Should We Believe the Intellectuals?
Are evangelicals anti-intellectual and allergic to reason? Should evangelicals simply accept whatever the secular experts say? On Credo’s “Reviews” page, Richard Weikart, professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus, gives a serious critique of The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age, by Randall J. Stephens and Karl W. Giberson. Weikart begins,
“Secular intellectuals say it, I believe it, and that settles it.” While this is not exactly Randall Stephens and Karl Giberson’s point, it is too close for comfort. Their recent book, The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age, provides a stinging critique of many evangelical leaders. They suggest that evangelicals should shut up and believe secular experts, not only in fields like evolutionary biology and history, but even on moral issues such as homosexuality and child training.
“The Evangelical Rejection of Reason”
Ironically, they criticize most evangelicals for rejecting reason, but they never provide reasoned arguments for their own positions. Rather, they simply try to refute other evangelicals by proclaiming: “Thus saith the secular intellectuals” (and even one or two evangelical scholars for good measure). They never exegete Scriptural passages to try to prove their points, though they do sometimes inform us that such-and-such a biblical scholar has refuted the prominent evangelical they are criticizing. Their entire book rests on repeated appeals to authority, rather than providing cogent reasons for their positions.
Though they are self-identified evangelicals, their book, published by a division of Harvard University Press, mercilessly pillories many leading American evangelicals of more conservative stripe for their “anti-intellectualism” and opposition to secular knowledge. Ironically, one accusation against their more conservative evangelical foes is that the conservatives are combative and prone to divisiveness. These evangelicals, whom they sometimes tar with the term fundamentalist, allegedly thrive by creating “out-groups” as enemies. This seems to me a rather hypocritical stance, since The Anointed is one of the most polemical, combative books I have read in quite a while.
The book relentlessly attacks fellow evangelical Christians (in front of a secular audience, so this goes beyond mere in-fighting), portraying them as “amateurs,” “professional outsiders,” and “idiosyncratic Bible teachers” who purvey “gibberish” rather than listening to the reasonable voices of (allegedly irenic and tolerant) secular intellectuals. Oddly, Stephens and Giberson admit that many of the evangelicals they discuss are often blasted by the secular press and by secular intellectuals, so it is not clear to me why secular intellectuals are portrayed as calm and tolerant, while the conservative evangelicals are blamed for combativeness. The will to fight seems to work in both directions, and Stephens and Giberson sling their share of invective, too. Unfortunately, not all of their accusations are even accurate.
Stephens and Giberson advertised their book with a scathing article in the New York Times entitled “The Evangelical Rejection of Reason.” It accused those disagreeing with evolution or climate change of embracing “red-state fundamentalism” that demonstrates “unyielding ignorance.” They suggest that evangelicals inhabit a “parallel culture” that embraces “discredited, ridiculous, and even dangerous ideas” (such as opposing homosexuality). This is an irenic, tolerant spirit?
Read the rest of Weikart’s review here.
Advertisment
