The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, Second Edition
I am very grateful to Christian Scholar’s Review for sponsoring this forum and to the contributors for their kind and constructive remarks.
I am especially gratified that the consensus among the commentators seems to be that, while both mainstream academia and American Christianity have changed dramatically in the past three decades, the principles of Christian scholarship that I tried to articulate in The Outrageous Idea remain as needed as ever.
A number of the commentators reflect on the rapid changes taking place both in academia and in the culture generally, and they note that it is very difficult to predict where things are headed, especially with new technologies and a volatile and polarized political-cultural context. Nonetheless, I find it reassuring that these commentators seem in agreement that the prospects for Christian scholars to relate their Christian principles to their scholarship are still good. One of the observations I make in the new edition is that during the twentieth century there was an influential academic school of thought championing empirical naturalistic-based scientific approaches as the gold-standard for scholarship in general. Already by the 1990s such ideals and assumptions were beginning to fade in influence as multiculturalism and postmodernism were coming on the scene. Nonetheless, they were not disappearing without a fight. And what sparked the book and its title were the very strong reactions of naturalistic empiricists to my earlier advocacy of Christian perspectives as among the intellectually legitimate outlooks in diverse academia. Now, by the third decade of the twenty-first century, I think that naturalistic empiricism is much less of an issue, and in fact Christian scholarship is often flourishing, as the work of these commentators and of Christian Scholar’s Review demonstrates. At the same time, as I reflect on in the updated edition of the book, the polarizations in the culture and in academia present a new set of challenges.
I do not think I have any strong disagreements with any of the commentators, so I hope that readers may take their constructive observations from a variety of disciplines and academic locations as amplifying our ongoing discussions about where and how to take our various pursuits of Christian scholarship from here.
I find Rhonda Jacobsen’s reference to “bowling alone” and what may be increasingly rampant individualism to be a useful starting point for thinking about our present state of affairs. There indeed has been a breakdown of traditional communities, including religious communities, so that denominational loyalties (that were often strengthened by ethnic identities) are much weaker than they used to be. Tradition plays a lesser role as well and it is typical to speak of “my truth” and “my faith,” rather than “our truth” and “our faith.” And that trend then seems to invite some other trends that offer new loyalties. One of these is “identity-driven thinking” in which, as Jacobsen observes, “faith is unavoidably involved.” At the same time, as a number of commentators say, we are in an era of fiercely polarized party politics which offer the individualists on both sides strong ideologically-based partisan loyalties. Some of this partisanship invokes Christianity, often coming with populist pseudo-scholarly claims, as in varieties of Christian Nationalism. Christian academics may find one of their tasks to be to use honest and balanced scholarship to correct some of the partisan claims made by some fellow Christians. Christians in the sciences have long faced similar challenges in responding to claims such as those made by Creation Science.
More broadly, many of the most challenging issues, mentioned by a number of the commentators, have to do with how Christian scholars are to negotiate this cultural polarization. Most of us are likely to share some of the concerns on both sides of the political divide. Further, many of our churches are divided over such issues, and that is likely to mean that those who work in Christian institutions will be at odds with some influential parts of their school’s constituencies.
One of the developments that has struck me most in the twenty-first century is what I call the “evangelical mind/body problem.” On the one hand, in the past half century there has been a wonderful renaissance featuring excellent scholarship in the evangelical world. Christian scholars have multiplied in numbers and diversity and are flourishing in every academic field and at the many church-related colleges and universities they have offered an antidote to rampant individualism as students can participate in four years of an intentional Christian community. Further, many of their graduates carry on impressive Christian vocations. Even so, we have not been successful in reaching most of our most natural constituencies, which would be evangelical churches and communities. Rather, the polarization in our cultural divide tends to correlate with degrees of education, so the contributions of Christian academics are seldom being appreciated among the rank and file of the church communities from which they have come. So it is a common phenomenon today that universities and colleges of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities that have long hoped to be peacemakers in providing thoughtful Christian perspectives for their constituencies now find themselves out of step with large portions of their traditional supporting churches and communities. Administrators often bear the brunt of negotiating such differences, but faculty need to do whatever they can to try to find common ground with those on both sides of the contested issues. The need to be conciliatory, though, will, for some, come into conflict with the desire to be prophetic. Or, for others, it may conflict with their desire to stand up firmly for the essentials of the faith. Still the peacemakers will be blessed.
Christians in secular universities face other variations of the challenges created by our culture’s simultaneous individualistic fragmentation and political polarization. Even though the increased emphases on diversity and the decline of scientific empiricism have made it easier to make the case, in principle, for Christian scholarship, the volatile social-political settings of universities inhibit free expression of some Christian views. As Justin Barrett observes, Christians in university settings may face the challenge that “a commitment to the pursuit of truth may not always coexist comfortably with efforts to be a peacemaker.” Still, I think that is all the more reason why our guiding attitudes need to manifest the Christian virtues, including peacemaking (and also the other “fruits of the spirit”), as much as our distinct Christian intellectual perspectives. Christians also need to be, as James Hunter has well put it, “a faithful presence.” Pursuing one’s discipline well and with generosity will win respect. Further, Christians need to build admirable communities within university settings. Christian study centers can be especially helpful. There are more Christians teaching at secular universities than most people realize and a study center can bring together Christians of a variety of traditions into thoughtful conversation and provide guidance and mentoring for students. Many problems and potential conflicts will remain, but being part of an attractive virtuous community can be a step in the right direction. Churches that serve academic communities should, of course, play similar roles.
As some of the commentators observe, since our academic, cultural, and ecclesiastical settings may well change in unpredicted ways, we can only partially plan future strategies. Still, I’m gratified that the commentors seem to agree that the primary ongoing value of the volume remains in the essential theoretical theological principles of Christian scholarship that make up the substance of the book. These may continue to be applied in a wide variety of settings and circumstances.
