In 2004, ten years after the publication of
The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Mark A. Noll was unrepentant about his
assessment of the Evangelical mind.
The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Mark A. Noll was unrepentant about his
assessment of the Evangelical mind.
I
remain largely unrepentant about the book’s historical arguments, its
assessment of evangelical strengths and weaknesses, and its indictment of
evangelical intellectual efforts, though I have changed my mind on a few
matters. Some readers have rightly pointed out that what I described as a
singularly evangelical problem is certainly related to the general intellectual
difficulties of an advertisement-driven, image-preoccupied,
television-saturated, frenetically hustling consumer society, and that the
reason evangelicals suffer from intellectual weakness is that American culture
as a whole suffers from intellectual weakness.[1]
remain largely unrepentant about the book’s historical arguments, its
assessment of evangelical strengths and weaknesses, and its indictment of
evangelical intellectual efforts, though I have changed my mind on a few
matters. Some readers have rightly pointed out that what I described as a
singularly evangelical problem is certainly related to the general intellectual
difficulties of an advertisement-driven, image-preoccupied,
television-saturated, frenetically hustling consumer society, and that the
reason evangelicals suffer from intellectual weakness is that American culture
as a whole suffers from intellectual weakness.[1]
He continues to point out the flaws with
words like, “… we evangelicals as
a rule still prefer to put our money into programs offering immediate results,
whether evangelistic or humanitarian, instead of into institutions promoting
intellectual development over the long term.” Then, at a certain point in the
article, he turns to the matter of hope for the Evangelical mind.
words like, “… we evangelicals as
a rule still prefer to put our money into programs offering immediate results,
whether evangelistic or humanitarian, instead of into institutions promoting
intellectual development over the long term.” Then, at a certain point in the
article, he turns to the matter of hope for the Evangelical mind.
Theological
reasons to hope for better things from evangelical intellectual effort spring
from the resources of classical trinitarian Christianity. Even if those
resources are unused or abused, they continue to exist as a powerful latent
force wherever individuals or groups look in faith to God as loving Father,
redeeming Savior, and sustaining Spirit. Various forms of evangelical
Christianity are, in fact, burgeoning around the world; the evangelical
proportion of the practicing Christian population in North America continues to
expand; where there is evangelical life there is hope for evangelical learning.[2]
reasons to hope for better things from evangelical intellectual effort spring
from the resources of classical trinitarian Christianity. Even if those
resources are unused or abused, they continue to exist as a powerful latent
force wherever individuals or groups look in faith to God as loving Father,
redeeming Savior, and sustaining Spirit. Various forms of evangelical
Christianity are, in fact, burgeoning around the world; the evangelical
proportion of the practicing Christian population in North America continues to
expand; where there is evangelical life there is hope for evangelical learning.[2]
In Noll’s words, trinitarian
theology remains at the heart of his hope for the evangelical mind.
theology remains at the heart of his hope for the evangelical mind.
If
evangelicals are the ones who insist most aggressively that they believe
in sola scriptura , and if evangelicals are the ones who
assert most vigorously the transforming work of Jesus Christ, then it is
reasonable to hope that what the Scriptures teach about the origin of creation
in Christ, the sustaining of all things in Christ, and the dignity of all
creation in Christ” – about, in other words, the subjects of learning” – will be a
spur for evangelicals to a deeper and richer intellectual life: “He is before
all things, and in him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:15-17).[3]
evangelicals are the ones who insist most aggressively that they believe
in sola scriptura , and if evangelicals are the ones who
assert most vigorously the transforming work of Jesus Christ, then it is
reasonable to hope that what the Scriptures teach about the origin of creation
in Christ, the sustaining of all things in Christ, and the dignity of all
creation in Christ” – about, in other words, the subjects of learning” – will be a
spur for evangelicals to a deeper and richer intellectual life: “He is before
all things, and in him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:15-17).[3]
Noll then goes on to
speak of signs of hope in contemporary Evangelical culture:
speak of signs of hope in contemporary Evangelical culture:
1. “increasing engagement between evangelicals and
Roman Catholics,”
Roman Catholics,”
2. “the ongoing renascence of Christian
philosophy,”
philosophy,”
3. “‘more institutions of evangelical higher
learning’ … have seasoned their sectarian certitudes with commitment to ‘mere
Christianity’,”
learning’ … have seasoned their sectarian certitudes with commitment to ‘mere
Christianity’,”
4. “the consistent quality of intra-evangelical
debate in forums such as the American Scientific Affiliation’s Perspectives
on Science and Christian Faith” regarding
evolution and creation,
debate in forums such as the American Scientific Affiliation’s Perspectives
on Science and Christian Faith” regarding
evolution and creation,
5. “the multiplying
Christian presence in the nation’s pluralistic universities, where far more
students of evangelical persuasion receive their higher education than at the
evangelical colleges and universities,” and
Christian presence in the nation’s pluralistic universities, where far more
students of evangelical persuasion receive their higher education than at the
evangelical colleges and universities,” and
6. “greater
intellectual responsibility [in] the world of publishing.”[4]
intellectual responsibility [in] the world of publishing.”[4]
It seems to me that both Noll’s original book, and his ten-year
assessment, offer an outline for those of us who still see ourselves in the
evangelical, but not fundamentalist, tradition. If we pay attention to the six
items listed and do our part to enhance each, we may yet redeem the Evangelical
mind.
assessment, offer an outline for those of us who still see ourselves in the
evangelical, but not fundamentalist, tradition. If we pay attention to the six
items listed and do our part to enhance each, we may yet redeem the Evangelical
mind.
