Becoming a True Christian Scholar: Some Recommendations, Part 1

Reprinted with permission from As I See It. AISI is sent free to all who request it by writing to the editor at dkutilek@juno.com.

In run-of-the-mill conservative Christianity in general and Baptist Fundamentalism in particular there is, and has long been, an indigenous and deeply in-grained distrust and suspicion of highly educated men within our ranks. But this does not in the least reduce or detract from the great service and essential value such men have provided to Biblical Christianity through the centuries. If we may quote Erasmus (1466-1536) on Christianity’s debt to scholars:

Let it be remembered that the heretics were refuted by the scholars, and much more by the scholars than by the martyrs. By dying for a conviction a man proves only that he is sincere, not that he is right.1

In spite of this historic and continuing debt, there has been a parallel perverse distrust and contempt toward Christian scholars (even devout and spiritually-minded ones) by much of conservative evangelical Christianity. I recall well a conversation I was party to some 25 years and more ago with an independent, fundamental Baptist pastor—a man who himself had been unable to complete even a basic, un-demanding three-year Bible institute degree, a deficiency he had not remedied by extensive personal study in succeeding years—in which he told me that “I just don’t trust men with a lot of education.” As though abject ignorance somehow made a man more spiritual and useful to God!

John Gill (1697-1771) wrote a scathing rebuke of this absurd perspective nearly 250 years ago:

Here I cannot but observe the amazing ignorance and stupidity of some persons, who take it into their heads to decry learning and learned men; for what would they have done for a Bible, had it not been for them as instruments? and if they had it, so as to have been capable of reading it, God must have wrought a miracle for them; and continued that miracle in every nation, in every age, and to every individual; I mean the gift of tongues, in a supernatural way, as he bestowed upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost; which there is no reason in the world ever to have expected. Bless God, therefore, and be thankful that God has, in his providence, raised up such men to translate the Bible into the mother-tongue of every nation, and particularly ours; and that he still continues to raise up such who are able to defend the translations made, against erroneous persons, and enemies of the truth; and to correct and amend it in lesser matters, in which it may have failed, and clear and illustrate it by their learned notes upon it.2

All other things being equal—zeal, dedication, faithfulness, opportunity, personal ability—the man with the better education will do the better, more effective and more far-reaching work. Consider the case of the Apostles. All of the original twelve, as far as we can tell, apparently came from what today would be called “blue collar” occupations, rather than from the “professional” or “academic” classes (Matthew Levi, as a tax collector, may be an exception, depending on how one classifies government bureaucrats!). Peter and John were expressly described by their adversaries as uneducated and ordinary men (Acts 4:13).

Example of the apostles

Even so, the Apostles did excellent work in evangelizing Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to some degree further afield. But who was it that planted the gospel throughout Asia, Greece, the islands of the Mediterranean and beyond? It was the formally—and highly—educated former Pharisee and student of the learned Rabbi Gamaliel, Saul of Tarsus who became Paul the Apostle. And what was Paul’s testimony in this regard? That, by the grace of God upon him, he labored more extensively, and effectively, than the rest (I Cor. 15:9-10). It is a certainty that Paul’s extensive training in Hebrew Bible and Rabbinics were essential to his accomplishing what he accomplished, and in writing what he wrote—the doctrinal heart of the New Testament, Romans through Philemon.

Reaching back to the Old Testament, let us not forget that when God brought His people out of Egypt, His chosen leader was Moses, a man educated in “all the wisdom of Egypt,” (Acts 7:22). And the leading spokesman for God during the Babylonian captivity was the man Daniel, who providentially was trained at the king’s expense in the learning and language of the Chaldeans (Dan. 1:5).

Church history

In ecclesiastical history, we often see that the highly educated made contributions that greatly overshadowed the achievements of men of lesser training.

Wycliffe, a university professor at Oxford, produced the first complete English Bible, which he could not have done without his mastery of Latin.

