Forced Choice

This past week I have been embroiled in discussion and debate about our openness to highly intelligent, well-educated people in our United Methodist Church. First, I have been surprised by the number of people from our churches who think poorly of smart people — assuming that they deserve anything that happens to them. Beyond this, however, many people want to resolve the issue by creating a false dichotomy. Here are seven quotes from emails and conversations I’ve had this week:

…but, which would you rather be? Smart or good?

How would you prefer to be remembered — as a saint or a theologian?

If I need to choose between facts and faith, I’m going to play it safe and go with faith.

Human knowledge will always be limited. Divine wisdom is superior to human knowledge in every way.

If I want to understand the mysteries of reality, religion will give me meaning while science will only provide information. Smart people can explain how things work, but they aren’t always as good at the why questions.

When I die I would rather look back at my life and know that I was a “good” person, not a genius.

The higher a person’s I.Q., the greater their scepticism, their disbelief, and their contempt for real faith.

Each of these comments appear based on certain assumptions. First, faith and intelligence seem incompatible in some people’s minds. There is a “forced choice, either/or” quality to most of these comments. Apparently, an individual may be intelligent or faithful, but not both at the same time…

Second, implicit in these comments is an assumption that seminary educated pastoral leaders are either moderately ignorant or lack “real” faith. If one must be either a saint or a theologian, theologians must be riding the rail to hell.

Third, “doing good” seems grounded in simple-mindedness rather than higher reasoning functions. Thinking and acting seem disconnected in many of these comments.

I’m not sure where the dissociation comes from. Why can’t we aspire to be both wise and smart, faithful and rational, inspired and intellectual? Where does the distrust of intelligence come from? Is it possible that a theologian could also be a saint? Might a faithful Christian be both good and smart? It is my assumption that God would like us to be both — that faithfulness and good stewardship require that we make the most of both mind and spirit.

My highest vision goes something like this: we fearlessly apply the most rigorous processes of reasoning and critical thinking to our Christian faith; wrestling with contradictions and engaging mysteries wherever they occur. We work to reconcile the physical, the metaphysical, the rational, the trans-rational, the empirical and the ethical at every opportunity. We openly discuss, debate, discourse, dissect and dissent with voices and minds from the widest possible range of disciplines. We honestly acknowledge what we don’t know, what we choose to believe, what is merely opinion, and what makes the most sense. At the other end? A faith that is strong, relevant, integral, reasonable, and respectful of others — and a faithful people unafraid, unashamed, and unshakable in their beliefs.

Rate this:

13 responses to “Forced Choice”

John Meunier

February 10, 2010

I believe much of the defensiveness and anger levelled at people who ask questions or probe to deeper levels comes from a sense of inadequacy — having to face questions for which we lack answers. This makes people feel fearful, anxious, uncertain, and inferior — resulting in anger. Whatever we can do to defuse such volatile situations only works for good.

I agree with this 100% – not that my opinions will get you much.

Reading this I am reminded of your post on sermons in which some people expressed a desire for sermons that do exactly this kind of ramble over the real estate before coming some sort of pastoral summary or set of questions.

Reply
Dave

February 10, 2010

Implicit in your response about the evolution-creationism curriculum is the idea of relationships. The curriculum is most effective when we encourage people to engage in the process. Engagement means relationship building, so that the ideas we present are attached to a person that we love, value, and respect even if we don’t agree with the content of their thinking. Anything that bridges relationships with thinking is a good thing. And we can do that even on tight budgets!

Reply
Dave

February 10, 2010

Well…

I’m a pastor trained in an *orthodox* Presbyterian seminary (orthodox meaning a strong commitment to the Reformed Tradition). I am deeply grateful for the gift of its training, reminding me…sometimes on a daily basis…that study is a form of piety. Study will sooner or later effect one’s commitment to knowledge, reason, and that word that is dreadful to some ears, intellectualism. I did not buy into all facets of Reformed theology. What happened was the birth of my ongoing maturity as a Christian–the art of thinking theologically and arriving at my own conclusions in light of the Christian tradition. In short, my experience led me to a deeper appreciation of my Wesleyan heritage! Plus it helped me think more clearly about church in general.