[1] “The Evangelical Mind Today”, in First Things First, October, 2004, https://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/10/the-evangelical-mind-today
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
Mark Noll
published The Scandal of the Evangelical
Mind in 1994. It has become essential reading for all Christians since that
time. His main thesis is that “The scandal of the evangelical mind
is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” How well he knew and
knows the culture; how well he knew me at the time. This book, and Harry
Blamire’s 1963, The Christian Mind,
represented a turning point in my understanding of cultural issues, mystery,
and complexity. Noll spends the first chapters outlining the problem and is
necessarily negative toward the Christian community of the day. This blog will
explore the hope and positive directions the book suggests in later posts. For
now, let us hear what Noll said to us in 1994 and compare it to the circumstances
of 2017. Have we journeyed very far beyond the concerns he expresses here?
published The Scandal of the Evangelical
Mind in 1994. It has become essential reading for all Christians since that
time. His main thesis is that “The scandal of the evangelical mind
is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” How well he knew and
knows the culture; how well he knew me at the time. This book, and Harry
Blamire’s 1963, The Christian Mind,
represented a turning point in my understanding of cultural issues, mystery,
and complexity. Noll spends the first chapters outlining the problem and is
necessarily negative toward the Christian community of the day. This blog will
explore the hope and positive directions the book suggests in later posts. For
now, let us hear what Noll said to us in 1994 and compare it to the circumstances
of 2017. Have we journeyed very far beyond the concerns he expresses here?
To put it most simply, the evangelical ethos is activistic, populist,
pragmatic, and utilitarian. It allows little space for broader or deeper
intellectual effort because it is dominated by the urgencies of the moment. In
addition, habits of mind that in previous generations may have stood
evangelicals in good stead have in the twentieth century run amock. As the
Canadian scholar N. K. Clifford once aptly summarized the matter: “The
Evangelical Protestant mind has never relished complexity. Indeed its crusading
genius, whether in religion or politics, has always tended toward an
over-simplification of issues and the substitution of inspiration and zeal for
critical analysis and serious reflection. The limitations of such a mind-set
were less apparent in the relative simplicity of a rural frontier society.”[1]
pragmatic, and utilitarian. It allows little space for broader or deeper
intellectual effort because it is dominated by the urgencies of the moment. In
addition, habits of mind that in previous generations may have stood
evangelicals in good stead have in the twentieth century run amock. As the
Canadian scholar N. K. Clifford once aptly summarized the matter: “The
Evangelical Protestant mind has never relished complexity. Indeed its crusading
genius, whether in religion or politics, has always tended toward an
over-simplification of issues and the substitution of inspiration and zeal for
critical analysis and serious reflection. The limitations of such a mind-set
were less apparent in the relative simplicity of a rural frontier society.”[1]
How would
you understand the Evangelical or Christian ethos today? Is it still
activistic, populist, pragmatic, and/or utilitarian? Do we relish or avoid
complexity?
you understand the Evangelical or Christian ethos today? Is it still
activistic, populist, pragmatic, and/or utilitarian? Do we relish or avoid
complexity?
[1]
The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Mark A. Noll, William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, Grand Rapids, 1994.
The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Mark A. Noll, William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, Grand Rapids, 1994.
A wondrous mystery is proclaimed today; all natures
are renewed: God has become human: he remained what he was, and what he was not
he became, suffering neither confusion nor division. – Jacob Handl (1550-1591),
Mirabile mysterium (as quoted in The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Mark A. Noll, Eerdmans, 1994, p. i.)
I often find myself in situations in which people
ask me questions about faith. The questions come in many forms: “Why are you a
pastor and not a scientist?” “Why do you still dabble in science when you are a
pastor?” “How can you believe in a Creator in this scientific world?” “How can
you believe in godless science in a created world?” “How can a man of
scientific principles like you, have faith that is not backed up by empirical
science and logic?” I usually answer these questions by pointing out that I do
not find contradiction between Science and Faith, Creation and Evolution, and
Logic and Belief. Before long, the conversation works its way to the more
foundational questions. At this level, the questions are fewer but the answers
are more difficult. The two I hear most often are these, “If God is good, why
does he allow horrible suffering in my life (my friend’s life, the world)?” and
“If God wants us to believe in him, why doesn’t he make it easier by simply
proving his existence?”
ask me questions about faith. The questions come in many forms: “Why are you a
pastor and not a scientist?” “Why do you still dabble in science when you are a
pastor?” “How can you believe in a Creator in this scientific world?” “How can
you believe in godless science in a created world?” “How can a man of
scientific principles like you, have faith that is not backed up by empirical
science and logic?” I usually answer these questions by pointing out that I do
not find contradiction between Science and Faith, Creation and Evolution, and
Logic and Belief. Before long, the conversation works its way to the more
foundational questions. At this level, the questions are fewer but the answers
are more difficult. The two I hear most often are these, “If God is good, why
does he allow horrible suffering in my life (my friend’s life, the world)?” and
“If God wants us to believe in him, why doesn’t he make it easier by simply
proving his existence?”
The former question is likely the most
difficult one and the one about which I will not attempt to write today. I have
written about this elsewhere (http://bit.ly/2pZLvRu;
http://bit.ly/2gJnifM;
and http://bit.ly/2eIp5AX)
and many more worthy writers have written upon this theme in large tomes and
short articles.[1]
difficult one and the one about which I will not attempt to write today. I have
written about this elsewhere (http://bit.ly/2pZLvRu;
http://bit.ly/2gJnifM;
and http://bit.ly/2eIp5AX)
and many more worthy writers have written upon this theme in large tomes and
short articles.[1]
As a beginning to an answer to the second
question, I rely upon several authors who have addressed this question. In this
blog, I wish to consolidate some of the quotes and logical processes for you
the reader, but more likely, for myself.
question, I rely upon several authors who have addressed this question. In this
blog, I wish to consolidate some of the quotes and logical processes for you
the reader, but more likely, for myself.
C.S. Lewis has been a “go-to person” for
myself and many others and I still find him incredibly helpful on this topic.
