OVERCOMING THE INTELLECTUAL INFERIORITY COMPLEX AND FALSE GUILT OF EVANGELICAL EDUCATORS ° DAVID O. MOBERG ° Professor Emeritus, Social and Cultural Sciences Marquette University My career of college and university teaching has generated the conviction that a large proportion of Christian faculty members are burdened with an intellectual inferiority complex and suffer from a false sense of guilt for their lack of scholarly production, especially via research and publications. This conviction was developed and reinforced by nineteen years of teaching in an evangelical college and twenty-three in a Catholic university, by visits to numerous other Christian colleges, by personal conversations with faculty members and administrators, by editing and refereeing experiences, and by active participation in both Christian and secular professional associations. Attitudes toward the academic disciplines occasionally account for an attempt to remain "separate from the world." My own discipline of sociology has had an especially bad reputation among evangelicals and fundamentalists. It suffers from its historical "guilt by association" with the Social Gospel and its perennial favor among theological liberals. It rankles traditionalists by its tendency to emphasize debunking-bringing to light the indirect and hidden hypocritical or otherwise undesirable consequences of social activities and institutions that in other respects are praiseworthy. Nevertheless, its theories and methods, research findings, critical analyses of contemporary society, and other contributions constitute an exceedingly rich bundle of resources that can help Christians to be committed more consistently, intelligently, wholeheartedly, and effectively to Jesus Christ and His kingdom. Similar criticisms from certain Christians, yet rich benefits for the cause of Christ, accrue from all the other disciplines as well. What I share here is generic to Christian-and especially evangelical-scholarship and not limited to the social and behavioral sciences. In the context of emphasizing the need for strategic witnessing in and to academia, I shall first summarize my interpretations of the central concepts of "inferiority complex" and "false guilt," then suggest actions to overcome them as aspects of strategic witnessing in and to intellectuals and their followers. An Intellectual Inferiority Complex Almost all Christian faculty members have been educated in secular universities or non-evangelical theological schools. In graduate studies we looked up to our teachers-or at least to most of them!-as the genuine authorities in our respective disciplines. We were "only" their students, clearly at a much lower rung of the academic hierarchy. Whatever we accomplished, even in our own doctoral dissertations, was subject to their appraisal and modification, for they were "the true experts" on all but the precise and narrow object of our research. In subsequent years we have repeatedly noticed their authorship of new books and articles, and we have come across countless citations of their work in the publications and professional papers of others. As a result, we are glad to have studied under prominent experts, but we also naturally have tended to conclude that we ourselves are at best their disciples basking in their shadows and that we ourselves have made no significant contributions to our fields of study. Our sense of inferiority is compounded when we are employed in church-related colleges, for most of their faculty members are brightly shining stars in the vast higher education firmament only inside their own denomination. Even those who are "producing" do so within only a relatively small subcategory of "The Academy" and in institutions that lack outside fame. For example, at a professional meeting I attended several years ago, I was engaged in a stimulating conversation with three or four other sociologists during an informal reception. A prominent social psychologist in the group became interested in knowing my identity, so he looked closely at my name tag. He then immediately turned away and quickly left the group. Because of the way that was done, I have assumed that his action was a result of shock at seeing the name "Bethel College," whether it was because he recognized the first part of the name as Judeo-Christian or the second as not "University." Such rebuffs easily make us feel inferior and may be one of the reasons why all too many Christian college faculty members fail to participate actively in the professional meetings of their disciplines. The sense of intellectual inferiority is also reflected in other ways. About five or six years ago I learned that many members of a Christian academic specialty dominated by faculty members from schools in the Christian College Coalition did not want to attend the annual meeting if people like "Professor X or Y"-evangelical Christians who have many significant publications-were on the program. They apparently felt (wrongly!) that their own credentials were too weak in comparison and that therefore the intellectual interchange would be dampened and their own contributions denigrated during program discussions. Many other events and circumstances reflect a debilitating sense of intellectual inferiority among a high proportion of evangelical faculty members. To a considerable extent, it results from guilt feelings for not publishing that are falsely grounded in mistaken conceptions of what constitutes true scholarship. A False Guilt We naturally tend to compare ourselves with the brightest stars of our respective disciplines, both past and present. Each of us thinks that we can never be an Albert Einstein, a Milton Friedman, a Max Weber, a Karl Jung, an Immanuel Kant, or some other outstanding contributor to our discipline, so it's no use trying to excel. We fail to recognize that the dimmer stars also help to brighten the horizons of knowledge and contribute light to the world. (Even many pagans thus unknowingly serve God!) But also, except in our most rational moments, we fail to notice that the renowned experts are specialists in but very narrow segments of their