More than fifty years ago I was surprised when, in a debate before an audience, my attorney opponent relied almost entirely on Ecclesiastes for his attack on Christianity. (I retain somewhere in my archives the tape so that anyone might check on my musings here.) His understanding of the writings of Solomon was quite limited, based on a paperback critical of the Bible book that had been recommended to him for the debate with those two Sunday school teachers. His colleague in the debate was even less informed on the biblical text, but tended to remain in his area of expertise for the debate. He was a science professor at the leading state university. At the time I was struggling with embarrassment over many of the statements of several Christian leaders relative to science, history and religion, specifically Christianity. Those statements seemed to me to be born of ignorance about various disciplines, and communicating arrogance unseemly for biblical Christians. They were really fighting negative attitudes with negative attitudes. In the passing decades I have not changed my opinion of the views of Christians making statements on matters about which they had little or no solid information or background. However, after many years of academic life, and public involvement, I am also appalled at statements of many secular intellectuals/scholars about Christianity, or religion generally. (One may be an intellectual without being a scholar.) One can discover points-of-view using pseudo-scholarship.
Scholarship among evangelical Christian intellectuals has greatly expanded and revived since World War II. Revival of cultural interests in general society and the challenge of learning encouraged in the Scriptures, have taken hold again. It has broadened, and should be taken seriously. This improvement may serve to blunt the excesses of secularists, including scholars, who present their case for a separated secularism. Conclusions need to be evaluated for truth. Truth includes the opinions, orientations, presuppositions, and other background matters that may not show up on the report of a research project, or in the orientation of expectations about applied knowledge. Does human knowledge possess limitations, even about physical elements, caused by unavailable factors? We have strong evidence that there are limitations, limitations that appear to be so stern that they may never be bridged in nature. Man is too limited to be able to predict the context of all things. What, for example, happens in entrancing genetic research that takes into consideration all that happens when other forces in mankind or animals or plants are at work? Epistemology (ways of knowing) ought to engage more of the variant factors to gain greater clarity for students. Science speaks well in the area of verifiable facts and conclusions. All that there is in human life and the universe are not subject to verifiable facts and logical conclusions.
As constituted mankind is finite. Our achievements are transient: our knowledge is limited. We will never get to where we want to go without some other context than is known only in mankind or nature. Even if some materials and ideas that we would like to have were available, we might not know what to do with them. We have much to learn, and may need something that is not learnable in the natural realm. Our potential places us in a magnificent canyon of knowledge, but it may be a box canyon that requires rescue to carry the human mind and person to another context. Christians tend to focus more on the spiritual formation of living persons than on intellectual education. The focus is on eternal hope beyond death, another context for the human context that is found to be spiritual. That focus may be more readily considered when woven into divine scholarship. In that understanding the Christian finds biblical life context. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020