The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind

by Mark A. Noll

Evangelical

Genres: Theology, History, Religion, Christian, Christianity, Nonfiction, Philosophy

256 pages, Hardcover

First published October 1, 1994

About the author

Mark A. Noll (born 1946), Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History at the University of Notre Dame, is a progressive evangelical Christian scholar. In 2005, Noll was named by Time Magazine as one of the twenty-five most influential evangelicals in America. Noll is a prolific author and many of his books have earned considerable acclaim within the academic community. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind , a book about the anti-intellectual tendencies within the American evangelical movement, was featured in a cover story in the popular American literary and cultural magazine, Atlantic Monthly. He was awarded a National Humanities Medal in the Oval Office by President George W. Bush in 2006.

Reviews

[Ana Mardoll · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind / 0-8028-4180-5

I read about Mark Noll's book through Fred Clark's superb Slactivist blog, and was intrigued. Although I am no longer a Christian myself, I do enjoy the writings of Christian intellectuals and I am sensitive to their pain in belonging to a community that, by and large, defines itself as anti-intellectuals and all others as apostates. I am surprised, therefore, to find myself in a position where I cannot recommend Noll's book.

"The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" is plagued with the rambling tone of a poorly edited dissertation, with random and often jarring attempts to 'sound' scholarly, without actually contributing such. For instance, the first chapter is largely taken up with a side-detour into 'defining our terms' and include such terms as "America" defined here as: "Throughout the book, "America" will mostly mean the United States", with a side note to the effect that Canada will be tossed in now and again. I honestly don't see the point of any of this, and the whole thing feels like a bad attempt at sounding like a textbook - say "United States" when necessary, "Canada" where appropriate, and "North America" when needed, and move on with the point. Similarly, the lackluster attempts to define such 'exotic' terms as "anti-intellectual" and "the mind" seem to have risen less out of an actual need to connect with the reader and more out of an attempt to sound like what Noll thinks an intellectual should sound like.

More to the point, I think Noll has fundamentally missed the point entirely with his book. While I could not agree more that evangelical Christianity needs to embrace the mind and intellect more (or at least stop outright rejecting it), Noll laments the lack of really intellectual Christian colleges and truly intellectual Christian periodicals - places where intellect is nurtured from a uniquely Christian perspective - but, in saying so, I feel that he has completely missed the point entirely.

The problem, I feel, with Christian periodicals and Christian schools is not that they are not intellectual (they are not), but that they are 'Christian' at all. 'Christian' periodicals and colleges aren't Christian in order to nurture the intellect from a 'Christian perspective' (a meaningless statement), but rather they are 'Christian' out of an isolationist goal - a way to prevent 'secular' thoughts and concepts from intruding onto the brain, and thereby remaining safe from the world. Such an isolationist perspective - that the very *existence* of secular thoughts and influences will taint one's spirituality - cannot help but be anti-intellectual to the core, for if intellectualism is an attempt to understand the world, isolationism is an attempt to avoid such understanding entirely.

Mark's stated goal for 'Christian' colleges and periodicals is that such devices should exist in order to nurture the intellect from a "Christian perspective". This statement is, however, meaningless in my opinion - and seems to suggest that a Christian would (and indeed *should*) interpret, say, the literature of Margaret Atwood or the art of Picasso in a fundamentally different way than would, say, an atheist, or a Muslim, or a Wiccan. Indeed, I find the very idea almost appalling - in as much as a person's chosen religion gives them a different way of looking at the world around them, Noll seems to be suggesting that a person's religion should *always* give them a fundamentally different viewpoint from everyone else, in all things and at all times, and that these difference of opinions should be nurtured to the exclusion of all else.

To the contrary, I believe that if evangelical Christianity is ever to shed its anti-intellectual trappings, it *must* also shed its isolationist policies, as the one is a direct consequence of the other. To that end, I think that Noll has the completely wrong solution: we must have fewer Christian colleges, not more. Beyond this point, I think Noll's book would profit greatly from tighter editing and much clearer picture of what he wants to say and how to say it - eschewing the pseudo-scholarly language for something clearer and more direct.

~ Ana Mardoll

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Puritans who settled Massachusetts combined heart-felt devotion to Christ with a love of theology. They practiced a vigorous intellectual life centered on the Bible and embraced cutting edge science like inoculation against disease. By the time of the First Great Awakening however, this tradition had degenerated into a formal and lifeless orthodoxy. Noll argues that during the First Great Awakening evangelicals like George Whitfield tried to revive the church with biblical preaching and a theatrical style that appealed to the masses and called for an emotional response.

Whitfield unwittingly contributed to the anti-intellectualism of the time and promoted an anti-institutional Christianity that would abandon the intellectual centers of the culture. This biblical democratism meant that the Bible does not belong to me as part of a historical community known as the church but it belongs to me as an individual. For most evangelicals the Bible became a book dropped from the sky for self-help purposes (97). Edwards resisted the anti-intellectual tendencies of experience based revivalism, but evangelicals continued to abandon the life of the mind and have been paying the price in academic credibility ever since.

Noll cites creation science as exhibit A, because it fails to allow the book of nature to help us interpret the book of Scripture. Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield were better in this regard than evangelicals who seem to think it's a virtue to abandon cutting edge scientific research to unbelievers and fight for a twenty-four hour creation days (which is not even the historical position of church fathers like Augustine). This is one reason why evangelicals haven't developed any major research universities.

Where evangelicals did try to maintain intellectual credibility they attempted to articulate Christian truth in the secular, rationalistic, and mechanistic language of the Enlightenment. This was a cultural accommodation that tempted the church give up the home field advantage it enjoyed during most of Western civilization. Noll calls Witherspoon, Hodge, and Warfield to account for making revelation dependent on reason for its credibility.

In concert with the Enlightenment marginalizing Christian faith to the private sphere, Noll points out how dispensationalism, the holiness movement, and Pentecostalism compound the scandal by putting forth a Christianity that turns the things of earth “strangely dim.” Noll reminds us that what is distinctive about American Christianity is not necessarily essential to the gospel. Thus evangelicals need to rediscover history.

Noll also points out that evangelicals have preserved the one thing that can revitalize the Christian mind--the gospel. Thus Noll is still a fan of his own tradition, and he calls evangelicals to scandalize the scandal by reentering the intellectual centers of cultural without compromising the gospel and the authorty of biblical revelation. This means reaffirming that since God is the author of both Scripture and nature the two books interpret each other as we press on. Noll also promotes a Reformation theology that embraces a comprehensive view of the world that affirms the goodness of creation and the need to redeem it with Christian action.

Since Noll published Scandal in 1994, evangelicals have continued to rediscover history and press forward with scientific research in intelligent design and the human genome project ( a la Francis Collins who doesn't seem to be a fan of Intelligent Design, :(). But much of the church growth movement continues to play to our radical individualism with its focus on self-help and personal success. Evangelical Christians still need to be challenged by Noll to scandalize the scandal.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great, with some lousy bits.

