldom even brought to conscious discussion, much less debated, then this explains why our impact on the world is so paltry compared to our numbers” (p.25).
This is a strength because from this point on Moreland can then attempt to transform the Christian reader’s knowledge, understanding and beliefs with the reader’s knowledge of how such a transformation should be impacting their everyday lives. With regards to the subsequent chapters of the book, this understanding of how beliefs affect life is the foundational principle of both the method and argument of the book.
That Apologetics as a Tool of and for the Church
Moreland places due attention to the subject of apologetics. Early in this chapter and with particular attention in chapter six and seven, he gives his definition of this Christian discipline:
“Apologetics is a New Testament ministry of helping people overcome intellectual obstacles that block them from coming to or growing in the faith by giving reasons for why one should believe in Christianity is true and by responding to objections raised against it.” (p. 26)
While apologetics is an ever-increasing form of evangelism (of which more will be said), it is refreshing to see Moreland’s initial focus on apologetics as a tool of and for the Church. This is a strength because if his focus is on the reasoning minds of evangelicals as they combat an ever-increasing, then such attention needs to be placed upon apologetics as a tool that removes “intellectual obstacles” which prevent growth in the faith. As a matter of introduction this section of the chapter nicely prepares the reader for what will be more fully developed in chapters six and seven.
That Science is Not the Only Avenue of Attaining Knowledge
Another refreshing strength in this introductory chapter is the steadfast rejection of what Moreland calls “scientism” or the naturalistic or materialistic philosophical belief that science alone can provide acceptable knowledge.
“What I do reject is the idea that science alone can claim to give us knowledge.” (p. 34)
“If knowledge and reason are identical with what can be tested scientifically or with scientific theories that a majority of scientists believes to be correct, then religion and ethics will no longer be viewed as true, rational domains of discourse because, supposedly, religious or ethical claims are not scientifically testable.” (p. 34)
This is really an essential point to the development of a consistent and plausible Christian worldview that Moreland rightly makes mention. This is a strength because it addresses a particular area of epistemology that forms the foundation of what the Christian worldview means by “faith” and establishes the basis for all replies to critical questions and arguments regarding Christian truth claims.
Weaknesses found in the chapter
Religiously, Culturally-Centric
The first weakness in Moreland’s introductory chapter is that while he continually states that he is addressing the marginalization of the Christian community in America, he is, in fact, entirely focused upon the conservative evangelical community of the Christian community in America.
On the one hand he states that “the church is no longer a major participant in the war of ideas” (p. 22). He also states that “[t]his withdrawal from the broader, intellectual culture and public discourse contributed to the isolation of the church, the marginalization of Christian ideas from the public arena” (p.24).
On the other hand:
“Two major developments emerged in the late nineteenth century that contributed to the loss of the Christian mind in America. The legacy of the Pilgrims ands Puritans waned, and two new developments emerged from which the evangelical church has never fully recovered” [emphasis mine] (p. 22).
It appears that Moreland at times associates the evangelical church with THE Church. While this in of itself is troublesome Moreland also appears to associate the Religious Right with THE Church.
“Not long ago, the newspaper featured a leading politician’s statement about the Christian political right in which he charged that the Christian right was populated by dumb, uninformed people who are easily led by rhetoric. While I would dispute the complete accuracy of this charge, nevertheless, we Christians must ask ourselves why, if there is not a grain of truth in it, someone would think to make this accusation of us in the first place” [emphasis mine] (p. 20).
The charge made by the politician was by the own admission of Moreland made toward the Christian political right, but Moreland himself treats such a statement as a charge against Christians in general. Moreland makes no distinction between his particular Christian culture and the Christian church in general.
“If there are fewer Christian intellectuals who write college textbooks from a Christian perspective, it must be because our evangelical culture is simply not producing such people because we do not value the intellectual life” [emphasis mine] (p. 28).
It is evident that Moreland’s concern about the reasoning faculties of the Church is directed towards evangelical conservatives in America and not Christians in general. For Moreland it is the evangelical church that must overcome these anti-intellectual characteristics (p. 25).
“‘Christian’ thinkers in his country held to liberation theology, a form of Marxism draped in religious garb. Evangelical missionaries would lead people to Christ, but the liberals were attracting the thinking leaders among the converts and training them in the Marxist ideology, which liberals identified as the true center of biblical theology” [Emphasis mine] (p. 29).
