The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, Second Edition
The first edition of George Marsden’s book The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship appeared the same year I completed my doctorate. I eagerly read it and it immediately became a touchstone book for my early career. And so, it was with great enthusiasm that I began reading the second edition. How have the ideas aged? Are they still pertinent now that we are into a post-postmodern ethos in academia? Does Marsden have wisdom for us in navigating the stormy seas of contemporary scholarship as we enter new, uncharted waters? If anything, Professor Marsden’s “outrageous” idea seems less outrageous than it did in the 1990s but is still decidedly counter-cultural and challenging.
At its core, his proposal has two themes. First, “mainstream American higher education should be more open to explicit discussion of the relationship of religious faith to learning” and scholarship (1). After all, “Broadly understood, faith in something or other informs all scholarship” (10), and so rather than arbitrarily privileging some faiths over others, scholars of various religious faiths or none at all “all should participate on equal terms in academic dialogue” (2). The second thrust is that “scholars of religious faith should be reflecting on the intellectual implications of that faith and bringing those reflections into the mainstream of intellectual life” (1), because it will sometimes (but not always) make a substantive difference. This short, readable book is a defense and detailing of this proposal.
Even before reading Professor Marsden’s wonderful little book, I had learned that academia needs thoughtful, integrated Christians doing scholarship that is a natural extension of their lived faith. As a graduate student, I had endured pressure to conform to the functionally-atheist status quo; but I also found that most of my colleagues came to appreciate the diversity of perspective that I brought, both in terms of scholarship and doing life. They regarded me as an in-house resource for biblical insights, different moral perspectives, and alternative frameworks for thinking about the nature of humans.
It was a joy to play this role but it also felt unfair. I bore the common pressure to become excellent in my science, but also the additional burden to answer questions pertaining to theology, biblical studies, and Christian philosophy. Secular faculty members challenged me to think hard about how Christian views of humans meshed with predominant views on human nature. For instance, what did I think about the idea of human souls in light of neuroscientific research? Or human uniqueness in light of evolutionary biology? That is, I was expected to reflect upon how my worldview intersected with my scholarship to a degree far beyond my agnostic colleagues.
Discovering Professor Marsden’s book, then, was exhilarating and fortifying. He helped normalize my experience and gave me tools for thinking about it. As he persuasively argues, self-consciously Christian scholars and their scholarship have a great deal to offer academia and the pursuit of knowledge as a whole, even when that scholarship is not necessarily distinctive. He also draws our attention to the fact that Christian scholars who take this path will find themselves functioning like so many other minorities in academia: subject to heightened scrutiny and required to show how their atypical approaches to their scholarship are justified and valuable. No doubt this second edition will serve as a treasured professional companion to a new generation of Christian scholars.
The most important objection to Marsden’s thesis, particularly in the sciences, is likely to be an insistence that it isn’t arbitrary to privilege the assumptions of naturalistic, nonreligious worldviews. As Marsden observes in his new concluding chapter, when the first edition was published, “[secularists] believed that the intellectual life of modern civilization would be healthier if it moved beyond unverifiable religious influences and toward more empirical and hence objective standards” (131). Such a belief is much less dominant in academia today due to a greater diversity of secular viewpoints along with a growing recognition that these viewpoints are also built upon unverifiable and/or non-empirical premises. “So while a good many champions of strict empiricism can still be found, they can hardly speak as though they represent self-evident academic orthodoxy” (131).
The point is not that empirical evidence should not hold a special place in scholarship; nor that non-empirical evidence (e.g., tradition, personal experience, divine revelation) should be able to trump inter-subjectively available empirical evidence. Marsden is clear that he is not calling for Christian scholars to rely on evidence that is only accepted by fellow Christians. To do so would be unpersuasive and isolating. Rather, the truth is that much of scholarship—even in the natural sciences—assumes premises that are not, themselves, direct inferences from empirical evidence or otherwise self-evident. Furthermore, how scholars argue for the importance of their projects, what implications they draw from their findings, and how they present their conclusions to various audiences are all determined by the particular values scholars bring to the task. Marsden’s encouragement is for us all to be more self-conscious about what these values are and how they matter to our scholarly work.
In addition to discussing the alleged supremacy of empirical and “objective” approaches, Marsden’s book also presents and parries strong counterarguments against the idea of Christian scholarship. For instance, does multiculturalism, diversity, and inclusion somehow require all perspectives, or at least historically dominant ones, to remain silent? Largely drawing upon the post-modern context in which the book was written, he shows that to disallow openly Christian scholarship but to tolerate or even celebrate feminist, Marxist, or any other particular perspectival scholarship is hypocritical. On these matters the second edition is just as timely. Similarly, to claim that somehow Christian scholarship should not be afforded the same place in academia because it is the scholarship of the oppressor, is not only incoherent with the usual arguments in favor of scholarly diversity, but also ignorant of the history of higher education in the United States (at least). Many younger disciplines have never seen Christian perspectives as the dominant positions, including anthropology, cognitive science, computer science, environmental studies, evolutionary studies, gender studies, psychology, and many others. That self-consciously Christian scholarship in environmental studies should be silenced because it has already enjoyed being the predominant viewpoint is confused and ignorant.