[Alex Strohschein · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" has become a landmark publication in Christian circles. In it, the distinguished historian Mark A. Noll offers a critique of evangelicalism's attitude towards the life of the mind.

The book deals primarily with the state of American evangelicalism, although Noll sometimes notes the contributions and goings-on of Canadian and British evangelicals. According to Noll, the decline of the evangelical mind in America had much to do with the Revivals and the rise of 20th century fundamentalism. Although the First Great Awakening featured a figure of the intellectual calibre as Jonathan Edwards, the movement did not produce any sophisticated successors to the Princeton theologian. The sermons of the revival preachers were aimed at Americans' hearts rather than their heads and, to their credit, generated a renewal of piety. Theology was filtered to remove confusion and the sermons reflected broader Christian beliefs rather than the distinctive doctrines of denominations. As well, although many clergymen served as presidents of America's prestigious universities, they were eventually replaced by a business elite who downplayed the importance of Christian thinking in favours of skills that would prepare students for the workforce.

The other factor that led to the decline of the evangelical mind was the rise of fundamentalism which promoted a literary reading of the Biblical text, a Baconian approach to science, an acquiescence to Enlightenment ideas and a fixation on the Apocalypse (indeed, Noll calls fundamentalists "Manicheans" because in their fervour for the supernatural, they have spurned study of the natural world). Noll suggests that the lingering conflict between science and fundamentalists/evangelicals is to be blamed on the government's public promotion of knowledge; the government mandates schools to use textbooks that contend for the evolutionary view which affronts fundamentalist creationists who see this as an assault upon God's sovereignty.

Noll reflects on certain areas of knowledge, particularly philosophy, politics and science. He applauds the philosophical contributions of Christians, noting the "philosophical renaissance" being experienced in the academy, thanks to the likes of Nicholas Wolterstorff and Alvin Plantinga. He notes the mixed results of evangelical engagement with politics (noting evangelicals' activist tendencies). He laments the tension still being experienced in Christianity's relationship with science - a recent phenomenon he declares as he reveals that an evangelical as respected as B.B. Warfield (1851-1921) had no qualms about accepting evolution as God's means of creating.

What is particularly significant about this critique is that Noll himself identifies as an evangelical. This allows him to offer an insider's view of the current Christian intellectual climate. Despite his criticism of fundamentalist, charismatic and dispensationalist thought which he blames for the decline in the evangelical mind, he does end the book charitably, noting that evangelicals, though they may not be winning Nobel Prizes, do have sincere zeal and passion for bringing people to Christ.

This is a valuable read for any Christian. What stands out particularly for me is Noll's contention that American evangelicalism is populist and practical (values I strongly uphold myself). This can cripple evangelism because Christian thought is diluted to its barest essentials to avoid obscurantism and no attention is given to unnecessary things such as aesthetics (think of how many evangelical churches pay little heed to arts in worship). However, it is this populism and practically that has arguably been the fuel of evangelicalism in the first place, as Noll himself suggests when comparing thriving American churches with the older, elitist churches of Europe which have suffered dramatic decline. While this book was published in 1994, part of me wishes an updated edition would be published with Noll's assessment following the massive popularity of the "Left Behind" series (with the first book released a year after in 1995). Noll does end the book somewhat optimistically by looking at gains evangelicals have made in intellectual fields. Indeed, I do believe many evangelicals, particularly the "young, restless and Reformed" group, have demonstrated an enthusiastic passion for the life of the evangelical mind.
___________

Reread it in June 2016-July 2016. On second reading, it's still great. A couple of things that stood out. I wish Noll addressed how the "scandal of the evangelical mind" has affected evangelical aesthetics. Noll explores how fundamentalists and evangelicals have engaged and disparaged science, philosophy and politics, but he is generally silent on art. This is a notable omission, especially since art, like study, is often carried out for its own sake, for loving the thing in and of itself (Noll notes evangelicals are activistic, not contemplative).

Additionally, Noll could have provided some more concrete suggestions for how evangelicals can foster a life of the mind. Arguably, the church, rather than the academy, is a more crucial place for such intellectual formation, especially since significant proportions of fundamentalists and evangelicals do not have the opportunity to attend college. Pastors often occupy the critical "intermediary" position;" they tend to have studied hermeneutics, exegesis, Christian history, etc...and they are looked upon as faithful guides to Christian living, but they also function as large-scale communicators so they translate ideas and understandings into simpler terms than, say, David Bentley Hart. A great example of how the local CHURCH can help cultivate the life of the mind is Learner's Exchange, hosted by St. John's Vancouver every Sunday morning where clergy, professors and laity discuss topics such as hospitality, the spirituality of wine and assessing the crusades.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 5 out of 5]

A clear and passionate explanation of the intellectual state of the evangelical movement in America. As someone raised within conservative evangelicalism, but drawn to intellectual pursuits, I found this book to be both clarifying and reassuring (I'm not crazy, after all!). The reader should know that much of the book is taken up with history - following, in broad swaths, the evangelical movement across two centuries of American thought. I found this to be incredibly helpful, as Noll points to the seeds of anti-intellectual thought that are also part of what has made evangelicalism a powerful populist movement that has, for better or worse, left an indelible imprint on the American religious experience writ large.

Reading this in a post-2016 America is particularly fascinating, as much of Noll's argument is concerned with political thought. The evangelical legacy is certainly a complicated one, with much to both be proud of and deeply embarrassed by, and Noll's argument manages to capture the good and the bad, resulting in a sharp critique and a clarion call to repent and do better. I found it to be inspiring and, as mentioned, deeply reassuring. Highly recommended for anyone who is processing their own evangelical baggage, or even anyone wishing to understand the thought-world of conservative American evangelicalism today.

[Christian Lingner · Rating 4 out of 5]

At the end of the day, Noll makes the argument, and one I find compelling, that the distinctive elements of evangelicalism (activism, intuitionism, populism, biblicism, among other things) have deterred meaningful Christian reflection on the world. His analysis was helpful in outlining the historical development of this elusive thing (or group of traditions) that we like to call evangelicalism, and it assisted me in getting a better grasp on the thing itself.

The one thing I wasn’t convinced of, if I’m honest, is whether or not evangelicalism has anything positive to offer that can’t be found in more robust form in other traditions. There are certainly things to admire in evangelicalism, but the things to be admired are hardly essential to it (for instance, an emphasis on supernatural realities and the importance of the scriptures). I tend to feel more inclined toward a tradition that upholds those orthodox tenets of the faith without all the...TV pastors.

That said, I continue to hold dear many things I have learned from evangelicalism and, if I’m honest, I have a more complicated and conflicted relationship with it than my idealistic mind would wish—at least would wish much of the time. There’s just something about a good, Bible Belt sermon now and again, amiright?