The quotes he puts around “Christian” speaks volumes. He then relates the following story:
“I met a man from Fiji who was won to Christ by an evangelical missionary and who, subsequent to conversion, wanted to come to the United States for seminary training … theological liberals gave him a scholarship to study at a liberal seminary in Texas. By the time that I met him, he had given up his faith and was going back to Fiji with an extremely secular view of Christianity. His mission: to pastor a church!” [Emphasis mine] (p. 29)
One wonders what this “secular view” of Christianity was. Since Moreland is associating American Christianity in general with evangelicalism in particular, a “secular view of Christianity” could mean a form of Christianity that is neither evangelical nor conservative.
Moreland needs to make clear that he is not addressing the lack of intellectualism that exists in Christianity in general or even American Christianity in particular. Moreland needs to make clear that he is concerned not with the reasoning of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopalians or various conservative and moderate to liberal denominations and believing bodies that do give adequate attention to the rational aspects of the faith, but, rather, that he is focused on the lack of intellectualism in the conservative to fundamentalist side of American Evangelical Christianity (perhaps just the Religious Right).
This religious, cultural-centricism on the part of Moreland can be chalked up to an unconscious slip due to his inconsistent tendency to use evangelical and Christian interchangeably. It is a significant weakness because he claims a target audience much broader than his work actually addresses. After all, moderate to liberal Christianity has never been generally accused of not using their God-given reason. If anything, moderate to liberal Christianity has relied too heavily upon human reason to the neglect of direct revelation from God. If Moreland wants to address the lack of anti-intellectualism among evangelical Christians then a proper focus on them in particular is far more effective than an indirect address while claiming to address American Christendom.
If Moreland actually does find “evangelical” and “Christian” as synonymous terms and that all non-evangelicals do not have claim to the label “Christian” then there exists an even bigger weakness.
The Cultural Complaints Are Old
“Our society has replaced heroes with celebrities, the quest for a well-informed character with the search for a flat stomach, substance and depth with image and personality. In the political process, the makeup man is more important that the speech writer, and we approach the voting booth, not on the basis of a well-developed philosophy of what the state should be, but with a heart full of images, emotions, and slogans all packed into thirty-second sound bites. The mind-numbing, irrational tripe that fills TV talk shows is digested by millions bored, lonely Americans hungry for that sort of stuff.” (p. 21)
All of these complaints leveled by Moreland are perennial complaints made by each generation about the age in which it lives. At most, the differences that Moreland sees today from that which once was is only a change in degree and method of communication. One can research newspapers and sermons throughout history (both American and European) and see such complaints leveled at culture.
To argue that a change has occurred from an idyllic culture of heroes, well-informed characters, reasoned political processes and intellectually-stimulating entertainment is hyperbole at best and naïveté at worst. To then see such an imagined shift as a result of the rise of anti-intellectualism on the part of evangelicals is false and unproductive. Moreland is enticing his readers to reclaim a culture that never existed. While such idealism is certainly worth pursuing one does not achieve it by trying to reclaim a position that was once held. Regardless of the success in reclaiming such a position, the ideal will not be reached because it never existed under such circumstances. Such attempts then become pointless and unreasonable.
A corollary weakness to Moreland’s antique complaints is his assessment of the modern television news media and why when they try to feature a Christian perspective on any issue, usually, “Christians watching the program feel misrepresented and misunderstood” (p. 32).
The problem with this complaint is that it is near universal and not subject to Christians only or evangelical Christians in particular. This is a red herring which does not result from the intellectual capabilities of evangelicals. Every group that is featured in news stories always voices this complaint and with the Christian faith this is no small wonder. Christendom is broad and highly diverse. If any believer from any denominational group appears on television and voices an opinion as THE Christian opinion then most of the other denominations may resent such an effrontery and feel misrepresented and misunderstood. However, as mentioned above, it appears that when Moreland refers to Christians he is narrowing this designation to only those members of the conservative evangelical community. It is then no small wonder that he would feel this way when members of any other Christian denomination are portrayed in the media.
Inappropriate Use of Scripture
Bad Exegesis
From an evangelical point of view this is perhaps a more serious weakness but one which needs less explanation. He himself states:
“We allow one another to get away with applying an understanding of a passage that is based on vague feelings or first impressions and not on the hard work of reading commentaries and using study tools such as concordances, Bible dictionaries, and the like” (p. 26).
