Anti-intellectualism

Just can't get the victory, eh JoJ?

 

There are no BBAA (Bible Board Addicts Anonymous) chapters in Japan.:tear:

 

I'm against my screen.

Far sigtedness is a real bummer

 

In our Sunday School last weekend, we discussed thinking about Scripture, and not just reading it. Afterwards, I posted a blog about it:http://www.mychurch.org/blog/27673/Minding-the-Word

In short, it just highlighted that when Jesus quoted the Greatest Commandment (Deut 6:5), He added the word "with all our mind" to the list of ways we are to love God. The discussion topic that followed was that applying this to reading the Bible would lead one to think (and presumably reason) about what one was reading.

Jim

 

Good blog entry Brother Jimc06!

1 Corinthians 12:4-27 (KJV1611 Edition):
Nowe there are diuersities of gifts, but the same spirit.
1Co 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
1Co 12:6 And there are diuersities of operations, but it is the same God, which worketh all in all.
1Co 12:7 But the manifestation of the spirit, is giuen to euery man to profit withall.
1Co 12:8 For to one is giuen by the spirit, the word of wisedome, to another the word of knowledge, by the same spirit.
1Co 12:9 To another faith, by the same spirit: to another the gifts of healing, by the same spirit:
1Co 12:10 To another the working of miracles, to another prophecie, to another discerning of spirits, to another diuers kindes of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.
1Co 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfe same spirit, diuiding to euery man seuerally as he will.
1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the membrs of that one body, being many, are one bodie: so also is Christ.
1Co 12:13 For by one spirit are we all baptized into one bodie, whether wee bee Iewes or Gentiles, whether wee bee bond or free: and haue beene all made to drinke into one spirit.
1Co 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
1Co 12:15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body: is it therefore not of the body?
1Co 12:16 And if the eare shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body: is it therefore not of the body?
1Co 12:17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
1Co 12:18 But now hath God set the members, euery one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
1Co 12:19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
1Co 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
1Co 12:21 And the eye cannot say vnto the hand, I haue no need of thee: nor againe, the head to the feete, I haue no neede of you.
1Co 12:22 Nay, much more those members of the bodie, which seeme to bee more feeble, are necessary.
1Co 12:23 And those members of the bodie, which wee thinke to bee lesse honourable, vpon these we bestow more abundant honour, and our vncomely parts haue more abundant comelinesse.
1Co 12:24 For our comely parts haue no need: but God hath tempered the bodie together, hauing giuen more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
1Co 12:25 That there should be no schisme in the body: but that the members should haue the same care one for another.
1Co 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it: or one member be honoured, all the members reioyce with it.
1Co 12:27 Now yee are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

Third-grade dropouts who dispise Christian intellectuals are like
eyes that gripe at hands (1 Corinthisans 12:21).

Christian intellectuals who dispise third-grade dropouts
are like eyes that gripe at hands (1 Cor 12:21).

 

Thanks, Brother Ed!

On a similar note to your text, we can remember Paul's desire to reach people on their terms:

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. (1 Corinthians 9:19-22 NASB)​

And although he didn't always have a positive response, sometimes he did:

And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ." And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women. (Acts 17:2-4 NASB)​

Now of course, he was speaking to Jews who took the scripture (Old Testament) seriously. But even so, it would seem that, if there are those who can be reached intellectually, shouldn't we make every effort to do so? Not necessarily proving things, but rather speaking with depth, and being able to answer questions. This would demand a certain "intellectual" depth on our part. Biblically-based, of course. (But as you point out, this may not necessarily be for everyone.)

 

There is a huge difference between intelligence, based on learning, and what is called intellectualism. The former is expressed simply in a language readily understood by all. The latter is a form of conceit in one's learning, expressed in language readily understood by no one.

There is an old expression: "He was so deep, he was in the mud." We do not have to speak in 50 dollar words, when a 25 cent word will get the job done.

In the early days, we went to Bible College, earned a diploma and got out in the field preaching the gospel. Some of us later benefitted by attending seminary, and earned degrees. The congregations have not changed, we have, and simplicitity in preaching still turns out to be the winner.

If I can't win someone over with simplicity, I surely can't convince them with all my learning. I may elevate my intellectual ego, but what has that served?

I think this is the essence of anti-intellectualism, and not a tirade against being intellectual.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Well said Jim1999, I give a hearty amen to your post.

 

Jim is right. And he lines up with scripture. People cannot be won to Christ with the intellect. Jesus said in reference to little children "to such belongs the kingdom of God". Who would have imagined that the word "such"would ever have so much meaning. Children learn by faith. 1 Corinthian 1 speaks of just such a faith. The intellectualism of the libs and the EC is just exactly not the way to come to God. Not so much because it is wrong but because it is impossible. God made the gospel simple to confound the wise. In other words it can never be said that a postmodernist came to God as a result of their intellect. That gives glory to the intellect of the person rather than God.

The use of the type of words by intellectuals and postmodernists shows a conceit in themselves. They are prideful in their language. Prideful in how the can understand things and it closes the door to knowing God. God gives grace to the humble but resists the proud. Intellectuals do not meet the definition of "such".