In The Screwtape Letters, he asks us
to imagine a conversation between a senior and a junior demon in which the
senior instructs the junior on the most effective methods for tempting and
controlling a young man. Screwtape, the senior demon, explains why God does not
show himself more plainly to humans.
myself and many others and I still find him incredibly helpful on this topic.
In The Screwtape Letters, he asks us
to imagine a conversation between a senior and a junior demon in which the
senior instructs the junior on the most effective methods for tempting and
controlling a young man. Screwtape, the senior demon, explains why God does not
show himself more plainly to humans.
You must have often
wondered why the Enemy does not make more use of His power to be sensibly
present to human souls in any degree He chooses and at any moment. But you now
see that the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the
very nature of His scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to over-ride a human will
(as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would
certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo.[2]
wondered why the Enemy does not make more use of His power to be sensibly
present to human souls in any degree He chooses and at any moment. But you now
see that the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the
very nature of His scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to over-ride a human will
(as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would
certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo.[2]
Lewis wrote these words in 1942 and they still
have weight today. They describe a God who has chosen to make himself
resistible. He will woo humans, but will not force them to submit to his will.
have weight today. They describe a God who has chosen to make himself
resistible. He will woo humans, but will not force them to submit to his will.
Wendell Berry does something similar in his
book, Jayber Crow, and perhaps better
explains how even the “faintest and mitigated” presence of God would over-ride
human will. Berry says,
book, Jayber Crow, and perhaps better
explains how even the “faintest and mitigated” presence of God would over-ride
human will. Berry says,
“Christ did not
descend from the cross except into the grave. And why not otherwise? Wouldn’t
it have put fine comical expressions on the faces of the scribes and chief
priests and the soldiers if at that moment He had come down in power and glory?
Why didn’t He do it? Why hasn’t He done it at any one of a thousand good times
between then and now? … He didn’t, He
hasn’t, because from the moment He did, He would be the absolute tyrant of the
world and we would be His slaves. Even those who hated Him and hated one
another and hated their own souls would have to believe in Him then. From that
moment the possibility that we might be bound to Him and He to us and us to one
another by love forever would be ended. … Those who wish to see Him must see
Him in the poor, the hungry, the hurt, the wordless creatures, the groaning and
travailing beautiful world.”[3]
descend from the cross except into the grave. And why not otherwise? Wouldn’t
it have put fine comical expressions on the faces of the scribes and chief
priests and the soldiers if at that moment He had come down in power and glory?
Why didn’t He do it? Why hasn’t He done it at any one of a thousand good times
between then and now? … He didn’t, He
hasn’t, because from the moment He did, He would be the absolute tyrant of the
world and we would be His slaves. Even those who hated Him and hated one
another and hated their own souls would have to believe in Him then. From that
moment the possibility that we might be bound to Him and He to us and us to one
another by love forever would be ended. … Those who wish to see Him must see
Him in the poor, the hungry, the hurt, the wordless creatures, the groaning and
travailing beautiful world.”[3]
I appreciate both forms of
this answer because they rely upon story, metaphor, and logic, all at the same
time. As others have eloquently noted, sometimes poetry is the only means
available to us to express our thoughts about God. Poetry allows us to make
clear things that would otherwise remain opaque. As the nineteenth-century
Anglican theologian Charles Gore rightly insisted:
this answer because they rely upon story, metaphor, and logic, all at the same
time. As others have eloquently noted, sometimes poetry is the only means
available to us to express our thoughts about God. Poetry allows us to make
clear things that would otherwise remain opaque. As the nineteenth-century
Anglican theologian Charles Gore rightly insisted:
Human language never can express adequately
divine realities. A constant tendency to apologize for human speech … is always
present to the mind of theologians who know what they are about, in conceiving
or expressing God.” “We see,” says St. Paul, “in a mirror, in terms of a
riddle;” “we know in part.” “We are compelled,” complains St. Hilary, “to
attempt what is unattainable, to climb where we cannot reach, to speak what we
cannot utter; instead of the mere adoration of faith, we are compelled to
entrust the deep things of religion to the perils of human expression.”[4]
divine realities. A constant tendency to apologize for human speech … is always
present to the mind of theologians who know what they are about, in conceiving
or expressing God.” “We see,” says St. Paul, “in a mirror, in terms of a
riddle;” “we know in part.” “We are compelled,” complains St. Hilary, “to
attempt what is unattainable, to climb where we cannot reach, to speak what we
cannot utter; instead of the mere adoration of faith, we are compelled to
entrust the deep things of religion to the perils of human expression.”[4]
Lesslie
Newbigin, takes us deeper into the mind of the scientist, the theologian, and
the Creator when he points out that we must indeed have a “humble apologetic”
about such questions. In his book, Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and
Certainty in Christian Discipleship,
Newbigin reminds us of the proper place of such conversations,
Newbigin, takes us deeper into the mind of the scientist, the theologian, and
the Creator when he points out that we must indeed have a “humble apologetic”
about such questions. In his book, Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and
Certainty in Christian Discipleship,
Newbigin reminds us of the proper place of such conversations,
Cause is
something that can be discovered by observation and reason. Purpose is not
available for inspection because, until the purpose has been realized, it is
hidden in the mind of the one whose purpose it is. Suppose that going along a
street, we observe men at work with piles of bricks and bags of cement, and we
guess that a building is being erected. What is it to be? An office? A house? A
chapel? There are only two ways to discover the answer: we can wait around
until the work is complete and inspection enables us to discover what it is. If
we cannot wait until then, we must ask the architect, and we will have to take
his word for it. If the work in question is not the building of a house but the
creation and consummation of the cosmos, the first alternative is not available
to us. We shall not be present to examine the end product of cosmic history. If
the whole thing has any purpose (and of course we may decide, as postmoderns