Citing Matthew 5:13 and Jesus’ “salt of the earth” teaching, Moreland makes the point that the culture is in decline because Christians’ are becoming saltless with regards to their minds (p. 21). However, in context, it is difficult to make the case that Jesus was concerned with Christian intellect or, more precisely in Moreland’s arguments, the rational fortitude of the believer. The context of the passage follows immediately after the Beatitudes and is surrounded by verses and passages concerned with moral and social character.
Neglect of Scriptural Evidence
Moreland makes the astonishing claim in stating that his purpose is to “demonstrate how the church must overcome the neglect of this critical area of the development of the Christian mind, perhaps the most integral component of the believers sanctification” [Emphasis mine] (p.22). However, Moreland provides no Scriptural evidence to support this assertion. He deals with this assertion thoroughly in chapter three but never provides evidence from Scripture that his assertion is true.
Furthermore, Moreland states that, “biblically, faith is a power or skill to act in accordance with the nature of the kingdom of God, a trust in what we have reason to believe is true….Understood this way, we see that faith is built on reason” [emphasis his] (p. 25). He doesn’t provide any Scriptural evidence for this definition. Naturally, if one supplies one’s own definition of a biblical subject devoid of Scriptural support it will indelibly confirm the person’s preconceived argument. However, on page 60, he states that “faith is relying on what you have reason to believe is true and trustworthy.” He doesn’t cite Scripture here either yet argues against the distortion of the Biblical view of faith.
Also, Moreland makes a further odd assertion:
“From Old Testament times and ancient Greece until this century, the good life was widely understood to mean life of intellectual and moral virtue … When the Declaration of Independence says we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them the right to pursue happiness, it is referring to virtue and character” (p. 35).
His reference to “the good life” is somewhat puzzling and appears to be devoid of Scriptural support. Where is his evidence for this? Where in the Old Testament Scriptures? Why not in the New Testament? Ancient Greece? The ancient Grecians were pagans and highly immoral for their time. The Declaration of Independence? The phrase “pursuit of happiness” was an adaptation from the Boston's 1772 "Rights of the Colonists" phrase: “life, liberty, and property.” This phrase is a part of the same Enlightenment philosophy of Frederic Bastiat, John Locke and David Hume. However, unlike Locke and Bastiat, Jefferson followed the example of David Hume and rejected the idea that property was an inalienable right (a concept both Jefferson and Hume believed was tied to feudalism and the property claims of the state-run Church), replacing it with the right to the “pursuit of happiness”, ala David Hume.
These inappropriate uses of Scripture are a major weakness to Moreland’s argument. It is quite possible that his assertions may be true. It is quite possible that his assertions may be true and are indeed founded upon hard Scriptural evidence. However, such Scriptural evidence is not provided by Moreland in these particular areas. These are major weaknesses because the reference to intellectual “salt”, the mind’s role in sanctification and his focus on “the good life” are significant factors in his overall argument. What’s more, as an evangelical arguing for reasoned evangelicalism to a presumed evangelical audience based upon Biblical principles, establishing that all of these assertions are Biblical principles is vital.
General Aversion to the Subjective
One might also point to Moreland’s general aversion to the subjective (and the “heart”) (see especially pages 26 (the final paragraph) thru page 27 (the first paragraph)). He laments that in modern evangelical Christianity, “we test the truth of our religion not by a careful application of our God-given faculties of thought … but rather by our private experiences” (p. 27). Yet, according to Matt 22:37 both heart and mind are needed (subjective and objective). One could certainly make a case that the lack of the subjective or the “heart” in this work is due to the intended focus of the “mind” and the more objective matters of the faith. But, as chapter three indicates, Moreland appears hesitant to give Scriptural references to the “heart” their due. He states elsewhere:
“If knowledge and reason are identical with what can be tested scientifically or with scientific theories that a majority of scientists believes to be correct, then religion and ethics will no longer be viewed as true, rational domains of discourse because, supposedly, religious or ethical claims are not scientifically testable.” (p. 34)
While one could certainly agree that scientific knowledge should not be regarded as the sole measure of attaining knowledge, Moreland’s complaint is not that scientific knowledge is seen as the only permissible knowledge but that religious and ethical knowledge is not considered scientific knowledge. He argues that in modern Western thinking, “[i]f you can prove something scientifically, then it is culturally permissible or even obligatory to believe it” (p. 33). This is so because scientific knowledge is built upon the general consensus of a community of individuals that can objectively repeat an agreed upon test to prove that a particular aspect of nature is scientifically true. Because it is objective and accessible to a greater number of people than a subjective religious experience, scientific knowledge is a democratic society’s preferred method of obtaining knowledge. This primacy of this preferred method is enhanced in a society that offers freedom of religion to all peoples. All religions are recognized and all sects within a given religion are recognized as well. On the other hand, there is far more agreement and uniformity within the scientific community than within the religious community.
