Rating: 
Summary: Compelling, but ultimately dangerous?
Review: Noll has written a very compelling book, which I only recently discovered in the last year. I have my own view of the questions in this work. At the time of publication in 1994, I had already become a post-fundamentalist, post-evangelical believer. Due to the unique nature of my own history and learning since then, I have become a religiously interested agnostic. So, a caveat on my review: I have moved from being a very committed, born-again evangelical Christian waiting with great expectation for the "revelation of Christ" in the final days to my present status which entails a metaphorical interpretation of Scripture as non-literal historical myth-making that speaks deeper truths about what it is to be human in our cosmos, seeking the divine in life. At this time, I find it very difficult to accept the unlikely prospect of a personal, conscious being referred to as 'God'. This response is less of a review (there are already fine ones here), but an attempt to respond with my own probing questions. If you're open-minded (as Noll seems to extol) I urge you to not prejudice this review and automatically label in `unhelpful'.Noll states several times (obviously not picked up by at least one reviewer) that his book is not a deep intellectual treatise on evangelicalism, but a historical review of the development of its ideas, beliefs, and present status. I found it a probing and accurate summary of the current state of American evangelicalism. I have family members who are evangelicals and committed dispensationalists and I'm very aware of their beliefs and perspectives on the world. I found this book to speak accurately about my own past experiences with evangelicalism and the contemporary experiences of evangelicals close to me. The book breaks into roughly three sections. 1. A review of the historical challenges to Protestant belief during the 19th and early 20th centuries and it's varied responses to those challenges. In the face of great intellectual challenges, social change, modern politics, increased secularization, and the destabilizing experiences of two world wars, Protestantism split into multiple factions, one of which was represented by evangelical fundamentalism. There is no longer a "Protestantism" but many protestantisms. 2. The practical effects of these developments and what it has meant to evangelicalism in America, specifically as they relate to Christian thinking in the realms of politics and science. Noll argues that the implication has been the withdrawal, evacuation even, of evangelical participation in the intellectual life of post-modern society and a reactionary response has come to dominate. 3. Is there hope for the future of modern American evangelicalism? Can there be, will there be, is there, a new awakening, a Renaissance of evangelical thinking? It is to this question I will address my final comments. I understand some of the reactionary reviews of this book. I believe that it is deeply threatening to evangelical belief, because that has been the case for the response in Europe, the American post-modern university establishment, the intelligentsia, and my own response. While evangelicals scoff at "darkened Europe" (a term I heard not long ago) they fail to recognize the cause and effects of the emergence of a post-Christian Europe, and ultimately fear a rise of a post-Christian U.S. Can evangelicalism even survive rigorous intellectual inquiry? It is a legitimate question. My own opinions aside, it ought to be contemplated by those who call themselves evangelical. The prevalence of the scientific method that has come to be applied to all questions of reality: cosmology, biology, history, religion has been the ultimate cause of the emergence of a post-Christian West. It seems to imply the demise of evangelicalism and maybe traditional Christianity itself. Maybe I am wrong, that is for evangelicals to work out in an intellectually honest manner. But coming to acknowledge a `metaphorical' interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that coheres to modern scientific understanding, how is one to justify a literal interpretation of Matthew 1-28? How would evangelicals, in this new spirit of intellectual inquiry determine what is metaphorically true versus literally true, what method would be constructed? An honest comparison of the gospels one to another suggests that strict literalism is untenable in the Christian as well as Hebrew scriptures. Can the fundamentals of Christian belief in original sin and redemption be made compatible with biological evolution? Can the eschatological tradition be reconciled with modern scientific understanding of the future of the cosmos? These are questions that I have considered, and ultimately decided in the negative. Perhaps I'm missing something to indicate otherwise. I'm in a state of limbo regarding Christian belief. A cursory (I'm no scholar) intellectual inquiry on Christianity has led many, many folks to reject Christianity altogether. Can post-fundamentalist, post-Christian inhabitants of the West come to re-embrace traditional Christianity? Might I one day re-embrace Christianity? Perhaps, but it will not be the Christianity of my erstwhile youth; to re-attach myself to traditional Christianity presently, and may continue, to entail a crucifixion of the intellect. I have provided many more questions than answers. Evangelicals, for the sake of the survival of their own belief system must begin examining these questions. They are dangerous ones and provoke fear, even outrage at times. If you have an open and curious mind, I recommend this book. I'm not confident, however, that the result of a rigorous fruitful application of its underlying tenets will comfort modern evangelicals. Taken to its logical conclusion, it may mean an even greater crisis for evangelicals. Just a response from an intellectually honest individual who is presently suspending judgment...
