Move forward

Thanks Daniel, Gordon, D Law, anonymous and everyone who responded. I will be leaving US this afternoon for a week and sorry that I cannot make further responses.

Re: D law's comments. I don't mean that X% of respondents do not know A implies the prevalence of anti-intellectualism. My point is: does the educational system teach A and encourage students to learn about A? If X% do not know A, will educators do something as a remedy. If yes, we cannot say the system is anti-intellectuial. But as far as I know (again, it is only based on my experience), many evangelical churches do not teach deeper contents regarding faith and do not encourage believers to learn more. Many times people simply pour a bucket of cold water on my head by saying, "That is human knowledge; we must count on God's wisdom."

I have experience in interacting with Ecumenical or liberal Christians. Based on my personal and subjective experience, they do not openly opposed to intellectualism, but there is a subtle and perhaps unconscious way to go against it. When they discuss political and social issues, I can tell that those apparently "intellectual" discussions are driven by ideology. Even if evidence is presented, it is very selective. That is not the way to do research! I always encounter outliers or opposite results to the original hypothesis in research. Shortcomings and limitations must also be discussed.

My Christian life was enriched by the social concern movement in the 80s and 90s, but sadly, Christian church did not equip believers to cope with the movement. Christians like Gordon who know a lot of research methodology and science can be a big asset of Christian church. To move forward, perhaps the first place to change is to introduce training of quantitative research methods in theological seminary.

But even if we put aside the social concern aspect of Christianity and focus on spirituality, we still need intellctual contemplation. To be frank, in the late 70s and early 80s I was a member of a very fundamental church. I found that hot heart and hot head will lead to nothing more than a dead end.

I say all this out of frustrated love.

 

Re: 佚名Anonymous

What if I have read (or not read) Noll? Or Jewett, Morris, Harrison, Ladd, Kuyper, Henry, Machen, etc...? What did that make me? What would it make you IF you have read them?

IF A THEN B does not say IF NOT A THEN NOT B

Combating anti-intellectualism

Alex pointed out something interesting and significant. We have often heard, perhaps to our dismay, that only 10 or 20% of a high school population (ok say they are Americans) ever heard of Jefferson or Adams. But 99% of them heard of Britney Spears!!! 

Wat are we suppose to feel when confounded with this sort of statistics? Does it mean our school system is FAILING? Or does it merely say we are constantly being overwhelmed by senseless celebrity scandals?

But neither of the above interpretations talks to the topic of anti-intellectualism. We can not say because less than x% of high school kids know who y was, or that at one time "people thought the world was 'square'",then people must be anti-intellectual. We can infact draw many different conclusions based on the same observation.

What was fairly pointed out by Alexis' original piece is that anti-intellectualism IS REAL. And it is still happening in, of all countries, the US of A! As to how pervasive is the phenomenon? Whether it is occuring only among the evangelicals, or among ALL Christians, and (let me tout some of our readers) perhaps even more prominently among the liberals, are things up in the air!

As a fellowship advisor and teacher of adult (college and up) SS for over 40 years, I will continue to combat anti-intellectualism in church by making sure that all my talks and sermons have rich and thot-provoking contents, by demanding that the decisions made in church must have sound scriptural basis as well as well-thought through, that scholarship must be respected but not worshipped, that a reading and sharing culture be nurtured up and down the church, that the church must embrace all ideas and methods and skills in its practice as long as they do not contradict the teachings in the Bible. ..

 

 

let me tout some of you

Nature/extent of the problem

It is an old but underexplored issue. At this point, people do not agree upon the nature/scope/extent of the problem. Let alone the solution. I have stated my point: if only 20% of Amercians know who Thomas Jefferson and John Adams are, and what they did, we know that there is a big problem in the US education. Indeed, researcers have been doing something like that. There are several international studies, such as PISA, showing that US high school students are behind their counterparts in other developed counties in terms of math, science, and reading. Now all of us are speaking based on our own experience. Perhaps like what Barna Group did, we really need a study to find out whether anti-intellectualism exists, and if so, what the current status is.

Gordon: So, our church leaders...

..."encouraging" anti-intellectualism just because they want job/power/status security? You wish life would be this simple! What subtle finger-pointing again!

What kind of negative talk is this? Have more faith, if not on others, on yourself!

What if I have read (or not read) Noll? Or Jewett, Morris, Harrison, Ladd, Kuyper, Henry, Machen, etc...? What did that make me? What would it make you IF you have read them?

Please don't call people anti-intellectual unless you know them to be such. If you did, get ready to be a "real intellectual."

Do you know what real [Christian] intellectuals think and behave like?

