REUNITING THE TWO SO LONG DISJOINED:
KNOWLEDGE AND VITAL PIETY
by
Donald A. D. Thorsen
Editor's note: This is the presidential address delivered by Dr. Thorsen to the Wesleyan Theological Society convened at Northwest Nazarene College, Nampa, Idaho, November 3-4, 1995.
Last winter I needed to find another textbook for a class that I taught on contemporary trends in American Christianity. The book I originally planned to use was no longer in print-a dilemma faculty members often face. I called several friends in colleges and seminaries around the country to ask for suggestions for a substitute book. A book often suggested-that is, suggested by friends of mine outside the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions-was the book by Mark Noll entitled The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. After hearing their brief reviews of the book, I was intrigued by Noll's thesis, namely that "the scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind."[1] So I drove to the bookstore at Fuller Theological Seminary to purchase the book. I was quite pleased when I first began reading Noll's book. It fed into all of my scholarly biases.
Since I first became a religious studies major at Stanford University, I have had a passion - one could even say a calling-to pursue scholarly studies of religion. I can remember that, when I was a sophomore in college, I told my father that I planned to become a religious studies major. His response was, "O, so you plan to become a minister!?" When I told him that I did not sense a call to pastor a church, he had a difficult time understanding why in the world I ever wanted to study religion from a scholarly much less a secular perspective. Later on, when I did decide to become an ordained minister, I had similar responses from the conference board of the Free Methodist Church that reviews prospective ministers. It seemed to be of little value to them that I should want to pursue the scholarly study of religion, since such a vocation-from their perspective-supplies so little to the day-to-day life of the church.
So I was receptive to Noll's critique of the intellectual weaknesses of American evangelicalism. Both in theory and practice, I was tired of feeling marginalized by an evangelical culture that largely ignores-at best-the scholarly study of religion and-at worst-assaults it. Time and time again I felt as if I needed to apologize for wanting to be a religious scholar, and, when I finally became a scholar, I felt as if I needed to left the appropriateness of my chosen discipline of theology, since-after all-it was not biblical studies.
Imagine my dismay, then, when I reached Noll's chapter six entitled "The Intellectual Disaster of Fundamentalism." In the first five chapters Noll presents what he considers the various cultural and institutional sources of the intellectual imbalance of American evangelicalism. His source identifications seemed reasonable to me. They include anti-intellectual developments due to utilitarianism, revivalism, separation of church and state, civil religion, a democratic understanding of society, a liberal view of the economy, and so on.[2] But then Noll turns in chapter six to what he considers the theological sources of anti-intellectual leaven among evangelical Christians. They are said to be three: the holiness movement, pentecostalism, and dispensationalism.[3]
It is beyond the scope of this address to deal with all of my scholarly reasons for rejecting the thesis that anti-intellectualism among all American evangelicals has its theological sources in the holiness movement, pentecostalism, and dispensationalism. I have already indicated several of my criticisms of Noll in my article published in the recent issue of the Wesleyan Theological Journal.[4] It is enough for us to reflect on the accusation by Noll that the Holiness tradition, which includes the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions, are responsible-along with pentecostalism and dispensationalism-for anti-intellectualism among all evangelical Christians in America.
As incredible as that accusation sounds, it has resonated with thousands if not millions of people because Noll is read as an authority among many evangelical Christians today. Noll, after all, is the McManis Professor of Christian Thought at Wheaton College, has served as an editor for several scholarly publications, and has written numerous books. The book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind was named the 1995 Book of the Year by Christianity Today, which-I must confess-is a special embarrassment to me because I serve as a Consulting Editor for this magazine, thus suggesting how little one affects the upper management of a publication even when serving on its editorial board.
