I’ve been reading a lot recently by some very liberal guys. My current read is Richard Hofstadter. I’ve read his essay on the “paranoid style” in American politics and now I’m reading Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. He has little use for fundamentalist Christians, especially the evangelists of the 20s (i.e. Billy Sunday). But he also criticizes John Dewey for writing things that no one could understand. In fact, he suggests that much of Dewey’s fame and influence came from those who couldn’t understand him.
But to the point at hand. Christians don’t explain the Gospel very well. We struggle to present a coherent, cogent narrative of God’s work. We don’t know where to start, so we return to formulas and gimmicks. But God’s Truth is too big for little tricks.
Beyond our trouble with evangelism, we constantly fight to focus our behavior by our faith. I have wondered for some time if we don’t make Christianity too difficult, even for ourselves. I suspect that we don’t really understand God’s program all that well. Other ideas, even good ones, sweep us up into tradition and habit, and eventually we lose sight of the big picture.
Camille Lewis wrote a recent post that suggests a way for us to recapture some of the simplicity of the Gospel. Her observations are worth your time.1
- note: I don’t necessarily endorse everything at this link, just as I don’t endorse completely anything I link to–or even everything on this site.
back↩
I’ve also been reading Hofstadter recently. I reference his essay on the paranoid style in my master’s thesis. I intend to read his Anti-Intellectualism sometime (for whatever such intentions are worth).
I caution you against Camille’s “Pentadic Analysis” and other such posts. I’ve read her blog and Grant’s blog closely the past few months. I won’t deny that much of what they write about grace is true–wonderfully true. Camille and Grant, however, have ignored, twisted, or explained away other key biblical truths. Their errors have left only partial truths and ungracious polemic.
I agree with Lincoln on this one. Eloquence and rhetoric are not licenses for ignoring the whole counsel of God. The gospel is marvelously simple. Living out the truths of the gospel on a daily basis is not so simple. Believers still have a fallen nature. Believers also have a sinful past that does not automatically disappear when they come to Christ for salvation. Much of the New Testament is about the process of combing the kinks out of our heads. This requires diligent study of the Word coupled with a determined effort to put away evil from our lives and to put on Christ. Citing Camille’s blog weakens your argument.
Hofstadter is a funny character. He has a knack for making very pointed arguments. But when his argument is weak, he tends toward a condescending mockery of his opponents.
I hope I didn’t give Camille’s argument more credit than I intended. I’m not so concerned about the particular rhetorical style or criticism–I’m not familiar enough with the various options. I am concerned about how we think about Christianity. I don’t mean to suggest that the Lewises (or anyone else) have thought about it entirely correctly. In fact, their recent arguments tend to suggest more of a rhetorical stance than a well-thought-out system. They are reacting to perceived abuses–always a dangerous stance.
As far as polemic goes…well…sometimes Camille reminds me of Hofstadter.
Well, hello, gentlemen! Nice to see this discussion over here. It honestly sounds, however, like we’re having a heated agreement. Of course, the gospel is simple, and living-it-out is not so simple. It’s one thing to say that God is sovereign, and quite another to act in such a way as you’re burying a child. And I take the Scripture — the whole counsel of God — very, very seriously! It’s been our reading systematic theologies, commentaries, and the Scripture Itself that brought us to many conclusions that lie somewhat outside our slice of Christendom. And of course, perfectionism is nothing but foolishness. Neither my husband and I have said or done anything to the contrary.
My mere “rhetorical stance” is not quite accurate either. I am merely applying the apostle Paul, Augustine, John Murray, Louis Berkhof, the Heidelburg confession, the Westminster confession, etc. to a rhetorical theory. So I defer to their “well-thought-out” system (aka Reformed Theology). You, of course, wouldn’t expect me to have produced a systematic theology in my dissertation in the academic discipline of rhetoric.
As to whether we are “reacting to perceived abuses” . . . I wrote that chapter (which I condensed in that post) nearly two years ago. And the whole thing started with our time at Indiana University and just was cemented with our daughter’s death. It’s been going on for over 10 years. So the actual time line doesn’t match up with that presumption.
If you have any questions, gentlemen, as I’ve said to Lincoln personally before, please ask us! It would be more productive and interesting to have these conversations together, I think. Grant and I are not dangerous or reprobate. Just a short time ago, we all sat around the same lunch tables and in the same conference rooms. Nothing’s changed except geography. We’re all in the Body!
Personally, in my narrow little slice of knowledge, I’m not entirely sure about what the issue is. I get the impression that something bigger is going on.
Nonetheless, from my limited perspective, it does seem like you’re aiming at a specific point and from a specific point, Camille. I could see how someone at BJU could think that you’re specifically trying to target their understanding of Scripture. Perhaps you are. And perhaps you’re right. But things can move slowly down there sometimes.
I wonder too if we’re not talking about slightly different things. That’s probably my fault. The thoughts in my original post came more from a discussion of evangelism at church than a consideration of various elements of sanctification. We don’t seem to understand the Gospel well, perhaps because we get caught up in particulars so much. And even if we think we understand the Gospel, we don’t seem to be communicating it well to the world around us. One of the principles of rhetoric that I have learned (I think) is that we often fail to communicate because we don’t really understand what we’re talking about.
Reading Hofstadter, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and others like them has convinced me that we’re not making the Gospel very clear to the outside world and especially to smart people. But smart people need Jesus too.
Could part of the problem be that “our little slice of Christianity” has historically had strong strains of anti-intellectualism?
First, the Gospel is both simple and complex. We all know that, and that it’s folly, if not heresy, to overlook the simple side. But since we’re talking about the complicated side, I’ll move there.
Andrew, I’ve read a limited amount of Dawking, Harris, Hitchens, etc., but I’ve read much more from legal commentators who despise all things Christian. In one sense I agree with you; the slice of Christianity in which you and I grew up has not explained the Gospel well to “smart people.” But, as Becca, said, part of this is because it has adopted a worldview that isn’t conducive to learning. How much one can stretch that worldview in an attempt to reach “smart people” without that worldview shattering, I don’t know.
But, my broader is point is that despite follies in our slice of the Body, God has had no shortage of people explaining the Gospel. I don’t think the views of Dawkins et all have anything do with with a failure to explain the Gospel (although the Church should improve). Dawkins could find someone to explain the Truth to him on “his level” if he wanted to. (See, e.g., The Dawkins Delusion, by Alister McGrath). He doesn’t. He does not want to believe.
Of course not. And that is the central issue of course.
My fear is that by conceding the intellectual ground, we can let the culture to redefine all of our important terms and leave ourselves in an incredibly difficult environment. This is largely what Francis Schaeffer is getting at in his books.
I’m not perhaps so worried about Dawkins, Harris, et al. I’m worried about those who have read them. I can easily imagine an average college student asking a pretty basic question to an evangelist, and then getting no real answer.
All that said, the key to evangelism is the Word. It is the power of God. My fear is that we don’t always know what the Word actually says–at least not enough to address our current culture.
I could say much more about this, but I’m going to try to hold off for a while. As a favorite teacher has said; “There is a wholesome economy of dogmatic assertion that is the mark of spiritual and emotional maturity.” I may have already overstepped the bounds of that advice.