All the leading Reformers in Europe, and many of the less prominent ones, were highly educated men, men thoroughly versed in Latin, Greek, often Hebrew and sometimes Aramaic and Syriac, and with a strong familiarity with both classical and Christian literature stretching back to antiquity (which constituted virtually the whole of collective “knowledge” in that era)—Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Tyndale, Melanchthon, Beza, even Menno Simons and many more. Without their extensive knowledge of languages and literature, they could not have made their vernacular Bible translations (which gave the unlearned masses access to Divine revelation), nor written their treatises, commentaries and tracts that shook Europe, and beyond.

In the following centuries, highly educated men were the leaders in Christianity. Some were formally trained—the men of the Westminster Assembly, the Puritans in general, John and Charles Wesley, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Adoniram Judson—while others, lacking “higher education,” were self-taught: John Gill, William Carey (who never spent a day in college, yet mastered numerous languages and was in his day acknowledged as the world’s greatest living linguist), and Spurgeon, to note only a few. And even men who began with essentially no education at all nevertheless saw the need to inform their minds in preparation for God’s service—John Newton (the converted slaver who studied Latin and Greek after entering the ministry), D. L. Moody and Gipsy Smith to list some few obvious examples. None of these men decried learning and learned men, but valued their own education and prized what other men’s minds had made available to them through their writings.

The truth be told, Christian scholars of the 19th and previous centuries were as a class far better educated individually than today’s scholars. Consider Henry Alford’s famous commentary in 4 volumes, The Greek Testament. Published in the 1860s, it regularly quotes various texts and authors in Latin, Greek, German, French and other languages, with the unspoken assumption that of course his readers had no need of translation of any of these. That we collectively fall far short of the achievements of earlier generations of Christian scholars is to our great loss, and embarrassment. Our need is not for fewer scholars today—we very much need many more than we have.

I am by no means arguing that education is a substitute for spirituality, or that it can make up for defective devotion or commitment, but I am arguing that extensive education can be a mighty adjunct to spirituality, devotion and commitment in the work of God, and we are desperately in need of a continually-maturing “crop” of new Fundamentalist scholars, if we are to do the work of the ministry as effectively as we ought in this and future generations. Education is not an end in itself, but a means to a very important end.

Notes

1 Erasmus of Christendom by Roland Bainton, New York: Charles Scribners’ Sons, 1969, p. 22

2 A Body of Divinity, Sovereign Grace reprint, 1971, pp. 13-14

Douglas K. Kutilek Bio

Doug Kutilek is the editor of www.kjvonly.org, which opposes KJVOism. He has been researching and writing in the area of Bible texts and versions for more than 35 years. He has a BA in Bible from Baptist Bible College (Springfield, MO), an MA in Hebrew Bible from Hebrew Union College and a ThM in Bible exposition from Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). His writings have appeared in numerous publications.

Discussion

You were the one hiding the Universal Translator. Shoulda’ known.
[Aaron Blumer] If I understand Susan’s point (not sure I do), it’s that the pursuit of study of something shouldn’t result in neglect of the business of Christian living. Susan, maybe you’re also saying that the “Christian scholar” has responsibility to be more active in Christian service than, say the “Christian electrician”?

That’s an interesting idea. I’m not sure off hand why that would be the case but also don’t know of any strong reason why not.
Yes, the pursuit of study, especially scholarship focused on Christianity should not result in the neglect of spirituality in one’s own life. The rest is sort of and not quite. I think with spiritual knowledge comes spiritual responsibility, because knowledge of God is supposed to produce the fruits of the Spirit, and there are things that go along with that. So… even though I agree with Bro. Charlie that a Christian scholar isn’t more called to minister more than a Christian dry cleaner, because ALL Christians are to minister… but the scholar, by his very vocation is going to know more, so why wouldn’t he do more with what he knows? How would you study the Bible, Bible history, Godly men… and not become a more mature Christian? And if you managed to be a Christian scholar without becoming a more mature Christian…

I don’t know, and now I feel like I’m channeling Uncle Ben “With great power comes great responsibility”. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-merv/spidey.gif

A couple of words I think are tripping us up- minister and ministerial. Every Christian should minister according to their gifts, abilities, opportunities… but pastors/teachers/ordained ministers are called to a specific Biblical function of teaching and leadership. So I agree that a scholar is not also by default called to be a minister, but if he is a Christian (and I’m going to assume the Christian scholar is, in fact, a Christian), he is called to put into practice what he knows is right.
[Charlie] George Marsden wrote Jonathan Edwards: A Life. What actions does he have to perform to justify my regarding that as useful scholarship?
Interesting question, because my first thought is that we always look at credentials, don’t we? I mean, why is he qualified as a historian, why should we consider him a source of accurate information, why do we trust him?

Charlie & Susan,

Thanks for the discussion above. It has helped me to think a bit more clearly about the distinction between a scholar and minister. As I was reading the thread, the example of my own pastor came to mind. He trained to be a scholar (earning his D.Phil in ecclesiastical history) and intended to teach church history at a seminary. Shortly before taking up that position, he accepted the call from our congregation and has since spent 15 years as a minister.

I expect his investment in the kingdom today looks different (not to say better or worse) than it would have had he pursued that career in scholarship.

As a side note: Charlie, I’ve enjoyed your series on the Confessions. I began to read and comment along, but quickly fell behind due to a job change. Still, I read your thoughts each time I finish a book. Thanks for making that available.

I just finished one of Piper’s newest books: “Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God. It dealt heavily with this topic and would be a relevant read for anyone wanting to delve into this area more. He makes a good case for Christian scholarship within the confines of humility and surprise: the glory of God.

by his very vocation is going to know more, so why wouldn’t he do more with what he knows? How would you study the Bible, Bible history, Godly men… and not become a more mature Christian? And if you managed to be a Christian scholar without becoming a more mature Christian…
Well, I think where this starts to break down is in a couple of areas: one, the kind of knowledge involved. If you become a scholar in Ancient Near East studies, for example, you know tons and tons about what all those “ites” said and did, but though this is knowledge that helps in understanding of Scripture it is not really knowledge that is directly related to spiritual maturity or ministry skill. Same would be true of, say, a high level of expertise in languages. Useful in the overall mix, but a guy who knows how to read Cuneiform is not going to be “responsible” to be godlier than a guy who doesn’t.

Secondly, knowledge is only one factor in maturity. So much has to do with the affections and with spiritual habits. So, though knowledge is a big factor (“grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord…”) it isn’t the direct cause of maturity, which has to do with the combination of the word of God, people of God and Spirit of God in a person’s life as God graciously molds him.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

The point of the OP was
I am arguing that extensive education can be a mighty adjunct to spirituality, devotion and commitment in the work of God, and we are desperately in need of a continually-maturing “crop” of new Fundamentalist scholars, if we are to do the work of the ministry as effectively as we ought in this and future generations. Education is not an end in itself, but a means to a very important end.
Bro. Charlie’s posts were focused on pure scholarship, and that’s fine- I agree with ya’ll if the topic is pure scholarship (ancient languages, archeology, history). But I started posting with the concern about the notion that “the highly educated made contributions that greatly overshadowed the achievements of men of lesser training.” And examples given were Moses, Paul, Wycliffe…

With the OP in mind, if you backtrack my posts, I think you might see why they contain certain assumptions and conclusions.

[Susan R] The point of the OP was
I am arguing that extensive education can be a mighty adjunct to spirituality, devotion and commitment in the work of God, and we are desperately in need of a continually-maturing “crop” of new Fundamentalist scholars, if we are to do the work of the ministry as effectively as we ought in this and future generations. Education is not an end in itself, but a means to a very important end.
Bro. Charlie’s posts were focused on pure scholarship, and that’s fine- I agree with ya’ll if the topic is pure scholarship (ancient languages, archeology, history). But I started posting with the concern about the notion that “the highly educated made contributions that greatly overshadowed the achievements of men of lesser training.” And examples given were Moses, Paul, Wycliffe…

With the OP in mind, if you backtrack my posts, I think you might see why they contain certain assumptions and conclusions.
You’re right, Susan. Other than Erasmus, all the examples given are not scholars in the modern sense, but rather educated professionals or spiritual leaders. Scholarship as an activity independent of ecclesiastical or other ties is a relatively new phenomenon, so it remains to be seen whether those examples serve as prototypes of modern scholars or are actually what he’s intending to communicate. If he’s simply arguing that Christians should value education, bravo, but my interest has diminished greatly.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

[RPittman] There is a difference, I think, between saying that he practices Christian medicine and saying that he practices medicine as a Christian.
I think that was part of the trouble with Bro. Charlie and I- there is pure scholarship as a vocation chosen by a Christian, and in that sense the Christian part is sort of incidental, hence the references to dry cleaner and plumbers who are Christians. Then there’s Christian scholarship in the sense that Bro. Kutilek is proposing, the “specific areas of study… for a budding young scholar-in-training who wishes to maximize his usefulness in the service of God”.

“I know a young man who is eminently skilled and qualified in all the Biblical languages, and in fact is working on a Ph.D., but is a bus driver to make ends meet. He was out of a job completely for a couple of years after pastoring for several years. If anything, some of the Christian higher-level institutions may cause young men who are impressionable to want to be Christian scholars to aspire to it too much. There is not that much of a market for it.”

In this economy, having a bus driver job is a blessing and should in no ways be despised. Incidentally, the very learned apostle Paul at times had to support himself by making tents. Sewing dead animal furs together and making tents. This man was AN APOSTLE who did most of the heavy theological writing - was responsible for a great deal of the intellectual heavy lifting - in the New Testament. And at times he had to support himself by curing the skins and furs of dead animals and sewing them together to make TENTS. So, in that sense, what on earth is wrong with being a bus driver? Also, you have a lot of our missionaries and pastors overseas who have to support themselves with “common, regular jobs” that would make being a bus driver in America seem like ivory tower royalty.

I would rather have one guy like this, who has such a love and heart for deep study in things regarding the Word of God and is willing to sacrifice his standard of living and the comfort and prestige of this world in order to pursue his first love, than a million pastors who reference popular (often vulgar!) movies and songs in their sermons and send tweets from their I-Pads from their pulpits during church services in some attempt to be “relevant.” If this guy had been made so “puffed up” by intellectualism, would he be a bus driver? Seems to me that a puffed up sort would be a purpose-driven church growth expert. I say let this guy have his intellectual pursuits now, and it may well pay off with a much better grounded and prepared full time pastor down the line.

Bus driver gaining intellectual depth and humbling life experience through hard work, or purpose driven your best life now preacher boy? I choose the former.

Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com

[Susan R]
[RPittman] There is a difference, I think, between saying that he practices Christian medicine and saying that he practices medicine as a Christian.
I think that was part of the trouble with Bro. Charlie and I- there is pure scholarship as a vocation chosen by a Christian, and in that sense the Christian part is sort of incidental, hence the references to dry cleaner and plumbers who are Christians. Then there’s Christian scholarship in the sense that Bro. Kutilek is proposing, the “specific areas of study… for a budding young scholar-in-training who wishes to maximize his usefulness in the service of God”.
I think the difference is not as large as it may seem.

Didn’t Paul tell the “slaves” in Colossae that they were do do their labor as to the Lord and not men? My point is that for a disciple of Jesus Christ, pipe fitting is “the service of God.” So a vocational scholar who doesn’t necessarily “serve” in more overtly churchy sort of way than an architect or a landscaper is not necessarily an anomaly or missing the mark somehow.

(Though I do see that Kutilek’s focus is more on what we think of as “ministry,” I’m not sure that we really ought to see ministry as being so far removed from non ministry. It’s all the Lord’s work.)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Aaron Blumer]
[Susan R]
[RPittman] There is a difference, I think, between saying that he practices Christian medicine and saying that he practices medicine as a Christian.
I think that was part of the trouble with Bro. Charlie and I- there is pure scholarship as a vocation chosen by a Christian, and in that sense the Christian part is sort of incidental, hence the references to dry cleaner and plumbers who are Christians. Then there’s Christian scholarship in the sense that Bro. Kutilek is proposing, the “specific areas of study… for a budding young scholar-in-training who wishes to maximize his usefulness in the service of God”.
I think the difference is not as large as it may seem.

Didn’t Paul tell the “slaves” in Colossae that they were do do their labor as to the Lord and not men? My point is that for a disciple of Jesus Christ, pipe fitting is “the service of God.” So a vocational scholar who doesn’t necessarily “serve” in more overtly churchy sort of way than an architect or a landscaper is not necessarily an anomaly or missing the mark somehow.

(Though I do see that Kutilek’s focus is more on what we think of as “ministry,” I’m not sure that we really ought to see ministry as being so far removed from non ministry. It’s all the Lord’s work.)
[RPittman] Could someone please tell me what “Christian Scholarship” is? How is it different in essence from plain, ordinary, secular scholarship? What are the bounds?…

Why must we attach Christian to everything and have our own directory of Christian businesses, Christian publishers, Christian massage salons, etc. Perhaps we are overly commercializing the term. Are we using it for our subversive purposes? Do we think that it brings credibility to our activity?
I think the trend RPittman was addressing is attempting to use the term ‘Christian’ as a marketing tool, not just doing one’s labor as unto the Lord. I would expect Christian plumbers to do their best work and charge a reasonable price because they are a Christian and should hold themselves to a higher standard… but I have to say that I expect that of everyone I do business with… so it isn’t a particularly ‘Christian-y’ ethic as much as a good business practice for anyone who expects to increase their customer base. Whether or not they are working ‘as unto the Lord’ isn’t something I would feel comfortable trying to discern.

I think the question of what is meant by “Christian scholarship” is fair, but I also think the article defines it as educating oneself for the work of the ministry, and since Bro. Kutilek is writing for a particular audience, I think we (and he) can take the definition of ‘Christian’ for granted- he is obviously not writing to or about JWs or Catholics. It also seems that he is not referring to a Christian engaging in scholarship as a specialized vocation- and Pt. 2 fleshes this out more.

I encourage our people to educate themselves to the best of their ability. But I also believe that some people can be educated out of their own intellect. I had one person tell me that they had more questions coming out of Bible college than they had going in. That is the result of a “scholar” attempting to impress his young students with his great intellect rather than prepare them for the work of the ministry.

The one big problem with “scholars” is their snobbish response to the “uneducated.” The “scholars” declare that a person is “unqualified” to speak in their “field” if they don’t have a long string of degrees behind their name. There is danger and fallacy in that position, yet it has crept into our fundamental circles. And even then, if they don’t have a degree from their own particular “approved” schools, then that person is also summarily dismissed.

What ever happened to just believing the Bible?

The distrust Mr. Kutilek refers to in the fundamental circles in regards to the “scholars” is two-fold.

1. It is ALWAYS the “scholars” and schools that breed apostacy.

2. “Scholars” end up setting themselves up as the authority over the word of God. They lend themselves to the Nicolaitan philosophy, even when they don’t intend to, and maybe without them even realizing what they are doing.

The historic baptist position has been that our authority is in the word of God, not in any Scholar.

I am not against scholarship, per se, just the abuse of it.

However, God has used many “uneducated” men to great purposes - Lester Roloff, Dwight Moody, and Charles Spurgeon all come to mind. Further, there are many unnamed men who pastored unnamed churches all over the entire planet who have done more for Christ in regards to the Scriptural mandates of evangelism and discipleship than the accumulated efforts of many “scholars” who did nothing more than accumulate knowledge.

Pastor Steve Schwenke Liberty Baptist Church Amarillo, TX

I think the trend RPittman was addressing is attempting to use the term ‘Christian’ as a marketing tool, not just doing one’s labor as unto the Lord. I would expect Christian plumbers to do their best work and charge a reasonable price because they are a Christian and should hold themselves to a higher standard… but I have to say that I expect that of everyone I do business with… so it isn’t a particularly ‘Christian-y’ ethic as much as a good business practice for anyone who expects to increase their customer base.
Yeah… agree. I don’t like to see marketed Christianity where it isn’t relevant. That is, to the plumber it’s extremely relevant. He is striving to do all to the glory of God. But what makes his work uniquely Christian is why he does it and, to a lesser degree, how (ethics: but even most of that is not uniquely Christian, really). So there is not really a “Christian way” to do the work other than to do with a certain motivation and a concern for quality and ethics that a has a certain Christian motivation behind it.

… and that is really not marketable. That is, to the consumer, it makes no difference why he does quality work, shows up on time, does things honestly, etc. So the “Christianess” of it is really the worker’s concern, not the consumer’s.

How does that relate to scholarship? Well, certainly the why factors are fundamental to making a Christian scholar’s work “Christian.” Beyond that, there’s alot of overlap in the how. Excellence in the quality of the work itself is much the same whether you’re a Christian or an atheist.

Maybe Roland was talking about marketing, but I don’t think marketing has much to do with scholarship. Haven’t seen any yellow vans with “Christian Scholars R Us” on the side lately. :D

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Much I’d like to interact with here so… separate post is better maybe?
[Stephen Schwenke] I encourage our people to educate themselves to the best of their ability. But I also believe that some people can be educated out of their own intellect. I had one person tell me that they had more questions coming out of Bible college than they had going in. That is the result of a “scholar” attempting to impress his young students with his great intellect rather than prepare them for the work of the ministry.
On the first part: yes, I have seen that happen… educated beyond ability to grasp and use. It is one factor in not pursuing further education myself. That is, I have a tendency to get absorbed in ever increasing levels of detail until I am wholly consumed by a very, very small question. Find it hard to come up for air and consider how the subject matter matters to anyone or anything.

So I could be happy enough becoming the world’s foremost expert on the fifth name in the first genealogy in Chronicles (random example) or something like that, but I don’t think this is my calling.

As for leaving college with more questions. That sounds like a good thing to me, depending on the nature of the questions, I guess. With so much there to know, you don’t begin to know what you need to know until you know what you don’t know, you know?

I don’t think it’s fair to generalize that anything like this is the result of a scholar trying to impress students with his brain. How would anybody know what has motivated the prof? But if he’s smart, God made him that way and he sinning if he doesn’t use it. This often looks like showing off to those lack that set of skills.
[Stephen] The one big problem with “scholars” is their snobbish response to the “uneducated.” The “scholars” declare that a person is “unqualified” to speak in their “field” if they don’t have a long string of degrees behind their name. There is danger and fallacy in that position, yet it has crept into our fundamental circles. And even then, if they don’t have a degree from their own particular “approved” schools, then that person is also summarily dismissed.
I have rarely seen this happen. I have often seen ignorant views/people dismissed. And ignorance tends to correlate with reading and reading tends to correlate with degrees. We all know there are exceptions, but they stand out because they are exceptions.

Folks who are ignorant on a subject don’t like having their views dismissed (it’s happened to me often enough, so I know). But it’s not inappropriate. If you don’t know, you don’t know.

It’s kind of like me talking to an avid golfer about how to improve his swing. He’s pretty silly if he doesn’t point out that I’m completely ignorant on the subject.
[Stephen]

What ever happened to just believing the Bible?

The distrust Mr. Kutilek refers to in the fundamental circles in regards to the “scholars” is two-fold.

1. It is ALWAYS the “scholars” and schools that breed apostacy.

2. “Scholars” end up setting themselves up as the authority over the word of God. They lend themselves to the Nicolaitan philosophy, even when they don’t intend to, and maybe without them even realizing what they are doing.
“Just believing the Bible.” The trouble with that is that we do not come to the Bible with a blank slate. We read it and interpret it according ideas already in our heads. IOW, you can’t believe much of the Bible until you believe some things about the Bible and some things about portions of the Bible and characters in the Bible and relationships between sections of the Bible, and the world the Bible was written in, etc.

Also need to point out that though apostasy has always come from scholars (this is not true, though… Joseph Smith, Charles Russel?), the rejecting of apostasy has usually come from scholars as well…. which is to say that people expert in the Bible have really lead in the doctrine of the church pretty much from the first councils onward.

The generalization that “scholars end up setting themselves up as the authority” is interesting. Lots of scholars don’t do this and lots of non-scholars do. The generalization doesn’t seem very useful.
[Stephen] The historic baptist position has been that our authority is in the word of God, not in any Scholar.
Nobody’s questioning that here, certainly not Mr.Kutilek.
[Stephen] However, God has used many “uneducated” men to great purposes - Lester Roloff, Dwight Moody, and Charles Spurgeon all come to mind. Further, there are many unnamed men who pastored unnamed churches all over the entire planet who have done more for Christ in regards to the Scriptural mandates of evangelism and discipleship than the accumulated efforts of many “scholars” who did nothing more than accumulate knowledge.
The first half of this assertion is not in dispute. Kutilek is pretty clear on that if you read both parts of the series. It’s about what makes one more capable not about what not about what makes somebody completely capable or incapable… i.e., “other things being equal, you’re more useful educated than otherwise.”

I don’t know much about “scholars who did nothing more than accumulate knowledge.” In my worldview, truth is an inherently powerful thing. So if the “knowledge” is knowledge of the truth, I don’t know how it’s possible to accumulate it without there being some impact on your thinking and your choices. It can be hard to see exactly how in every case, but ideas do have consequences. And even when the consequences are not visible, God sees the mind and heart and is glorified better or worse even based on what happens only inside the brain case.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

It is hard to fit Solomon in a NT church setting. Since the pastoral epistles provide specific qualifications for the office of a bishop, we should expect the rules to be a bit different.

But was he an intellectual and is that presented as a positive thing in his case? Yes to both. I was going to plug the Scripture reference in but I’ve got to take the kids to school now and don’t have it handy.



OK, here’s the passage I had in mind:

1 Ki 4:32–34 He spoke three thousand proverbs, and his songs were one thousand and five. 33 Also he spoke of trees, from the cedar tree of Lebanon even to the hyssop that springs out of the wall; he spoke also of animals, of birds, of creeping things, and of fish. 34 And men of all nations, from all the kings of the earth who had heard of his wisdom, came to hear the wisdom of Solomon.



Since this is “wisdom” people came to “hear,” it is not purely skill that is in view. He was giving them actual information that he had accumulated through his own study.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

My point is a much simpler one.

Solomon used his intellect and, yes, studied the world around him and this was a good thing. I think that’s pretty much what I said before, and all I meant to say. “Modern” has nothing to do with it.
[RPittman] 1. The Scriptures specifically state that Solomon’s wisdom came from God. There is nothing indicating education or study.
Yes, his wisdom came from God, but this does not mean he didn’t study. Every good thing comes from God (James 1:17). The Israelite’s victories in Canaan came from God but they still had to fight (e.g., Josh.10:8). David attributed to God his ability to “leap over a wall” but he still had to use his muscles (Psalm18:29).

God is able to act directly to produce a result, of course, but He usually uses secondary causes.

All I’m saying is that it’s important that we not view our brains as the enemy of devotion and service to God. The Devil did not invent the intellect or study, God did.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.