field of knowledge. Many of them are very ignorant of most other specialties. (Sociology, for example, has over fifty significant areas of specialization plus countless minor ones.) Most of the authorities to whom we tend to give homage therefore tend to be brilliant from the perspective of one or two constricted areas of expertise, yet in many instances they fall far beneath the levels of quality characteristic of conscientious faculty members in liberal arts colleges and theological schools when evaluated from the perspective of four major roles-teaching, critiquing, serving, and even researching-that Christian educators serve in such settings. The first of these is teaching. In contrast to the "big wheels" in graduate departments of leading universities, the faculty members of small liberal arts colleges must teach a wide variety of courses and necessarily get most of their intellectual stimulation from people outside of their own discipline. As a result, they tend to have a much broader and more comprehensive grasp of their entire discipline, and they see its relationships to other fields of knowledge much more clearly than do many of the academy's elite professors. A second role is that of critic. Evaluation of the numerous theoretical and methodological paradigms that are found within their discipline is an important task by which faculty members help their students, the supporting denomination, the public at large, and others they serve to appraise the strengths and weaknesses, the positive and negative contributions, and the latent functional and dysfunctional consequences of adopting or rejecting particular positions. (But when speaking in "tongues," one must have an interpreter [1 Corinthians 14:27-28], so I must explain that "latent consequences" are the serendipitous results of actions or of organizational arrangements; they are indirect, unanticipated, unobserved apart from special investigations or research, and unintended. The functional consequences are beneficial, helpful, or constructive, while the dysfunctional ones are undesirable, detrimental, disintegrative, or maladaptive in terms of a purpose or goal.) Critiquing involves a special kind of quality control for Christians. Under the Lordship of Christ, they have the normative guidance found in Scripture besides the standards of their respective disciplines. Most of the renowned experts tend to use but one major theoretical and/or methodological orientation as the basis for whatever evaluations they provide. Christian scholars and scientists can do far better. Because of their faith commitment, they are less likely to be strongly committed to monolithic or narrow schools of ideological interpretation and evaluation. With regard to the service role, most intellectual stars tend to limit the applications of their work to the development of their own field of knowledge. Christian teachers often are better able to recognize, teach, and publicize the potential applications of contributions from their discipline to life in society at large, as well as to church and parachurch organizations and goals, and ideally they do so from the vantage point of biblical values rather than greedy self-service. As for the fourth role, doing research to expand the boundaries of human knowledge, the specialists working in large universities or other research centers usually have more opportunities of time, finances, research assistants, equipment, and other resources than faculty members in small liberal arts colleges. Yet there are many topics on which the latter can do better work. This includes exploratory studies to develop hunches or hypotheses for further investigation. It also is often obvious that on topics explicitly related to Christianity, and even more so to evangelicalism and fundamentalism, the god of this world has blinded the eyes of agnostics, atheists, and other outsiders, so they see the subject matter only through the distorted and darkened vision of atheistic, agnostic, and anti-evangelical presuppositions, prejudices, postulates, and assumptions. Consequently their conclusions are biased. Yet without countervailing research and analytic work of the kind Christians (among others) can provide, they stand as "the firmly established state of knowledge" on their topics of investigation. Christians must never succumb to the falsely grounded belief that those who teach in church-related liberal arts colleges are inferior to the much-published university professors. We have assets they lack. We are called to be faithful imitators of our God and to live a life of love (Ephesians 5:1-2), not to try to "make a big name" for ourselves. We should "do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers" (Galatians 6:10, NIV). How can we, in the context of our educational roles, relieve and prevent human misery and suffering, attract more people to Jesus Christ whom to know is to love and to serve, and draw them away from the enticing allurements of the one who is disguised as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14) by exposing his machinations and their consequences? All these are a part of what it means to be good witnesses to and servants of Jesus Christ. All of these four roles are important. Because it is the most difficult to link with the example and teachings of our Lord, I shall emphasize the role of doing and critiquing research. This is a task that few besides academics can do. But if all their energies are consumed in relatively routine duties that could be performed by others, the work of God's Kingdom is hampered by the gaping holes of research never done. Unfortunately, relatively few churches offer or even request the work of research in their agendas of needs for Christian service. Corrective Actions Most Christian scholars are convinced that they contribute to the work of Christ in their teaching, service, and critiquing roles, but it often is more difficult to recognize that professional research also can do so. That may be why most evangelical organizations, even some Christian colleges and seminaries, do very little financially and morale-wise to support the