King Solomon said, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Prov. 1:7). Certainly Solomon extols the virtue of learning. Learning is then a virtue for Christians, too. However, Mark Noll has long lamented evangelicals’ unwillingness to pursue knowledge in his book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, critiquing them for their theological deficiencies and focusing on this grim problem. Seventeen years later in his book, Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind (Eerdmans 2011), he offers a different tone—one that is “more hopeful than despairing, more attuned to possibilities than to problems, more concerned with theological resources than with theological deficiencies” [1]. This more recent work is an attempt to point the way forward and to provide a foundation for Christian learning.
The Foundation of Learning
Noll argues that the Christian faith is the very basis for human learning. Specifically, he argues that “Christianity is defined by the person and work of Jesus Christ” [2]. Thus, his contention “is that coming to know Christ provides the most basic possible motive for pursuing the tasks of human learning” [3]. The classic creeds of the faith (particularly the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Chalcedonian definition of Christ’s divine-human nature) serve to prove his thesis.
In the Apostles’ Creed, there is “[t]he world created by God; the work accomplished by Jesus; the institutions, deeds, and expectations inspired by the Holy Spirit” [5]. This gives cause for investigating the physical world, yet placing that study within the scope of an eternal perspective. The Nicene Creed shows that God accomplished His redemptive work through the created order and human events in the Incarnation. Thus, both are worth understanding. Finally, the Chalcedonian Creed holds both divine and human realities together, without emphasizing one over the other. On this basis, Noll contends that believers possess “the most solid basis imaginable for the union of true Christianity (grounded in divine realities) and true scholarship (grounded in interaction with the world)” [6]. The creeds, then, provide reasons for participating in scholarship.
This challenges Christians to think about the necessity of a confessional tradition as requisite for all learning endeavors. He warns:
Christian bodies that claim to follow “no creed but the Bible” put themselves at an enormous disadvantage for many purposes, not least for promoting Christian learning, because they cut themselves off from the vitally important work that has been accomplished by the numberless assemblies making up the communion of saints [7].
This would also explain why many non-confessional movements have advanced either little or none in the area of scholarship. And when we examine confessional movements compared to non-confessing movements, this description accurately fits. Thus, Christians must “ground faith in the great traditions of classical Christian theology, for these are the traditions that reveal the heights and depths of Jesus Christ. Intellectually, there is no other way” [8]. Though non-confessional evangelicals will heartily claim “no creed but the Bible,” it should be remembered that Scripture is not our only authority, but rather it is our final authority.
The Motivation for Learning
Though the foundation of learning is important, intellectual endeavors are useless apart from proper motivation. Not only is Jesus the foundation for learning, He is also its motivation. By learning, we honor Christ’s creation since we are studying His handiwork [9]. Since all things consist in Christ, no area of life exists beyond His Lordship [10]. Thus, His sovereign control extends to all things, including learning [11]. The very reality that Christ took on flesh proves that the material world is worthy studying [12]. He has given it dignity and worth. Christ’s acts of redemption in time and space show that attention to this world is essential [13]. And since God’s beauty and creation finds its fullest manifestation in Christ, our understanding of aesthetics should be informed by the Christian faith.
This is probably the most fundamental portion of Noll’s proposal. Whereas the pursuit of learning is lacking among many evangelicals, the very essence of the Christian faith says otherwise. In fact, Noll makes it hard to understand how anyone could overlook the necessity for Christian intellectual engagement. By abstaining from intellectual endeavors, spiritual growth is deeply stunted. We also reject the appropriate means that God has given Christians to make advances for cultural change and the betterment of society. In effect, we have cut our legs out from under ourselves. Interestingly enough, Christians who lament the downfall of American society do not see the minimal interest in learning as coinciding with it. If evangelicals desire cultural change of any form, increased interest in developing Christian thought must take place.
The Application for Learning
While many people would not disagree with Noll’s foundation and motivation, his application may raise difficulties for some, however. He discusses three disciplines in particular: history, science, and biblical studies.
