Dear CT Editor,
Thanks for Ralph C. Wood's interesting update on the "Baylor 2012" program (The Heresy of Solitary Faith, January) which admirably seeks world class excellence in both scholarship and Christian identity. Dr. Wood's diagnosis is that Enlightenment individualism "has devastated our academic life" (i.e. blocking the goals of "Baylor 2012") and he therefore calls evangelicals to move somewhat back toward (Catholic-like) authoritarian institutionalism to counter it and enforce more unity.
The program's goals are obviously laudable and are shared by CT's Books and Culture Magazine (which Baylor funds) and many other Christian initiatives. There are at least two problems with his suggestion; one general, one particular. First, recall Lord Acton's dictum that "power corrupts." To whatever degree Baylor's hierarchy (or any other) is empowered to enforce unity, they will be corrupted by that empowerment (a great example is secularism in the public academy, with its increasingly evident intellectual bankruptcy). Of course, the same corruption applies to individuals, but the idea (of empowering individuals and disempowering or at least strictly power-limiting institutions) is to limit the scope of the damage and provide many countering ideas and powers (allowing the marketplace of ideas).
Second, among those Christians calling for more institutionalization, I've noticed that a particularly common type of corruption is a marked left-liberal bias (in culture, politics, economics, ...), perhaps due to a desire for intellectual respectability in an academic world currently dominated by leftists. They may also be drawn to the left-liberal tendency to centralize power for use by elites (e.g. leftist-dominated American Catholics, WCC, ...). Whatever the reasons, it is ill-advised to empower hierarchies beyond what is required to maintain competence, order and core values (the strictly limited government model).
We Christians should indeed strive to achieve intellectual excellence by doing our part (engaging with competitors in the marketplace of ideas while avoiding being seduced by them), but of course this doesn't guarantee that our competitors will respect us. After all, perceptions of "top tier" status have to do with popularity, so its possible we Christians may never again achieve the Establishment status we once enjoyed. In any case, that's in God's hands, and shouldn't be an explicit goal. Bottom line: excellent scholarship, yes; leftist top-down power tactics, no.
Steven P. Sawyer
Other related thoughts:
I agree wholeheartedly with Baylor's stated purpose of sharpening the school's Christian identity and demonstrating how scholars can pursue top-quality scholarship while holding to a strong, clearly defined faith commitment. This is also B&C's goal (which Baylor partially funds), but B&C has unfortunately shown some leftist tendencies (e.g. John Wilson's frenzied love of Michael A. Bellesiles' 1996 gun study and 2004 book Arming America, later shown to be frauds). There are also leftist tendencies in this article (and apparently in Baylor's 2012 program).
The current article references an earlier one, 2012: A School Odyssey, Randall Balmer, CT 18 Nov 02, p. 63. The vision is for "a Protestant Notre Dame." They're trying to get away from that "certain ruthless logic to Reformation thinking that will lead you, in the end, to a church of one." i.e. trying to move some back toward institutionalism (but not too far) in the interest of forming a Christian intellectual community. Cautionary note: Roger Williams, founder of the Baptist tradition in America, died separated from all denominations because none were "the true church."
Wood says the basic problem is "we have over-privileged the Enlightenment as it pertains both to Christian faith and Christian education ... conservatives have sought to establish watertight proofs for scriptural inerrancy that will serve as a bulwark against the miracle-denying rigidity of a cause-and-effect universe. Liberals, in turn, have subscribed to John Locke's ideal of tolerance - an ideal that stresses inclusivity and openness above all else, often to the neglect of real theological convictions" (pharisee/saducee, fundamentalist/modernist, enduring divides).
Freedom is not autonomy, it is conformance with God's will (and his community). not unfettered, but encumbered. not rights (life, liberty, happiness) but duty, obligation. covenantal vs. contractual. The Enlightenment's "all-sovereign self" vs. communalism. Individualism "has devastated our academic life." Dr. Wood calls us to authority vs. academic freedom. He's kind of trying to recatholicize evangelicalism?! Here's the problem: power (authority) corrupts, history has taught that.
One hesitation I've had after sending this out: what if the best way to limit government power is to strengthen private-sector power (i.e. civil society)? Is it possible that my arguments against centralizing educational institutional hierarchy (if heeded) could serve to hamstring this civil-society institution which otherwise would have been able to counter government power? Hmmm.