Cri du Coeur
I want to borrow a line from his book with regard to my intention in this address. My intention is to issue a "cri du coeur [a cry of the heart] on behalf of the intellectual life by one who, for very personal reasons, still embraces the Christian faith in an evangelical form."[5] My address is also a cry of the heart. But it is a cry to those within the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions to become more attentive to that which Charles Wesley said so long ago in the words of a hymn: "Unite the pair so long disjoined, Knowledge and vital Piety: Learning and holiness combined."[6] If, in fact, the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions have become lax in their intellectual prowess since the time of John and Charles Wesley (and I believe they have), then I seek to re-unite the two so long disjoined: knowledge and vital piety, learning and holiness combined.
Although our Wesleyan/Holiness traditions have not consistently affirmed the integration of heart and mind modeled by the Wesleys, we are poised to make more significant contributions to the intellectual well-being of evangelicalism and beyond if we support the historic and current trajectory of our Wesleyan/Holiness traditions toward a broadened and more active involvement in scholarship. Let me argue for this thesis by gleaning what nuggets of wisdom we can from Noll's work. Then I will address the need for a broadened conception of scholarship-for example, as promoted by Ernest Boyer and the Carnegie Foundation. I will conclude by looking at some of the contemporary advances that can be found with regard to scholarship in the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions.
The Scandal
I agree with the basic thesis of Noll's book. There is not much of an evangelical mind. That is, evangelical Christians have not generally done as good a job promoting matters of the mind as they have of the heart. For all the literature that has been generated by evangelicals and for all the sermons, seminars, crusades, and television programming, we have not significantly contributed to the intellectual development of America. Instead, evangelical Christians constantly attest to the ongoing impact of secular ideas on their beliefs and practices. Although evangelicalism has undeniably impacted America, for example, in its huge numerical growth, its impact on the intellectual dimension of American culture has been less significant.
So I have a love/hate relationship with Noll's book. I agree with his general thesis, but I disagree with his evaluation of the sources-and thus solutions-to the intellectual weaknesses of American evangelicalism. Is there a scandal? Yes and no.
Since basically I agree with Noll's overall thesis, I will not try to refute it. But, beyond the basic agreement, Noll has little to say to me as an evangelical-and even less to me as someone within the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions. The fact is that the problem of anti-intellectualism among American evangelicals is due as much-if not more-to sources outside the holiness movement, pentecostalism, and dispensationalism.
These sources particularly include Noll's own Reformed tradition, which includes his idyllic view of Jonathan Edwards and the turn-of-the-century Princeton theology. Noll himself is misleading at the beginning of his book because, when he first talks about the theological roots of evangelical anti-intellectualism, he traces them back to the 1820s and 1830s rather than to the later holiness, pentecostal and dispensational movements.[7] That preliminary theological discussion, in part, began my great disappointment with his damning discussion of the holiness movement and company. Noll's criticisms seemed so out of place in terms of his own historiography.
Contemporary scholars, including those Noll often quotes in support of his book, see the so-called leaven of fundamentalism coming primarily from the Reformed and dispensationalist traditions rather than from other evangelical traditions. George Marsden, for example, sees fundamentalism arising-among other places-out of dispensationalism and "a wider coalition with the publication and wide, free distribution of The Fundamentals (1910-1915), twelve paperback volumes containing defenses of fundamental doctrines by a variety of American and British conservative writers."[8] Alister McGrath specifically sees the roots of fundamentalism coming more from the Reformed traditions of evangelicalism, including scholars from the Princetonian School such as Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, and later J. Grescham Machen.[9]
Noll, on the other hand, briefly refers to the authors of The Fundamentals-which included such Princetonians as Warfield-as examples of enlightened authors who rose above growing fundamentalist tendencies.[10] This assessment demonstrates the way Noll views theologians from the Reformed tradition-with rose-colored glasses. Even David Wells, who is no fan of either the holiness movement or pentecostalism, does not blame them for the leaven of fundamentalism. Instead, he places the blame within the largely Reformed reaction to modernism.[11]
Scandalizing the Scandal
In his present book, Noll wonders whether the "scandal" can be scandalized. That is, are there ways to view the intellectual deficiencies of American evangelicalism in a more positive light. Noll suggests-and I agree-that we as evangelicals need to reconceive the place and function of intellectual endeavors in our theology and evangelical ethos. But that which Noll conceives seems-ironically-to bring him to a conception of theology that is surprisingly characteristic of historic Wesleyan thought. It is at this point that Noll advocates a greater integration of heart and mind, reflective of what he sees as a more biblical (and thus-to him-more Reformed) approach to the intellectual dimension of life.[12]
John and Charles Wesley sought this same integration in their theology and ministry. Whether we in the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions have always maintained that integration is a complex question. In some instances we have done a good job at trying to hold this integration. In other instances we have not done so well, and I have to cry out mia culpa [I am guilty] with regard to our intellectual impoverishment. But we are not necessarily worse off than other strands of evangelicalism, especially given the fact that we do not have as many centuries of theological tradition on which to develop our beliefs and practices. Our theology is rooted more in the evangelical revivals of the eighteenth century than in the sixteenth century continental Reformation.
