Mark Noll’s
The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind continues to make a significant impact on evangelicalism since its release in 1994. Noll laments, “at least in the United States, it is simply impossible to be, with integrity, both evangelical and intellectual” (ix). To emphasize the importance of his work, he quotes Malik, “The greatest danger besetting American Evangelical Christianity is the danger of anti-intellectualism” (26). To remedy this problem, he promotes a “life of the mind” where Christians are exemplary in their thinking and contributions. According to Noll, the culprit that has hindered the evangelical intellect has been the stifling influence of fundamentalism, which has led to wars on inerrancy, end-times pamphleteering, and anti-intellectual young-earth creationism. As an alternative to these phenomena, Noll draws our attention to Jonathan Edwards as a scholarly, respected example to emulate. The purpose of this article is show that Noll’s use of Edwards defeats the thesis of his book, and proves that one can emphasize inerrancy, interest in eschatology, and young-earth creationism while maintaining a vital life of the mind.
ESCHATOLOGY: Notice Noll’s description of dispensationalism: “the fundamentalists fixation upon the end of the world treated current global history with a similarly cavalier spirit. If current events were important primarily because they fulfilled biblical prophecy, then the relationships that people in general could study between contemporary cause and contemporary effect paled into insignificance. Again, fundamentalists were reading history as if they were inspired like the authors of Scripture had been inspired, rather than as believers whom God had commissioned to participate in the ongoing nurture of the church in a time between the times” (135). Noll later mocks dispensationalists as using the Bible as a “crystal ball” for foretelling the future (140). Noll concludes, “Because dispensationalism was the most intellectual form of fundamentalism, it was responsible for the most disastrous effects on the mind” (132).
CREATIONISM: Noll demonizes young-earth creationism just as he did dispensational premillennialism, by connecting it to fundamentalism. He renames the movement as “fundamentalist creation science” (186), which he claims is also a form of “Manichaeism.” (188). He laments this belief system in his section, “The Damage Done by Creation Science to the Evangelical Mind” (196). He asserts, “actually carrying out experiments has been relatively unimportant for creationists” and that “creationism must be understood for what it is – a political, religious protest” (198, 198.fn 36). Finally, in a clear statement of his understanding of authority and presuppositions, Noll writes, “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 teachers’ the recent creation of human beings” (207). Having already connected dispensationalism with fundamentalism, he now makes a third connection: “Creationism, could, in fact, be called scientific dispensationalism” (195).
INERRANCY: In conclusion, Noll outlines evangelical activism, a literal hermeneutic, and a “keen preoccupation with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and for fascination with details of the apocalypse” as detrimental to the life of the mind (243–4). By contrast, “What is essential to Christianity,” writes Noll, “is a profound trust in the Bible as pointing us to the Savior and for orienting our entire existence to the service of God” (244). According to the author, when evangelicals get focused on what is really important, “then the life of the mind may have a chance” (ibid.).
JONATHAN EDWARDS: In contrast to the anti-intellectual activity of fundamentalism’s children, Noll Turns the page back to Jonathan Edwards as the champion of the mental vivaciousness among evangelical scholars. From pages 77–81 he praises Edwards as a model for contemporary evangelicals to follow. He writes that Edwards was “the greatest evangelical mind in American history and one of the truly seminal thinkers in Christian history of the last few centuries . . . (24)” Furthermore, he recognizes that Edwards was “responsible for the most God-centered as well as the most intellectually subtle reasoning in all of American evangelical history” (80). The author has correctly assessed Edwards’ impact upon American history since Edwards is commonly recognized as America’s greatest philosopher and theologian.
Herein lies the problem for Noll. If it can be proved that Edwards’ theological opinions run counter to Noll’s cries against end-times concern, creationism, and an unhealthy preoccupation with inerrancy, then Noll’s use of Edwards is destructive to his thesis. These doctrines are, in fact, what we find in the writings of Jonathan Edwards.
Eschatology: Jonathan Edwards was a postmillennialist. He looked for the coming of the kingdom through world events as can be seen by his commentary on Revelation, and in his apocalyptic writings. Notice Edwards’ words, “If I heard the least hint of any thing that happened in any part of the world, that appeared to me, in some respect or other, to have a favorable aspect on the interest of Christ’s kingdom, my soul eagerly catched at it; and it would much animate and refresh me. I used to be earnest to read public news-letters, mainly for that end; to see if I could not find some news favorable to the interest of religion in the world” (
Works, 16:797). This was a regular habit of Edwards as he interpreted world events in light of end-times prophecy. Yet, notice Mark Noll’s words, “if evangelicals continue to be influenced by historicist dispensationalism (the dispensationalism that goes in for identifying specific current events as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy), there is little intellectual hope for the future” (173). While Edwards was not a dispensationalist, he certainly assiduously worked at “identifying specific current events as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy” (ibid).
Creationism: Edwards’ view of creationism flows well with his view of postmillennialism. He followed Usher’s chronology of the age of the earth, which is dependent upon the young earth creation viewpoint. By working with this scheme, Edwards was able to calculate the seven-thousandth year of the earth as the probably time for the church’s prosperity on the earth (see Edwards,
Apocalyptic Writings).
Inerrancy: Since Noll also attacks the distraction of inerrancy as a hindrance to the life of the mind, we must also note that Jonathan Edwards strongly held this belief. As an interesting parallel between Edwards’ belief and fundamentalism of the 20th century, former general editor of Yale’s series on Jonathan Edwards, John E. Smith writes, “The central problem is this: Edwards, on the one hand, accepted totally the tradition established by the Reformers with respect to the absolute primacy and authority of the Bible, and he could approach the biblical writings with that conviction of their inerrancy and literal truth which one usually associates with Protestant fundamentalism” (
Review of Metaphysics 30 [December 1976]: 306).
CONCLUSION:
While Mark Noll has helpfully created evangelical awareness to the fact that we are to love God with our minds, he has given an inaccurate portrayal of what that must look like. Calling us to abandon dispensational premillennialism, creationism, and an unhealthy focus on inerrancy, he then points us to Jonathan Edwards as the paradigm for success. Yet, Noll’s argument is self-defeating considering that Jonathan Edwards held all of the very same views that he attacks as detrimental to the life of the mind. This should strengthen the faith of those who believe that you may have a robust life of the mind while believing that inerrancy is the key to maintaining the authority of Scripture, and that dispensational premillennialism and young-earth creationism are true.
In recent years the ecumenical movement has grown in momentum. Casting aside fundamentalist moorings, evangelicals relish "dialogue," "conversation," and "having a seat at the table" with those of other religious persuasions. In the sphere of Christendom, there is push for evangelicals to be sympathetic with the experiences of Catholics and Orthodox. 
Posts