I think what’s happening in many churches is some sort of backlash against the rise of information. We live in an age where we can become a resident expert on virtually any subject with a basic internet connection. Many churches (and I’ve been guilty of this many times) will try to keep pace with the information and technological onset by producing slick evangelistic flyers, web pages that use spendy software, expensive gadgetry in worship spaces (lights, computer projection systems, state of the art sound systems, etc.), and so on. Yet, some churches are responding with the exact opposite…bare basic church structure that encourage radical fellowship with God and sacrificial relationships. The result: lots of new Christians (at least in the ones that are getting some attention).

These folks aren’t giving up their commitment to *intellectualism*…they’re giving up the old-school, neurotic impulse to compete with the world (like the churches of modernity who decided to look, act and be modernist). They reflect in their small groups, they study the Scripture like madmen, and they relentlessly plan their worship services. All that energy requires a pretty strong commitment to thinking.

The alternative to thinking is showing up to a meeting where the leader asks a question and is met with a stony silence accompanied by a blank stare. Well, if my disdain for that sort of thing makes me an intellectual snob, then so be it. I’m well beyond tired of folks who check their brain at the church door and don’t want to assume any responsibility for their faith (even though they spend thousands of hours in thoughtful engagement when it comes to their careers, their personal life, etc.). A fair amount of thinking has always happened in church. Just think if guys like Bonhoeffer, MLK, and Romero decided to stop their commitment to thinking. Thank God Christians are called to think.

Reply
Wesley White

February 10, 2010

Often the issue of manifesting intellect comes to a choice between “thinking” and “feeling” – as though the judging aspect of the Myers-Briggs Personality Types were the end all and be all of life. I’m a “T” and trying to be the best one I can be. My expectation is that “F” folks are doing the same and in this best-ness we find blessing within and between ourselves.

It seems to me that one out is to raise the question of a larger frame for our decision-making. Whether through thinking (intellectual) or feeling (saintly good), finding a larger picture to keep us out of being stuck in this pre-judged dichotomy is what is needed.

Those silly intellectuals considering themselves “too smart” are in the same boat as those silly salt-of-the-earth folk who consider themselves “too good”. Both need a new radar system to see beyond their current horizons. This is more than a blend, it is an appreciation of our differences rather than a dismissal of that which is different.

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  February 10, 2010
  
  I agree with you — the interesting thing about this whole discussion is that people want to compare the very best of the “simple folk” with the very worst of the “intellectual elite.” Having administered Myers-Briggs Type Indicator for thirty years I can say that there are a significant number of “Fs” with I.Q.s above 140 and a similar number of “Ts” barely approaching triple digits. Personality is no predictor of behavior or achievement (so why do we put such stock in it?), and a poor personality isn’t improved much by education. I intentionally have not included any example where a person of high intellect views herself or himself as superior. That assumption has been applied by many people, but it is false. I think the bottom line is — we’re afraid of intellectuals, and we are terrified of those who want to apply rigorous critical thinking to Christianity. This point keeps getting lost in the emotionalism of the discussion. Rather than dealing with the larger issue it is easier to find someone to point a finger at and blame.
  
  Reply
John Meunier

February 10, 2010

Dan, here is where some of the push back might be coming from. Intelligence is a bell curve kind of thing – whether you like Charles Murray or not – which means a great number of people are going to be in the middle and lower ranks of that curve. Education is a highly skewed curve.

If you set up the standard to say that “real faith” is faith that is subject to unstinting intellectual analysis, then you are saying lots of people’s only access to real faith is by waiting for the smart people to tell them what to believe.

It would be the same thing if we connected faith to physical athleticism or beauty or musical ability. To say that faith is not legitimate if you are not smart enough to do graduate work is off-putting to some people and the natural consequence of the assertion that the only faith worth having is a faith that stands up to the kind of sustained analysis that gets done in graduate school theology classes.

I know you started by saying church needs to make room for smart people to ask questions, but it also needs to honor those who do not experience faith primarily as an intellectual exercise. Too often, to my reading, defenses of “intelligent” faith smuggle in all kinds of not-so-subtle jabs and put-downs by word choice that suggest the smart folks find the simple faith of other people lacking.

You ask whether people object to the idea of theologians being saints. I think they object to the idea that people are theologians first and saints second. They want theologians who use their education and intelligence to explain, elaborate, and elucidate their faith not attack it.