 

To 張國棟﹕Know who you are talking to

Do you think the anti-interlecturals will be willing to read Noll etc., or be convinced by his arguments?

Compare to Alex, I am much less optimistic. Many church leaders want followers to be anti-interlecturals. This is their "job/power/status security". Until these leaders have to pay a price for this, things will not change.

 

Read it again, too!

"I merely said that anti-intellectualism is not prevalent. I am not convinced that it is a major problem, in US or HK."

My previous post is against this claim. I'm afraid you didn't get it. And I have already given reason why I didn't answer those so-called nitty-gritty questions. What's the matter with you?

Read it again!

I merely said that anti-intellectualism is not prevalent. I am not convinced that it is a major problem, in US or HK.

If Cheung does not agree with me, then answer my "nitty-gritty" questions!!

I insist with thanks that "indeed we have come a long way since the 60's." The "global" Evangelical church WILL NOT become whole-sale anti-intellectual. Period.

訝異

有點訝異這裡的討論變成如此。我建議關心「美國福音派是否反智」這課題的讀者看看頗具權威的福音派歷史學家 Mark A. Noll 的書，The Scandal of Evangelical Mind （我曾寫過此書第一章的撮要，在這裡：http://www.s-h-c.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2642），和他十年後寫的一篇回顧文章，在這裡：http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=385
（至於香港福音派，由於沒有人像 Noll 做這些研究和整理資料，恐怕難以說服不同意的一方。）

很多人連審視一個信仰歷史發展有沒有反智的準則也未掌握，隨便說說這個那個就推論出有反智或無反智（或反智與否並不重要）。

As promised...

 