do, that it has no purpose), the only way we can know that purpose is by a disclosure
from the one whose purpose it is, a disclosure which we would have to take on
trust. There is no escape from this necessity. The modern antithesis of
observation and reason on the one hand versus revelation and faith on the other
is only tenable on the basis of a prior decision that the whole cosmic and
human history has no purpose and therefore no meaning. It is possible to make
this assumption, but it is not necessary. The question whether the cosmos and
human life within it have any purpose other than the individual purposes we
seek to impose on things is one that cannot be decided by observation. If we
live with a prior assumption that human life has no purpose; then we shall act
accordingly, and there will be no possibility whatsoever of discovering its
purpose.[5]
something that can be discovered by observation and reason. Purpose is not
available for inspection because, until the purpose has been realized, it is
hidden in the mind of the one whose purpose it is. Suppose that going along a
street, we observe men at work with piles of bricks and bags of cement, and we
guess that a building is being erected. What is it to be? An office? A house? A
chapel? There are only two ways to discover the answer: we can wait around
until the work is complete and inspection enables us to discover what it is. If
we cannot wait until then, we must ask the architect, and we will have to take
his word for it. If the work in question is not the building of a house but the
creation and consummation of the cosmos, the first alternative is not available
to us. We shall not be present to examine the end product of cosmic history. If
the whole thing has any purpose (and of course we may decide, as postmoderns
do, that it has no purpose), the only way we can know that purpose is by a disclosure
from the one whose purpose it is, a disclosure which we would have to take on
trust. There is no escape from this necessity. The modern antithesis of
observation and reason on the one hand versus revelation and faith on the other
is only tenable on the basis of a prior decision that the whole cosmic and
human history has no purpose and therefore no meaning. It is possible to make
this assumption, but it is not necessary. The question whether the cosmos and
human life within it have any purpose other than the individual purposes we
seek to impose on things is one that cannot be decided by observation. If we
live with a prior assumption that human life has no purpose; then we shall act
accordingly, and there will be no possibility whatsoever of discovering its
purpose.[5]
It is these and other authors
such as Flannery O’Conner[6]
and Francis Collins[7]
who, for me, help to make sense of the thoughts already in my head. They permit
me to ask the difficult questions; they allow me to formulate my own answers;
and they point me to truth.
such as Flannery O’Conner[6]
and Francis Collins[7]
who, for me, help to make sense of the thoughts already in my head. They permit
me to ask the difficult questions; they allow me to formulate my own answers;
and they point me to truth.
What are some of the
questions you are having about faith? Is one of your questions listed above? Do
you have a different, more compelling question? Might I direct you toward
someone who has answers to your questions? Let us together engage in “humble
apologetics” and see where it might lead us.
questions you are having about faith? Is one of your questions listed above? Do
you have a different, more compelling question? Might I direct you toward
someone who has answers to your questions? Let us together engage in “humble
apologetics” and see where it might lead us.
[1] I suggest one start
with The Problem of Pain written by C.S. Lewis available here http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/PDFs/ProblemofPain_CSL.pdf and progress to a more academic work such
as The Cambridge Companion to the Problem
of Evil, Meister and Moser, Cambridge University Press, 2017 or Evolutionary Theodicy: Towards an
Evangelical Perspective, Bethany
Sollereder, Regent College, 2010.
with The Problem of Pain written by C.S. Lewis available here http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/PDFs/ProblemofPain_CSL.pdf and progress to a more academic work such
as The Cambridge Companion to the Problem
of Evil, Meister and Moser, Cambridge University Press, 2017 or Evolutionary Theodicy: Towards an
Evangelical Perspective, Bethany
Sollereder, Regent College, 2010.
[2] Lewis, C.S. The Screwtape Letters. New York: MacMillan
Publishing Co., Inc, 1980, p. 38, 39.
Publishing Co., Inc, 1980, p. 38, 39.
[3] Wendell Berry, Jayber Crow, Counterpoint,
2001, p. 173-174.
2001, p. 173-174.
[4] Alister McGrath, Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of
Life (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 1998), 157.
Life (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 1998), 157.
[5] Newbigin, L. (1995). Proper
Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 57, 58.
Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 57, 58.
[6] What people don’t
realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket,
when of course it is the cross. It is much harder to believe than not to
believe. If you feel you can’t believe, you must at least do this: keep an open
mind. Keep it open toward faith, keep wanting it, keep asking for it, and leave
the rest to God.”
― Flannery O’Connor, The Habit of Being: Letters of Flannery O’Connor
realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket,
when of course it is the cross. It is much harder to believe than not to
believe. If you feel you can’t believe, you must at least do this: keep an open
mind. Keep it open toward faith, keep wanting it, keep asking for it, and leave
the rest to God.”
― Flannery O’Connor, The Habit of Being: Letters of Flannery O’Connor
[7] Francis Collins in The Language of God. “the tools of
science are not the right ones to learn about Him. (…) The evidence of God’s
existence would have to come from other directions, and the ultimate decision
would be based on faith, not proof.” (p. 30).
science are not the right ones to learn about Him. (…) The evidence of God’s
existence would have to come from other directions, and the ultimate decision
would be based on faith, not proof.” (p. 30).
“There
is but one good; that is God. Everything else is good when it looks to Him and
bad when it turns from Him.”
C.S. Lewis in The Great Divorce
(1945)
is but one good; that is God. Everything else is good when it looks to Him and
bad when it turns from Him.”
C.S. Lewis in The Great Divorce
(1945)
C.S.
Lewis (1898-1963) was brilliant at saying things in ways that make sense and
challenge our thoughts. The thought expressed in the previous quote is one
which flows through much of my writing and is particularly evident in the novel I have written. To some who read this blog, God is someone that they have come
to know and are beginning to understand. To other readers, God is a concept to
which they find their minds returning again and again. Still others would say
they can no longer believe in a God of any sort. Most of us believe in “good;” and
“good” directs us toward something. The question that remains for each of us
relates to the direction in which we are pointed. Does “good” point us toward
humanity; the universe; or to God? May our hearts and minds lead us to the
truth.