If smarts, intelligence, and reason are put in the service of faith, then I think people would be less defensive. If these things are held up as the judges of faith – and the faithful – then people begin to feel that a small group at one end of the bell curve is setting itself up as the only ones with true access to “real” faith – a new priestly class.

That is my read on the push back you are getting. I may be wrong.

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  February 10, 2010
  
  Do we respect intellectual acumen as we do athleticism, musical talent and beauty? Do we pay big bucks or spend hours in front of the television to worship at the feet of our intellectuals? Not once in any of my posts have I suggested everyone should be an intellectual. Not once have I denegrated a “simple” faith. But an unexamined faith? One steeped in abject fear of the light of reason? One denying the right to question? Dark ages. As I have said elsewhere, I cannot fathom the need to compare the best of “simple” faith with the absolute worst of “intellectual” faith. Can we agree that there might be one nice, kind smart person who is critical of the anti-intellectualism rampant in our church? We are LOSING these people. The system is designed for the results it is getting. We lose the brightest — in any field, not just religion — and the long-term prognosis is not good.
  
  Reply
  1. John Meunier
    
    February 10, 2010
    
    Yes, we can agree to a point.
    
    I know lots of Christians who are no better or worse than any other Christian who value an intellectual faith. I’ve never asked them if they are alarmed by the anti-intellectualism in the UMC, so I cannot agree to that part of your statement.
    
    Let me grant your premise in your words. The church is full of anti-intellectuals who live “in abject fear of the light of reason.” Let’s take that as given.
    
    What is the solution?
    
    Other than telling people they are wrong and dragging the church to the dark ages, how would you fix the problem?
  2. doroteos2
    
    February 10, 2010
    
    I don’t have an easy fix, but I think we begin to cultivate a less threatened culture. I worked on the evolution-creationism curriculum for our denomination. We were told by many different people — bishops, pastors, Christian educators, seminary and university professors — that this was a no-win situation and all we would get was more controversy and division. We put out the materials, and had almost universal praise from all sides — conservatives and liberals, creationists and scientists, high school graduates and Ph.D.s. We did it by presenting four different positions (creationist, evolution by natural selection, those who believe science and religion are compatible, those who believe science and religion are separate but equal knowledge systems) and highlighting the core beliefs and strengths of each. We provided simple guidelines for disagreeing well. We set the whole process in prayer. We set behavioral groundrules. We distinguished between truth and opinion. And people of all backgrounds rose to the occasion and found value in the process. (Certainly, we had a few hard and fast critics — irresistable creationists and immovable scientists — but they were a tiny minority.) Acknowledging and honoring the differences seemed to make a huge impact — people felt validated and non-threatened. Their perspective was given credence, which lessened defensiveness. We reframed the “debate” from “win-lose” to “learn-learn,” and for many people it worked. I believe much of the defensiveness and anger levelled at people who ask questions or probe to deeper levels comes from a sense of inadequacy — having to face questions for which we lack answers. This makes people feel fearful, anxious, uncertain, and inferior — resulting in anger. Whatever we can do to defuse such volatile situations only works for good.
Creed Pogue

February 10, 2010

You are right about the false dichotomy. But, too many “intellectuals” consider themselves “too smart” to believe (I used to be in that category before I returned to the church) and too many other people have embraced anti-intellectualism when we need a blend.

Reply
John L

February 10, 2010

I think there may be some forces at play in opposition to your vision. My understanding is the Protestant part of the church broke away from the Catholic church in part because of the then-current “Wise Man” approach, in which (supposedly) smart people told the rest of us what to think and did not brook much debate. Protestantism emphasized exposing each of us directly to the language of the Bible and allowing us to reach our own conclusions. I think there may be some residual distrust of “Smart People” baked in to Protestantism.

Also, there’s the general distrust of smart people saying “trust me, I’m smarter than you”, which is healthy to some degree.

I think there’s always going to be tension between those who prefer unthinking faith and those who prefer thoughtful faith (just like we will always have the poor with us), and we can’t hope to resolve that (without, um, something Really Dramatic happening [although, come to think of it, maybe it won’t be so dramatic]).

I do agree that the (majority of the) church placing itself in opposition to thoughtfulness is Not Good.

—

(I just discovered this blog a few days ago, and what I’ve read of it, I love.)

Reply