mightychurch.com

There have been a number of elements of evangelical discourse that have driven me to exasperation, and here’s another one. In an all too typically inane editorial piece, Phillip Jensen talks about some of the so-called sacred cows he has challenged in the past. Take some time to read it and take in a deep whiff of its contents.

A number of things occur to my mind, but let me take you through some of the most notable:

* Firstly, the language of sacred-cowedness creates an artificially polemical context in which it is generally only the person calling the “sacred cow” that understands the discussion through these parameters. In the mind of the author, the confrontation is heightened to epic, Lutheresque “Here I Stand” heights, whereas the reality of the matter is that the criticisms themselves are neither insightful, nor particularly shocking, but simply more of the same reactionary rhetoric. In short Phillip, even though you think that you are shaking the very core of our existence, your “stand” does little more than to arouse a rolling of the eyes for those who could muster the energy to care that much.

* Secondly, because calling something a “sacred cow” only serves to create the impression that the issue is more important than it is, it is then believed that this so-called sacred cow must be challenged at all costs. Indeed, the more rudely and aggressively this “sacred-cow” is challenged, the more the caller regards himself (and usually, it is a “him”) as faithful to his calling to defend the gospel. Because the issue is perceived as being of first importance and urgency, being a jerk is excused and otherwise inexecusable rudeness is justified. In fact, if one was more mild and nuanced in their criticisms, one may very well question their commitment to the gospel cause in the first place.

* Thirdly, as soon as the author describes something as a sacred cow, all responses from this point forward are automatically regarded as irrational offence taken to the fact that their so-called sacred cow was challenged. The very possibility that the original polemic was simply absurd or was unnecessarily rude is not even considered. By very definition, any criticism of the original polemic must be related to the respondent’s emotional attachment to the thing being criticised.

Such silliness is probably excusable, but for the fact that it is bad example to those who are reading and influenced by such articles. I’d say that a preponderence of these articles has the danger of creating the following culture:

* A culture in which everything is artifically polarised. Rather than seeing that one may disagree with another without wishing to persecute them and that sometimes such disagreement is in fact constructive, a perception is created where Christians think that everyone is out to get them. It becomes us against them, Christians against the world, truth against error. Shades of grey are simply not allowed. Indeed, the moment that someone suggests that an issue is not quite as simple as the way in which it is being presented, they will be viewed suspiciously, or even worse.

* A culture in which rudeness and offensiveness becomes a rather strange virtue. Indeed, if the leaders of a group act in such a manner, disciples will be sure to emulate.

* A culture based upon intellectual laziness and dishonesty. Criticisms which may very well have some degree of merit are simply dismissed because they are introduced by one’s enemies. No justification of this dismissive attitude is needed; all that needs to be said is that because these individuals are not filled with the Spirit of God, they just don’t understand what they are talking about.

So, any thoughts? Keep in mind that any criticism will be regarded as being an emotional attachment to the language of sacred cows, Phillip Jensen, etc and will be summarily dismissed on this basis ...

David’s tag

David you have a few too many http:// s in the addy I think ;)

I did read itDavid but of course it’s wasted on me. My reaction was ‘WHAT?’ when I finished the read.

quote from the text ‘ .......been cowed by the bully boys of the Academy that we find it almost impossible to blow any raspberry at the intellectual pretensions and foolishness of those who think they are wise’

Last one (as described above) I spoke with i blew raspberrys at was Francis Moloney whom I had on the phone a few times.
I felt he needed a raspberry when he told me he had just come from the USA and resigned his new Deans job there prematurely .....and was on his way out to Aus from the Vatican to take over the Australian & Asian/Pacific Salesian Provicials job and he’d just had time to finish Judas’ Gospel.

He paused to allow me to be impressed but my nature caused me to jump in and suggest that those two facts together were possibly quite profound.

Shame of it is, that article you posted’s too deep for me :(
Sorry David. :rolleyes:

Ahh yes, thanks for that Michael. Fixed now.

Very well said David! Putting the emotions and politics of it to one side, the word that some of my evangelical anglican friends from outside Sydney (and yes, there are some!) use to describe / disparage this sort of “reasoning” (and its proponents) is “lightweight”. Which it most definitely is ....

Let me be the first one to say that I think that there is plenty of intellectual capital in the Sydney Diocese. If Luke may allow me to be a little sycophantic, I think that he is a very good example and I certainly know of many others. That said, I do wonder at times whether there is no place (or at least, no opportunity) for people like this to find themselves in positions of influence within the structure. It seems that the more parochial, the less thoughtful, the less generous to other perspectives one is, the more likely one is to find themselves in a position where they are influencing the Diocesan agenda. Meanwhile, the more thoughtful, the more reflective and the more nuanced one is in the way that they approach biblical and ethical issues, the more likely they are to remain languishing in exile and obscurity. In short, just like in the rough and tumble world of party politics we see the heartbreaking impotence of the pure.