Lewis (1898-1963) was brilliant at saying things in ways that make sense and
challenge our thoughts. The thought expressed in the previous quote is one
which flows through much of my writing and is particularly evident in the novel I have written. To some who read this blog, God is someone that they have come
to know and are beginning to understand. To other readers, God is a concept to
which they find their minds returning again and again. Still others would say
they can no longer believe in a God of any sort. Most of us believe in “good;” and
“good” directs us toward something. The question that remains for each of us
relates to the direction in which we are pointed. Does “good” point us toward
humanity; the universe; or to God? May our hearts and minds lead us to the
truth.
The writer Mary Doria Russell has said,
To me, religion seems very much like music. No one would
argue that music is the opposite of science. No one would expect a scientist to
reject music, simply because it is not a collection of empirical facts
organized into a body of theory that generates testable hypotheses. No one
would ask if music is scientifically accurate or if music is less true than
science. Those kinds of comparisons are meaningless….
When I hear arguments about which is truer, religion or
science, the wrangling seems pointless to me. It’s like a baseball team
suddenly leaving the ball field, charging into an art gallery, and yelling,
“You’re not playing baseball!” To which the only answer could
be, “Well, uh, no.” Or say a bunch of art historians accuse the ball
team, “You’re not studying art!” Well, duh … They are
different activities, with different rules and aims. Baseball players can be
interested in art history; art historians can be baseball fans—these are simply
not mutually exclusive. But they are different….
When
you drop a big rock, it doesn’t take faith to believe that it’s going to be
pulled toward the center of the earth, and you’d better move your foot out of
its way. If the existence of God, and the correctness of a particular
theological description of God were like that, then religion would stop being
about faith.
– An interview with Mary Doria Russell
Today, I
saw a house-cat hunting a squirrel. The cat crept up on the unsuspecting
creature, carefully trying to get within range of a giant leap and an
unleashing of claws and teeth. One could see thousands of years of instincts and
intuition, passed down from ancient ancestors, coiled up in the body of this
domesticated cat. Something told me this cat was exceptionally good at hunting.
Even the fact that he would set his sights on a squirrel was laudable. A
squirrel that is capable of quickly climbing fences and trees in a flash is not
easy prey. What made this vignette sad was the fact that the cat wore a bell.
No matter how hard the cat might try to creep up on its target, a slight
movement of the bell would give away the position of the cat and alert its
quarry. The owner was likely tired of the cat bringing home fresh kills to the
house. Cats will do that you know. They are proud of their accomplishments and
seek approval from those that love them. The cat may not be hungry, but some
ancient instinct stirs in its mind and calls the cat to hunt. Some would accuse
the cat of killing for sport. I do not think we should readily jump to that
conclusion. Who knows what rare minerals or amino acids may be lacking in the
body of this cat. Perhaps it is a specific hunger that drives it to crave this
most ancient meat. Or perhaps it is the “call of the wild” inside this cat – a wild
side that cannot be tamed – that calls to its nose and nervous system.
saw a house-cat hunting a squirrel. The cat crept up on the unsuspecting
creature, carefully trying to get within range of a giant leap and an
unleashing of claws and teeth. One could see thousands of years of instincts and
intuition, passed down from ancient ancestors, coiled up in the body of this
domesticated cat. Something told me this cat was exceptionally good at hunting.
Even the fact that he would set his sights on a squirrel was laudable. A
squirrel that is capable of quickly climbing fences and trees in a flash is not
easy prey. What made this vignette sad was the fact that the cat wore a bell.
No matter how hard the cat might try to creep up on its target, a slight
movement of the bell would give away the position of the cat and alert its
quarry. The owner was likely tired of the cat bringing home fresh kills to the
house. Cats will do that you know. They are proud of their accomplishments and
seek approval from those that love them. The cat may not be hungry, but some
ancient instinct stirs in its mind and calls the cat to hunt. Some would accuse
the cat of killing for sport. I do not think we should readily jump to that
conclusion. Who knows what rare minerals or amino acids may be lacking in the
body of this cat. Perhaps it is a specific hunger that drives it to crave this
most ancient meat. Or perhaps it is the “call of the wild” inside this cat – a wild
side that cannot be tamed – that calls to its nose and nervous system.
How sad to
be caged without a cage. How sad to feel the pull toward something for which it
has been made, with barriers that work against the fulfillment of purpose.
There is a bigger story here.
be caged without a cage. How sad to feel the pull toward something for which it
has been made, with barriers that work against the fulfillment of purpose.
There is a bigger story here.
How many
people may be living a similarly caged life – caged by an almost imperceptible
bell that seeks to keep them from their true calling? I do not speak of selfish
goals or desires that enhance the individual. I speak of the person that each
of us was designed to be. Those who think there is no design should stop
reading here. Those who believe we are a product of chance driven by internal
cravings for personal profit will be disappointed by the conclusion of this
post. I speak instead of the very design of each person, the gifts and talents
placed in our bodies and minds by one who has known us before we were conceived
(Jeremiah 1:5; Psalm 139:15, 16; Isaiah 49:5). I speak of the thousands of
years that have come and gone before, leading to a moment in history for
which God has ordained us for the collective purposes of the world as it is
today. Without a picture of who God made each of us to be, we will forever be
pacing the cage; forever battling the barriers that keep us from our true
calling. Even the cat is driven by a will to enhance the fortunes of his family
that carry its genes into the generations to come, how much more has God made
each of us for improving the future of humans and the welfare of others around
us? How many of us might agree with the sentiments of Bruce Cockburn’s song
when he says,
people may be living a similarly caged life – caged by an almost imperceptible
bell that seeks to keep them from their true calling? I do not speak of selfish
goals or desires that enhance the individual. I speak of the person that each
of us was designed to be. Those who think there is no design should stop
reading here. Those who believe we are a product of chance driven by internal
cravings for personal profit will be disappointed by the conclusion of this
post. I speak instead of the very design of each person, the gifts and talents
placed in our bodies and minds by one who has known us before we were conceived
(Jeremiah 1:5; Psalm 139:15, 16; Isaiah 49:5). I speak of the thousands of
years that have come and gone before, leading to a moment in history for
which God has ordained us for the collective purposes of the world as it is
today. Without a picture of who God made each of us to be, we will forever be
pacing the cage; forever battling the barriers that keep us from our true
calling. Even the cat is driven by a will to enhance the fortunes of his family
that carry its genes into the generations to come, how much more has God made
each of us for improving the future of humans and the welfare of others around
us? How many of us might agree with the sentiments of Bruce Cockburn’s song
when he says,
I’ve proven who I am so many times
The magnetic strip’s worn thin
And each time I was someone else
And every one was taken in[1]
The magnetic strip’s worn thin
And each time I was someone else
And every one was taken in[1]
I pray that
each of us might seek our true calling and not an image we wish others would
believe. May the barriers that keep us from the things to which our God calls
us be shattered and torn away – like the bell I removed from a cat’s collar.
