I agree with you utterly about the bad-tempered and ungrateful exvangelicals who mischaracterize the Noll/Marsden/Plantinga/Wolterstorff/Holmes/Mouw project and then dump (on) their caricature of it to demonstrate their impressive emancipation.
I also agree that Wissenschaft without piety is neither right nor safe.
Still, I got confused at times in this essay as to what was being argued. To say that "A > B" doesn't mean that B doesn't matter. Yes, piety matters more than Wissenschaft, but Wissenschaft is still a worthy occupation. Moreover, as a fan of both SK and of C. Stephen Evans, I completely disagree that being a Kierkegaard scholar is a contradiction in terms. As a fan also of both Orthodox iconography and Matthew Milliner, I likewise disagree that being a scholar of icons is a contradiction in terms. Equivocation isn't helping us here.
To talk about Kierkegaard, or icons, or the history of evangelicalism in the terms set out by Wissenschaft is only a Bad Thing if (1) those terms lead to distortions of the truth by arbitrarily narrow categories of evidence or argument (so the whole Reformed epistemology polemic against "classic foundationalism") or (2) one foolishly thinks one has said all there is to say, or even what is most important to say, about any of those subjects when one has finished such conversation. But just because the Holy Spirit in SK or icons or evangelicalism is more important than, say, trying to determine whether Johannes Climacus speaks for SK or whether and why this Marian icon importantly deviates from the conventions or when and how the Great Awakening was shaped by cultural forces doesn't mean that those questions don't still matter, right?
Perhaps, however, I misunderstand your contention. I certainly am glad for both the study of Nietzsche at Wheaton and the prayerful petition to study him with the ultimate objective of knowing God and enjoying God forever. I just heard notes of "all of this Wissenschaft is straw—or dung—compared with knowing Christ," which is true in the terms in which Aquinas, or the Apostle Paul, meant them, but it also doesn't entail we should all reduce Wissenschaft to mysticism or even compromise it by well-intended but misplaced piety. Piety matters centrally, I agree, but not entirely...and I thought I heard, at least occasionally, some hints along that line.
Thanks for the provocation! And thanks also for the tribute to our mutual friend M.A.N.
"We need quality scholarship produced by confident people who are not dilettantes, idiosyncratic cranks, big fish in small ponds, or insecure careerists seeking admission to the mainstream. This requires the cultivation of an elite and institutions and networks that sustain them.
...
However, recognizing mirroring dangers of both elitism and populism, we still need serious ministries to elites and to lay people. The antidote to elitism isn't populism, but a better elite, which respects lay people, while pursuing excellence and resisting elitist temptations."
I appreciate the positive models in this essay very much—religious experience as the fruit of a religious education. But the question is not, it seems to me, “does the Christian tradition have resources for the current dilemma?”, rather it is “has the evangelical approach emphasized or even used those resources?”. The options are not, a Neokantian methodology or Evangelicalism. And an unwanted fundamentalism of Christianity is also found in Catholicism, which I’m more engaged in criticizing. I would never imagine that criticizing the approach of, say, Ave Maria, would put me into the camp of pure wissenschaft or denial of Mysticism. Can’t we continue to criticize fundamentalisms wherever we find them?
This was a wonderful read, thank you! I've recently felt convicted by how easy it is to slip into pessimism in my own teaching and writing, and this has given me a lot to think about.
what we rarely acknowledge is that certain forms of criticism are actually quite easy, as intellectual endeavors. careful patient suffering-with some of these texts and traditions is quite a bit harder.
Thank you. Fantastic. What is the link under "Kantian rehabilitation"? (It goes to an EBSCO/Wheaton link). More about the 'corruption' of the university of Paris?
I agree with you utterly about the bad-tempered and ungrateful exvangelicals who mischaracterize the Noll/Marsden/Plantinga/Wolterstorff/Holmes/Mouw project and then dump (on) their caricature of it to demonstrate their impressive emancipation.
I also agree that Wissenschaft without piety is neither right nor safe.
Still, I got confused at times in this essay as to what was being argued. To say that "A > B" doesn't mean that B doesn't matter. Yes, piety matters more than Wissenschaft, but Wissenschaft is still a worthy occupation. Moreover, as a fan of both SK and of C. Stephen Evans, I completely disagree that being a Kierkegaard scholar is a contradiction in terms. As a fan also of both Orthodox iconography and Matthew Milliner, I likewise disagree that being a scholar of icons is a contradiction in terms. Equivocation isn't helping us here.