It seems that all of a sudden we have had a run of articles in which rationality and logic has been summarily dismissed, and this has of great interest to me in my thinking about the evangelical/fundamentalist distinction in theory and practice. Historically, fundamentalism was a movement that retreated into the intellectual backwaters of its own choosing in the early decades of the twentieth century. Evangelicalism (also known as “neo-evangelicalism”) sought to distinguish itself by actually engaging with culture and the emerging intellectual currents of the time. It seems to me that the Sydney Diocese is currently confused about the road that it wishes to take. On the one hand, I hear Archbishop Jensen bemoaning the fact that he is regarded as a hillbilly, notwithstanding the fact that he completed a doctorate at Oxford. On the other hand , we see articles such as that by Phillip Jensen dismissing rationality out of hand by refusing to engage with new currents of thought except by labelling it the foolishness of the world. Perhaps some in the Sydney Diocese want to have their cake and eat it too in that they wish to be respected as intellectual forces, but they don’t wish to put the effort into engaging with the arguments around them?

Once again, David, I entirely agree.  Studying at Moore would drive me both around the bend AND up the wall for precisely those reasons.

To me, the fundamentalist schism would historically be associated with a certain denomination starting with ‘P’ and a certain theological college starting with ‘S’.

However, the above article appears to show otherwise.  It will be interesting to follow the pathway of the Sydney Anglicans in the next few years.

Thanks David, that’s very generous ;)

I’ve finally had a chance to read the original article by Phillip Jensen. I read the first half about scared cows and what not thinking that it was silly and unnecessary, but not *that* big a deal. I figured he was going to mention something about the response to his earlier diatribe about TV being entirely unclean, or something like that.

I didn’t realise the long setup was necessary because he was about to throw academia and reason out the window!

One of our generation’s greatest sacred cows is the enlightened view of intellectual and rational discourse.

My response to that (and the following) was, in a word, something like: Whhhaaattttt???!! haha. He goes on…

There is the desire that the scholar, the intellectual, the academic theologian, will be the official and authoritative interpreter of God or the Bible. The Pope and his Cardinals replaced the Holy Spirit but now the Professor and his academy are replacing them. There is the thought that if we know Greek and Hebrew and the ancient world’s cultures then we will be able to say precisely what God meant in the scriptures.

However, the weight of scholarly opinion is actually very light. Evangelicals have for so long been cowed by the bully boys of the Academy that we find it almost impossible to blow any raspberry at the intellectual pretensions and foolishness of those who think they are wise.

Really?! I thought one of the cornerstones of evangelicalism - particularly Sydney evangelicalism - was intellectual and, dare I say it, academic rigour!

How wrong I’ve been.

Good grief, anyway on your broader points David I very much agree about “A culture in which everything is artifically polarised” - that’s well said, I was getting at something similar about the bad habits of preachers/teachers attacking strawmen as a matter of course.

One of the major problems as I see it is that over time a set of reasonable ideas or principles becomes formulaic ideology, which inevitable becomes a caricature of the original principles.

Ideology is the enemy of thought - it’s a shorthand that saves people from actually thinking and instead offers reflexive answers in a cartoon world of goodies and baddies. People identify around the ideology and you’re either with us or against us.

In this case the baddie is mentioned by name, but only indirectly - NT Wright, who, when mentioned, the Matthias crowd has been quite happy to shout “False teacher!” as though that counts as a substantive argument.

It was also apparent in the whole Lambeth saga last year, when Phillip infamously proclaimed that anyone who considered themselves evangelical and dared to attend would have their evangelical credentials forever tarnished.

I think this is the problem when an outside group eventually takes over - groups that exist to resist or protest are rarely good at governing should they eventually gain power, and that’s what has happened here. It’s easy to talk in hyperbolic language when you’re outside the tent railing against the powers that be, but when you’re not only inside, but running the show, it comes across as pretty, well, unfortunate. For instance, what should Moore students do? Burn the books of those nasty intellectuals and academics they spend all their time reading?

It’s a shame because I think we lose the ability to disagree agreeably, and with that we lose the moral and intellectual high ground. I saw a brief interview with retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on The Daily Show the other night and she discussed how they were all able to disagree agreeably, sometimes over very controversial issues (eg Bush v Gore!) and it’s a shame we apparently can no longer do the same.

It’s funny in a perverse kind of way when these things things come full circle - we’re supposed to be the ‘bible people’ - educated about and able to properly read the bible, accused of being overly intellectual, thanks in no small part to Phillip Jensen and his ministries through the universities and Matthias’ publishing. And now here we are with one of our leaders - the very same leader in fact - indulging in silly arguments against intellectual and rational discourse of all things.

Luke Stevens - 10 March 2009 07:26 PM

accused of being overly intellectual, thanks in no small part to Phillip Jensen and his ministries through the universities and Matthias’ publishing.

I think that’s being exceptionally generous, Luke. I would never accuse CBS or Matthias of being overly intellectual, or even intellectual at all. I’m glad to see that people are finally starting to wake up…