Rating:
Summary: Compelling, but ultimately dangerous?
Review: Noll has written a very compelling book, which I only recently discovered in the last year. I have my own view of the questions in this work. At the time of publication in 1994, I had already become a post-fundamentalist, post-evangelical believer. Due to the unique nature of my own history and learning since then, I have become a religiously interested agnostic. So, a caveat on my review: I have moved from being a very committed, born-again evangelical Christian waiting with great expectation for the "revelation of Christ" in the final days to my present status which entails a metaphorical interpretation of Scripture as non-literal historical myth-making that speaks deeper truths about what it is to be human in our cosmos, seeking the divine in life. At this time, I find it very difficult to accept the unlikely prospect of a personal, conscious being referred to as 'God'. This response is less of a review (there are already fine ones here), but an attempt to respond with my own probing questions. If you're open-minded (as Noll seems to extol) I urge you to not prejudice this review and automatically label in 'unhelpful'. Noll states several times (obviously not picked up by at least one reviewer) that his book is not a deep intellectual treatise on evangelicalism, but a historical review of the development of its ideas, beliefs, and present status. I found it a probing and accurate summary of the current state of American evangelicalism. I have family members who are evangelicals and committed dispensationalists and I'm very aware of their beliefs and perspectives on the world. I found this book to speak accurately about my own past experiences with evangelicalism and the contemporary experiences of evangelicals close to me. The book breaks into roughly three sections. 1.A review of the historical challenges to Protestant belief during the 19th and early 20th centuries and it's varied responses to those challenges. In the face of great intellectual challenges, social change, modern politics, increased secularization, and the destabilizing experiences of two world wars, Protestantism split into multiple factions, one of which was represented by evangelical fundamentalism. There is no longer a "Protestantism" but many protestantisms. 2.The practical effects of these developments and what it has meant to evangelicalism in America, specifically as they relate to Christian thinking in the realms of politics and science. Noll argues that the implication has been the withdrawal, evacuation even, of evangelical participation in the intellectual life of post-modern society and a reactionary response has come to dominate. 3.Is there hope for the future of modern American evangelicalism? Can there be, will there be, is there, a new awakening, a Renaissance of evangelical thinking? It is to this question I will address my final comments. I understand some of the reactionary reviews of this book. I believe that it is deeply threatening to evangelical belief, because that has been the case for the response in Europe, the American post-modern university establishment, the intelligentsia, and my own response. While evangelicals scoff at "darkened Europe" (a term I heard not long ago) they fail to recognize the cause and effects of the emergence of a post-Christian Europe, and ultimately fear a rise of a post-Christian U.S. Can evangelicalism even survive rigorous intellectual inquiry? It is a legitimate question. My own opinions aside, it ought to be contemplated by those who call themselves evangelical. The prevalence of the scientific method that has come to be applied to all questions of reality: cosmology, biology, history, religion has been the ultimate cause of the emergence of a post-Christian West. It seems to imply the demise of evangelicalism and maybe traditional Christianity itself. Maybe I am wrong, that is for evangelicals to work out in an intellectually honest manner. But coming to acknowledge a 'metaphorical' interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that coheres to modern scientific understanding, how is one to justify a literal interpretation of Matthew 1-28? How would evangelicals, in this new spirit of intellectual inquiry determine what is metaphorically true versus literally true, what method would be constructed? An honest comparison of the gospels one to another suggests that strict literalism is untenable in the Christian as well as Hebrew scriptures. Can the fundamentals of Christian belief in original sin and redemption be made compatible with biological evolution? Can the eschatological tradition be reconciled with modern scientific understanding of the future of the cosmos? These are questions that I have considered, and ultimately decided in the negative. Perhaps I'm missing something to indicate otherwise. I'm in a state of limbo regarding Christian belief. A cursory (I'm no scholar) intellectual inquiry on Christianity has led many, many folks to reject Christianity altogether. Can post-fundamentalist, post-Christian inhabitants of the West come to re-embrace traditional Christianity? Might I one day re-embrace Christianity? Perhaps, but it will not be the Christianity of my erstwhile youth; to re-attach myself to traditional Christianity presently, and may continue, to entail a crucifixion of the intellect. I have provided many more questions than answers. Evangelicals, for the sake of the survival of their own belief system must begin examining these questions. They are dangerous ones and provoke fear, even outrage at times. If you have an open and curious mind, I recommend this book. I'm not confident, however, that the result of a rigorous fruitful application of its underlying tenets will comfort modern evangelicals. Taken to its logical conclusion, it may mean an even greater crisis for evangelicals. Just a response from an intellectually honest individual who is presently suspending judgment...
