Archives for December 2007

on embracing anti-intellectualism

A lengthy discussion on Frank’s site prompts this post.

A familiar charge by the sophisticated non-fundamentalist is that fundamentalism is essentially anti-intellectual. The sneering inference of the slur is that fundamentalists are nothing but backwoods hayseeds, barely capable of tying their shoes or of walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time. Fundamentalists are rubes, you see, they lack scholarship. They don’t write important books. In fact, they barely write. They do colour, though, and in some of their books they even colour in between the lines.

Well… that is hyperbole, of course. Nevertheless the charge of anti-intellectualism is frequently made and often said to be with some merit. See here:

And while a writer may legitimately quote an author with which he disagrees, it should be recognized that no fundamentalist is called upon in this chapter – an indication at least that the charge of anti-intellectualism against American fundamentalism does contain enough adhesive power to call any critic of neo-evangelicalism to a little self-examination once in a while.

Fundamentalists often leap to their own defense and point to the scholarship of various pastors, college professors, etc.

Too often these kinds of discussions are centred around an emotional imprecision in the use of terms. Anti-intellectual is code for someone who won’t join the club. Scholar is code for someone ‘who agrees with me,’ as one of my former professors once said.

Well what of it? What do these terms mean? Let’s try intellectualism first.

1. devotion to intellectual pursuits.
2. the exercise of the intellect.
3. excessive emphasis on abstract or intellectual matters, esp. with a lack of proper consideration for emotions.
4. Philosophy.
      a. the doctrine that knowledge is wholly or chiefly derived from pure reason.
      b. the belief that reason is the final principle of reality.

intellectualism. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intellectualism (accessed: December 07, 2007).

Let’s consider these one at a time. Given these definitions, am I an anti-intellectual? [edit note: change "intellectual" to "anti-intellectual"]

1. No

2. No

3. Yes

4a. Yes

4b. Yes

Now let’s look at anti-intellectualism:

1. a person opposed to or hostile toward intellectuals and the modern academic, artistic, social, religious, and other theories associated with them.

2. a person who believes that intellect and reason are less important than actions and emotions in solving practical problems and understanding reality.

–adjective
3. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of anti-intellectuals or their beliefs.

anti-intellectualism. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti-intellectualism (accessed: December 07, 2007).

Am I an anti-intellectual according to these definitions?

1. Yes
2. No
3. Possibly

In a moment I want to look at the definition of scholarship, but what are we to make of these definitions so far?

I am definitely hostile to the so-called achievements of much of our society’s so-called intellectuals. Consider those who are lauded as artists, poets, notable Drs. of philosophy and so on in the vast majority of our most prestigious universities. Are these people whose thoughts should impress any believer in Christ? Should we care that we are not considered among their number? Their minds are darkened, professing themselves to be wise, they are altogether become fools.

When it comes to the noted Doctors of Religion in so many seminaries, are they significantly better than the secular intelligentsia? Hardly.

So I am an anti-intellectual and proud of it. Let the evangelicals pursue their intellectualism. They will find that they are numbered among the company of Proverb’s fools, chasing after the wind and vanity of Ecclesiastes. Do they think that they make any impressive statement in accusing me of anti-intellectualism? It is just propaganda, plain and simple. Name-calling. What does it gain, and what argument does it advance?

Besides, I embrace the term. Let’s hear it, as I said on Frank’s page, for anti-intellectualism.

One last "word game". Let’s look at scholarship:

1. learning; knowledge acquired by study; the academic attainments of a scholar.
2. a sum of money or other aid granted to a student, because of merit, need, etc., to pursue his or her studies.
3. the position or status of such a student.
4. a foundation to provide financial assistance to students.

scholarship. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scholarship (accessed: December 07, 2007).

The first definition is what should concern us here. In the discussion at Frank’s site, much was made of the fact that there aren’t many fundamentalist’s whom poor, benighted Dr. McCune could actually cite in his book. Scholarship, it was maintained, is evidenced by leaving a trail of published works behind one’s self. According to dictionary.com, this just isn’t so.

Furthermore, the facts prove otherwise. The men and women who populate the faculties of fundamentalist colleges and seminaries are devoted scholars themselves. Their attainments are well known and some of them do write occasionally. I maintain that market forces prohibit much publishing, but be that as it may, the presence or absence of published works are no proof or disproof of scholarship.

I am all for scholarship. I am all for study, diligence, hard work and educational attainment.

And I am unabashedly anti-intellectual.

And proud of it. Y’hear?

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on our Christmas series, communion, and our website

Yes, boys and girls, that last bit is true. We now have a website for Grace Baptist Church of Victoria. You can find it at gbcvic.org.

My delay in posting our sermon summaries is mostly due to the usual headaches in starting something about which I know next to nothing, i.e., setting up a website. Thankfully, tools are available and I had done some work on a proposed site some years ago. So what you see is our quick temporary site. We have plans for more later, including an experiment at using it as an evangelistic tool. This blog may also migrate over there also, but time will tell on that.

Now  for Sunday’s sermons. We began our annual Christmas series this last Sunday. Our theme this month is the missionary theme, Christ and the Nations.

The Nations Divided (Gen 10-11) Audio Notes

What is a nation? The UN has 192 members, FIFA has 205 members. The World Christian Database says there are over 13,000 people groups in the world. These groups comprise ‘nations’ by some definitions. How did they all begin? For what purpose did they all begin?

The idea inherent in the notion of nations, nationalism, and nationality is division. This is the theme of Gen 10. You see God repeatedly noting ‘their nations’ and emphasizing ‘division’ in this chapter. The immediate cause of the division is revealed in Gen 11: Babel. But the story of the cursing of Canaan in Gen 9 is also linked – a prophecy of imminent division. The ultimate cause is the sin of mankind.

Cause, however, is not purpose. Why division? What purpose does it serve? Is it merely judgement? The division of Babel is a curse, but it is intended to drive men to God. See Ac 17.26-27 and Ac 15.16-17.

What should the nations do with all the frustrations of language, culture, race, ambition, etc.?

  • Turn to God.

What should they do in Sudan over the school teacher who ‘insulted the prophet’ over the teddy bear she allowed her students to name ‘Mohammed’? What should the teacher do?

  • Turn to God.

What should Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and, yes, even Israel do with the frustrations they have with one another?

  • Turn to God.

What should you do with the misunderstandings, frustrations, divisions, conflicts you have with your family members and church brethren?

  • Turn to God.

God is the answer to the divisions of this world. And when we turn the page from the division of the nations, we see these words: "These are the generations of Shem…" God also formed the nations to form a nation from whom would come the One Man who would bring to an end all the divisions of the world.

Sup With Me (Lev 3) Audio Notes

Leviticus 3 discusses an offering called the ‘peace offering’. It was a voluntary offering made with fire as a sweet savour to the Lord. It would be offered in the case of a vow, or as a matter of confession, or as a matter of freewill thanksgiving. The offerer may also have to offer a guilt offering or sin offering in order to purify himself before participating in a peace offering. The ‘fat portion’ of the offering belonged to God and was burned on the altar. A portion of that which remained belonged to the priest, but the rest belonged to the offerer and was consumed on the spot in a meal of fellowship with God.

The NT parallel is our communion feast. If we have been purified by the blood of Christ, and if our manner and walk is pure, we may freely eat. We eat the offering of Christ himself, in communion with himself. We drink the blood of the new covenant, being made one spiritual blood in the family of God.

For the believer whose heart is not right with God at this table, the Lord offers Rev 3.20:

NAU Revelation 3:20 ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

~~~

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3