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

Scandal is an older book, but one that should be read by Evangelicals even though it's a bit dated. It's written by Mark Noll, a history professor and former professor of my friend who suggested it. The main strength of the book is in its discussion of the rise of Fundamentalism and its effect on the pursuit of Evangelical scholarship. Moreover, Dr. Noll examines the effects on political thought and science with pointed critiques of the Christian right and creation science. I found myself saying "That's why Evangelicals tend to be one-issue voters." Or, "That's why creation science is so crippled in its observations of nature."

When I finished the book, I was inspired to consider how I might contribute intellectually and have actually taken some initial steps forward. However, it also caused me to reflect about how I was treated in Evangelical churches when I was pursuing a graduate degree. It was common to be quoted out of context that "knowledge puffs up". Or, "Why pursue a PhD when the fields are ripe for the harvest?" The anti-intellectualism is unfortunately still prevalent in the Evangelical church today: thus, my recommendation to read it.

Footnote: Consider reading Politics by Wayne Grudem and essays in the New Atlantis by Stephen L. Talbott - “Getting Over the Code Delusion” (Summer 2010), “The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings” (Fall 2010), and “What Do Organisms Mean?” (Winter 2011), and "Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness" (Fall 2011).

[C. Varn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mark A. Noll is a first rate historian, a powerful voice for evangelicals, and a stern critic of the intellectual and social position evangelicals found themselves in at the end of the last century. While not an evangelical, Noll documents how a mixture of populism and activists forced a diverse tradition with religious intellectuals to freeze its thought in the popular sentiments of the late 19th and early 20th century, making the tradition that produced luminaries such as Jonathan Edwards into a revivalist remembered for a largely uncharacteristic fire and brimstone sermon mostly read in secular public schools. Noll documents that the populist tradition that produced borderline socialists like Bryant became more and more related and interlinked with the right alone.

Noll does not totally acknowledge the larger social context moved similarly because he seems to be believe that evangelicals should have known better, and Noll finds more hope when he wrote the book than the next decade or two of American religious life has born out. Evangelicals pulling from mainline and Catholic intellectuals did not completely revive their thinking, and evangelical political thinking has declined some dramatically even in the US's current right-wing mood.

As a non-evangelical and a non-Christian, I find this book indicates trends in American life that have religious orients but have manifested in secular populist movements left and right. The trend of activism and actionism moves people to shut down their mind and opportunistically reply the sentiment of a public at a particular time; however, the public learns and moves on and the true believers believe in capitulation as a gospel truth. The scandal of the evangelical mind is that isn't one, but this is not remotely unique to the evangelical, or Protestant, or Christian, or even religious, mind.

[Stan Shelley · Rating 3 out of 5]

I agree with the premise but this is a flawed book. Yes evangelical Christians need to pursue excellence in all legitimate categories of academics and currently this does not happen nearly enough. But the author seems to suggest that Christians who adhere to doctrines different from those he adheres to are automatically anti-intellectual. This is just not true. Also the author naively seems to think that if a Christian achieves real excellence in some field of the academy, he/she will automatically be welcomed at the table of that discipline. This also is not true. Ask CS Lewis who, after 29 years at Oxford, was still not given a professorship, in part because he was a Christian.

[Kaleb]

Mark Noll argues that certain features of American evangelicalism have led it to have an anti-intellectual bias. A common-sense or literal interpretation of scripture, dispensationalism, apocalyptic speculation, mistrust of the material world, creationism, and an activist culture have all contributed to a culture within American evangelicalism largely hostile to intellectualism. Of course, some of these same features have also contributed to evangelicalism’s great strengths: evangelism, service to the poor, a commitment to Christian orthodoxy, and careful attention to the Bible.

As it stands, there are plenty of evangelicals who are scientists, historians, and so forth. But these identities are often separate from one another; instead of integrating knowledge of the world and faith, evangelical culture can often force them apart. In Noll’s view, a deeper understanding of God's creation, as revealed in the natural world and human institutions, can help us better understand God and vice versa, theology can show us the limits and purposes of scholarship.

Much of the book is historical, tracing the development of American evangelicalism and its ideas, starting with the Revolution. Evangelicals once had a much better relationship with scholarship, but for a range of reasons (Darwinism, the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, the rise of dispensationalism, etc.), that relationship turned sour. At times, evangelicalism drifts into a kind of semi-gnosticism: why bother caring about the natural world when the only thing that matters is getting into heaven? Often, the material world is viewed as inferior to the spiritual, leading to fascination with when and how the end times will come (see the endless speculation about the Rapture). Noll argues that traditionally, both Christianity in general and evangelicalism in particular have not viewed the material world as inferior to the spiritual. Instead, the material world is to be loved and understood as the creation of God. There is no hostility between knowledge of the world and knowledge of God.

Noll is an evangelical, and he ends the book by pointing out some of the positives of evangelical culture and how the passion and fervor that evangelicals have for God can be turned toward a love of learning and the life of the mind. Ultimately, Noll clearly has a lot of affection for evangelical culture, and he’s critical of the unexamined assumptions of certain secular scholars. It’s not just that evangelicals need to get better at scholarship; the largely secular academy can also learn a lot from people of faith.

Quotes

“The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind. An extraordinary range of virtues is found among the sprawling throngs of evangelical Protestants in North America, including great sacrifice in spreading the message of salvation in Jesus Christ, open-hearted generosity to the needy, heroic personal exertion on behalf of troubled individuals, and the unheralded sustenance of countless church and parachurch communities. Notwithstanding all their other virtues, however, American evangelicals are not exemplary for their thinking, and they have not been so for several generations.”

“This epistle is not a letter of resignation from the evangelical movement. It intends rather to be a cri du coeur on behalf of the intellectual life by one who, for very personal reasons, still embraces the Christian faith in an evangelical form.”

“The Gospel of John tells us that the Word who was made flesh and dwelt among us, full of a glorious grace and truth, was also the Word through whom all things—all phenomena in nature, all capacities for fruitful human interaction, all the kinds of beauty—were made. To honor that Word as he deserves to be honored, evangelicals must know both Christ and what he has made.”

“If evangelicals have systematically disregarded the implications of the work of Christ for the life of the mind, they nonetheless continue to talk about Jesus. In that talk is potential beyond estimation.”

[Jono Spear · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first half was strong and clear. The further Noll went in the book, especially in his politics and science sections, the weaker the arguments became. Especially helpful to me was his explanation of how dispensationalism has affected major aspects of American culture.

“The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind” (3).

“Cultivating the mind was absolutely essential, Luther held, because people needed to understand both the word of Scripture and the nature of the world in which the word would take root. Furthermore, insistence on the priesthood of believers demanded more education, not less. It demanded that education be brought to the most ordinary levels and to the most ordinary people” (36).

“The path to danger is not always the same, but the results of neglecting the mind are uniform: Christian faith degenerates, lapses into gross error, or simply passed out of existence” (43).

