One Good Reason for the Intellectual Protestant
The “intellectual” Protestant believer may or may not belong to one of the categories that we have discussed in the previous segments. He or she may be “lukewarm” or very devout. What, then, does the term “intellectual” mean? How is it possible to be “intellectual” and yet “lukewarm” at the same time? The “intellectual” aspect really depends a great deal on what place someone gives to the intellectual life, itself. It also requires an understanding of the affective or emotive aspects of an individual’s faith. Does someone’s faith tend to be more “heart” based or “head” based? This value would depend on a number of factors, so let’s spend a little time discussing some of those factors.
To begin, an intellectual “mainline” Protestant might be formed in his or her faith along the lines of a more formalized, intellectual method, which could include intensive personal study or a college-level education. This would be especially true of Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists and Baptists affiliated with Protestant institutions of higher learning in the US which generally require a significant level of religious studies in the curriculum, no matter the major or concentration. This can be a great advantage, because an intellectual background makes for much common ground with us Catholics, who of course have our own rich intellectual heritage.
On the other hand, a potential hazard exists when these Protestants place their faith-life within a system that may be so overly “intellectualized” that the notion of a deep, living, thriving relationship with the Lord God is placed at a distant-second or is squeezed-out altogether. In other words, “head knowledge” is made a substitute for “heart knowledge.” But these don’t have to be mutually exclusive, as the great “intellectual” Catholic saints and Doctors of the Church have demonstrated throughout history. These figures can serve as a bridge for such Protestants.
Either way, there are topics that are important in both Catholic and Protestant intellectual traditions that can become starting points for fruitful dialogue, such as the doctrines of the atonement or the incarnation. And these are worth exploring.
There is also a form of intellectual Protestantism among Evangelicals which could be either “academic” or “non-academic,” but this greatly depends on the particular denomination. There are some fine institutions of the intellectual life among Evangelicals, which range from universities to the more traditional “Bible colleges.” But generally, because of the theological perspective in which these institutions developed, intellectual life can be seen as suspect because it is (wrongly) perceived as “man-centered” or otherwise inauthentic in terms of Christian witness.
Though there are plenty of intellectual Evangelicals, Evangelicals will generally place special emphasis on topics such as the love of God, trust in Him, and a deep realization of human sinfulness and the need for redemption. Essentially, they tend to be more experiential than rational or intellectual. It doesn’t mean the rational is of no value, but in this context the affective aspect comes first, and then comes the rational.
In order to see how these things might play out, let’s take a look at an example dialogue between a Catholic street evangelist and an “Intellectual” Protestant passer-by.
Example Dialogue
Our Evangelist engages a mainline progressive Protestant believer who, by his own admission, has insufficiently understood the Catholic Church’s contributions to the intellectual life, especially the modern sciences as these relate to Scripture scholarship. The Evangelist will amplify this point of discovery and will help his Protestant friend to realize that the Church not only is unafraid of “non-religious” modes of knowledge, but believes that “right reason” comes from God and cannot conflict with a right interpretation of the Bible. This dialogue can be a little difficult to follow, but it is a real example of a conversation that an “intellectual Catholic” might have with an “intellectual Protestant.”
E: Hello! Would you like a miraculous medal?
P: Oh, hi! Thank you for the offer. This is Catholic, right?
E: Yes it is!
P: Yeah, I thought so — looked familiar! I have been reading about the Catholic Church and the way it deals with various issues in the Bible.
E: Such as?
P: Well, I was pleasantly surprised to find out that some Catholic scholars don’t necessarily take everything in the bible as “historical” fact — like the story of Noah’s ark and the Flood! That would come as a surprise even to a lot of “old time” Protestants, who don’t often see Catholics as very tuned in to the latest and best scholarship.
E: Yeah, plenty of Catholics are tuned into modern historical scholarship of the Bible! Of course, issues like the one that you just pointed out are very delicate because of the larger question of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures.