research activities of faculty and staff members. As Dr. Gisela Benda, Associate Professor of Foreign Languages at Marquette University, said in a Faculty Forum on Marquette as a Catholic and Jesuit University on February 12, 1992, "It is easy to connect to Jesus as a teacher and advisor [of students], but to connect to Jesus as a researcher is unclear. Yet all we do must be in connection with Jesus." Unfortunately, the main activity of some groups relative to research is almost exclusively negative. Far too many Christians are quick to tell others, especially within their own subculture, about the mistakes and flaws of other scholars without ever a word of commendation for their positive contributions. Such negativism produces the reaction in the professional groups they criticize that Christians are anti-intellectual, stuck in outmoded thought patterns, and committed to an archaic worldview, so it would be a waste of time to listen to them. One-sided fault-finding critiques also produce youths who conclude that a Christian cannot trust anything at all that comes from a secular professor or a publication issued outside their own religious circle. They see the role of the critic as exclusively negative-finding out what is wrong, not what is right, in scholarly research and publications. I sometimes wonder whether they (like many other genuine and nominal Christians for two millennia) are doing more harm than good for the cause of Christ. The Bible was written prior to the rise of modern science, so it has no direct references to the need for scholarly research as we know it today. There were no research institutes, nor even liberal arts colleges, when Jesus walked on earth, so he neither attended, observed, worked in, nor commented upon them. We are, however, told to love the Lord with all our minds (Luke 10:27), to test all things in order to hold fast to whatever is good and to avoid doing evil (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22), and in Genesis 2:15 and many other Bible passages to be good stewards of all our resources. In modern society such admonitions call for good research. Significant Topics for Christian Research Countless topics cry out for solid research evidence today. Let me mention but a dozen significant examples to which Christian scholars and scientists, individually or cooperatively, could make significant contributions. Every one of these can benefit from interdisciplinary studies even more than from research limited to but one field of investigation, and many are not likely to be funded through conventional governmental or foundation channels. (They are not listed in any order of priority.) 1. What are the long-term consequences of elective abortions? Is the freedom a woman attains by choosing it purchased at the price of psychological misery, ruptured social relationships, mental depression, and other dysfunctional effects, or is it genuinely liberating over the long haul? (Anecdotal evidence, whether from the pro-life or pro-choice camp, reveals possible relationships, but it does not firmly establish a general tendency or trend.) Are the findings in America similar to those in different cultural settings, such as in China, Japan, and Hungary where abortion has been widely used? 2. Do children who have been spanked (but not brutally beaten) as a means of discipline turn out worse (more delinquency, spouse abusers, racial bigots, less religious faith, etc.) than those whose discipline has been only non-corporal? (The assumption that using, not sparing, the rod spoils the child is spreading, but I know of no research evidence on this topic.) 3. Are the offspring of teetotaling Christians-especially fundamentalists and evangelicals-more likely to become alcoholics than those of theologically liberal Christians and of non-Christians who consume alcoholic beverages in the home? (Finding a high proportion of alcoholics with such backgrounds proves nothing without a control group and other niceties of research methodology.) 4. Victimology research is needed to determine more accurately the amounts and types of victimization that occur as a result of such "victimless crimes" as prostitution. (Until recently many scholars claimed that using drugs for pleasure was without victims. Consensual homosexuality, adultery, public drunkenness, and similar behaviors are moving off of society's list of enforceable "crimes.") 5. Various forms of "puritanism" deserve systematic investigation instead of the almost universal condemnation to which they are subjected. For example, historical research would clearly show how evangelical and other Christians who condemned the use of tobacco because they thought it was harmful to God's temple have turned out to have been wiser than their critics. What other parallels of the wisdom of applying biblical ethics can we identify and publicize? 6. We need carefully designed research to conclusively determine the long-term results of adolescent sexual experimentation (labeled "fornication" in older Bible translations). Some indirect evidence suggests that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is a major source of subsequent sexual and emotional marital disharmony, often leading to divorce. It also is a cause of infertility, which has doubled among married couples during my teaching career, and of the spread of venereal diseases and other disorders. Both more research focused on the subject, and the collating and wider dissemination of past research findings are important. 7. The near-death experiences of persons revived from clinical death need more sophisticated study than that of psychologists and psychiatrists whose interviews occur long after all unpleasant experiences and emotions have been suppressed. The research of Maurice Rawlings, M.D., on this subject (Beyond Death's Door, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1978, and Before Death Comes, Thomas Nelson, 1980) needs replication and extension. Most popular scientistic publications on this topic are heavily laden with New Age values, assumptions linked with reincarnation, and similar anti-Christian perspectives. 