“It is the nature of God and his loving work, not primarily the practical benefits, that requires cultivation of the mind. For a Christian, the most important consideration is not pragmatic results, or even the weight of history, but the truth. Learning matters because the world matters-the world both as material object and as the accumulated network of human institutions” (49).

“Chafer reportedly felt that his lack of formal theological training was an asset to his work as a theologian, because by not examining what others had done, he was preserved from their errors. In Chafer's words, ‘The very fact that I did not study a prescribed course in theology made it possible for me to approach the subject with an unprejudiced mind and to be concerned only with what the Bible actually teaches’” (128).🥲💀

[Jack Hayne · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the newly rewritten introduction, Noll greets the reader with the tumult of modern Evangelical life. Its seemingly unscientific response to mask mandates and its ignorance of racial disparity and pain. Almost thirty years later, Evangelicals still have left behind the mind—a problem that has deep roots in skepticism socially, institutionally, intellectually, and theologically. It is skepticism of everything except one's location and reason.

This skepticism creates a problematic barrier because when intellectual leadership falters, heresy soon follows. Examples are rampant in Christian history: Gnosticism, docetism, and Manicheanism. Errors that haunt Evangelicals today. Contrarily, Noll believes Christians flourish when they are intellectually vibrant, pointing to Aquinas.

Where does this shallowness originate? Noll contends it begins not in the broad project of the Enlightenment but in the Scottish didactic enlightenment, which stresses a simple system of reason. Only the plain ol' is good and true. Simple reason or Baconian reasons infects three prongs of thought: the Bible, politics, and science.

The main perpetrator of the vapid mind is fundamentalism, which wreaked havoc on the mind of the Christian. For example, fundamentalists used Baconian reasons to seek simple biblical connections to current events regarding biblical prophecy. Unlike Augustine's Civ Dei, "Bible verses were quoted to explain conditions and events in the world, but with very little systematic analysis of the events and conditions themselves." This compounded into an approach to politics where the simplest biblical explanation was chosen. Noll labels this 'intuitionism,' which is coupled with moral activism and populism and dangerously pairs with biblicism. Thus, an overly Baconian biblical reading and an under Baconian approach to the world leave evangelicals inept. He particularly hones in on creationisms, though he does so graciously.

Four forces led to and are recharging the evangelical mind. Post-fundamentalism led the way along with a maturation of European Protestants, who were additionally bolstered by British evangelicalism with the help of the Dutch-reformed's philosophical crèche for the likes of Plantinga and others. These forces are working towards undoing the 'isms' of fundamentalism.

Overall, evangelicals must slow down and seek to develop the totality of the believer. Furthermore, academics must realize their fruits will not be appreciated. However, the new afterword spells out a hope that has bubbled forth, through spurts, in the broader Christian intellectual landscape. Though Evangelicals continue to be shunned in academics, there is fruit as Christians work across broad spectrums of disciplines and denominations. Yet, one hindrance is that evangelical Christians continue to lack a significant research university. Another is that modernity's increasing call for specialization in the academic as rendered cross-talk across disciplines almost unnavigable. Furthermore, an academic insurgency has overthrown a culture of consensus, enabling a flourishing of evangelical Christian thought. This is exemplified in Noll's estimation in the wide birth of university presses publishing Christian ideas and Christians within the academy being able to work meaningfully with previously ostracized ideas by sadly excluded groups. Yet, this has seen little carryover into the pews.

Here lies one issue I have with Noll's thesis. Yes, a depthless intellectual environment leads to heresy, but Christianity is primarily a populist movement. Early in the book, Noll points to Aquinas as the fruit of Christian intellectual culture. Yet, how many medieval peasants were discussing the Summa over a bowl of barley? Here lies the problem with the promotion of intellectual Christianity. We can have a powerful Christian intellectual elite while most Christians remain uneducated. Perhaps, fulfilling Plato's vision of the philosophical king or a theological intelligentsia that governs the church. As indicated by the Afterward, this is taking place now. Therefore, the question cannot just be how to revitalize the mind, but how do we revitalize the mind for the person who is more concerned with what their high schooler learns than ontological arguments (Noll's example). Though University Presses are booming, churches are descending into chaos. Pastors are leaving, churches are splitting over the president, and churches are ignorant of racial pain and the worldly ways of dealing with it. Therefore, it cannot just be about the academy, but it must be about those in the pews. A better example might be Calvin's program for the Geneva church. (See Manetsch Company of Pastors)

That being said, I am partial to Noll's thesis. I have seen an aversion to the point of anti-intellectualism in the American church, which leads to a divided church when, let's say, a pandemic breaks out, a president is elected, or a shooting takes place. Without an intellectual foundation, a church is built in sand. We, the Church, must learn to be patient and generous. Learn to let academics explore "subversive" ideas while realizing the tremendous benefit the broader evangelical church gains from education. (Churches, please donate to Seminaries.) However, the academy must uphold its part of the bargain, moving away from our hobby horses in service of the church. Realizing sometimes what we discuss might not benefit the church directly, but at some point must make it back.

89% Aged Pretty Well.

[Eric Yap · Rating 4 out of 5]

A modern classic because of the conversations it has generated, though slightly dated. Admittedly, I have not grown up in my Christian faith in mainstream evangelicalism to fully experience and understand the evangelical culture that Noll describes from his vantage point in 1994 (became a Christian in the Methodist church about 14 years old, then after a few short years quickly absorbed into the YRR/New Calvinist movement and now confessionally reformed/heavily Dutch Reformed influenced). I think many would agree with me that Noll is quite right that "the scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is no evangelical mind," with the fact that there is an undercurrent of anti-intellectualism in mainstream evangelicalism culture, and that much of it is shaped by the culture of biblicism (a strong anti-historical/authority/traditional reading of Scripture), populism, individualistic and deistic tendencies (a strong importation of enlightenment principles that championed autonomy and liberty, think Adam Smith and the language like "truths to be self-evident... inalienable rights) that found fertile soil in American Revolutionary War and subsequent evangelical culture.

With respect to Noll's broad picture analysis, I think it is slightly imprecise and even inconsistent at some point. For example, on one hand, he could rage against the old Pincetons' (Hodge, Warfield) adoption of Scottish common-sense realism of Thomas Reid which compromised intense intellectual thinking and contextualization for cultural apologetics, but on the other hand he could show his avid support for their pro-macro-evolution views which was sustained by the very Scottish common-sense realism (because he is obviously into theistic evolution)!