We hardly need to rehearse the many ways that John Wesley attempted to integrate heart and mind. Most scholars today firmly recognize him as a positive figure within the realm of evangelicalism, though they may not always know what to do with him.[13] Even Noll acknowledges the leadership of Wesley alongside others like Jonathan Edwards in historic evangelicalism, despite the fact that Noll never gives Wesley much serious consideration.[14]
In his attempts to scandalize the scandal, that is, reconceive the so-called integration of heart and mind, Noll is more critical of the heart dimension of things than of the mind dimension. Some of his limitations-in reflecting on the entirety of the so-called scandal-comes, on the one hand, from grandiose expectations of evangelical influence on all dimensions of American thought and life. On the other hand, Noll is preoccupied with poor scholarship in evangelical academies.
With regard to the first limitation, scholars such as Grant Wacker question whether "evangelicals do in fact need to establish a Christian view of everything."[15] With regard to the second limitation, scholars such as Robert Wuthnow, Richard Mouw, and Alister McGrath question whether evangelical scholarship has, in fact, failed all that badly. Wuthnow, for example, questions whether evangelicals like Edwards-if Edwards can even be considered a prototype of American evangelicalism-were all that successful in the intellectual development of the past. McGrath questions whether evangelicals have done so badly, given the relative newness of the contemporary resurgence of evangelicalism in America.[16]
A resource that is helpful in responding to Noll's concerns is the book by Ernest Boyer entitled Scholarship Reconsidered. Boyer reports that too many people, especially in academia, focus narrowly on what they consider to be scholarship. Too often it is conceived, valued, and rewarded only in terms of research scholarship. Boyer's work proves to be particularly helpful to those of us in the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions. To that helpfulness that I now want to turn. Boyer's work serves not only as a critique to Noll, but also serves as a critique to us. Just as Boyer serves as a critic, he also serves as an encourager and as one who can model a more integrated approach to the relationship between our head and heart-at least within the academic institutions of America, both inside and outside evangelicalism.
What Is Scholarship?
My address hereafter focuses on the general topic of scholarship, but it should not be considered exclusive of people outside academia. I intentionally distinguish between scholarship and academics, not because a great deal of scholarship fails to come out of the academy, but because a great deal of scholarship comes from pastors and informed lay people within the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions. Scholarly work can and should come from many places. Speaking as an academic, I look forward to a time of greater intellectual mutuality between our academies and our churches.
In 1990 Ernest Boyer, then director of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, published his Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Boyer wrote the book in order to confront the ongoing trend among American colleges and universities to reward research rather than teaching as a measure of scholarship. He considers this climate to be a suffocating practice, restricting creativity rather than sustaining it among faculty as well as students.
