A number of weeks ago,
Gina alerted us to Randall Stephens and Karl Giberson's
New York Times article, in which the two professors claimed that (conservative) evangelical leaders were anti-intellectuals because they had the temerity to disagree with secularists in certain areas.
Being pretty savvy professors, they used their salvo for dual purposes: giving a "
stinging critique of many evangelical leaders," and promoting their new book
The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age. The book is surely going to get plenty of accolades by secularists and I'm sure some Christians.
Being a curious sort,
historian Richard Weikart has investigated their ideas and has a short but thoughtful response.
In an aside, one thing that should be startling to most of us is the idea that these educated
Christian professors deny the reality of really horrible beings and places like Satan, Hell, and presumably angels. I've not read their book yet, but I am keen to understand where that leaves God the Son (Emmanuel, Jesus Christ) and a place like Heaven.
Comments:
And I do like the suggested "side by side" approach vs. this "salvo" style argumentation: it honestly doesn't appear that the discussion is between two parties of the same tradition. Perhaps there's some cross-wire communication going on. Perhaps the first time in history people haven't communicated well.
(As for salvos, ego quoque).
In fact, why not start here? Find some of these savvy folks and give them a regular column. Let's see how their ideas stand up when placed side by side with the (conservative) Christian Worldview.
There's nothing to be afraid of, is there?