each of us might seek our true calling and not an image we wish others would
believe. May the barriers that keep us from the things to which our God calls
us be shattered and torn away – like the bell I removed from a cat’s collar.
[1]
“Pacing the Cage;” Bruce
Cockburn, The Charity of the Night, http://cockburnproject.net/songs&music/ptc.html
“Pacing the Cage;” Bruce
Cockburn, The Charity of the Night, http://cockburnproject.net/songs&music/ptc.html
Annie Dillard went to see a total eclipse of the sun in 1979
and wrote about it in “Total Eclipse,” published as part of her book, Teaching a Stone to Talk. She speaks of
the terrifying nature of a total eclipse and says that “Seeing a partial
eclipse bears the same relation to seeing a total eclipse as kissing a man does
to marrying him.” She describes the eeriness of totality and the awe it
inspires. One can tell that, for her, it was a profoundly moving experience.
Then, in the last paragraphs she speaks of walking away from the hill on which
she and her husband had watched the eclipse.
and wrote about it in “Total Eclipse,” published as part of her book, Teaching a Stone to Talk. She speaks of
the terrifying nature of a total eclipse and says that “Seeing a partial
eclipse bears the same relation to seeing a total eclipse as kissing a man does
to marrying him.” She describes the eeriness of totality and the awe it
inspires. One can tell that, for her, it was a profoundly moving experience.
Then, in the last paragraphs she speaks of walking away from the hill on which
she and her husband had watched the eclipse.
“…when the total eclipse ended, an odd
thing happened.
thing happened.
When the sun appeared as a blinding
bead on the ring’s side, the eclipse was over. The black lens cover appeared
again, back-lighted, and slid away. At once the yellow light made the sky blue
again; the black lid dissolved and vanished. The real world began there. I
remember now: We all hurried away. We were born and bored at a stroke. We
rushed down the hill. We found our car; we saw the other people streaming down
the hillsides; we joined the highway traffic and drove away.
bead on the ring’s side, the eclipse was over. The black lens cover appeared
again, back-lighted, and slid away. At once the yellow light made the sky blue
again; the black lid dissolved and vanished. The real world began there. I
remember now: We all hurried away. We were born and bored at a stroke. We
rushed down the hill. We found our car; we saw the other people streaming down
the hillsides; we joined the highway traffic and drove away.
We never looked back. It was a general
vamoose, and an odd one, for when we left the hill, the sun was still partially
eclipsed—a sight rare enough, and one which, in itself, we would probably have
driven five hours to see. But enough is enough. One turns at last even from
glory itself with a sigh of relief. From the depths of mystery, and even from
the heights of splendor, we bounce back and hurry for the latitudes of home.”
vamoose, and an odd one, for when we left the hill, the sun was still partially
eclipsed—a sight rare enough, and one which, in itself, we would probably have
driven five hours to see. But enough is enough. One turns at last even from
glory itself with a sigh of relief. From the depths of mystery, and even from
the heights of splendor, we bounce back and hurry for the latitudes of home.”
The last two sentences of the article speak of more than
just her experience of the eclipse. Dillard is one who sees the world in all
its glory and has described it well for others in the books she has written. She
knows of mystery, splendor, and glory. She also knows that we humans do not
live in experiences of rapture forever. We spend most of our time in the
mundane world of home. “One turns at last even from glory itself with a sigh of
relief. From the depths of mystery, and even from the heights of splendor, we
bounce back and hurry for the latitudes of home.”
just her experience of the eclipse. Dillard is one who sees the world in all
its glory and has described it well for others in the books she has written. She
knows of mystery, splendor, and glory. She also knows that we humans do not
live in experiences of rapture forever. We spend most of our time in the
mundane world of home. “One turns at last even from glory itself with a sigh of
relief. From the depths of mystery, and even from the heights of splendor, we
bounce back and hurry for the latitudes of home.”
I am one who is fortunate to work at a job in which I am
paid to live in the world of glory, mystery and splendor. I get to interpret
God, the mysteries of the universe, and creation to a world that is weighed
down by expense records and balance sheets. Dillard says, “It can never be satisfied,
the mind, never…. the mind wants to know all the world, and all eternity, and
God. The mind’s sidekick, however, will settle for two eggs over easy.” Most of
us live in the day-to-day of eggs and jobs and marriages and kids. We only
briefly think about eclipses, theology, creation, and the mysteries of the
universe. We are too busy working for that next meal of “two eggs over easy.” Most
of the time, we are more comfortable in the world of eggs and expense records.
Then, occasionally, the sun is blotted out from the sky and we consider our
place in the world. Like ancients who believed that a wolf had bitten a chunk
out of the sun, we wonder at the complexities of our world and are reminded of
things we had not thought about for some time. We are faced with the size of
the moon relative to our earth and to our sun. We are reminded that our
universe is full of stars and moons and planets and things beyond this earth.