8. What are the long-range socioeconomic and political results of legalized abortion that has killed an estimated 30,000,000 babies in the U.S.A. since 1973? How much has this reduced the market for goods and services, hence contributing to unemployment, economic recession, reduced national and local taxation income, and thus the oppressive burden of the national budget deficits and debt? Is abortion one source of problems in the Social Security System, especially those anticipated by about A.D. 2020 when the Baby Boom generation retires from work? And how will it contribute to insecurities of the elderly who'll have few or no children to help them during old age? 9. Fundamentalist-bashing is a common sport among academicians who are appalled at every alleged incident of racism or sexism. Who are its main perpetrators? What are its sources? How do evangelicals and other Christians suffer from it along with genuine fundamentalists? Who benefits from it? To what extent do Christians bring negative publicity upon themselves by unwise, or even unbiblical, actions? What can and should be done about these issues? 10. Longitudinal studies of deferred versus immediate gratifications deserve attention. Comparisons of cohorts of adolescents who want all desires granted immediately with those who defer their gratifications in order to accomplish intermediate goals may reveal much about the norms society does and should advocate. This could explore sexual behavior, recreational drug use, entering the job market early versus continuing one's education or training beyond high school, buying used cars and furniture rather than going into debt, and many other topics. I expect such studies would show that many biblical norms are universally valid, so advocating such proverbial wisdom is not a form of imposing the normative standards of one religion upon people outside it. 11. There is a need for well designed empirical tests of the validity of self-actualization theories and the contrasting Christian doctrine that denying one's self in favor of loving God and serving others is the way to attain genuine fulfillment or true well-being. 12. Is selfish greed the central operative principle upon which democratic government and capitalism (as well as communism) are both based? Is there any viable alternative to condoning it other than to maintain and strengthen the system of checks and balances that helps to control many of its baneful effects? Notice that all of the above pertain to the well-being of society at large, not only to Christians. Yet most of them have outcomes that are predictable from the Bible, and they are linked with values that are contrary to the currently dominant moral tone of our nation. Who other than Christians even care whether such scholarly research is done? Yet unless the research is carefully conducted within the methodological, conceptual, and theoretical languages and methodologies of our respective disciplines, the authorities within academia will continue to tread their paths with blinders to truth that lead to personal and societal destruction and will drag students, educators, politicians, jurists, and others along with them. I am not arguing that the Bible is a textbook of Sociology or of any other academic discipline except Theology. It is, however, replete with applications, examples, and case studies of concepts, theories, principles, and even methodological hints that are provocative and stimulating for all of the humanities, natural and social sciences, and every other academic discipline. Scripture provides a rich mine of principles for human behavior and social life that can be interpreted scientifically as hypotheses to test in the process of convincing the scholarly world that its moral, ethical, and spiritual principles are universal, not ethnocentrically limited to one ethnic group or religion. Some of this research can be done with the help of students who are learning the methodologies of our disciplines. For at least the best of them, learning by doing is far more exciting and beneficial than learning from lectures, textbooks, and discussions alone. Even if that usually involves a bit more work for the students and vastly more for the supervising faculty, it does constitute "killing two birds with one stone," for it contributes to teaching both them and a larger audience reached by future teaching and by dissemination of the findings that extend human knowledge. As Christians increasingly grasp the opportunities of research, present their findings at professional meetings, and publish them in appropriate books and journals, many are gaining the respect of their "secular" colleagues, including "stars" in their fields of investigation. Their suggestions, pertinent to research others are doing, then win favorable attention, often resulting in reductions of the negative undertones so often accorded to anything that is viewed as even remotely "religious." The significant impacts of research by Christians are increasingly evident. Among recent examples are the masterful survey of research on Religion, Health, and Aging by Harold Koenig et al. (Greenwood Press, 1988); the carefully controlled study of "The Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit" by Randolph Byrd, M.D. (Southern Medical Journal, July 1988); Byrd's subsequent establishment of the Christian Research Network (P.O. Box 179, Big Bear City, CA 92314); the widely used Spiritual Well-Being Scale developed by psychologists Craig Ellison and Raymond Paloutzian (available from Life Advance, Inc., 81 Front St., Nyack, NY 10960); the ventures of pollster George H. Gallup Jr. into evaluative work on the effects of religious faith in cooperation with researchers in the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion; the macrosociological critiques of American society by Robert Wuthnow of Princeton University; and the long-term studies of faith and love as basic to community by sociologist George Hillery of Virginia Tech University. Other Constructive Actions Research is but one of the contributions Christian scholars can make to the cause of opening up academia to the