In my opinion, at the heart of this "scandal of the evangelical mind" is essentially a theological issue (ok here I am showing my Van Tilian hands). Carl Trueman followed up with another book two decades later that disagreed with the fundamental lines that are drawn around the "evangelical mind," as the two decades have only shown that the "the scandal of evangelical mind is not that there is no evangelical mind, but there is no common 'evangel' (gospel/theology)'" to begin with, as "a world in which everyone from Joel Osteen to Brian McLaren to John MacArthur may be called an evangelical." The fact that there is no intellectualism in the evangelical mind, as far as I can observe, is because the theological ingredients to mainstream evangelicalism aren't any form of committed theological confessions or articles but shifting biblicism gathering around changing populism and cultural fads. Noll is right to observe that the main tenets of mainstream evangelicalism leading to the 90s were pentecostalism, holiness movement and dispensationalism, citing that these are the theological-cultural products of Scottish and continental Enlightenment on the American soil, however, if anything I feel like these are the results of populism and biblicism precisely because mainstream evangelicalism lacked a comprehensive theological framework to engage ethics and sanctification (holiness movement), history and redemptive worldview (dispensationalism) and sacramentology (pentecostalism), and can only gather around the shifting cultural fads of the times to feed its individualistic dilemma. Hence, mainstream evangelicalism today can go from prosperity gospel to hyper-grace to sectarian politics to fundamentalism to woke activism because it lacked an all comprehensive, biblical grounded and historically tested, refined theological framework to engage the world intellectually.


This being evident also from the fact that all of the "positive examples" of intellectual evangelicalism that Noll cited have been from external influences and engagements (Noll himself concede this point) with other more intentionally theological traditions, like the Dutch Reformed, Lutheran or Catholic-Thomistic scholarship. But on more careful observation, even the guys that Noll was drawing "evangelical examples" from were nothing like his description of mainstream evangelicalism (holiness movement, dispy and pentecostal): Jonathan Edwards was a Congregationalist of the Savoy Declaration confessions, Hodge and Warfield were Presbyterians that affirmed the Westminster Confessions, all in which go against the theological grain of holiness movement (sanctification from a robust soteriological system), dispy (covenantal theology) and pentecostalism (lol do I even need to point this out). Even William Bryan Jennings, which Noll cited as the primed example (albeit the highlight figure of "evangelical politics") of evangelicalism populist, activist, and biblicist symptoms in politics, was Presbyterian. Finally, Carl F Henry, the most fitting intellectual giant to be called an "evangelical" was a strong advocate of presuppositionalism, an admirer and student of Gordon Clark theological framework and system (which, unfortunately, now entirely eclipsed by Van Til's more theologically consistent system to the point that there are no ongoing publishing of his works for study). This goes on to show that the "scandal of evangelical" mind is less of a common cultural identity that has established a course of sectarian tendencies against rigorous intellectual engagement, but that the ingredient of "evangelical identity" is the biblicism around the populist-celebrity preaching of whatever shifting cultural fads that serve its individualistic crisis. What is needed, in my opinion, is not therefore more trumpeting for intellectual engagement in the evangelical world with mainstream scholarship, but a more scriptural and biblically saturated theological framework that is able to contextualised and engaged properly all the nuanced of mainstream scholarship. To that end, one would perhaps find oneself to be less of an "evangelical" because there is almost no such thing as a pure "mainstream evangelical confession" today.


Two last two points of example, the recent resurgence of the YRR movement have generated a whole stream of "Calvinist evangelicals," which in my opinion, are more at home in the Calvinist tradition than the evangelical tradition (in this circles we like to throw around the derogatory term “evanjellies”) and the result of it is a sufficiently (though much more is to be expected) comprehensive Calvinist worldview and framework that has generated a lot of engagement with culture and the arts, embodied by the creed of the Dutch Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper, "There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!" However, the "evangelical-populist" side of this movement is most salient in the increasingly sectarian politics, evident when I observed the attitude of "entirely for or entirely against/dying on the hill/no nuanced available" towards the view of great Christian thinkers like Tim Keller (in my opinion, the best and current theological heir of Kuyper on that side of the Atlantic), without appreciating or nuance-ing properly the theological frameworks in the engagement of politics and culture, and then agreeing or disagreeing charitably with one another because we are all rallying around figures with cult-like attitude (my most annoyed observation is the fact that Christian figures that I have respected can be rallying for government powers to support pro-life movements yet also crying for wholesale rejection against any covid controlling measures because it is infringing civil liberties oh gosh the inconsistencies and ugly Twitter fights).

[Gail Clayworth · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was written 26 years ago, about the time my husband and I left a conservative liturgical denomination for the conservative evangelical world. I think our church and our pastors have been more thoughtful and nonpartisan than most, but the book helped me understand the disaster that is much of American evangelicalism today and how we got here. I don't necessarily admire some of the figures of evangelical history as much as the author does, but I appreciate that they were deeper thinkers than most high profile evangelical leaders of the past century. The author ended the book on a hopeful note, seeing signs of improvement in 1994, but throughout the book he also warned of consequences if evangelicals continued down the path they were on. Sadly it's pretty obvious now that his optimism was misplaced. The book is somewhat deep for a layperson like me, but it was worth wading through to help get me to the place that I can let go of some nonessential dogma I've been holding onto uneasily for years.

[Kris Rolls · Rating 5 out of 5]

Phenomenal survey of Evangelical thought-life and intellectual climate. Noll traces the historical roots of evangelicalism and focuses in on the loss of intellectual potency after fundamentalism. Great read for anyone searching on how to become a better Christian scholar, or how to interact with the Church in its present state. Noll is charitable but honest in his critique of the "brain-drain" in our pews, and puts forth a charge for evangelicals to pick up the baton and be leaders once more.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good suggestions, but he tends to identify anyone who disagrees with him as indicative of the evangelical scandal.

[Enoch Kuo · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brief overview of the major trends in American and evangelical history that have encouraged anti-intellectual habits among American evangelicals and why that is a tragedy.

[Etienne OMNES · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dans "le scandale de l'intellect évangélique"(1994), Mark Noll décrit pourquoi il n'y a pas à son époque d'intellectuel évangélique capable d'influencer la scène intellectuelle. Il décrit premièrement la situation, puis rentre dans un compte-rendu historique de comment cela est arrivé (car il n'en a pas toujours été ainsi) et enfin dans son dernier chapitre montre quelques signes d'espoirs.

Ce livre n'est pas un pamphlet. C'est un homme humble et amoureux de l'église qui l'a écrit. En même temps, il ne se préoccupe que de ce qui est vrai, et l'analyse qu'il fait est juste, et m'a beaucoup éclairé sur les raisons profondes de l'anti-intellectualisme de nos milieux. Ainsi il retrace ces instincts tueurs d'intellect à 3 causes principales, propre à l'évangélisme américain:

1. L'adoption des Lumières Ecossaises comme épistémologie officielle; 2. La théologie dispensationnaliste; 3. L'éthos fondamentaliste.