	I admire Alex’s many balanced, thoughtful and always passionate contribution here and elsewhere. The following, rather at random, is submitted not as a challenge to his current piece, but as an enticement to our readers for more sharing and discussion. I have been in the US over 40 years. While I admit there may still be some anti-intellectual tendencies in the US church, I do not think it is prevalent. I lived thru the [truly] “anti-intellectual” decades of the 50’s and 60’s in HK. And have tried to keep abreast of the HK church since then. My question is: If we call the present-day Evangelical church in HK anti-intellectual, what would we call the HK Evangelical church of the 50-60’s? I think the church, whether US or HK, has come a long way in terms of shaking the label of being anti-intellectual. There are still grounds to be gained sure. But pessimistic? No. Let me get to the nitty-gritty. Allow me to ‘good-naturedly, bombard our readers with these innocent questions: a) What do we really mean when we say the evangelicals are anti-intellectual? b) Is the characterization based more on quantity/numbers or quality/things evangelicals do? c) Why are we singling out the ‘poor’ evangelicals to be so-honored with such ‘title’? d) If evangelicals are anti-intellectual, are our liberal friends not? e) If the answer to the second half of (c) is affirmative, what makes evangelicals anti-intellectual and liberals not? Further, when we say evangelicals are anti-intellectual, are we using the term more or less synonymous with these: Anti-secular; anti-liberal; anti-intellect; anti-education and degrees; downplaying scholarship; refusal to use one’s head or to apply otherwise neutral knowledge and skills (such as in economics, history, science, management, social science, literature, arts, philosophy, psychology, etc…) to Christian life and ministries? Let us remind ourselves that the way we look at the place/role of the intellect reflects the period we live in. And history often oscillates like the pendulum. More significantly, intellectuals as an elite class are always going to be a minority in the church. In the church I attend (a Chinese-American, Chinatown-based multi-cultural and multi-linguistic church), 1/3 is seniors with minimal education while 1/3 is members with post-bachelor agrees. We offer SS courses on the Bible, theology, church history, plus workshops/seminars on many contemporary, diverse and highly-controversial topics. Those who attend these events are always the same 100-150 people. I will never consider my Chinatown-based church “anti-intellectual”.  But will I dare to label my church intellectual? No. And I don’t think there is any need to do so. So, where do we get the idea that evangelicals (or HK evangelicals) are anti-intellectual? I thank God for the sharp minds He has used throughout ages to preserve and hand down the wonderful and diverse Christian heritage to us. The US churches are now richly blessed with exquisite minds next to none. The quantity and quality of mind-boggling :) Christian titles being published weekly are another testament to this blessing from God. The fact that our evangelical seminaries are packed while the liberal ones are begging for students also attests to God’s blessing in another way. Even in my birth-place Hong Kong, I thank God for the presence of many highly educated Christians, either home-grown or expatriates, who now serve in many diverse aspects of the city’s colorful lives and ministries. Our seminaries are now crammed with scholars the likes of which were practically absent in the 50’s! I consider myself highly-educated. I honor the place of the mind in my personal pursuit, Christian or secular. And I continue to pray to God to use the collective intellectual of the church to bless her ministries. *********************** In the following, I embed a few comments on Alex’s article. Hopefully, they will incite further sharing from our readers…
	南西斯在採訪中語重心長地說：「雖然我們並不是好像從前般大張旗鼓地反對知識，可是，今天的反智精神更加『微妙而難以捉摸，……我相信，現在這個問題十分嚴重，如果我們在歷史中不去阻擋這個趨勢，我相信在幾十年後，會出現了一個反智的普世性基督教。」 I agree with Nanez’s description of the present anti-intellectual trends as “subtle”, but I am not as pessimistic. 首先，可能有人會問：「福音派的反智文化真的那麼嚴重嗎？」….可是，參加教會幾十年的基督徒，可能完全未聽聞過特土良、游斯丁、愛任紐，亦不知道諾斯底主義、奧古斯丁、亞奎拿斯主張什麼，一般教會的教導只將人對信仰知識停留在初信階段，更遑論整合信仰和世界的關係，二千年的豐富傳統，彷彿蕩然無物。 What Alex alludes to here merely illustrates the heterogeneous nature of our church. In a typical HK (or even US) church of 100, what % of the members can we rightly expect to have heard of such church fathers’ names as a, b, or c? Or Gnosticism and Augustine, etc? Is 10 % too low? Will 20% make us feel better? But this line of argument is not helpful. What should really worry us is when among ALL of our college-grad members in the church, less than 20% know what these names mean!!!  What should worry us EVEN MORE is when our pastors never mention these people OR preach LITTLE on key theological ideas and trends on our pulpit!! If the above is a true depiction of our current church, then perhaps it is due to: (a) the limited training of the pastors; (b) the narrow vision and perspectives of the church leadership, and (c) the constituency of the church.. 更令人難以費解的是：即使只用三行字概括一個基督教人物的思想，無數人卻認為這些東西「太過學術、太過理性」，在教會中討論會嚇怕人。在北美和香港，許多教會的構成元素都是中產階級，當中有不少專業人士、研究生、大學生。鑽研電腦要處理 Java、.NET、Oracle、mySQL……這些極之複雜的程式編寫；專門於工業工程，則要牽涉到 6-sigma、SPC、response surface……；醫學、會計、法律的高度專業性，就更加不在話下。人們可以應付這些謀殺腦細胞的理性思維活動，但不知何解，一旦談起宗教知識，突然之間，專業人士、研究生、大學生卻變成了小學生。 The above phenomenon is real but may have little to do with anti-intellectualism. It is called dichotomy, spiritual schizophrenia or split-personality. In essence, it is the symptom of an imbalanced Christian life that direly needs correction. Many high tech people in our church will indeed find time for other things, but not theological pursuit, but they are certainly not anti-intellectual。 … 二十年前，筆者曾經聽過這樣的批評：「福音派認為自己已經擁有絕對真理，普世派不斷地探索真理。」I will reinterpret this sentence thusly: To an earnest evangelical, the truths he holds fast to are absolute truths, but to a universalist, all truths are relative. That’s why he is forever searching! Believing in absolute truths does not make me always right. Nor should it turn me into a stubborn bigot! What is absolute truth is NOT me the believer, but the Object of my belief. 結語 　　南西斯認為不去扭轉趨勢，幾十年後將會出現了一個反智的普世性基督教，這是否危言聳聽呢？筆者不會說預言… Are we still talking about evangelicals or penticostals, or the global church? I doubt that the church (or the evangelicals for that matter) will turn globally anti-intellectual. I am sorry, I refuse to be that pessimistic. 梁?超知道要改變當時的中國，恍如精衛填海，福音派的問題，亦如精衛未填之海。 Comparing the modern-day Evangelical church with the day of Leung is not quite appropriate.
	歡迎網上訂戶交流意見

 

Another counterpoint from the web...

Rick Dalbey Says:
March 31st, 2006 at 3:41 pm

Of the more than 40 authors of the Bible, only one might be called an intellectual. Paul had a classical Rabbinical education and a Greek liberal arts education. He was able to quote lines of Greek poetry and debate the sophists and epicureans of his day. Yet for all his education, his observation was that “Few of you were wise in the world’s eyes, or powerful, or wealthy when God called you”. Of himself he says, “When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.”

James, the brother of Jesus also said: Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.