Moreland follows the Western and Modern cultural trend of holding rationalism as a superior form of epistemology and all acceptable knowledge as that which is provable by scientific method and, thus, objective, general, consensual and testable. It is a weakness because it seriously neglects the most important proof that can be given for the truth of the Christian Faith: the personal experience with God.
Reason (or Rational Argumentation) as Evangelistic Tool
Moreland argues that apologetics and reasoned arguments are effective means of evangelism. In fact, he focuses two chapters on this subject (chapters six and seven). Yet the question must be asked: is it reasonable to believe that reason is an effective means of evangelism? What Scriptural evidence can he point to? What experience evidence can he provide? This is a significant point because it is the basis of his entire argument. If reason can be applied by evangelicals than perhaps evangelicals can effective witness and change the culture.
Moreland focuses on Acts 17-20 only for his Scriptural evidence of Paul’s evangelical method, i.e., Paul’s reasoning: “He reasoned with and tried to persuade people intelligently to accept Christ” (p. 30). However, Paul was reasoning from the Scriptures, (Ac 17:2) which is different from other intellectual argumentation. This was a consensual agreed upon standard of divine revelation shared among the Jews, the God-fearing Gentiles and the Christians. Yet even in this Paul had limited success. In order to reason with anyone to conversion thru Scripture that person has to initially agree that the Scriptures are authoritative. Luke recorded numerous long proclamation speeches throughout the book of Acts but not once did he record Paul’s reasoning arguments.
Yet, while Moreland limits his focus to Acts, he ignores the rest of Scripture which does not have reasoned arguments bringing about conversions. Paul himself was not converted by reason! (Ac 9) Outside of this small stretch of narrative, Moreland provides no other Scriptural evidence to support his belief that apologetics and reasoned arguments are effective means of evangelism. What other evidence can Moreland provide?
“I have trained people to share their faith for over twenty-six years. I can tell you from experience that when people learn what they believe and why, they become bold in their witness and attractive in the way they engage others in debate or dialogue” [emphasis mine] (p. 31).
Notice that he cites personal experience and not objective reason. On page 31, Moreland gives an illustration from his experience about a man who sat silently at a dinner party but only engaged in active and exuberant conversation when the subject of motor boats came up. Why? Boats were the man’s hobby. Moreland concludes that the passionate response of this former wall-flower to the subject of boats was due to the man’s professed expertise on the subject. But why was the man an expert in a hobby? If the man was an expert in a particular occupation but hated his job would one expect him to be so passionate about joyfully discussing the subject? No, what made the man passionate about the subject he discussed was not his cognitive expertise of the boats but his love of boats. The man knew about boats because he loved boats. This was a hobby for him. He entered into this hobby to such a degree because he loved the subject. We as believers are knowledgeable about the Christian faith because we love the Faith and its object. Moreland is knowledgeable about cognitive reason because he loves reason and not vice versa.
Moreland’s focus on apologetics and reasoned arguments as effective means of evangelism is a significant weakness because it appears to be an unscriptural and unproven method of actually leading someone to Christ. To suggest such a method without proof that is works in unreasonable and Moreland provides no evidence to the contrary. It would be somewhat more beneficial to his argument if he could cite just one conversion due to the reasoned arguments of a Christian. Moreland can cite many arguments that have been won but no soul that has been won.
Conclusion
In conclusion, a careful and critical evaluation of Moreland’s first chapter and the subsequent chapters for which it speaks, presents a few definite strengths but many, major weaknesses to his argument. While the focus on reason is strong and appropriate within reason and while the focus upon the individual believers duty a witnesses and ministers in the world is surely necessary, the chapter and book suffers from a lack of support for the major assertions and arguments made within.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)