The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age. By Randall J. Stephens and Karl W. Giberson. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011.

Review by Richard Weikart

“Secular intellectuals say it, I believe it, and that settles it.”  While this is not exactly Randall Stephens and Karl Giberson’s point, it is too close for comfort.  Their recent book, The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age, provides a stinging critique of many evangelical leaders.  They suggest that evangelicals should shut up and believe secular experts, not only in fields like evolutionary biology and history, but even on moral issues such as homosexuality and child training.

“The Evangelical Rejection of Reason”

Ironically, they criticize most evangelicals for rejecting reason, but they never provide reasoned arguments for their own positions.  Rather, they simply try to refute other evangelicals by proclaiming: “Thus saith the secular intellectuals” (and even one or two evangelical scholars for good measure).  They never exegete Scriptural passages to try to prove their points, though they do sometimes inform us that such-and-such a biblical scholar has refuted the prominent evangelical they are criticizing.  Their entire book rests on repeated appeals to authority, rather than providing cogent reasons for their positions.

Though they are self-identified evangelicals, their book, published by a division of Harvard University Press, mercilessly pillories many leading American evangelicals of more conservative stripe for their “anti-intellectualism” and opposition to secular knowledge.  Ironically, one accusation against their more conservative evangelical foes is that the conservatives are combative and prone to divisiveness.  These evangelicals, whom they sometimes tar with the term fundamentalist, allegedly thrive by creating “out-groups” as enemies.  This seems to me a rather hypocritical stance, since The Anointed is one of the most polemical, combative books I have read in quite a while.

The book relentlessly attacks fellow evangelical Christians (in front of a secular audience, so this goes beyond mere in-fighting), portraying them as “amateurs,” “professional outsiders,” and “idiosyncratic Bible teachers” who purvey “gibberish” rather than listening to the reasonable voices of (allegedly irenic and tolerant) secular intellectuals.  Oddly, Stephens and Giberson admit that many of the evangelicals they discuss are often blasted by the secular press and by secular intellectuals, so it is not clear to me why secular intellectuals are portrayed as calm and tolerant, while the conservative evangelicals are blamed for combativeness.  The will to fight seems to work in both directions, and Stephens and Giberson sling their share of invective, too.  Unfortunately, not all of their accusations are even accurate.

Stephens and Giberson advertised their book with a scathing article in the New York Times entitled “The Evangelical Rejection of Reason.”  It accused those disagreeing with evolution or climate change of embracing “red-state fundamentalism” that demonstrates “unyielding ignorance.”  They suggest that evangelicals inhabit a “parallel culture” that embraces “discredited, ridiculous, and even dangerous ideas” (such as opposing homosexuality).  This is an irenic, tolerant spirit?

Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age

As the subtitle suggests, what is at stake in this debate is the status of truth.  What counts as knowledge?  What and whom should we believe?  Why do we believe the things we do?  These are important questions for anyone to reflect on.

Unfortunately, Stephens and Giberson’s answer seems fuzzy.  On the one hand, they continually affirm the necessity of evangelicals embracing “secular knowledge.”  For them this means that we should affirm biological evolution (including evolutionary psychology), and reject outmoded ideas like Satan, demons, hell, end-time prophecies (of all kinds), spanking children because they are sinful, and the sinfulness of homosexuality and abortion.  They state, “Often an evangelical ‘crisis of faith’ is resolved with a simple liberalizing, whereby specific beliefs—biblical literalism, young earth creationism, homosexuality as perversion, eternal torment of the damned in a literal hell, the sinfulness of abortion—are abandoned and other beliefs—the Bible as literature, concern for the environment, racial and cultural equality for oppressed groups, universality of salvation, an emphasis on social justice, tolerance of diversity—move to the center as animating ethical and theological concerns.  The evangelical spectrum encompasses both of these camps.” (216)  They clearly hope that evangelicals will discard the former more conservative set of evangelical beliefs and replace them with the more liberal ones.

The authors also reject at least some biblical miracles, such as the sun standing still for Joshua or an axehead floating, and while admitting the possibility of some miracles, they redefine the miraculous as follows: “More analytical evangelicals would hasten to point out that a ‘miracle’ does not entail breaking the laws of nature.  A miracle is simply an act of God that can be accomplished by working through rather than against the natural order.” (265)  Real divine intervention is apparently unthinkable, because it doesn’t fit into the modern secular outlook.  One would almost conclude from reading this book that we should always, or at least usually, bend our Christian beliefs and practices to conform to whatever is being promoted today as secular knowledge.