Chacun de ces évènements était à la fois nécessaire, pour éviter un danger mortel pour l'église américaine (1. les Lumières Continentales athées; 2. La haute critique biblique et 3. le libéralisme théologique) mais ont malheureusement stérilisé la pensée évangélique (1. En niant le besoin d'une pensée construite pour réfléchir au monde; 2. En incitant à fuir le monde et ce qui s'y rattache; 3. Par des instincts sectaires qui interdisaient de s'approprier ou d'écouter des opinions différentes)

Dans le dernier chapitre, Mark Noll survole la situation intellectuelle de son époque, et note un renouveau de pensée protestante, alimenté par les évangéliques. C'est même là que j'ai appris enfin d'où venait cette résurgence de pensée réformée (très utile!). Mais il a un constat amer: la pensée évangélique renaît justement en se débarassant de sa spécificité évangélique pour revitaliser d'autres traditions: réformées, anglicanes, romaines, parfois même byzantines... Les lumières écossaises sont abandonnées au profit des philosophies chrétiennes prémodernes, le dispensationnalisme est abandonné au profit des théologies politiques réformées, luthériennes et autres, les réflexes fondamentalistes sont mis à mort quand on invite et interagit, voire incorpore des éléments de pensées romaines ou anglicanes.

Mark Noll improvise à la fin une sorte d'espoir de voir resurgir un vrai intellect évangélique, mais pour ma part je ne suis pas convaincu: je pense que l'éthos évangélique est sans avenir, et que le mieux que nous puissions faire maintenant est d'être reconnaissant envers nos pères du XXe siècle, puis de nous tourner définitivement vers la pensée réformée.

La revue est donc positive, mais le livre souffre d'un grand défaut (qui n'est un défaut que parce que je suis français): il est très centré sur le contexte américain. Il perd une énorme partie de sa pertinence dès qu'on parle du protestantisme de par delà l'atlantique. Par chance, il se trouve que le monde évangélique français respire le même air que celui des américains, mais toutes les considérations sur le système universitaire américain et autres me sont passés bien à côté. N'hésitez pas à sauter ou balayer certains passages.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many of Noll's criticisms of Evangelical (stipulated components of Evangelicalism: biblicism, conversionism, & activism) thought life are spot on. This book is plenty convicting (and, I think, inspiring/encouraging) even if there are quibbles with some of his criticisms. Particularly powerful are Noll's thoughts on the ways Evangelicalism has "teamed up with" or drawn on Enlightenment goals and methods and Americanism. Specifically, he describes the Evangelical dependence upon 19th-century Enlightenment thought (Scottish Common Sense Realism) and shows some of the limitations of that dependence. Noll demonstrates Jonathan Edwards's Christian stand against the overwhelming tide of Enlightement thought (though not so much in method). Finally, to quote James Brown, on the good foot, his criticisms about the "inductive" method of Bible study were shown to have roots in Enlightenment empiricism. I've long been dubious about "inductive" methods. All this was quite helpful and clarifying to me. Thanks, Dr. Noll.

Interestingly, Noll notes many contributions to Evangelical thought from outside Evangelicalism. Dutch Calvinism, Lutheranism, Anabaptism, Roman Catholicism, mainline Protestantism, and a little bit of Eastern Orthodoxy. He mentions Theonomy / Reconstructionism, noting that it tends toward Libertarianism. He hardly notices Francis Schaeffer, but then again, Schaeffer is was self-consciously dedicated to Christian intellectual enterprise.

Less edifying were Noll's criticisms about Evangelicals and scientific thought. He's death on creation science, seeing it as little more than an enterprise to poke some holes in the enormous bubble of over-confident and expansive evolutionary assumptions. He rightly admonishes his readers that the Book of special revelation (Bible) cannot be rightly understood without a faithful reading of the book of natural revelation. True enough, but Noll gives precious little guidance as to the divine purpose for the Bible. He says that what's essential is that God reveals himself and his incarnate, saving Son through the Bible (Jn. 20:31). However, when it comes to creation, cosmogony, the Flood and some other issues, Noll seems simply to check his Bible at the door, opting for a "Christian mind" in the realm of science. Sadly, at this point, one can indeed perceive some of Noll's mind, but precious little of any Christianity. His thoughts, especially in regard to science, make me think about my own intellectual deficiencies, but they do not make me think he's got the "Christian mind" quite dialed in.

'Nother thought: Upon reflexion, I think that Noll would have done well to interact with sin's noetic effects more consistently throughout the book. That facet (bearing so heavily on topic of the book) gets scant attention, and - as I recall - mostly when his historical subjects made much of it, most notably in the Reformation and in Jonathan Edwards.

[Mindi · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by Mark A. Noll seeks to explain how, “…modern American evangelicals have failed notably in sustaining serious intellectual life. They have nourished millions of believers in the simple verities of the gospel but have largely abandoned the universities, the arts, and other realms of ‘high culture.'”

Noll gives as evidence that evangelicals do not sponsor “…a single research university or a single periodical devoted to in-depth interaction with the modern culture.”

When I first read these lines, I believed them. I am wondering now, how a magazine like World would stack up in Noll’s estimation, but I really don’t care. Noll has written this book as a critic of the cultural ocean in which he swims as the McManis Professor of Christian Thought at Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois, so it is bound to contain some personal biases.

Early in the book, Noll reveals that the greatest danger besetting American Evangelical Christianity is the danger of anti-intellectualism. In expanding on his position, Noll quotes from Richard Hofstradter’s Pulitzer prize winning book Anti Intellectualism in American Life:

“One begins with the hardly contestable proposition that religious faith is not, in the main, propagated by logic or learning. One moves on from this to the idea that it is best propagated (in the judgment of Christ and on historical evidence) by men who have been unlearned and ignorant. It seems to follow from this that the kind of wisdom and truth possessed by such men is superior to what learned and cultivated minds have. In fact, learning and cultivation appear to be handicaps in the propagation of faith. And since the propagation of faith is the most important task before man, those who are as “ignorant as babes” have, in the most fundamental virtue, greater strength than men who have addicted themselves to logic and learning. Accordingly, though one shrinks from a bald statement of the conclusion, humble ignorance is far better as a human quality than a cultivated mind. At bottom, this proposition, despite all the difficulties that attend it, has been eminently congenial both to American evangelicalism and to American democracy.”

A proverb in the hand of a fool is a dangerous thing, Mr. Hostradter.

I appreciated Noll’s inclusion of the following quote by John Calvin (1509-1564):

“By “being fools” we do not mean being stupid; nor do we direct those who are learned in the liberal sciences to jettison their knowledge, and those who are gifted with quickness of mind to become dull, as if a man cannot be a Christian unless he is more like a beast than a man. The profession of Christianity requires us to be immature, not in our thinking, but in malice (1Cor. 14:20). But do not let anyone bring trust in his own mental resources or his learning into the school of Christ; do not let anyone be swollen with pride or full of distaste, and so be quick to reject what he is told, indeed even before he has sampled it.”