Suddenly the “two eggs over easy” seem insignificant considering the bigger
questions of how we got here and where we are headed. But it only lasts a
moment. The total eclipse is over and “From the depths of mystery, and even
from the heights of splendor, we bounce back and hurry for the latitudes of
home.”
paid to live in the world of glory, mystery and splendor. I get to interpret
God, the mysteries of the universe, and creation to a world that is weighed
down by expense records and balance sheets. Dillard says, “It can never be satisfied,
the mind, never…. the mind wants to know all the world, and all eternity, and
God. The mind’s sidekick, however, will settle for two eggs over easy.” Most of
us live in the day-to-day of eggs and jobs and marriages and kids. We only
briefly think about eclipses, theology, creation, and the mysteries of the
universe. We are too busy working for that next meal of “two eggs over easy.” Most
of the time, we are more comfortable in the world of eggs and expense records.
Then, occasionally, the sun is blotted out from the sky and we consider our
place in the world. Like ancients who believed that a wolf had bitten a chunk
out of the sun, we wonder at the complexities of our world and are reminded of
things we had not thought about for some time. We are faced with the size of
the moon relative to our earth and to our sun. We are reminded that our
universe is full of stars and moons and planets and things beyond this earth.
Suddenly the “two eggs over easy” seem insignificant considering the bigger
questions of how we got here and where we are headed. But it only lasts a
moment. The total eclipse is over and “From the depths of mystery, and even
from the heights of splendor, we bounce back and hurry for the latitudes of
home.”
With all that is going on in the world, this DC Talk song
came to my mind. It seems that there is a lot of hate and selfishness in our
world today. Each of us needs to examine our hearts to see what darkness lies
inside.
came to my mind. It seems that there is a lot of hate and selfishness in our
world today. Each of us needs to examine our hearts to see what darkness lies
inside.
What Have We Become?
(performed by DC Talk)
A preacher shuns his brother
Cause his bride’s a different color
And this is not acceptable
His papa taught him so
Cause his bride’s a different color
And this is not acceptable
His papa taught him so
It was love that he’d been preaching
But this was overreaching
The boundaries stretchin’ further
Than his heart would choose to go
But this was overreaching
The boundaries stretchin’ further
Than his heart would choose to go
Like an angel with no wings
Like a kingdom with no king
Like a kingdom with no king
What have we become?
A self-indulgent people
What have we become?
Tell me where are the righteous ones?
What have we become?
In a world degenerating
What have we become?
A self-indulgent people
What have we become?
Tell me where are the righteous ones?
What have we become?
In a world degenerating
What have we become?
Speak your mind, look out for yourself
The answer to it all is a life of wealth
Grab all you can cause you live just once
You got the right to do whatever you want
Don’t worry about others or where you came from
It ain’t what you were, it’s what you have become
The answer to it all is a life of wealth
Grab all you can cause you live just once
You got the right to do whatever you want
Don’t worry about others or where you came from
It ain’t what you were, it’s what you have become
Mom and Dad are fightin’
As Rosie lies there crying
For once again she’s overheard
Regrets of their mistake
With Christmas bells a-ringing
Little Rosie’d leave them grieving
As Rosie lies there crying
For once again she’s overheard
Regrets of their mistake
With Christmas bells a-ringing
Little Rosie’d leave them grieving
The gift she’d give her family
Would be the pills she’d take
Would be the pills she’d take
An inconvenient child
She wasn’t worth their while
She wasn’t worth their while
What about love?
What about God?
What about holiness?
What about mercy, compassion and selflessness?
What about God?
What about holiness?
What about mercy, compassion and selflessness?
You know it’s true
He is there for me and you
Doesn’t matter what you do
He is there for me and you
Doesn’t matter what you do
What have we become?
Have we come undone?
What have we become?
Have we come undone?
What have we become?
Have we come undone?
What have we become?
Have we come undone?
What have we become?
Selfish…
With selfish…
Selfish people
When you gonna learn?
Everyone of us
Gathered ’round in trust
What have we become?
With selfish…
Selfish people
When you gonna learn?
Everyone of us
Gathered ’round in trust
What have we become?
Written by Adam Bradley Smith, Brooke Barrettsmith •
Copyright © Universal Music Publishing Group, Capitol Christian Music Group
Copyright © Universal Music Publishing Group, Capitol Christian Music Group
The last ten minutes of a Steve Taylor interview on the Cultivated podcast from April 15, 2017, describes the
tension felt by Steve Taylor and a great many other artists.
tension felt by Steve Taylor and a great many other artists.
Interviewer: “I want to talk about the impulse
to be an artist, the impulse to make these things and send them out into the
world. How would you describe that for yourself? … It takes a certain audacity
to say, ‘I’m going to play music … or here is all this money, go make a film.’
Where does that audacity come from for you?” …Steve: “If you were a totally well-rounded
individual you wouldn’t feel the need to get on stage in the first place.” …Interviewer: “Richard Pryor’s quote, ‘Happy
well-adjusted people don’t get into this business.’”Steve: “What makes me want to make things and show
them to people? It is there and it is probably not a good thing.… Where you
wake up every day and think ‘what am I going to do to get people to work for me
and what am I going to do to get people to like me’ and it is all about self-promotion?
It is part of the job and you can’t not do it. But it doesn’t square well with
our Christian faith.… Making stuff is good, it is a high calling and we need
more followers of Jesus to be doing it as well, but it has a dark side…. It
will never be enough.”
