Tim Suffield has written recently about “The evangelical intellectual ecosystem.” Tim has been raising questions about how we encourage theological thinking in the church, especially in the newer/charismatic churches and how we teach and train people theologically. There is perhaps some overlap between the kinds of questions that Tim is asking and the kind of questions and challenges I’ve been raising and that may at times mean that there’s an overlap in the answers too. However, I think that whilst there is overlap, there are significant differences, Tim would therefore take us in a different direction and in my view this would be a wrong turn. Let me explain why by engaging with his recent article.
First, Tim observes that other authors such as Onsi Kamel have described a “populist streak” to evangelicalism. There is perhaps no surprise there. Evangelicalism, with its roots in the Reformation has always been focused on communicating the Gospel and God’s Word clearly to ordinary people. After all, a major driver for the reformation was to see the Bible and church services available in t he vernacular, not just in Latin. However, Tim goes on from there to say, specifically about the UK scene that:
“We are anti-intellectual to a fault, and that increases in charismatic circles.”
That’s been a common complaint from some quarters, yet I’ve never seen evidence for this. Nor am I even sure what this means. There are a couple of possibilities. First, there has been at times a nervousness about theological study, particularly at Universities, with the fear that this might undermine faith, especially when it comes with a liberal agenda. It is worth noting that at times, evangelical Christians have experienced hostility in University theology departments and that the nature of those departments means that they do not necessarily exist to focus on Christian theology. Then there is also the challenge of what happens when liberal or secular presuppositions underpin the approach to research and teaching. Those presuppositions are not neutral. Concerns are therefore legitimate,
Furthermore, I have even heard prospective students describe their experience at open days for theological colleges where they have been told that the aim of the faculty is to break down or deconstruct the faith of the students in order to reform it. That does sound rather risky to say the least. I hope those people are properly qualified in such an exercise. There’s no guarantee that when you break something down that you will be able to rebuild it.
Secondly, Evangelicals have often found themselves in strong disagreement with conventional scholarship on many factors, particularly around exegesis and hermeneutics. You also see that in discussions around the historical reliability and infallibility of the Bible, the reality of miracles and the authenticity of claimed authorship. Yet, actually, there are good reasons to accept the evangelical position on these matters. Sadly, though, the response of the establishment to challenge, which is not unique to theology is to dismiss not just the arguments but the people making them. Disagreement with some academics does not make us anti-intellectual.
My own experience has been that training through a conservative evangelical seminary meant that there was a concern to engage with all scholarship. Different positions were presented in lecturers and encouragement with them was invited in assignments. The library was fantastically well stocked with both contemporary scholarship and historical works. Similarly, I’ve not detected much reluctance amongst conservative and charismatic pastors to read and be challenged. Meanwhile I’m regularly hearing from friends who are busy with their PhDs.
We might also want to consider the level of engagement with blogs that are primarily committed to theological thinking whether that’s here on Faithroots or much better known sites like Andrew Wilson’s Think Theology, Ian Paul’s Psephizo or Michael Bird’s site. Thoughtful engagement, discussion and debate seems, in my opinion to be flourishing.
Tim then talks about a time when intellectual Christian life thrived in Universities but has now declined. I’m not too sure whether he means specifically concerning theology or whether he’s talking about Christians engaging in wider academia. Either way, it would be helpful to see the evidence.
Tim then suggests that we haven’t been good at connecting what goes on in the academy with what goes on in the church. On that point I agree. The vast majority of books I’ve read coming out of academic contexts have in recent years been deeply disappointing and been of little or no use to the local church. The issue there I think is with the kind of person who gets involved in academia and why they write.
He then goes on to talk about training for pastors. He argues that most pastors have not been formally trained. It would be good to have up to date stats on this, however, this is an area where I’d part company with Tim. I don’t believe that the great need is for formal seminary style training. I do think training should be rigorous and encourage in depth Biblical and theological thinking. I don’t think this needs to happen in a seminary or University and in fact I’m convinced that this is often not the best place for it to happen.
Tim insists that renewal of the church requires a renewal of our intellects but then reveals his hand. He describes himself as “a bookish tweedy type.” Here in I think lies the problem. The desire seems to be for the rest of the church not only to think the same things as Tim but to think the same way. The reality is that most people, never mind most Christians are not “bookish” or “tweedy”, the two don’t necessarily go together. In fact, if we do want to encourage believers to think, which we do, then I would argue that we want to get away from the stereotype of thinking being for bookish, tweedy types. We want to get away from the image of pastoral ministry being for bookish, tweedy types that prevails in some quarters too.
So, I don’t believe that insisting that churches should provide patronage to enable a few people to live out that stereotype away from university faculties is going to do much for the heath of the local or national church and indeed the nation.
In fact, I’m concerned that this kind of approach does tend to lean into a view of Christian faith and God’s revelation as being this hidden, complicated, inner circle mystery that needs special, clever people to go and discover it for us. I don’t think God functions like that and I don’t think the bible works like that. Indeed, that has been the curse of intellectualism in theology. We end up with books and lectures that take things obvious, simple and clear then make then obtuse, complicated and confusing.
I wonder too if there is a danger that we conflate “intellectual” and “theology” with speculative” with the result that we declare people to be theologians who are in fact poor imitations of philosophers. Perhaps we would do better to encourage more Christians to see a career and vocation in other academic disciplines.
Finally, I guess the point of patronage is that it is perfectly acceptable in a market place for individuals to choose to pay individual theologians through subscriptions or suchlike, justg as they are free to buy books, pay to go to talks or whatever, just as they are free to buy worship CDs and just as they are free to do what they please with their money. However, I don’t believe this should be confused with or in competition with churches supporting mission.
Faithroots 
1 comment
Comments are closed.