A good section of the book explains how in the United States the church since the time of the Revolutionary War has been involved in the culture in quite different ways than the church in France during their Revolutionary War. The way in which the American church develops keeps in relevant to the culture which means fruitfulness in ministry, but at a cost to the church itself. I advise you to read the book for yourself because while it is fascinating to see how we got to where we are, it is beyond the scope of this simple post.

Noll also covers is depth the way in which dispensationalism and proof texting has damaged the church intellectually.

Although Noll makes a good case for most of his points, he seems to throw the baby out with the bath water when he discusses creationism. I disagree with the points which he makes in that part of the book.

I do want to quote two long paragraphs from Noll because he brings forth a point that is near and dear to my heart about the middle ages. Bear with me. I am indulging in one of my favorite historical time periods.

Noll pointed out the in church history, the movements with the most significant and long lasting impact have in common that they “involved thinking at the most serious and comprehensive levels…They are vitally interested in the Christian mind.”

“We have seen this was the case in the Reformation. It was also true for the monastic movements of the Middle Ages, which were (it is only a slight exaggeration to say) responsible for almost everything of lasting Christian value from roughly A.D. 350 to 1400. The great pulses of monastic reform- whether Benedict in the sixth century, the monks of Cluny in the tenth century, or the Dominicans and Franciscans in the thirteenth century- all had certain things in common. .They all encouraged serious contemplation of God, acknowledged the desperateness of the human condition apart from God, and turned people inward to meditate on the Scripture and to ponder the mercies of Christ. They all encouraged heroic missionary efforts and practical aid for the downtrodden. And they all promoted serious learning as an offering to the Lord.”

“The intellectual activity of the monks during the so-called Dark Ages is justly famous. When the light of learning flickered low in Europe, monks preserved the precious texts of Scripture and other Christian writings. Monks kept alive an interest in the languages. Monks and friars founded schools that eventually became the great universities of Europe. Monks, ,in short, preserved the life of the mind when almost no one else was giving it a thought. By so doing, by God’s grace, they preserved the church.”

That concludes my informal backyard review of The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. It is worth reading, even if you disagree with every point that Noll makes, just to obtain a good overview of church history in the United States since Revolutionary days and to see how the church has become so seemingly entrenched in politics and out of sync with Christian intellectual thought. If we do not preserve ‘the life of the mind’ as Noll defines it, the work of the church in this generation will be like weeds in the wind, and much of what we have accomplished will decay before the next generation passes away, kind of like a graveyard of useless outdated VCRs at the dump.

[Horace · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author, Mark Noll, is a well-regarded Christian historian. This book was originally published in 1994 and I listened to the recently updated version with a new afterword, including Noll's view of the current state of the evangelical mind. By "mind", Noll's focus is particularly on academia but certainly considers the impact on Christian intellectuals/leaders. He calls it a scandal because of evangelicals' tendency to distrust science, embrace conspiracies, and generally fail to promote intellectual flourishing.

Much of the book is devoted to tracing the historical reason why evangelicalism is this way and Noll lays much of the blame on early 20th century fundamentalists and dispensationalists. In contrast to the Catholic Church and Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum which laid out an intellectual framework to consider Christian teaching on capital and labor, evangelicalism was driven more by populism, e.g. William Jennings Bryan. Much of this history reminded me of similar themes in George Marsden's *Fundamentalism and American Culture*.

As noted above, Noll's focus is on scholarship and at times he expresses a faint hope. But I was left wondering to what end. If evangelical scholarship eventually flourishes what will be the bridge to bring a change in the formation of those in the pews? For me, that's the haunting question. Nolls notes that evangelical support for Donald Trump, even now, is just a recent and very public example of this significant weakness of the evangelical mind.

[Summer Bohannon · Rating 3 out of 5]

As with the other books on Christian intellectualism I have recently read, this book is helpful, but not the complete picture. Despite the book being a little outdated, Noll's historical work on intellectual evangelicalism up to the mid-90s is still seemingly solid. The concluding chapters are where this work really begins to shine as Noll offers an optimistic outlook on how evangelicals can gracefully, and with determination, develop their minds with the same commitment that they have developed activist efforts. My largest critique is that perhaps Noll then tends too optimistic about how many evangelical distinctives can be stripped away while still maintaining an evangelical identity.

"More activism, but itself, will not overcome the intellectual weakness of our hereditary activism. Only patient, purposeful intention to use the mind for Christ will move toward the balance that is needed" (pg. 243).

[Dena McGoldrick Butler · Rating 5 out of 5]

I digested this book slowly and reviewed each chapter before proceeding to the next. Any summary I would write would fall short, so a couple of quotes I want to remember:

Where evangelicals leave behind the specific shape of fundamentalist theology, thought advances. Where evangelicals sift that theology to retain traditional Christian orthodoxy, where they are able to benefit from other Christian traditions, and where they make use of learning from the world more generally, then thinking for the glory of God has taken place. P. 228

The life of the mind is not necessarily superior to any other legitimate human pursuit. But is a legitimate human pursuit. Christians who pursue intellectual activity should never wander far from the words of the prophet, Jeremiah: Let him who boasts boat about this: that he understands and knows me. p. 242

[Parker Haines · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read this one for a research project, and it was utterly fascinating. Noll states that the scandal of the evangelical mind is that there really isn’t much of an evangelical mind. Noll surveys the history of American evangelism from the Puritan era to our current moment and considers the question “Where did the evangelical intellectuals go?” he claims that after Edwards, no one in America has followed in his intellectual footsteps. He provides an incredibly helpful survey of the modern fundamentalism controversy, and how that impacted intellectual life in the church. he displays how anti-intellectualism arose from a confluence of other systems of thought like dispensationalism and creationism. He concludes by proposing that we may be experiencing a renaissance and evangelical intellectual life. If you are at times perplexed by the anti-intellectualism that you find in your church, I would highly recommend this book.

[Danny · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent analysis of why American evangelicals are not using their minds as properly in understanding the world, and why that can be problematic. As this book is over twenty years old now, I do wonder what Noll would have to say about the current status of the evangelicals mind. In my view, there is still a scandal, and evangelicals need to expand their mind, not for any other sake but for God's glory. As Noll says, why better reason is there for using our mind then to understand the world God has created.

[Blaine Welgraven · Rating 5 out of 5]

Noll's work delivers a strong synthesis of the history of Christian and Evangelical intellectual life in America, with a particularly weighty analysis of 20th century fundamentalist intellectual modes of thought. Noll's expressed definition of what he terms the scandal--"that there is not much of an evangelical mind" to begin with--and his subsequent examination of the scandal's anti-intellectual, anti-cultural, and a-historical components, makes The Scandal a primer for understanding the mindset of much of American Christianity entering the 21st century.

[Devon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall a good book on the history of intellectual thought in the evangelical movement. I did not come away with agreeing with all of Noll’s conclusions. However the emphasis on an intellectual movement needed in Evangelicalism was spot on.