gospel of Jesus Christ, although it is one of the most significant and basic of them all, for it is the foundation upon which most knowledge is built. When research findings are published, the author is recognized as an expert on its topic. Research is like a key that opens the door to influential service of other kinds, including refereeing manuscripts submitted for publication in pertinent journals. Such traits as efficiency, clarity of judgments, meeting deadlines, giving constructive suggestions for manuscript or research improvement, and providing reasons for recommended rejection or publication make one invaluable to harassed editors. They also mean that any comments pertinent to hidden or overt religious assumptions and biases will be heeded, thus reducing the negativism toward Christianity that is so rife even in academic books and articles. Not only research reports, but also other publications, can emerge from the computers of Christian faculty members. Few are better qualified to write the survey textbooks of their disciplines than the liberal arts teachers whose course load covers many fields of study. Analytical state-of-the-art articles likewise are appropriate products of their work. Book review editors need specialists for various categories of books they occasionally receive. Volunteering to serve in that capacity often provides an opportunity for Christian witness in the form of a commending or correcting comment or of calling attention to strengths or flaws relevant to faith-related issues. Thus one moves by several steps and stages toward becoming one of the lesser, or perhaps eventually even a major, star oneself. When I was a student at Bethel Junior College, the word skrot was widely used around campus. That Swedish-Norwegian term for scrap or rubbish represents clearly the often thankless effort that is an entrée to positions of leadership in professional societies. Committee work and task force duties performed faithfully may result in appointment or election to higher responsibilities. It also extends the scope of one's professional acquaintances who, in turn, become a network through which placement of one's students in graduate schools is facilitated, information can be found for one's own research, applications for funded research can gain endorsements, the search for new faculty colleagues is enhanced, and proposals for program sessions or themes at annual meetings are validated. Sometimes the latter might even center around strategic research on Christianity-related topics like those mentioned above. All of this assumes, to be sure, a supportive college administration. If its focus of attention is narrowly limited to immediate short-range concerns of the academic institution, the larger cause of Christ may suffer, for the payback from professional involvement is seldom immediate and may not even be noticed by the primary supporting constituency. (All too often even Christian institutions are caught up in a "Now generation" mode of thoughts and actions.) One way to win public favor for the institution is to have recognized scholars on its faculty who are contributing to their respective disciplines. Such contributions are difficult to make without financial and moral support-support for doing research, attending professional meetings, preparing publishable manuscripts, and holding offices in professional societies. At program sessions a Christian's questions and comments, whether as a reactor to a paper, a panelist, or an audience member, can often call attention to the bigotry of "fundamentalist bashing," the unscholarly prejudicial nature of bias against the Christian faith, and praiseworthy treatments of topics and themes related to Christianity. Conclusions In essence, I've been suggesting answers to the question, "Who'll be a witness for my Lord?" The most effective witness to the vast throngs of unevangelized academics is by Christian faculty members and scholars. If they fail to help intellectuals find satisfaction for their spiritual needs, proponents of the New Age, Marxists, and other cultists will face little competition. Christian scholars, more than anyone else, must prove ourselves to be neighbors (Luke 10:36) to fellow academicians. This means getting more firmly into the mainstream of professional life, doing high-quality work within one's discipline, and on many topics drawing upon the resources of related fields of study in the triangulation that increasingly is recognized as essential to good research. It also means becoming much more proactive in the service of Christ, overcoming the current tendency in the evangelical subculture to be almost exclusively reactive to what others accomplish. Even in our academic work and under the tensions of multiple roles, we must be like the Christians in Berea who "were of more noble character than 20 the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (Acts 17:11). As we check the theories, methods, concepts, assumptions, and conclusions of our disciplines against the Bible, we will occasionally find discrepancies. These may result from inadequacies or errors within our academic specialties, from mistaken interpretations of Scripture, or both. There is no need to carry the weight of an illusion of inferiority. Nobody is omniscient, and none is perfect. Everyone is inferior in many respects and superior in but a few. Neither is there a need to carry a load of guilt when we faithfully serve the Master. Some faculty members may be doing no significant research and publication at all, yet serve significantly in teaching, advising students, ministering in church or parachurch organizations, or working in other important capacities. Those who are publishing and gaining recognition within their disciplines must not heap pride upon themselves and deride the alleged failures of others, for none of us is complete alone. A genuinely wholistic Christianity is impossible in isolation from others in the body of Christ and its different, but complementary, ministries. Therefore, my dear brothers [and sisters], stand 21 firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:58, NIV) 22