Intellectual Elite Or Evangelical?

 

My recent writings on the Norman Geisler issue has brought to mind a topic related to the importance of using knowledge (rather than instinct) to interpret the Bible. That is, whether the search for such knowledge is one that should be exercised within certain limits. And if so, to what degree? Can one go too far in learning about the contexts needed for good Bible's interpretation? Should we be suspicious of the perceived "intellectual elite" in Christianity - scholars like Licona, NT Wright and such who challenge people to deeper study of the Bible? This is worth considering when such studies reveal conflicts with the interpretation of Biblical texts assumed true by the majority of church-goers.

This issue first came to mind for me months ago as I was following the Facebook posts of a prominent Christian author of the "emergent" philosophy (which includes such individuals as Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, etc). I say it was a few months ago because it has honestly been that long since I have read any of his posts. Why? The more I read his writing, the more I saw a disturbing pattern develop as the author's biggest enemy became more clear and concise. That enemy? Nothing more than what he perceived as an 'intellectual elite' in Christianity, that being scholars, theologians and individuals running seminary institutions. In short, the very people responsible for mentoring and training the next generation of Christian leaders.

Relating his own personal experiences, our emergent friend saw in these individuals a hindrance to the practice of Christianity. By over-emphasizing studying, doctrinal integrity and context, the author saw his professors holding him (and likely others) back from authentic life-changing ministry . In his mind, after all, the early church was not so stuffy and organized. It was more “organic” in structure and “dynamic” with their preaching – shouldn't he be the same?

The crux of this conflict was wanting to “do” ministry and make a difference for people, but not wanting to get overly concerned about the details. He wanted to be active – and for this I think anyone can respect him and identify. What he continuously found frustration with (and where I think his childishness comes through), was that his mentors warned him that, without more schooling, he could do as much harm as he perceived he was doing good.

So, can one be too concerned for doctrine? Was this author onto something important for Christians to consider? Are apologists, scholars and like-minded individuals keeping too many people away from Christianity? Are we not putting enough emphasis on “sharing Christ”? This is an important issue - in the balance is whether or not the efforts of seminaries are overdone; whether or not orthodox Christianity panders to an exalted cadre of modern Pharisees. In question is whether or not the gospel is even communicated effectively. Take every thought captive with me as we look to investigate this further!

First, it is important to point out that variations of statements such as “the early church was organic and dynamic” are well-meaning but ill-conceived. Justification for the emergent over-emphasis of “sharing Christ” is found in this perception of the 1st century Christians. But while we don't see the level of organization that would exist in the 16th century Catholic church, the Bible has clear indicators the early church relied on structure and order. Paul spends much time in his letters to Timothy laying out qualifications for positions of hierarchy – deacons, elders and the like – the whole time preparing Timothy himself to serve as a pastor. Without structure, after all, how would a deviant and unpopular movement like Christianity even expect to thrive?

Structured or not, the evangelistic tactics of the church in Acts is portrayed as emphasizing Christ, right? Well, yes - Christ was the focus of every message delivered by the early church to the Gentiles. Christ was the founder of the movement, the catalyst for the entire religion. But what was it about Christ that was so critical for the apostles to share? Missing from the words of Peter's early sermons are anything about “relationship with Christ” or personal therapy. When Christ was mentioned, what was important was proof: of his identity (Acts 2:22, 36; Acts 3:13, Acts 5:31), of his death and resurrection (Acts 2:31-32; Acts 3:15, Acts 5:30, Acts 10:40) and of his fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 2:33; Acts 3:18, 24-26). It is only in the letters of Paul, written to fellow believers, that we see any emphasis towards how we treat others (that is, within the church).

This should not be surprising – many apostles, though often considered to be something like the cast of “Twelve Angry Men” (ordinary citizens called to jury duty), were the scholars and intellectuals of their day. Luke was a physician, and many scholars of Greek have pointed out how advanced and polished his mastery was of the language. Paul was a devout Pharisee and scholar of the Old Testament literature before his conversion. Matthew was no “drug store” tax return specialist but a “chief tax collector” - someone responsible for getting the Roman government their money. All individuals more concerned with knowing and proving their point, not making friends!

In other words, these were not average Joes, but individuals who worked hard at what they did, and were likely chosen for that reason. They could be trusted to go more than halfway with Jesus. Perhaps that is why Paul admonished Timothy to present himself “as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed” (2 Tim 2:15) and to be “diligent...so everyone may see your progress” (1 Timothy 4:15) This being the same Paul who encouraged the Corinthians to “eagerly desire spiritual gifts” (1 Corinthians 14:1, emphasis mine) Examples are plentiful, if I would continue, but if we consider this a model for our behavior, doesn't it seem as if we should work harder to show appreciation of the gift we are given?