On the other hand, Stephens and Giberson continue to self-identify as evangelical Christians, and in most chapters they point out one or two other evangelical intellectuals who agree with their positions.  Thus, they apparently do not always embrace “secular knowledge.”  However, they provide no criteria to tell us when we should listen to secular intellectuals.  Why should we listen to secular intellectuals when they tell us we should reject certain biblical miracles, deny Satan and hell, and accept homosexuality, but then not listen to them when they tell us that Jesus did not rise from the dead, or when they argue that adultery is morally permissible or killing the disabled is compassionate.  How do Stephens and Giberson decide in their own lives which elements of “secular knowledge” to accept and which to reject?  I searched their book for an answer, but never found one.

The authors recognize that many evangelicals are suspicious of secular knowledge, and they even quote some favorite biblical passages, such as Rom. 12:2 (“Do not be conformed to this world”), that evangelicals invoke to justify their skepticism.  However, they simply dismiss these concerns.

Evangelicals and Secular Knowledge

I would contend, however, that evangelicals have solid reasons to exercise discernment when confronted with “secular knowledge.”  First, many Scripture passages teach that God’s wisdom is not only different from the wisdom of the world, but that they can be contradictory.  Paul in the first two chapters of I Corinthians calls the wisdom of this world foolishness.  He specifically mentions the Greeks, who were the intellectuals of his day, as opponents of God’s truth.  He states, “For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth” (1 Cor 1:26).  This is not an isolated passage, but a recurrent theme in Scripture.  Paul expresses it elsewhere this way: “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Col. 2:8)  Stephens and Giberson seem to disagree with Paul’s warning against imbibing the ideas of the world.

Second (and related to the first point), some forms of “secular knowledge” are based on presuppositions that are antithetical to Christianity.  Secular intellectuals are not objective truth seekers, but their worldview profoundly impacts many of the ideas they promote.  For instance, many intellectuals today embrace either biological determinism (“my genes made me do it”) or environmental determinism (“my upbringing made me do it”).  They frame the debate over human behavior as a contest between “nature vs. nurture.”  Whole academic disciplines and movements are based on these presuppositions. 

Christians, however, have no reason to adopt these presuppositions, which completely deny human free will and divine action.  Evolutionary psychology, for example, to which Stephens and Giberson subscribe, is based on biological determinism, a presupposition that evangelicals should not accept.  Stephens and Giberson’s claim that homosexuality has nothing to do with human choices also reflects belief in determinism (though here the authors accept a blend of biological and environmental determinism).

Third, “secular knowledge” is transitory and ever-changing.  If Stephens and Giberson had written their book a century earlier, they could have blasted conservative evangelicals for rejecting the eugenics movement and compulsory sterilization for the disabled, which many secular intellectuals considered progressive and scientific.  Secular intellectuals do not agree among themselves on many issues, especially moral issues, so why are we required to embrace whatever is the majority view of the secular elite at any given time?

Fourth, even the greatest intellectuals should have enough humility to admit that they could be mistaken, especially when they are using data to extrapolate into the past or future, or when they are taking moral stances.  I do not see why the doomsday scenarios of some scientists who are feted by the secular world should be taken any more seriously than the doomsday scenarios of end-time enthusiasts lampooned by Stephens and Giberson.  Nor do I see why moral statements by secular intellectuals (about homosexuality or child-training) should be swallowed unquestioned by evangelicals.  Do Stephens and Giberson think we should follow most secular intellectuals in their rejection of objective morality altogether?  Why or why not?

Finally, most evangelicals believe they have two sources of guidance unavailable to secular intellectuals.  They believe that the Bible and the Holy Spirit can give us true knowledge.  Before going to Gethsemane, Jesus prayed to the Father for his disciples, “Sanctify them through Your truth.  Your word is truth.” (John 17:17)  (Immediately before that, he said that his disciples are not of the world, too).  A short time earlier that evening Jesus told his disciples that after he left they would receive “the Spirit of truth,” who would “teach you all things” and “guide you into all truth.” (John 14:26; 16:13)