To talk about Kierkegaard, or icons, or the history of evangelicalism in the terms set out by Wissenschaft is only a Bad Thing if (1) those terms lead to distortions of the truth by arbitrarily narrow categories of evidence or argument (so the whole Reformed epistemology polemic against "classic foundationalism") or (2) one foolishly thinks one has said all there is to say, or even what is most important to say, about any of those subjects when one has finished such conversation. But just because the Holy Spirit in SK or icons or evangelicalism is more important than, say, trying to determine whether Johannes Climacus speaks for SK or whether and why this Marian icon importantly deviates from the conventions or when and how the Great Awakening was shaped by cultural forces doesn't mean that those questions don't still matter, right?
Perhaps, however, I misunderstand your contention. I certainly am glad for both the study of Nietzsche at Wheaton and the prayerful petition to study him with the ultimate objective of knowing God and enjoying God forever. I just heard notes of "all of this Wissenschaft is straw—or dung—compared with knowing Christ," which is true in the terms in which Aquinas, or the Apostle Paul, meant them, but it also doesn't entail we should all reduce Wissenschaft to mysticism or even compromise it by well-intended but misplaced piety. Piety matters centrally, I agree, but not entirely...and I thought I heard, at least occasionally, some hints along that line.
Thanks for the provocation! And thanks also for the tribute to our mutual friend M.A.N.
Mark said something similar after he heard a version of this. It’s a good reminder.
Similarly, Alastair Roberts writes:
"We need quality scholarship produced by confident people who are not dilettantes, idiosyncratic cranks, big fish in small ponds, or insecure careerists seeking admission to the mainstream. This requires the cultivation of an elite and institutions and networks that sustain them.
...
However, recognizing mirroring dangers of both elitism and populism, we still need serious ministries to elites and to lay people. The antidote to elitism isn't populism, but a better elite, which respects lay people, while pursuing excellence and resisting elitist temptations."
https://x.com/zugzwanged/status/1933186353396617658?t=HI5k0dXHtnpEJDVn3O591g&s=19
Brilliant. This reminds me so much of Dr. Roger Lundin. Look out theology profs, the Literature and Art teachers are rising up to rescue you!
Though I love those theology profs! 🙂
This gives me some hope for the future of evangelical institutions
I appreciate the positive models in this essay very much—religious experience as the fruit of a religious education. But the question is not, it seems to me, “does the Christian tradition have resources for the current dilemma?”, rather it is “has the evangelical approach emphasized or even used those resources?”. The options are not, a Neokantian methodology or Evangelicalism. And an unwanted fundamentalism of Christianity is also found in Catholicism, which I’m more engaged in criticizing. I would never imagine that criticizing the approach of, say, Ave Maria, would put me into the camp of pure wissenschaft or denial of Mysticism. Can’t we continue to criticize fundamentalisms wherever we find them?
Yes we can!
This was a wonderful read, thank you! I've recently felt convicted by how easy it is to slip into pessimism in my own teaching and writing, and this has given me a lot to think about.
Wow! This was an important read.
Is an institution like Wheaton compatible with this sort of re-envisioning of Christian scholarship? Is any current institution?
Yes and yes. I wonder if it’s less a revisioning than the original vision.
i loved this.
what we rarely acknowledge is that certain forms of criticism are actually quite easy, as intellectual endeavors. careful patient suffering-with some of these texts and traditions is quite a bit harder.
I'll be restacking this one.
Thank you! The Lossky quote is thanks to The Pragmatic Mystic book recommendation post.
Thank you. Fantastic. What is the link under "Kantian rehabilitation"? (It goes to an EBSCO/Wheaton link). More about the 'corruption' of the university of Paris?
thanks for the link fix. Here it is: https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/50/article/664532/pdf
As to corruption, the entire approach of the Victorines is deliberately set apart from the U of P ethos.
Thank you very much. Got it - 'corruption' is a strong word.
Also, this reminds me of recent conversation about "The Catholic Intellectual Ecosystem"
https://adfontesjournal.com/web-exclusives/the-power-of-the-catholic-intellectual-ecosystem/
https://www.aaronrenn.com/p/tyler-cowen-protestants
Andrew Walker, who would trample his own grandmother to become Reichsminister of the MAGA folk, is one to talk about “compromise.”
That is perhaps a little bit uncharitable.