 

Please help me understand how accepting the Gospel as a child relates to Paul spending three Sabbaths reasoning from Scripture. That sounds much different than the typical childlike approach. Is this an example of how not to proclaim the Gospel? Certainly there are other cases where that approach did not work...

Is there a difference between the Truth that one must accept by faith (because it cannot be argued humanly), and the method one uses to present that truth (which may be an intellectual-sounding presentation)?

 

Given the simplicity of the Gospel, how would Paul explain his approach at Thessilonica and Athens? In Thessilonica he spent considerable time pouring through the Scriptures. In Athens, he approached them with Greek philosopy and poetry.

 

1 Corinthians 9:20-22 (KJV1611 Edition):
And vnto the Iewes, I became as a Iew,
that I might gaine the Iewes:
to them that are vnder the Law, as vnder the Law,
that I might gaine them that are vnder the Law:
21 To them that are without Law,
as without Law (being not without Law to God,
but vnder the Law to Christ,)
that I might gaine them that are without Law.
22 To the weake became I as weake,
that I might gaine the weake:
I am made all things to all men,
that I might by all meanes saue some.

I wonder if Paul became intellectual to win
intellectual persons?

 

I've wondered the same thing. Although some would say that Paul was an intellectual to begin with, due to his education.

Perhaps this is an illustration of the fact that, while one shouldn't use a 50 dollar word when a 25 cent word would work, we also shouldn't use 25 cent words when 50 dollar words are called for. Not that it's needed to explain the truth, but that some people might hear better that way.

It's not a matter of convincing people (which cannot be done), but of communicating with people.

Jim

 

Paul Did Set Out To Convince !

Just a smattering ( snippets ) of evidence follows .

Acts 17:2,3 --- ... he reasoned with them from the Scriptures explaining and proving ...

Acts 18:4 --- Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue , trying to persuade Jews and Greeks .

Acts 18:19 --- ... He ... reasoned with the Jews .

Acts 18:28--- For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate , proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the christ .

Acts 19:8 --- Paul ... arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God .

Acts 26:28 --- [ paul was trying to "persuade" Agrippa to become a Christian ]

Acts 28:23,24 --- ... From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of god and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets . Some were convinced by what he said , but others would not believe .

 

My degrees and learning were evident by the position I held at the university. I was there to teach the subject and not impress the students.

I sat under the most popular modernist in university and hardly understood a word he said. Now what value was there to that. Speak to a child so a child understands, and any doctor, lawyer, or academic will also understand.

Study Pauls adventures on Mars Hill. He ventured into academia and where did it get him? The learned blokes waved him off...We will hear of you again....clearly saying, good bye.

I am not dismissing the one's intellectual capacity, I am challenging his wisdom in use of a vocabulary of means.

A scientific professor at Oxford wrote a book on his field of expertise. Three of his leading compatriots admitted they read two or three paragraphs, put the book aside, and praised his knowledge. The book was a best seller and the most unread book in science. Now where are we?

I did not earn degrees as a flag of attention, but to better equip me to teach truth to be understood.

Cheers,

Jim

 

While I understand what you are saying and there is some truth to it. Still it causes me to think of "pride", of which I have

seen in my life time concerning the church.

Though we don't have a 100 million dollar church, those that are saved who are a part of one will have to communicate with us

when we reach Heaven, if we all make it. It is true that Lawyers, doctors the rich in general, don't want to have a part with

the small church on the hillside and that is what worries me about those who feel they have intellectualism. When they are

forced to come around us because of funerals, they are amazed and have told me so many times. "I didn't know your church

was this way", is one of the common statements. They were raised on the other side of the tracks, so to speak and were

never taught any different. What is so ironic, if they check their roots, their ancestors came from our churches.

 

I was just preparing to say the same thing. This is true of many things, not just Scriptures.

For example, when discussing physics (say, for example explaining why we would all bake into little cinders if not for the speed of light) it takes some 50 dollar words.

But, often, it takes a whole bunch of 25 cent words to explain those 50 dollar words, until the person understands the 50 dollar word.

In Scriptures, we use the 25 cent words to explain the gospel of salvation. It's so simple that a babe can understand it.

However, we're told to move onto the meat of the word, and in discussing that, there is often the need for 50 dollar words, although the understanding of those words came through a whole bunch of 25 cent words.

After you're saved, God says to grow up!

Hebrews 5:12-14: "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

I have taught an 8th grade dropout. She had been saved since she was a child, but had never been taught the gospel of the Kingdom. It took a lot of the 25 cent words. But, people assume that you're stupid when you're an 8th grade dropout. In the same class, there is a retired astronaut. Both were able to understand, it just took a little more patience.

However, this discussion reminds me of a funny:

And Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"

They replied, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed."

And Jesus replied, "What?"

 

No one hears better that way unless their pride has closed their ears off. And all this reasoning is still contradictory to 1 Cor 1

 

It is both. Paul persuaded people to follow Christ. If persuasion were not necessary then passion would be of no use.

Communicating with people begins at the point of commonality and credibility. It involves more than just words. It involves wisdom too.

When Jesus spoke with the Sadducees he used the first five books of the Bible but when he spoke with the Pharisees he used the OT.