Boyer advocates more creative ways to conceive of scholarship, recognizing the full range of faculty talent and the great diversity of functions higher education must perform. In particular, he proposes "four general views of scholarship-discovery, integration, application, and teaching."[17] Boyer laments the loss of emphasis on teaching in colleges and universities around the country. Yet, if Christian colleges-including those representative of the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions-have a particular strength relative to the four types of scholarship proposed by Boyer, it probably would be the area of teaching. Where I teach (Azusa Pacific University), I hear too often that the school is a "teaching university", though that description is nowhere published in university literature. Focusing primarily on teaching, of course, is nothing about which to be ashamed or concerned. But too often the phrase "teaching university" is used as an excuse for devaluing and discouraging other types of scholarship within academia.
Boyer may have intended his reconsideration of scholarship primarily for the purpose of promoting quality teaching, but his views help us in the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions to develop a broadened perspective of scholarship. Boyer does not provide insight to academic institutions alone, though that is a natural center of scholarship. His broadened conception of scholarship also helps to encourage scholarship among pastors and lay people-places that the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions have always encouraged individuals to contribute to the holistic well being of both our hearts and minds. Let me develop three of Boyer's ideas.
1. Enlarging the Perspective of Scholarship
Ernest Boyer proposes that we should reconceive the meaning of scholarship in terms of four separate, yet overlapping functions. These are: "the scholarship of discovery; the scholarship of integration; the scholarship of application; and the scholarship of teaching."[18] Boyer intended his discussion of scholarship "to move beyond the tired old 'teaching versus research' debate and give the familiar and honorable term 'scholarship' a broader, more capacious meaning, one that brings legitimacy to the full scope of academic work."[19] By broadening the concept of scholarship, Boyer thought that he would be able to encourage more scholarly work in the areas of integration, application, and teaching.
Although institutions of higher education in the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions have generally excelled at teaching, greater emphasis needs to be placed on the areas concerning the scholarship of integration and application. Scholarship conceived in these ways should be considered a strength in our movement, and in some ways they already are. We will not in the near future be capable of developing significant amounts of research in our institutions of higher education. If it can be accomplished, then it should be supported as best it can. But, realistically speaking, in addition to focusing on quality teaching, we should try to develop ways to contribute to the scholarship of integration and the scholarship of application.
Consider these two types of scholarship. First, the scholarship of integration gives special meaning to isolated aspects of scholarship; it makes them come to life. Scholarship that is integrative crosses disciplines, highlighting the relevance of one's own discipline as well as illuminating information in relevant ways, often for the benefit of nonspecialists. For example, we can show how a Christian worldview is relevant to many disciplines and to many areas of real life concern. More specifically, we can show how a Christian worldview-that benefits from the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions-is relevant today. Those concerned with integration must be specially adept at critical analysis and interpretation of the best scholarship available as they try to develop a more holistic and healthy way of viewing life. When one considers the theological heritage of the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions-with its dynamic conception of the interplay between the priority of the Bible and tradition, reason, and experience-it seems that contemporary scholarly trends that are interdisciplinary, interpretive, and integrative should come easily to this theological heritage.
Second, the scholarship of application takes aspects of scholarship found in discovery and integration and applies them to life. This emphasis involves doing more than just good deeds or being a good citizen. It involves a direct consideration of the best scholarship in one's own field of knowledge as it applies to real life issues. By focusing on the application of our disciplines, we in turn learn better theory (and theology) for having involved ourselves with the scholarship of application. As the old adage says, "the best theory informs the best applications, and the best applications inform the best theory." In the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions, we have a longstanding heritage of application. Note, for example, the theology and ministry of John Wesley, who continually concerned himself with the social as well as spiritual applications of his writings.