Rating:
Summary: What is the scandal?
Review: Noll, Mark A. 1994. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. [274 pp, detailed index, no bibliography]. [Chosen in 1995 by CT magazine as the best Christian book of the year.] And what is the scandal? Author Noll (professor of Christian thought at Wheaton College) says it is "that there is not much of an evangelical mind." Book explores the decline of evangelical thought in North America--evangelicals' flight from intellectuality--and proposes resources for turning the situation around. Author criticizes evangelicals for making very little contribution to first-order public discourse in North America. For example, evangelicals do not sponsor a single research university, nor support a single periodical devoted to interaction with modern culture. This polemical book is a major indictment of American evangelicalism. Evangelicals have the energy and resources for almost everything except for doing the homework needed to serve God with their minds! Noll says that the scandal is this: the failure of evangelicals to exercise the mind for Christ, i.e., to think like a Christian about the nature and workings of the physical and social world (p. 7). He says that though evangelicals comprise over 30% of the American population, they fail to play "significant roles in the nation's intellectual life" (p. 10). [Thomas N. Headland]
Rating:
Summary: writing about thinking in a faith where reasonis depreciated
Review: The author is a good historian, the book reflects not only talent in research and comprehension of the big picture of historical theology, but a heart felt grasp of evangelicalism since 1800. Two quotes must rise to the surface of any readers mind:
The first line of the preface "this book is an epistle from a wounded lover." and the first line of chapter one "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind". The first reflects an attitude evident throughout the book, he is himself evangelical, furthermore he is sympathetic with the goals and aspirations of the movement. The second quote is his reason for the book, to try to heighten the awareness of this community to its fundamental themes which mitigate against the scholarly world of the mind. The book takes on the sacred cow of the young earth creationist in chapter 7 "thinking about science". He doesnt spare anyone's feelings in the process of analyzing the movement. from pg 196 "creation science has damaged evangelicalism by making it much more difficult to think clearly about human origins, the age of the earth, and mechanisms of geological or biological change. But it has done more profound damage by undermining the ability to look at the world God has made and to understand what we see when we do look." This argument alone will continue to polarize the evangelical community into YEC and non-YEC, a position to which organizations like CRI, AiG, etc would gladly push the church into a false dichomotomy where to be with their particularist interpretations is the only way to stand with God. It is certainly a chapter that the author thought long and hard over before committing himself to print. It is also a position that anyone with the understanding gained from reading this book will agree with. The book is not primarily a polemic against a particular way of treating science, it is a far wider and broader criticism than that. But under the current social and political pressure from these interest groups, this is what the book will be to many people. Sadly so, for the reaction of people demonstrates the strength of his arguments for following the quote above he labels the mindset as Manichaeanism. Those who see the whole world as a fight to the death between good and evil, no grays, no mixtures. Just God and the Devil. The book is excellent, the topic timely and of crucial importance to anyone who would describe themselves as evangelical or conservative. but you only need to read the handful of reviews here on amazon, or search for book reviews on the net to realize that lots of people are reading this book with their minds completely madeup on the issue. True learning requires a "suspension of disbelief", a mallability towards new thoughts, sadly the very people the book is addressed to are the very same ones who will not read it in the spirit it was written. Additional, if you are thinking of a book for a college aged sunday school class, or a discussion group at a college where they are looking at these issues, this would rate my highest recommendation for a book to use. It is well organized and will guide thinking while exposing you to a variety of alternative paths if you dont like the one the author describes. thanks for listening
richard williams
Rating: 
Summary: A scandalous book!