P: Oh, definitely! Yes, that becomes the question! If not everything in the Bible is historically true, how do we understand that the Scriptures are inspired by God and wholly truthful?
E: Exactly! The Catholic tradition has a strong respect for sound historical scholarship, while still holding to the infallible truth of the Sacred Scriptures. That leads to lots of debate among scholars in the Church. For instance, Catholics are permitted to believe that the event of Noah’s Ark happened historically. On the other hand, there is a recognition that the story uses, in the words of Pope Pius XII, “simple and metaphorical language” to teach us truths for our salvation, while not necessarily intending to be a precise record of history.
P: Yeah! That’s similar to how I would understand it. It’s kind of like the parables of Jesus: the fact that someone tells a story does not necessarily imply that they are claiming that it actually happened — or happened in precisely that way. It may be told for another purpose — to communicate some teaching. … But I didn’t know that Catholics ever thought like this.
E: Yeah! In the Catholic tradition, the truth of God’s Word — and the truth of right reason are both highly valued. They both come from God, right? By the way, how did you encounter these trends in Catholic scholarship?
P: Well, I generally try to keep up on what’s happening in different denominations, so I thought I’d see what the Catholics had going on. In the past, they seemed a little superstitious to me. But it was refreshing for me to see that they have an appreciation of modern scholarship.
E: I see. One of the things I like to tell people who aren’t Catholic is that our Church isn’t afraid of the modern world or modern science. We founded the world’s first universities, provided the Gregorian Calendar, produced Gregor Mendel — the father of genetics, who was a priest — and George Lemaître, the Belgian Catholic Priest and astronomer who came up with the Big Bang theory.
P: Impressive! But why did it take so long for the Catholic Church to catch up with modern scripture scholarship?
E: Well, it may have seemed that way for a little while, as modern scholarship was just getting warmed up. But I actually appreciate the Church’s reserve here.
P: What do you mean?
E: It was a careful, scholarly reserve. The Catholic Church was never “anti-intellectual” when it came to the Bible. It just took the Church time to process the possibilities of the new methods of critical research. The new methods brought severe dangers to the integrity of the Christian faith. And the Church knew that the faith was revealed by God, and human thinking was subject to error. So, she took her time to assess the situation.
P: [nods] Uh-huh. …
E: Basically, the Church needed to be convinced that these methods already in use by Protestant scripture scholars posed no danger to faith and morals, when properly used. But once the Church saw how it could work, and that there were real merits of these modern methods, the Catholic side rapidly caught up and, within decades, produced some of the world’s greatest modern Scriptural experts.
P: Well, I understand wanting to be faithful to God. But I’ve never really believed, even for a moment, that genuine faith and accurate science should be in conflict.
E: Neither have I. They both have God as their ultimate source. But “accurate science” is not something that we can manufacture for ourselves overnight. After all, what is taken as historical truth today might be disproved tomorrow by further evidence! So, it takes careful consideration, and a measure of caution and patience, to arrive at the truth — especially in matters of ancient history and archaeology.
P: Yeah, I guess you have a good point there. That makes sense.
E: Would you be interested in some “light reading” that talks more about this? I think you’ll be blown away when you learn more about what Catholics have been saying about reason and faith, historical research and the bible, and stuff like that. [smiles] See what we have been up to since “the Dark Ages”! [laughs].
P: [reciprocates the laughter] Sure, that sounds good. Let’s keep the conversation going!
It’s important for the Catholic evangelist to remember to try to discover what place is given to the intellectual life by a more “intellectual” Protestant. Do they tend to live in their “head” or do they live more from the ”heart” when it comes to faith in Jesus Christ? Either disposition presents a way for the Catholic evangelist to engage the person well. If it is a focus on “head knowledge,” we can present the Catholic intellectual tradition. If it is “heart knowledge,” then presenting the gospel in more experiential terms would be helpful, even as you engage with them on an intellectual level. In either case, it might be helpful to review the work of various saints who had a good balance between head-knowledge and heart-knowledge of Jesus.