2. Creativity Contracts
Another lesson that we can learn from Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered is the need for what he calls "creativity contracts."[20] A creativity contract represents "an arrangement by which faculty members define their professional goals for a three- to five-year period, possibly shifting from one principal scholarly focus to another."[21] Simply stated, a creativity contract provides an opportunity for accountability-another characteristic reflective of the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions. Boyer proposes the creativity contracts not only as a way to broaden the ways in which scholarship is conceived, but because he knows that scholars go through different periods in their lives. Sometimes they place greater emphasis on integration; other times they place greater emphasis on application or teaching. Regardless of the emphasis, a creativity contract helps to keep someone "on track", giving them a greater sense of direction and-hopefully-effectiveness.
With all of the small group and accountability relationships that most of us have experienced in the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions, one would think that we would consider the idea of creativity contracts for the purpose of scholarship to be obvious. Yet, as we all well know, that which is obvious is sometimes the thing that we-as scholars-are most likely to overlook.
Boyer does not signify the person or persons with whom a faculty member should make these creativity contracts. From experience I know that one may not want to make them with a chair or administrator because of ramifications for one's position. At Azusa Pacific University the faculty are required to fill out what are called Summative Evaluations. In many respects, they could function like creativity contracts because they require the formulation of goals, which later are supposed to be evaluated along with the faculty member's chair. But because the Summative Evaluation has become so institutionalized, they mostly appear to faculty as well as administrators as bureaucratic tools that need to be processed for the benefit of institutional record-keeping rather than for the personal and professional development of faculty members.
Making a creativity contract with a colleague may prove most effective in setting goals, maintaining these goals, and meeting them. In my own experience, specific individuals-both inside and outside my field of religious studies-have been invaluable in modeling how I can creatively accomplish scholarly work. On occasions, close work with those individuals have been the most helpful in guiding me to new (and sometimes previously inconceivable) ways in which to pursue scholarship. Whether these creativity contracts are formally devised or informally modeled, they will help most of us as we attempt to find new ways in which to contribute to the intellectual well-being of ourselves and others.
3. A New Generation of Scholars
Boyer envisions a future in which faculty will be liberated from a narrow conception of scholarship to one that includes the scholarship of integration, application and teaching as well as that of research. I also envision a liberated future for the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions. But we need liberation from more than just a narrow conception of research as scholarship; we need to be liberated toward focusing more upon integrative and applied forms of scholarship. We also need to be liberated from too narrow a conception of Christian academia as "teaching institutions."
Evangelical Christian scholars in general and Wesleyan/Holiness scholars in particular need to become more creative in finding scholarly ways to express themselves and their concerns. Most of us would not be at the annual meeting of the Wesleyan Theological Society if we did not have a concern to make a difference in intellectual matters related to our Christian faith and theological heritage. Too often we feel restrained, but not always by real restraints. Of course, I recognize that there are real, significant restraints that exist in opposition to scholarly pursuits-heavy teaching loads, low salaries, extensive committee work, administrative responsibilities, commitments to family, church responsibilities, and so on. But many times we simply need a vision for how we can contribute to the greater scholarship of evangelicalism, of America, and of the world beyond.
Looking to the Future
As an encouragement to you, let me share why I am optimistic that the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions will contribute in the future at least to the intellectual development of evangelicalism. I will do this by reviewing some of the scholarly developments that have taken place recently, that is, with regard to developments in scholarly disciplines reflected in the Wesleyan Theological Society.
Established in 1965, the Wesleyan Theological Society has grown to more than six hundred members, including faculty, pastors, and active lay people. We have published the Wesleyan Theological Journal every year since the founding of the Society, and now the bi-annual editions are longer and of increasing scholarly content. Our annual meetings have expanded to include outside speakers, concurrent sessions (patterned after the American Academy of Religion and Society of Biblical Literature), and this year group discussions based on various disciplines (patterned after the Oxford Institute). Also this year we have taken steps to establish an endowment for the Society and to change the annual meeting to the Spring, which is reflective of the growing scholarly interest among our members to attend the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion and Society of Biblical Literature (AAR/SBL).