Stephens and Giberson regularly downplay both of these sources of knowledge.  They essentially discard three essential doctrines about Scripture that tend to define the evangelical mainstream: the inerrancy of Scripture, the authority of Scripture, and the perspicuity of Scripture.  Their view of Scripture is encapsulated in a passage in the penultimate paragraph of their book: “Christians have long been called ‘People of the Book.’  The label is especially appropriate for evangelicals.  But the Book is thousands of years old, written in obscure languages, from a mysterious and incomprehensible time and place.” (268)  They imply elsewhere that the Bible needs “updating.” (127)

In criticizing Bryan College in Tennessee as a fundamentalist institution, they state, “Maintaining the confident assertions of Bryan’s brand of conservative evangelicalism is difficult.  It is one thing to claim that sacred texts like the Bible originate with humans reflecting on and wrestling with a real spiritual dimension of reality.  It is quite another to claim that God actually wrote those texts and encoded them with insights into social and scientific problems that would not emerge for millennia.” (214)  Thus, they have no sympathy with anyone trying to apply Scripture to modern society.

They also attack “the belief that anyone and everyone can interpret scripture.” (188)  This view, sometimes known as the perspicuity of Scripture, was a key doctrine of the Protestant Reformation and has been a mainstream doctrine in evangelical circles.  However, it runs against the grain of Stephens and Giberson’s intellectual elitism.  They seem to think that only those with graduate-level theological training have a right to expound Scripture (but it is not clear what they do with conservative Biblical scholars who might embrace young earth creationism or premillenialism or who consider homosexuality sinful).

Likewise, they relentlessly attack those who claim to have revelation from the Holy Spirit.  Their book’s title refers to the claim made by various evangelical leaders to have God’s anointing.  The apostle John explained, “But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you.” (I John 2:27)  Interestingly, here John suggests that access to knowledge and truth from the Holy Spirit is available to all believers, not just to some anointed leaders.  In fact, the Holy Spirit should give all believers discernment, so that we don’t just gullibly accept anything that some dynamic and self-assured leader says (whether a religious leader or a secular intellectual).

One final irony: Stephens and Giberson continually challenge other evangelicals by impugning their expertise.  For instance, even though James Dobson has academic credentials, they quote a secular psychologist who calls Dobson’s views “pop psychology at its worst.”  They claim he has no biblical expertise, stating, “Dobson quoted the scriptures extensively, but he was no Bible scholar. . . . Dobson issued strident proclamations on matters he knew little about.” (120)  However, ironically many of the topics covered in their book lie far afield from the expertise of Stephens, a historian, and Giberson, a physicist.  If we should only listen to “experts,” why do they think we should value their opinions on everything from biology to psychology to child training to ethics to biblical prophecy?

Conclusion

None of this means that all “secular knowledge” is wrong.  Of course it isn’t, and all evangelicals rely on expert knowledge in many areas of endeavor.  However, like everything else in life, it must be evaluated.  We cannot simply turn off our discernment and accept whatever the experts—whether secular or evangelical—tell us we have to believe, especially when it deals with topics discussed in Scripture.  It is ironic that most academics would argue that one of the chief virtues of education is teaching critical thinking, but then intellectuals complain when it is practiced in their direction.

Stephens and Giberson are surely right that this democratization of knowledge leads at times to a rejection of legitimate scholarly knowledge (in fact, I’ve experienced this first-hand).  Yes, sometimes evangelicals say the stupidest things (here I include myself).  Indeed, thoughtful evangelicals will probably find themselves agreeing with one or more of the examples that Stephens and Giberson discuss.  I certainly agreed with them in their critique of some evangelical positions (though I disagreed with them on more points).  However, as I’ve explained above, escaping from this democratization of knowledge by embracing a kind of intellectual elitism that privileges the knowledge cranked out by secular intellectuals at Ivy League schools is not the solution, but opens us up to even worse deception.

If Stephens and Giberson’s book is supposed to encourage us evangelicals to become more intellectual and engage the ideas of our secular culture, I suspect that in most cases it will backfire.  For many evangelicals the book will serve as an object lesson in the dangers of compromising with “secular knowledge.”  It might make them more wary, rather than more open, to engaging with intellectuals.  As for the secular audience that will undoubtedly read this book, they will probably laugh and smirk their way through the book, finding abundant confirmation for their smug dismissal of Christianity, especially in its evangelical form.

Richard Weikart is professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus, and author of From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (2004); and Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress (2009)

Tweet