Review: This book is meant to be an indictment of evangelical thought and intellectualism, with the idea of inciting evangelicals to act and correct their intellectual shortcomings. This motive is certainly a good one and such an indictment is certainly needed, in light of the tendency for evangelicals to be anti-intellectual and anti-education. The great irony, however, is that Noll's own analysis of the situation is a prime example of the kind of sloppy scholarship and lack of intellectual depth that he complains about! Noll is, however, quite correct about the general state of the evangelical mind - only scandalous minds would give this book a "Book of the Year" award. He is right to point out the relative naivety of evangelicals in regard to science, however he also shows a great deal of naivety himself, when he discusses it in later chapters. Noll also appears to mock the idea that the that the Bible may be read and interpreted according to a logical and scientific procedure ie. the historical-grammatical method, and tends toward an existentialist hermeneutic where the Bible must be interpreted in relation to the "forces in history that shape perceptions and help define the issues that loom as most important to any particular age." Noll's exegetical incompetence is demonstrated when he states that John 20:31 is the purpose of the whole Bible, when, in fact, it is simply John's purpose for including what he did in his gospel. Noll also unjustly lays much of the blame upon those in the scientific creationist movement. He claims that their position is not the historical one, but rather derives from Seventh Day Adventist's Price and White (following Ronald Numbers), but this is demonstrably false. Firstly, the general interpretation of a young earth created in 6 days and world-wide Noahic flood is certainly the dominant position in the history of interpretation. Secondly, the British Scriptural geologists in the 18th and early 19th centuries (a number of which were highly competent geologists by the standards of that time) wrote extensively on flood geology, long before White and Price wrote on it. Noll uses a logically fallacious argument to suggest that "If the consensus of modern scientists, who devote their lives to looking at the data of the physical world, is that humans have existed on the planet for a very long time, it is foolish for Biblical interpreters to say that `the Bible teaches' the recent creation of human beings." One wonders, if Noll also believes that it is foolish for interpreters to say the Bible teaches a virgin birth and bodily resurrection from the dead, since the consensus of scientists who devote their lives to looking at the natural world, is that these events are impossible! Noll's line of reasoning is completely fallacious. Consensus is never a necessary indicator of truth. While Noll chides creationists for being uncritical, he himself uncritically accepts the conclusions of rationalistic and humanistic pseudoscience as indisputable proven facts, when in fact they are not. In the final analysis, Noll's book is very disappointing and it is quite obvious that Noll himself is all too often guilty of the very things for which he attacks creationists and others who hold to conservative theological positions - a gross naivety of science, uncritical acceptance of ideas, bad hermeneutics and a poor handling of scripture. Much better treatments can be found in "Fit Bodies, Fat Minds" by Os Guinness and "No Place for Truth" by David Wells.
| 