I do not have definitive answers to the questions
Steve Taylor is raising, but I do think there must be more to this. Taylor says
that the self-promotion necessary to be successful as an artist “doesn’t square
well with our Christian faith.” He may be right there. Jesus never promoted
himself, he promoted a message. Perhaps that is part of the difference. The
message can be something as simple as wanting to entertain the masses with
movies or songs or it may be something more profound. Taylor has important messages
for the world. Sometimes his message is, “Christian, give your head a shake, do
you really think it would be alright for a person to blow-up an abortion
clinic?” Sometimes it is much subtler like the messages in the song, “A Life
Preserved.” One of my favourite lines from that song is “Gratitude’s too cheap
a word for all you’ve reassembled, from a spirit broken and unnerved, a life
preserved.” The message of this song is worthy of promotion.
Steve Taylor is raising, but I do think there must be more to this. Taylor says
that the self-promotion necessary to be successful as an artist “doesn’t square
well with our Christian faith.” He may be right there. Jesus never promoted
himself, he promoted a message. Perhaps that is part of the difference. The
message can be something as simple as wanting to entertain the masses with
movies or songs or it may be something more profound. Taylor has important messages
for the world. Sometimes his message is, “Christian, give your head a shake, do
you really think it would be alright for a person to blow-up an abortion
clinic?” Sometimes it is much subtler like the messages in the song, “A Life
Preserved.” One of my favourite lines from that song is “Gratitude’s too cheap
a word for all you’ve reassembled, from a spirit broken and unnerved, a life
preserved.” The message of this song is worthy of promotion.
Perhaps the artist could leave the promotion
to others. Agents and producers can promote an artist without some of the
difficulties (of course, they will have their own difficulties because they
make their living from the success of the individual). Fans can be the greatest
promoters of the artist; but how does one get the word out to the fan without a
certain degree of self-promotion? Steve Taylor has created a great description
of this with a video produced by Splint Entertainment called “The Future of the Music Industry.”
The video reminds me of the many brilliant songs that toil in obscurity because
they never got radio play or fan support or any kind of promotion. The song,
movie, painting, poem, book, or other work of art may be a phenomenal work, but
if no one knows about it, it will not be recognized for what it is. How does
one get the message out? How does one make a living and continue to do art?
to others. Agents and producers can promote an artist without some of the
difficulties (of course, they will have their own difficulties because they
make their living from the success of the individual). Fans can be the greatest
promoters of the artist; but how does one get the word out to the fan without a
certain degree of self-promotion? Steve Taylor has created a great description
of this with a video produced by Splint Entertainment called “The Future of the Music Industry.”
The video reminds me of the many brilliant songs that toil in obscurity because
they never got radio play or fan support or any kind of promotion. The song,
movie, painting, poem, book, or other work of art may be a phenomenal work, but
if no one knows about it, it will not be recognized for what it is. How does
one get the message out? How does one make a living and continue to do art?
Annie Dillard, a writer who has achieved a
degree of success, would likely be known to a great many more people and be
considered a bigger success if she had done more self-promotion. Madeline L’Engle
nearly gave up writing completely. The Wikipedia article about L’Engle quotes her as saying, “‘With all the hours I spent writing, I was still not pulling my own
weight financially.’ Soon she discovered both that she could not give it up and
that she had continued to work on fiction subconsciously.”[1]
degree of success, would likely be known to a great many more people and be
considered a bigger success if she had done more self-promotion. Madeline L’Engle
nearly gave up writing completely. The Wikipedia article about L’Engle quotes her as saying, “‘With all the hours I spent writing, I was still not pulling my own
weight financially.’ Soon she discovered both that she could not give it up and
that she had continued to work on fiction subconsciously.”[1]
As I reach the end of this commentary, I
am left with many more questions than answers. I struggle to find a brilliant
conclusion that will sum it all up and put a bow on the gift I wish to leave
for the artists of the world. Maybe one day I will return and add a post-script
that solves the problem and answers the questions. For now, I leave us with 123
words from Annie Dillard, which, at the pace with which Dillard claims,[2] likely took her the better part of a day to write. In this paragraph,
she describes the beauty of writing and one almost hears her say that the emotion
is all the reward an author needs.
am left with many more questions than answers. I struggle to find a brilliant
conclusion that will sum it all up and put a bow on the gift I wish to leave
for the artists of the world. Maybe one day I will return and add a post-script
that solves the problem and answers the questions. For now, I leave us with 123
words from Annie Dillard, which, at the pace with which Dillard claims,[2] likely took her the better part of a day to write. In this paragraph,
she describes the beauty of writing and one almost hears her say that the emotion
is all the reward an author needs.
At its best, the sensation of writing
is that of any unmerited grace. It is handed to you, but only if you look for
it. You search, you break your heart, your back, your brain, and then – and
only then – it is handed to you. From the corner of your eye you see motion.
Something is moving through the air and headed your way. It is a parcel bound
in ribbons and bows; it has two white wings. It flies directly at you; you can
read your name on it. If it were a baseball, you would hit it out of the park.
It is that one pitch in a thousand you see in slow motion; its wings beat
slowly as a hawk’s.[3]
is that of any unmerited grace. It is handed to you, but only if you look for
it. You search, you break your heart, your back, your brain, and then – and
only then – it is handed to you. From the corner of your eye you see motion.
Something is moving through the air and headed your way. It is a parcel bound
in ribbons and bows; it has two white wings. It flies directly at you; you can
read your name on it. If it were a baseball, you would hit it out of the park.
It is that one pitch in a thousand you see in slow motion; its wings beat
slowly as a hawk’s.[3]
I hear Steve Taylor’s voice say, “Yeah, but my family’s gotta eat!”
Works Cited:
Dillard, Annie. The Writing
Life. New York: Harper Perennial, 1990.
[1] “Madeleine
L’Engle”. Awards & Honors: 2004 National Humanities Medalist. National Endowment for the Humanities. Retrieved
2013-06-19.
L’Engle”. Awards & Honors: 2004 National Humanities Medalist. National Endowment for the Humanities. Retrieved
2013-06-19.
[2]
See her book, The Writing Life.
See her book, The Writing Life.
[3] (Dillard
1990, 75)
1990, 75)