Members of the Society have progressively become more involved in their professional affiliations. Donald Dayton, for example, gave a plenary address several years ago at the Oxford Institute, which a growing number of our members attended, and he will give another plenary address at the upcoming AAR/SBL. At the AAR/SBL there now occurs annual gatherings of Nazarene scholars sponsored by Nazarene Theological Seminary, a gathering of Free Methodist and Wesleyan Church scholars, and also a gathering sponsored by Asbury Theological Seminary. Many other professional affiliations could, of course, be included, each reflecting particular areas of scholarship within biblical studies, historical theology, systematic and philosophical theology, Christian education, evangelism, missions, and so on. Our members have not only begun to participate more, but also have attained positions of leadership in governance and publications.
Our seminaries continue to provide communities of scholarship which contribute to the intellectual leadership of the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions. Asbury Theological Seminary, in particular, is developing greater leadership in the area of scholarship. Since the mid-1980s, Asbury published the Asbury Theological Journal, which represents a continuation of the Asbury Seminarian, founded in 1946-perhaps representing the first scholarly evangelical publication after the establishment of the National Association of Evangelicals. In addition, Asbury has brought world-class scholars to its various lectureships. Such lecturers have included Elizabeth Achtemeier, C. K. Barrett, James Dunn, Karlfried Froehlich, Jack Kingsbury, I. Howard Marshall, James Luther Mays, JYrgen Moltmann, Thomas Morris, Thomas Oden, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Peter Stuhlmacher, Geoffrey Wainright, and John Howard Yoder. Few academies in America can boast a more prestigious list of lecturers. In the future, Asbury plans to develop doctoral programs in biblical studies, theology, and missions.
Asbury Theological Seminary also has been successful in being awarded grants from the Pew Charitable Trust that provided for the development of a Wesleyan/Holiness Studies Center, which explores the interaction between the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions and American culture in the nineteenth century. The grants provided for three conferences that drew upon a variety of scholars from around the country and will result in a number of publications. One of the most helpful publications already available is the Wesleyan/Holiness Studies Center Bulletin that discusses scholarly topics related to the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions, and presents extensive bibliographies of books, articles, dissertations, and other literature related to Wesleyan/Holiness themes.
Our colleges and universities have had varying degrees of success in the area of scholarship. They and our seminaries continue to face the struggles involved with being tuition driven; but this is a problem for most Christian institutions of higher education in the country. There also exist the complications involved with maintaining quality relations with supporting denominations. Yet, there do appear to be glimmers of hope with regard to what they do to enhance the culture of scholarship within the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions. Many of our colleges and universities have maintained lectureships that promote scholarship. Others have lowered their teaching loads, raised the amount of money designated for faculty development, sabbaticals, research grants, and professional travel, and still others have reduced teaching responsibilities for individual faculty who have been especially productive in their scholarly contributions.
With regard to the latter, let me share with you about an exciting idea sponsored by Point Loma Nazarene College entitled the Wesleyan Center for 21st Century Studies. The Wesleyan Center was established to inspire a new generation of Wesleyan thinking that will influence the broader church and social worlds of the 21st century. It is patterned after the Center for Christian Studies at Gordon College. The Wesleyan Center provides for three types of scholarship. First, Center Scholars represent faculty at Point Loma who receive grants for the preparation of original essays that define a Wesleyan position from the perspective of a specific discipline. Second, Center Fellows represent faculty who receive course-load reductions to enable them to produce a scholarly study or activity on a topic relating to the Center's mission. Finally, Visiting Scholars represent research and writing opportunities to self-supporting faculty from other institutions who are engaged in a study within one of the Center's areas of interest. The Wesleyan Center then plans to publish the results of the scholarship through the Point Loma Press.
Point Loma Press is the only established press with which I am familiar among institutions of higher education in the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions. Several of our institutions are currently reviewing proposals for developing such presses, but so far they have been slow to publish scholarly writings. Until now, the most prolific publishers of scholarly writings in the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions have been by denominational publishers such as Beacon Hill Press, Warner Press, Light and Life Press, Wesleyan Church Publishing House, and Evangel Publishing House. Such denominational publishers have not only been helpful in the publication of some scholarly books, but also of other magazine, curriculum, and devotional literature-literature which we as scholars should not quickly discount as ways in which to contribute to the integrative and application forms of scholarship.
