Well said.

Even if the “Satanist High Priest” is all a hoax?

All this is, is “Just like on Oprah, except CHRISTIAN!” BrittneyLindsayParis with some Bible verses painted on.

I live and work in Academia, the world of universities and higher education, where I’m a researcher and instructor. I’ll be the first to concur that some over-emphasis on “credentials” can be very harmful, and it has created a snobbery and intellectual elitism that’s self-destructive and, ironically, small-minded. I’m sorry to see that the egotistical wrangle over “authority” has bled into Christian circles.

Even so, I feel compelled to add a corrective as well. Giving a blanket, general statement that “academia” is a “disease” is much too simplistic, and, frankly, I find it just a tad on the offensive side. I’m sure Nicholas didn’t mean it in any offensive sense, though! But I have to say too that there are good and honest folks in academic circles who care more about learning than name-dropping resumes (I flatter myself thinking that maybe I’m among them, and yes, Virginia, there are real Christians in academia too), but as always “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” and usually the academics who get attention are the ones who make the most noise, usually in a negative way (the sorts of people that, really, the honest academics find embarrassing to the profession).

Also, three little points and then I’ll dry up, I promise:

1. An academic or expert is really only qualified to speak with special authority in the narrow field of his or her specialization. This has been distorted nowadays with various professors, etc. becoming involved in politics, advocacy, and activism, in which possession of a PhD (or whatever) becomes a free pass to yap about everything and anything. Strictly speaking, if I have a PhD in (say) Renaissance Italian history, then I’m only expert in that field, and even then, my expert opinion could be wrong. Academics/researchers in a given specialty argue all the time–and interstingly, everybody has “authority,” but in the end, it’s the evidence that matters. Also, my opinion on something outside my speciality, such as (say) the French Revolution, is not expert and could well be inferior to that of a non-PhD amateur history buff who’s obsessive about the French Revolution.

2. There’s been a great deal of arguing that lack of an official qualification (whatever that means)does not mean that a person is unworthy to speak. This is true. On the other hand, possession of an official qualification doesn’t mean that a person is unworthy. Sometimes a qualification really does mean something — unless you’re going to tell me that all my years in graduate school count for nothing. Also, in some Christian circles, I’ve seen a lamentable anti-intellectualism and some shockingly actual hostility to higher ed (some evangelicals urged me not to go to graduate school because I would be “pursuing a perishable crown” of man’s wisdom, etc.). I’m not saying this attitude is here, but I’ve seen it before, and I think Michael has an essay on this somewhere in the archives.

3. In the end, though, the kerfuffle over “authority” or lack of it or whatever is not about degree plans, PhDs, expert opinion, official pieces of paper, egotistical posing, foggy criteria, or the approval of whatever self-involved group thinks it’s qualified to grant approval. In the end, what matters is the ACTUAL SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENT/EVIDENCE. What gets lost in talking about slippery qualifications is this very point. Instead of arguing “Is X even qualified to talk about Y?” we ought to be asking “X says this about Y. Is it valid or not? Why? How? Let’s discuss.”

Well, kudos to Tim for writing. And to you too, iMonk. We should all be reading, writing, learning, and talking about substance. I suspect part of the ugly mess about “authority” is about intellectually lazy folks who want to sit back and to be spoon-fed “safe” pre-digested little life lessons from “approved” Christian sources — are we back to the celebrity preacher/teacher again?

What qualifications does it take to be an evangelical author anyway? How many such authors get book deals for just being a former general, sixties rock star, actor, drug dealer, or satanist high priest? Is being senior pastor of “First Mega-Church of the Extremely Gullible” a qualification?

I don’t think qualifications are as important as spiritual accountability; every author needs to start somewhere, but they should do so with some oversight, such as a pastor. I assume Challies had someone proof-read his manuscript to check for doctrinal errors; however, I have never seen the equivalent of a “nihil obstat” or “Imprimi Potest” in an evangelical text before. I wouldn’t think MacArthur would associate his name to anything with which he didn’t agree.

Many people who will never be considered experts or authorities have something very valuable to say. Anyone who listens to children will hear the occasional profound question come from their minds and mouths. William James asked, “Who are we to assume the Nature uses only sane minds to relay her Wisdom?” How do “authorities” represent themselves anyway?

There are countless examples in our time and throughout history of authority acting in ways that are deplorable, so insights from them might not have been all that helpful, while an illiterate peasant could share the truths of the way of Christ.

About 25 million people see Dr. James Dobson as an authority. Others, both with degrees and without claim he does not follow Christ or practice intelligent psychology with his efforts to work against the rights and respect of homosexuals. (That is my observation, I will admit. I am heterosexual so it’s not a personal axe to grind, but it seems clear that this person of “authority” often leads people in ways that are not the ways of Christ, which presumably is the reason for discussing authority.) Dobson is not an ordained minister, but he’s seen as a Christian authority. He is a psychologist, but every mental health association on the planet disagrees with his stance on homosexuality and the treatment of homosexuals. This is not the place to bring up such a weighty tangent perhaps, but Dobson may serve as an interesting example of authority being determined (for better or worse) by the subjective perceptions of others.

I’m trying to grasp the logic. Is the fear that because certain writers produce bad books full of bad theology (which does happen) we must now create an artifial hierarchy of approved writers to weed out the bad ones? Is the thinking that unless a person is a pastor of a certain brand or denomination of church, every other author should raise suspicion?

About 6 years ago I was at a church where the Women’s Bible study was having their annual “share about your favorite book and what impact it’s had upon your life” event. The wife of one of our interns was there, and, annoyed with what she was hearing, came over to his office to report that one woman shared how Warren’s PDL book had impacted her in a positive way. The wife was not happy about this at all as she was trained in college that Rick was on the naughty list.

Anyway, said intern comes into my office, a bit shaken, and reports this all to me and asks, “Should we allow this book to be promoted at our church?!!?”

I just looked him and thought, “You’ve got to be kidding me.” (I wondered if I allowed him to go through our church library how many books he would toss because they weren’t in his approved sphere of writings and authors.)

Now, I’m no big fan of Warren, but I couldn’t believe the level of control and censorship this person had in mind. It nauseated me, in the same way “Challies-Gate” has sickened my stomach.

All of this left me with two questions:

Does Steve Camp believe he is approved to speak or write for God? And if so, why? Because that cat is writing up a storm on his blog.

What I believe is happening is that we are seeing the next level of what I experienced six years ago with that intern. Now even guys like Driscoll have to pass all sorts of litmus tests before a certain group of people will give them the okee-dokee regardings their ministry. I love how Driscoll, when interviewed by Adrian Warnock said, “[I] am trying to be biblical, even when it makes a mess of my systematics.” Right on. Let’s the Bible be our consience and guide, rather than a gaggle of self-appointed theological approval committees. May we be driven by Scripture, even when its a bit confusing, rather than someones orderly systematic.

Challies has proven himself to be a capable, readable and enjoyable writer on his blog. Now he’s tackled a singular subject and put words on a page rather than the computer screen. Good on him.

Makes sense to me.

He’s done his apprenticeship (and NOT as a televangelist), he’s built his rep (and NOT on Oprah), so now he’s built up enough of a track record and buzz to hit the big time.

Nicholas Anton: Edison and Ford also had a very nasty dark side; completely self-educated, they had this visceral hatred of anyone with more “book learning” than themselves.