This second edition of Marsden’s book includes a new concluding chapter that focuses on how Christians should conduct themselves in the even more fractured academic environment of the 21st century. He rightly observes that “it has become somewhat less plausible to speak as though strictly empirical outlooks based upon scientific models are the gold standard for intellectual progress” (131). The result: “Mainstream academia is still overwhelmingly secularist. Yet secularist viewpoints appear in many competing forms, often themselves bearing unverifiable premises” (131). Consequently, “when it comes to evaluative questions such as, what is just or what is good, there increasingly are irreconcilable differences regarding basic principles from which to argue and there is no generally accepted court of appeal” (132). With such perspectives in hand, Marsden appeals to Christian scholars to “work to build equitable law and order” (133), to be faithful representatives of God’s presence on earth in these challenging spaces, and to do both by exercising core Christian virtues in scholarly communities and through their scholarship. He encourages us to be “loving peacemakers who are willing to listen and to take seriously the views of others” (136). He observes that “to be loving means to be charitable and so to try to understand the opposing point of view and to treat it fairly” (145). Our scholarship should also be characterized by humility and the pursuit of moral beauty.
I find such an emphasis on Christian virtues both compelling and refreshing. So much of our reflection upon how Christian theology or worldview should motivate and inflect scholarship rightly focuses on getting our ideas properly aligned. We talk about integrating Christian theology with chemistry, literature, or sociology. But when we shift our attention from integrating systems of ideas to how to live God-given scholarly vocations, virtues and values become as important as having the right ideas. As an integrated scholar, I want to be able to answer for myself these five questions: How do my theological beliefs encourage scientific work? How does my faith inspire my topics of study? How does my faith inform my research methods? How does my faith illuminate my interpretation and presentation of findings? How does my faith transform how I interact with colleagues? Answering these questions well requires some careful thought, but it also requires an infusion of social and intellectual virtues. Marsden is surely correct that Christian scholarship must do more than combine theological propositions with new empirical findings. We must also do our scholarship in a way that displays intellectual humility (but not diffidence), courage, kindness, and love.
As I read Marsden’s treatment, I found myself wondering how to navigate points of tension between various virtues. A commitment to the pursuit of truth may not always coexist comfortably with efforts to be a peacemaker. When is it that intellectual courage and an abiding commitment to God’s truth requires us to disrupt, to push back, to more forcefully offer clear alternatives to our colleagues operating with different commitments? In the medical, psychological, and social sciences, as well as in many of the humanities, concepts of wellbeing, human thriving, wellness, and societal goods play pivotal roles. Though informed by empirical evidence, all these concepts are deeply value-laden and yet the values of Christians and other people of faith are swept aside by mainstream cultural currents. Are we too quick to embrace longevity as an unqualified good in the medical sciences? Have we too quickly accepted, or even embraced, the new academic orthodoxy surrounding human sexuality and gender? In the social and human sciences, have we forsaken Christian perspectives on what constitutes wellbeing and human thriving in favor of “mainstream” viewpoints? On topics such as these, it can be hard to tell when Christian compliance or passivity is from an effort to be kind, patient, and peaceful rather than born of fear, embarrassment, or an attempt to curry favor with those in power. Marsden has provided some tools for addressing these tensions, but he leaves it to us to use these tools.
Though Marsden offers valuable insights into how Christian scholars can impact academia, I am left wondering how Christian scholarship can be cultivated more effectively. He suggests that Christian colleges and universities, as well as Christian study centers associated with secular institutions, can play a key role in supporting Christian scholars and serving as incubators of Christian scholarship. Nonetheless, more concrete steps are needed. One significant obstacle is the culture of academic publishing, particularly in scientific fields. Many journals refuse to publish work that even hints at Christian motivations, which can render Christian scholarship invisible in mainstream academic discourse, thereby reinforcing its apparent superfluousness (or worse).
More importantly, I wonder whether we are on the brink of a revolution in higher education that will decouple scholarship from teaching and traditional institutions. New educational models, such as online learning platforms and corporate-sponsored research, could radically alter the academic landscape. In such a future, discussions of how Christian universities promote Christian scholarship may become moot if these institutions no longer produce scholarship or even cease to exist. The future of Christian scholarship may lie in new formats, such as virtual academies, church-based scholarship, or independent scholarly networks. The future of Christian scholarship is much less clear than the case for it. It is no great criticism, however, to say that George Marsden the historian hasn’t given us a clear glimpse of the future. What he has given us is a clear and compelling charge to build that future.