At the 1996 annual meeting of the Wesleyan Theological Society, there are plans to have a forum with denominational editors and publishers within the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions. There should exist greater cooperation between these people and members of the Society. We plan to explore at that time how more cooperation might develop in a mutually beneficial way.
Other helpful publishers have been private or small-group ventures such as the Francis Asbury Press and Heritage Press. Schmul Publishing Company has for a long time been crucial to the preservation of Wesleyan/Holiness materials. All of these presses, however, have published with relatively small markets in mind. As long as we remain small-minded, we will have less of a chance to impact beyond very localized portions of America.
An excellent example of the innovative preservation of historical scholarship can be found at Northwest Nazarene College in its new Wesley Center for Applied Theology. The Wesley Center is developing computer resources crucial to continued scholarship within the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions. For example, it supplies computer access to many of the works by John Wesley, Adam Clark, the Wesleyan Theological Journal, and other holiness literature out of copyright. More importantly, the Wesley Center helps to preserve the theological as well as historical identity of the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions.
Another development in the information age has been the evolution of computer discussion groups accessed by e-mail. An example is Wesleyans in Theological Dialogue. This development reflects the growing familiarity with and use of the most current scholarly resources available.
Some denominations among the Wesleyan/Holiness denominations have taken helpful steps toward gathering their scholars together for the encouragement and guidance of those involved in scholarly activities. Before the founding of the Wesleyan Theological Society, the Free Methodist Church instituted what has come to be known as the Graduate Student Theological Seminar, which was known affectionately by its early attenders as the "Rye Conference" because it was held in Rye, New York. The Nazarene and Wesleyan Churches have periodic gatherings of scholars from their institutions of higher education. For example, the Nazarene Theology Conference invites religious studies faculty to meet, and the Nazarene Higher Education Conference invites faculty and graduate students from all academic disciplines to attend.
A recent and exciting development within our traditions is the Wesleyan/Holiness Women Clergy Conferences. The conferences were created by the efforts of such people as Susie Stanley, but they also are sponsored in part by denominations within the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions. The purpose of the conferences is to affirm, instruct, and encourage women in ministry. As a result, scholarly work has emerged from those who participated.
Although a number of institutions, both academic and ecclesiastical, have worked to promote scholarship, the most important proponents have been individuals who have sought to contribute scholarship both inside and outside the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions. The founders of the Wesleyan Theological Society, for example, included such scholars as William Arnett, Charles Carter, Leo Cox, Merne Harris, Richard Taylor, and W. Ralph Thompson. Subsequent members of the Society worked to promote scholarship within the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions. Many of us in the Society have been inspired by the scholarly work of Timothy Smith, Dennis Kinlaw, Donald Dayton, Howard Snyder, and others. There are other scholars who have and continue to serve as role models for scholarly activity, including Ole Borgen, Albert Outler, Thomas Oden, and William Abraham.
Intent and Suggestions
It is the "cry of my heart" that there emerge a greater attention to scholarly reflection and scholarly output among academics, pastors, and laity within the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions. I do not, however, want that scholarship to be self-serving. That is, I do not want to promote scholarship just for the sake of promoting our academic and ecclesiastical institutions. Instead, it is my hope that scholarship produced by people within the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions will intertwine wonderfully with our already vital emphasis on spirituality and holiness. It is my further hope that the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions-along with evangelicalism as a whole-will have an increasing intellectual impact on contemporary American religion as well as society as a whole.