[Barb · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely gave me some food for thought. Interesting that it was published in the 90’s yet reading it now I don’t see where much has changed.

[Todd · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wonder what took me so long to read this book. It's right up my alley as a wannabe intellectual and semi-orthodox person of faith.

Not only does this book give me some great history on how American evangelicals came to be the way they are, it helped me think more clearly about certain doctrines which turn out to be distinctively American.

I took my time with this and took copious notes. I expect I'll be reviewing those from time to time.

[Frank Theising · Rating 4 out of 5]

Informative and thought provoking. A must-read for evangelical Christians. While I don’t agree with every aspect of his analysis, I think his central argument is important and worthy of your time and consideration. As Christians, we are called to love the Lord our God not only with all our heart and soul but with our mind (Mt 22:37). The book also contains a substantial amount of historical analysis that I found insightful and fascinating. In fact, I’d go as far as to say it has helped me to see much of the history of Christianity in North America in an entirely new light. What follows are some of my notes on what I believe to be the key points.

Book Summary:

The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind. Despite all their other virtues, evangelicals are not exemplary for their thinking (3). Evangelicals have abandoned the universities, the arts, and other realms of “high” culture.

Definitions: By “the mind” or “the life of the mind” he is not thinking primarily about theology (6). Rather he means the effort to think across the whole spectrum of modern learning (economics, politics, history, philosophy, science, social theory, arts, etc) within a specifically Christian framework (7). The important point is not whether evangelicals can learn to succeed in the modern academy, but that we think deeply as Christians about the workings of the physical world, human social structures (government and economy), artistic creation, etc (7).

The scandal has three dimensions: cultural, institutional, and theological. Evangelical culture is activist, populist, pragmatic and utilitarian. The urgencies of the moment leave little space for broader or deeper intellectual effort (12). Institutionally, evangelical seminaries or liberal arts colleges (whose mandate is broad and general) are separated from secular research universities (whose mandate is narrow and deep) creating a divide between theological reflection and arts and sciences (20). Theologically, evangelicals have neglected serious attention to the mind, nature, society, and the arts – all spheres created by God and sustained by His own glory (23). Evangelicals responded to a number of developments in the mid to late nineteenth century through a number of strategies (fundamentalism, dispensationalism, Pentecostalism, etc) that were disastrous to the life of the mind (24). If Christians continue to neglect the life of the mind, we have no chance of becoming the dominant mode of thought in the great universities of Europe and America which stamp an entire civilization with its own spirit and ideas (26).

So what? Are we not better off than dying mainline Protestant churches in Europe and North America that have descended into lifeless formalism (29)? Perhaps, but in choosing this path we say, in effect, that we want our minds to be shaped by the cultural forces contrary to the heart of our religion (secularist in universities, Hollywood, Wall Street, etc). We may succeed in winning a straggler here or there, but we permit the collective thought of the nation to be controlled by ideas that prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion (34-35).

The Twentieth Century neglect of the mind is an aberration in a long history of Protestant efforts to give the intellect its due. The Protestant commitment to the priesthood of the believer seemed to undercut the need for intellectual experts (as far as the Catholic Church was concerned). In reality, the priesthood of the believer demanded more education, not less. It demanded that education be brought to the most ordinary levels and to the most ordinary people. Protestantism marked the start of universal education in Europe because it insisted that all individuals had a responsibility to understand the world in which they lived. As a result, Protestants were active in establishing schools of all sorts (36-37).

It is of no small consequence that evangelicals have no research university or Nobel Laureates. Great institutions of higher learning define what is important and set agendas for analyzing the practical problems of the world. They influence thinking around the world (51). If evangelicals acknowledge that it is appropriate to be the best ball player, lawyer, or mechanic that God has made it possible for a person to be, why do evangelicals find it difficult to cultivate the life of the mind as thoroughly as it can be cultivated (55)?

Evangelical heritage began with the Reformation and then passed through the Puritans. So what happened after that? The intellectual life of American evangelicals was shaped by a number of factors: revivalism (which tends to focus on emotional appeals), separation of church and state (religious deregulation forced churches to compete for adherents), the Christian-American cultural synthesis (republicanism and Christianity became so deeply entwined that evangelicals took for granted their place in the world and grew complacent), and the fundamentalist movement at the start of the twentieth century (59-60).

When Christian values began to weaken, the consequences of evangelical neglect of the mind were sobering. A theological liberalism emerged that had little concern for human sinfulness, God’s grace, or the supernatural work of Christ. A secular spirit spread rapidly in the general culture. Fundamentalism emerged as a response to these changes. While it did preserve some basic Christian truths, this flight from the problems of the world led to a fascination with inner spirituality and end-times prophecy (107). The influences of Pentecostalism (hyper-spiritualism in response to naturalism), dispensationalism (an emphasis on prophecy and the Second Advent at expense of studying the cause and effect world events) and “holiness” movements (“let go and let God do all the work”) lessened the need for scholarship and created an environment ripe for anti-intellectualism (123-124).

The Gulf War in 1991 (which occurred a few years before this book was published) provides a clear example of the lingering effects of these historical movements. Books on the end of the world became best sellers. Evangelicals were suckers for books that tried to use the Bible as a crystal ball to explain how the events of this war fit in with end-times prophecy. What evangelicals failed to do was offer serious Christian analysis on any number of intellectual debates surrounding the war (the morality of the war, the history of Western intervention in the Middle East, the significance of oil for job creation, etc) (140).

The author highlights many of the distinct eras that American evangelical political life has passed through. After a period during which an American-Christian cultural synthesis dominated, evangelicals retreated into an age of fundamentalism (1925-1941). Evangelicals began stirring back towards a balance between activism and biblicism and out toward a more thoughtful engagement with political thought until Roe v. Wade in 1973 ushered in a new spirit of moral activism culminating with the Moral Majority and the New Right. The post Christian Right era was one of an uncertain future that is not easy to predict.

The author includes a chapter title “Thinking about Science”. In that chapter he takes a critical view of a literal interpretation of Genesis. He quotes Augustine and Charles Hodge at length in arguing that the Bible must be interpreted by science. In Hodge’s mind, the Bible and the natural world were God’s “Two Books” and they were incapable of contradicting one another. While earlier generations of Christians found the scriptures a stimulus to full-scale investigation of the physical world, later Christians have been hampered by a literal reading of the Bible that has undermined our ability to look at the world God has made and understand what we see (196).

Towards the end the author makes some really good points. The life of the mind is not necessarily superior to any other human pursuit…but it is a legitimate human pursuit (242). The point of Christian scholarship is not recognition by the wider culture. Intellectual pursuits are their own reward because it is focused on the One whose recognition is important (249). As Christianity becomes just one of many religions/worldviews perhaps there is a new window of opportunity. Christianity works best from a modest position. That posture keeps its advocates humble and delivers the Christian apologist from the twin perils of complacency or authoritarianism (248).