Thomas Toews

THST 814 Theology and Philosophy

Critical Review
Noll, Mark A. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994.

“The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical

mind. . . . Not withstanding all their other virtues, however, American evangelicals are

not exemplary for their thinking, and they have not been so for several generations.” (3)

Mark Knoll raises an interesting charge against evangelical thought or lack thereof with

this opening salvo. In his book, he asserts that there really is no impact on modern

culture, art, and thought because the evangelical mind prefers the simple approach.

The interesting question which should be addressed is how on the one hand he

asserts that evangelicals are the largest and most active religious group in the United

States and then on the other, he states that evangelicals have made no impact on society.

How is this tension to be balanced? It appears, really, that Knoll does not even recognize

the apparent inconsistency that is inherent if one is to hold that both statements are at the

same time true. The only way to understand this is to assume that by impact, he means,

as he does state in some places that this impact should be upon the “learned” segment of

American society. He laments the fact that millions of Americans now believe in a recent

creation as being an excellent example of the “scandal” which he claims to be exposing.

The problem is that if this phenomenon is truly as recent and widespread as he describes

it, then it really is not a fair accusation to say that this simple evangelicalism is not

impacting culture and society.

Maybe the problem is rather that it is impacting society and Knoll would rather

that it wasn’t. This would seem to imply that the for him the real scandal is not that

modern evangelical thought is not impacting society but rather that he now finds himself
intellectually at an impasse with the real impact that evangelicalism is having.

Interestingly enough, among those labeled by Noll as anti-intellectual are men whom

most “thinking” people classify as two of the greatest minds of the last three centuries,

namely Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schleiermacher. The obvious paradox to the

informed reader is that when viewed from the mind of the “common” evangelical, both of

these men left much to be desired. Kant was accused by many including Catholics of the

wrong kind of thinking while Noll would probably find himself quite at home with much

of the intellectual “dogma” that Schleiermacher espoused, at least as far as his belief in

creation is concerned. But to say all this one would assume that the entire thesis which

Noll presents is really a waste of time and one that is also totally disagreeable. This

would definitely be a faulty impression to give.

Noll does a splendid job of covering the historical background of evangelicalism

and also the impact it has had on modern culture. He quote approvingly from Harry

Blamires’ picture of theological conservatives in England. “. . . we Christians in the

modern world accept, for the purpose of mental activity, a frame of reference constructed

by the secular mind and a set of criteria reflecting secular evaluations. There is no

Christian mind. . . .” To the extent that this is an accurate encapsulation of what Noll

actually implies, it points to a stark reality which has been recognized before of the lack

of Christianity to develop it’s own constructs for viewing reality. In this sense, Noll does

point to a very real problem. However, when close attention is taken as to the main

historical/theological points which Noll points out as the cause of all of his consternation,

the reader quickly realizes that Noll has yet to peer this deep into the psyche of the

evangelical soul. Rather, he seems content with providing a platform on which he can

distance himself from the views that are becoming all to popular among the growing
number of evangelicals which he must then wear when he puts on the mantra of

evangelicalism in his association with the “outside” world.

These main points that Noll points to are first of all, fundamentalism, secondly a

criticism of political thought and thirdly a lack of any scientific awareness as best

illustrated by a belief in a recent, six-day creation as proposed by the writer of the biblical

book of Genesis. For him, the essentials of evangelical theology should be the cross,

virgin birth, incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ and the Holy Spirit’s ministry of

Christ’s life to the repentant sinner. (252) As can easily by seen, Noll is not very careful

in his theology. If he should choose to ignore the creation, why accept the incarnation?

Any true liberal will discard them both as far braver men have done. In the end, Noll’s

thought is seen to be quite shallow of one who calls others to greater depths of thought.

Noll writes, almost as an afterthought, that “Personal faith in Christ is a necessary

condition for Christian intellectual life, for only a living thing may develop. So long as

evangelicalism keeps Christian faith alive, it contributes in no small way, often despite

itself, to the possibility of Christian thinking.” (250) As is often the case when religion is

found at the crux of a disagreement, the real problem is not always the facts themselves,

as he presents them, but rather with the interpretation of those facts in a negative light

that bears the most scrutiny by one who would call himself/herself an evangelical. This

book has many correct facts to offer, but if the reader is searching for something far

deeper, this book will prove fundamentally lacking.