Though the Enlightenment encouraged objective, historical realism, postmodernism held that we always view the past from a particular vantage point (since people write history). In other words, Noll promotes a “peace” between objective, historical realism and personal subjectivism because Christians must realize that obtaining complete historical objectivity will be difficult, though not impossible [14]. Furthermore, Christians in the past have gotten themselves in trouble by trying to interpret history in the same way the biblical writers did. This results from the misuse of the doctrine of God’s providence. Problems arise when “believers put providence in play for history writing” [15]. While Christian historians should attend to the question of providence in history, Noll is not as optimistic about it as others might be and warrants caution.
In the scientific realm, the discipline historically sought to understand Christ’s created order, and not ignore it. While scientists like Galileo did not see any conflict between Christianity and science, the waters have not been smooth sailing. On the one hand, science has rebelled against its parent, Christianity. On the other, Christians have become distrustful of science because it seems to undermine Scripture. Still, Noll shows how Christians can value science through B. B. Warfield’s example. Though a staunch advocate of biblical inerrancy, he also saw Scripture as positing a guide for questions about evolution. However, Noll’s arguments presuppose evolutionary theory is true, and seemingly discounts conservative approaches that also attempt to explain Biblical origins and scientific theory.
Finally, Noll wants to show how Christology informs biblical interpretation. Using Peter Enns’s book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, Noll applauds Enns for moving in the right direction with what he calls “christotelic biblical interpretation.” In doing so he takes after the example of B. B. Warfield’s Incarnational parallel between Christ and the Bible. While he does not claim to endorse Enns’s theoretical development, he does not think it contradicts “traditional affirmations about the inspiration, reliability, and authority of Scripture” [16]. Enns’s opponents would disagree, however. As Bradley Green says,
But it seems that Enns’s push to emphasize the “humanity” of Scripture in fact functions as a critique of traditional evangelical emphases on the divinely given character of Scripture. That is, Enns’s foil is the more traditional understandings of Scripture as divinely given and therefore uniquely authoritative. Thus, rather than serving as an exemplar of how to apply classical Christology to the intellectual task, Enns’s work seems to misappropriate classical christological insights [17].
Unfortunately, since Noll is a historian and not a biblical scholar, he does not think it best to offer other approaches.
Concluding Thoughts
Noll clearly articulates that a Christian’s intellectual life finds its origins in the person of Jesus Christ. While Noll’s thoughts are not original, they are refreshing. He reaffirms the classic evangelical approach to learning that the Reformers firmly instilled in the Protestant heritage. He reminds us that all of life is informed by the Christian faith, an often forgotten fact. Christianity is not just concerned with right living; it is also about right thinking. On this point, Noll’s remarks should compel evangelicals to think more Christianly about the mind.
However, readers should also pay close attention to the book’s weaknesses. Noll’s brief chapter on how the atonement affects the mind is slim. Though he focuses greatly on Christ’s person, he says very little about Christ’s work. He needs to flesh out how a Christological framework applies to various disciplines better, particularly in the chapters on science and biblical studies. Regarding science, Noll needs to use more examples beyond Warfield to show that his point can be applied to multiple views regarding creation and science. Regarding biblical studies, Noll’s views of Peter Enns are mixed and will be problematic for some.
In the end, Noll’s book will leave some dissatisfied in certain respects, yet there is certainly something to be gained from its attention to this important subject.
_______________________________________
[1] Mark Noll, Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 153.
[2] Ibid., ix.
[3] Ibid., x.
[4] Ibid., 14.
[5] Ibid., 13
[6] Ibid., 21.
[7] Ibid., 1.
[8] Ibid., 22.
[9] Ibid., 25.
[10] Ibid., 26-30.
[11] Ibid., 30-33.
[12] Ibid., 33-35.
[13] Ibid., 35-36.
[14] Ibid., 84.
[15] Ibid., 86.
[16] Ibid., 145.
[17] Bradley G. Green, “Review of Jesus Christ and that Life of the Mind,” The Gospel Coalition, http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/jesus_christ_and_the_life_of_the_mind1 (accessed September 11, 2013).
Recent Comments