It’s not that Christianity is anti intellectual, it’s that a daily relationship with a living personal God trumps pure intellectualism. So often western christianity’s relationship is with a book (the Bible) and a set of arguments. This would be foreign to the New Testament. The first century Christians communicated daily with a living God and daily experienced his tangible miraculous presence. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that the first century church was pentecostal. Contemporary charismatics and pentecostals would be very at home with the first century emphasis on miracles, healing, prophecy, speaking in tongues and visions. I think these first century christians would be mystified by the predominant cool intellectualism and anti experiential bias of much of contemporary American evangelicalism.

Paul was equipped to speak to the philosophers of his day, as we should be. I am university trained and thankful for it. But I think the reality is that the American Evangelical church is deeply suspicious of a miraculous God. Talk of emotions is OK (We call it “experiential”. There is a revivalistic emotional tradition within the American evangelical church…Asbury, Keswick, Andrew Murray etc.) but two-way communication with a personal God and physical demonstrations of His power is alien to our western way of thinking.

******

(From Anonymous)

Thought-provoking, right? I honestly feel a bit uneasy about all these finger-pointing towards the evangelicals. In the years since the Moral Majority Movement, US evangelicals have been blamed for almost everything short of the 911 catastrophies! If the evangelicals of today, of which I am one, are [still] labelled as anti-intellectual, who are the fundamentalists? Are the liberals anti-intellectual too? If not, why not? How would we characterise an anti-intellectual anyway?

The above questions are all sound topics to pursue. Time and God willing, more later...

 

A response I found in the web

Dierotao Says:
April 1st, 2006 at 4:30 pm

Although I would agree that many in the church are anti-intellectual, I would argue that many more in the church are anti-spiritual, or anti-faith (perhaps it is not ‘mainstream’ enough to have a popular title). And so the problem I have with promoting intellectualism within the church is I believe it will only draw it’s current apathetic state in a different direction. Emotionalism is certainly not relegated to the Charasmatics. What else could a church be when it spends half it’s Sunday morning in song, and the other half in feel-good messege. If some songs were dropped, and the messege were about [insert fancy theological term], would anything be gained. Would not empty emotionalism be replaced by an equally empty intellectualism?

Whatever the brand, we ought to be known for our fruits, not merely our knowledge. While it’s true that even our knowledge can produce fruit, simply aquiring that knowledge will not lead to such production. Men are in desperate need of faith, that they may, whether great intellect or small, step out in strength to proclaim the messege of Jesus Christ to the world. Some may argue that having the proper knowledge may influence men to such action. I would argue that it may, by God’s leading, but that it may just as likely lead men to be so sidetracked and deluded by their intellect they will never have time, in their busy studies, to consider actually applying their great knowledge. Again, I am not condemning the intellect, only arguing that there is a much greater need, a first step, through faith, which has not yet been taken.

Intellect, art, literature, emotion. None may, in themselves, bring about change within christians, within churches, or within the spiritually dying masses of planet earth.

Death to the world, death to self, absolute, unceasing faith, in a new life in Christ, will save souls, whether ‘christian’ or otherwise.

what's next?

As said, u should write more in order to make changes happen. Hope that u'll do some rigorous studies and discussions to attract greater attention.

The aspiration for change

It is already changing! Just think back to the 50's. Don't be discouraged!

As you, the enlightened few (the number is certainly not small) work for change, beware of how you do it. I believe many share with you the aspiration for change.

Response to Alan

I think this atmosphere will eventually change when more and more open-minded and reform-oriented people became pastors, ministers, and Christian leaders. It may take one or two generations to see a change. But it may happen faster when everyone, including you and me, starts doing something bit by bit, day by day.

Response to Alan

I think this atmosphere will eventually change when more and more open-minded and reform-oriented people became pastors, ministers, and Christian leaders. It may take one or two generations to see a change. But it may happen faster when everyone, including you and me, starts doing something bit by bit, day by day.

基督徒注重感性感受 -- 而傷害人感受是彌天大罪

除了反知識反智﹐其實信徒更加比世俗重視群體內部維繫和感受。當任何言論﹑知識冒犯了他們的感受﹐他們不會理會對錯﹐只會圍攻冒犯他們感受的人。

有時﹐也為了顧全感受﹐謊言﹑歪理會被容忍。

Thanks

Thanks and you should write more on this problem. I can see quite many Chinese churches either lack the zeal to learn more about their faith or simply encourage an understanding of the Bible according to their tradition without any critical sense. The very objective is purely individualistic (for spiritual and evangelical purposes). No wonder more and more Christians find their faith powerless and irrelevant in their work place and public sphere.

My personal view is that it's the pastors and church leaders that need most urgently a reformation. The critical and reformation spirit are really lost within reformation churches.