I do not want my concern for scholarship to swing the pendulum to the opposite extreme so that we neglect matters of the heart, faith, ministry, and social action. On the contrary, it is my intent that knowledge and vital piety be held in a creative balance that embodies the original heart-cry of the Wesleys. Today there is a great need for us to re-unite the two so long disjoined within the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions, namely, knowledge and vital piety, learning and holiness.
Let me close by offering five suggestions that I think will help us become more appropriately focused on the scholarly dimensions of our Christian faith and practice.
First, we need to develop new attitudes with regard to the value and cultivation of the intellectual dimension of our lives as Christians as well as human beings. Probably my favorite quote from Noll's book involves this very need for a change of attitudes. He says:
For evangelicalism as a whole, not new graduate schools, but an alteration of attitudes is the key to promoting a Christian life of the mind. It is the same for evangelical scholars. The key thing is to work at it. The superstructures-appropriate institutions, lively periodicals, adequate funding, academic respect, meaningful influence-are not insignificant. Some attention is justified to such matters. But if evangelicals are ever to have a mind, they must begin with the heart.[22]
There needs to be a passion for the well-being of the Christian life of the mind if we are to make a truly holistic contribution to the well-being of the world.
Second, we need to resist those like Noll who would make the Wesleyan/Holiness traditions the scapegoats for anti-intellectualism among American evangelicals. We are not without our weaknesses and needs to become more self-critical and to develop ourselves with regard to scholarship. But we need to be viewed with understanding and fairness when considering our history and theology. Moreover, we need to shed feelings of insignificance and insecurity that discourage us from speaking out when we have ideas to share that are genuinely valid from a scholarly perspective.
Third, we would do well to broaden our conception of scholarship so that it recognizes and rewards people for their involvement in the scholarship of integration and application as well as that of research and teaching. We often do not become more involved in scholarly activities because we cannot conceive of how we can contribute to the greater scholarly world. Yet our Wesleyan/Holiness traditions naturally lend themselves to involvement in the areas of integration and application as well as teaching. We should focus our efforts there in order to begin slowly to make our marks in scholarship. Those scholarly activities may take a variety of forms. We do not just have to write; we can do other things. We can edit, we can work with computers, we can create videos, etc. But we can also write, and this is where I would especially like for us to become more active. Start now where your strengths are, even if it means starting small. Do not, however, be satisfied with little. An analogy can be drawn from the words of Paul when he says, "the one who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and the one who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully" (2 Cor. 9:6 NRSV).
Fourth, we need to take seriously the idea of developing creativity contracts. We need to make them with ourselves if not with others. Proverbs 29:18 may appropriately be applied to those of us concerned about scholarship: "Where there is no vision, the people perish" (KJV). We who are concerned about scholarship need to develop a greater vision for ourselves as well as among those for whom scholarship is not a concern. But we may not do anything about it unless we set long-range goals and find ways to hold ourselves accountable to those goals. So, be creative in terms of the types of scholarly activities in which you become involved and to which you seek to hold yourself accountable!
Fifth, some of us will need to become more assertive in terms of doing the work of financial development in order to pay for the kind of superstructures mentioned earlier in the quote by Noll. As a scholar, I have at times come to hate the term "entrepreneurial spirit" when it is used as an excuse to develop a variety of academic programs designed more to make money than to enhance scholarship. Still, money and other support systems are essential for promoting Christian scholarship.
We need to become more development oriented in order to achieve some of the goals we set out in our personal or possibly institutional creativity contracts. Some of us might find that we have special talents for getting grants, developing new academic programs, or raising money for yourself or your institution for the purpose of promoting scholarship. These tasks, however unappealing they may seem to you, are not insignificant and may provide yet another way in which you can contribute to the overall development of the Christian life of the mind.
Finally, I realize that so much of what I have said sounds like just more academic idealism, more ivory tower musings. But I resist that caricature. Like the Wesleys, I believe that our Christianity needs an integration of knowledge as well as vital piety, of learning as well as holiness, and we continually need to reassess and create new ways in which to promote that integration of heart and mind.
Endnotes:
