The case for curiosity -- civic evangelicalism part 4

This is part 4 of an ongoing series. See part 1, part 2, and part 3.

A common criticism of evangelicals is that we are, on the whole, rather dogmatic, even anti-intellectual. We are slow to ask questions, quick to provide answers, no matter how unreasonable. We are slow to reflect, quick to opine. We are slow to question Christian dogma, quick to reject secular dogmas. And we are slow to consider criticisms of us, quick to criticize things we do not understand, or care to understand.

Like many generalizations, these sweep with fairly broad strokes. Not all evangelicals are dogmatic, unthinking, know-nothings, but many are. Instances of evangelical theonomism are well-known and receive much press. The Bible says x, therefore Americans ought to endorse y policy, buy n product, or support z institution. This sort of reasoning is as counter-productive as it is juvenile. Non-Christians do not accept the authority of Scripture. And they reasonably chafe at the thought of living in an evangelical, theonomous nation.

Historically, Christian arguments have persuaded when Christians have avoided the Bible-thumping and done two things instead: (1) employed publicly-accessible reasoning, and (2) asked lots of questions. For a biblical model of the first method, think of Paul in the Areopagus, co-opting the Athenians' alter to an Unknown God (Acts 17). For the second, consider Jesus' questioning of his disciples, which led to Peter's confession of faith (Matthew 16:13-17). For an example of a didactic, unquestioning lecture failing entirely to persuade an audience, consider Stephen, who so enraged the Sanhedrin with his righteous pontification that they stoned him to death (Acts 7).

In our own day, the Christians who have the most intellectual influence dispense with dogmatic and scriptural assertions altogether, and instead reason in publicly-accessible language and venues. Consider the difference between two different arguments against abortion. The Know Nothing asserts that God knits the baby in the mother's womb and that human life has special "sanctity." There's nothing mistaken with those claims. But concepts like creation and sanctity have no meaning to non-Christians. So this argument does not persuade. Instead, it comes across as supercilious and simplistic.

Furthermore, these assertions gloss over some real weaknesses in the pro-life argument. Many pro-lifers have no answers to difficult questions. Shouldn't women have the right to control their own bodies? Doesn't the Constitution guarantee a right to autonomy? Why should the interests of a zygote trump the rights of an adult woman? Slogans about the sanctity of human life do not answer these questions.

By contrast, the thoughtful evangelical points out: that humans choose things that are good; that human life is good, both because it enables the liver to enjoy other goods, such as affection, play, knowledge, etc, and because life is good in an of itself; that unborn humans are indistinguishable in nature and character from born humans, and are therefore members of the human family. From these observations the thoughtful evangelical persuasively demonstrates that unborn children ought to be chosen as goods in and of themselves, and that the intentional destruction of unborn humans is evil and unjust.

Christians ought to be curious not merely better to persuade, but also because we care about Truth and desire to pursue it. We ought to countenance the possibility that we are wrong. If we are wrong we ought to repent, and questioning our own assumptions is the only way to discover our errors. If we are right, questioning our assumptions gives us greater confidence in our convictions and helps us better explain our reasoning.

All of these benefits of intellectual curiosity follow only if we are both humble and confident. We need to practice intellectual humility and admit that we don't know everything perfectly, or even well. At the same time, we need to be confident that our God is a God of Truth -- in fact, He is the Author of Truth because He created the universe -- and that we have nothing to fear from intellectual exploration.