In case my focus on the apostles has you wondering “what about Jesus? Didn't he still want people to take it easy?”, allow me to share with you some things Jesus said about hard work. In Luke 10:2, Jesus laments a plentiful crop of souls without enough people working to harvest it. In John 6:27 we're told by Jesus to work for the fruits of eternal life. He tells the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) to warn against laziness in responding to God's generous gifting. Jesus even warns us to count the costs of following him before doing so (Luke 14:27-33) – implying that it is not an easy life by any means, but one that is difficult and committed to learning.

Clearly, Jesus wanted us to work hard for the sake of his kingdom. This means individuals who persist in working hard and growing more will ultimately stand out against the pew warmers of the faith. Some sort of “elite”, in other words, will exist within Christ's body - by nature! Viewed another way, there will always be Christians more prominent in the public than others. The reason is their dedication to studying, teaching and evangelizing persists beyond what others are capable of (Billy Graham comes to mind). Otherwise, why do we remember these individuals, or the apostles themselves, so well?

In fact, I can find no place in scripture where God has put limits on hard work and knowledge, beyond the basic need for discernment in being sure such was used properly. In fact, a high emphasis on doctrine can merely be seen as the result of an intellectual Christian hard at work! But this is as valuable as a serving Christian whose life is all inner-city ministry and soup kitchens. Neither one is dangerous to the work of the kingdom. Both help advance it and serve to ensure God's full and complete message is communicated.

Our emergent author's insistence that doctrine is over-emphasized also fits poorly into the bulk of New Testament scriptures warning against false doctrine. (1 Timothy 1:3-4, 18-20; 1 Timothy 4:1-8, 2 Peter 2:1-3, Titus 2:1-2, Hebrews 2:1)  It would almost seem our friend thinks too much emphasis in churches is put on learning, but clearly is afraid to emphasize learning himself! In fact, the level of education, discernment and discipline we expect from our leaders should be high. Allow me to share examples of well-known teachers and preachers who pressed on in pursuit of ministry without the relevant education of their day. JP Holding has pointed out:

“Joseph Smith was a barely educated teenager...Mary Baker Eddy...didn’t have any serious education to speak of and was mainly self-taught. Jim Jones, head of the People's Temple, had a degree…in education. Ellen White of Adventism had no formal schooling.”

Each of these individuals is very well-known in Christian circles today. But if you didn't recognize them, they are all well-known for having started unorthodox Christian groups (often called 'cults'). They are all individuals who taught the Bible in ways that are questionable or contradictory to the majority consensus. (whether or not you believe their teachings wrong is a matter of your own discernment).

To be sure, studying hard and reaching high levels of achievement are not a fool-proof barrier against doctrinal error. One can certainly ignore the other disciplines and virtues Christ has called us to practice and overdo their learning. History has clear examples of such individuals. Marcion, a bishop in the early church who first proposed a New Testament cannon be formed, clung to many pro-Gnostic philosophies [1]. He started countless churches where he taught that YHWH, the God of the Old Testament, was distinct from and antithetical to the God of the New Testament, which Jesus was born of. His interpretations on the Bible, in fact, led the Roman church to realize a need to define orthodox belief apart from heresy! Arius, a presbyter and student of St. Lucian, was known as someone of strong convictions, and yet stirred up a controversy that led to the church's first ecumenical council. [2] He was convinced that if Jesus was born of God the Father, then Jesus at one point did not co-exist with God.

But these individuals were rare, and for a reason. In their time, they were part of the few, the proud, the literate – less than 10% of their population. They were the small pool of people from which your teachers could come.  This meant there was an equally small pool of people who could challenge and correct them. The people warming the pews simply weren't able to understand such matters themselves. They could only hang on every word they were given. And this is why such a position had immense, unfathomable responsibility - one only met with equal care in learning and training. Otherwise, why would James give such a harsh warning to teachers? (James 3:1) 

With a larger pool of people being literate in modern days, it ensures it's harder for people in positions of power to cause doctrinal delusion. However, such literacy does not guard against delusions – it only means individuals themselves are now more responsible for them. Whether it's predicting the end-of-the-world, making Jesus a therapist or legitimizing Jedi as a personal religious choice – many literate and intelligent people develop weak beliefs like this by not being trained and disciplined. “Emergents” who fight against the mentors concerned about discernment and influence are merely mistaken in thinking they can help more people. Help them how – by making them feel better but still letting them create a false God, in their image?

In case you still struggle with the importance of working hard over any “personal” connections to Jesus, I submit this practical example of how hard work paid for a special 8 year old boy. By simply putting in effort to study what was put before him - not expecting it to be spoon fed – he achieved something rare and unusual. So do we thumb our nose at him because his exceptional focus on learning rather than living? I hope not! Does it not at least feel natural to marvel at his accomplishment? So should it be with our brothers and sisters as well, working hard to ensure doctrine improves in the church. These people should be respected and heard, not rejected and ignored. Do we desire, after all, for the church to have a semblance of intelligence? Or do we wish it to only be a place of wishful thinking wherein Peter Pan might find a home, too? 



[1]  "Marcion." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 29 June 2012. Web. 26 July 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion>. 
[2] "Arius." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 21 July 2012. Web. 26 July 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius>.