An Important Distinction
The “intellectual” Protestant believer may or may not belong to one of the denominational categories that we have discussed in the previous segments. He or she may also be “lukewarm” or very devout. What, then, does the term “intellectual” mean? How is it possible to be “intellectual” and yet “lukewarm” at the same time? The “intellectual” aspect really depends a great deal on what place someone gives to the intellectual life itself. It also requires an understanding of the other side — the affective or emotive aspects of an individual’s faith. Does someone’s faith tend to be more “heart” based or “head” based? The value someone would put on the “head” side of things would depend on a number of factors, so let’s spend a little time discussing some of those factors.
A Formalized, Intellectual Method of Formation Among Mainline Protestants
To begin, an intellectual “mainline” Protestant might be formed in his or her faith along the lines of a more formalized, intellectual method, which could include intensive personal study or a college-level education. This would be especially true of Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, and Baptists affiliated with Protestant institutions of higher learning in the US which generally require a significant level of religious studies in the curriculum, no matter the major or concentration. Meeting such a person can be of great benefit, because an intellectual background makes for much common ground with us Catholics, who of course have our own rich intellectual heritage.
On the other hand, a potential hazard exists when these Protestants place their faith-life within a system that may be so overly “intellectualized” that the notion of a deep, living, thriving relationship with the Lord God is placed at a distant-second or is squeezed-out altogether. In other words, “head knowledge” is made a substitute for “heart knowledge.” But these don’t have to be mutually exclusive, as the great “intellectual” Catholic saints and Doctors of the Church have demonstrated throughout history. For such Protestants, these figures can serve as a bridge to the Catholic tradition.
Either way, there are topics that are important in both Catholic and Protestant intellectual traditions that can become starting points for fruitful dialogue, such as the doctrines of the atonement, the Incarnation, or Biblical studies. These are worth exploring. Let’s take Biblical studies as an example.
Biblical Studies as Common Ground
The “golden age” of critical Scriptural scholarship began in the late nineteenth century and continued into the early twentieth. Characterized by archeology, modern linguistic analyses and criticism, and advances in study of ancient civilizations, unparalleled resources now were brought to bear toward understanding the life and times portrayed in the Old and New Testaments.
Initially, the Catholic Church was highly skeptical of the value of such work. Part of the problem was that virtually all such scholarship was done outside of the magisterial authority of the Church—i.e. by Protestants. The other, and arguably more disturbing issue, was that a number of these scholars openly questioned basic tenets of the Christian faith, such as the virginal conception and birth of Christ, his divinity and bodily resurrection, and even denying that miracles recorded in Scripture were factual events. By such reckoning, the Church had good reason to be more than concerned.
Yet in this same period, the Ecole Biblique (Biblical School) was opened in Jerusalem (1890) by Dominican Father M.-J. Lagrange. It is the Holy Land’s oldest and most prestigious Catholic biblical and archaeological research facility. Three years later, Pope Leo XIII promulgated his watershed encyclical Providentissimus Deus which cautiously endorsed aspects of modern Scripture Scholarship.[1] At the same time, it took pains to stress the absolute and final reliance on the authority of the Church’s Magisterium as the sure guide in the ultimate understanding and interpretation of Scripture.
Not long afterward, the Pontifical Biblical Commission was established in Rome (1902). Steadily, the Magisterium increased her support of authentic critical Scripture study, and this growing confidence resulted in Pope Pius XII’s landmark encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu[2] and Vatican II’s 1965 Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum.[3] Dei Verbum fully vindicated the legitimacy of scientific, critical Biblical scholarship, but only when informed by revealed truth.
Academic & Non-Academic Intellectual Evangelicals
There is also a form of intellectual Protestantism among Evangelicals which could be either “academic” or “non-academic,” but this greatly depends on the particular denomination. There are some fine institutions of the intellectual life among Evangelicals, which range from universities to the more traditional “Bible colleges.” But generally, because of the theological perspective in which these institutions developed, intellectual life can be seen as suspect because it is (wrongly) perceived as “man-centered” or otherwise inauthentic in terms of Christian witness.
Evangelicals will generally place special emphasis on topics such as the love of God, trust in Him, and a deep realization of human sinfulness and the need for redemption. Essentially, they tend to be more experiential than rational or intellectual. It doesn’t mean the rational is of no value, but in this context the affective aspect comes first and the rational follows it.
In order to see how these things play out, let’s take a look at an example dialogue between a Catholic street evangelist and an “Intellectual” Protestant passer-by; in this case, a “mainliner.”
Example Dialogue
Our Evangelist engages a mainline progressive Protestant believer who, by his own admission, has insufficiently understood the Catholic Church’s contributions to the intellectual life, especially the modern sciences as these relate to Scripture scholarship. The Evangelist will amplify this point of discovery and will help his Protestant friend to realize that the Church not only is unafraid of “non-religious” modes of knowledge, but believes that these are necessary for a growing understanding of the truths of the Faith.
E: Hello! Would you like a miraculous medal?
P: Oh, hi! Thank you for the offer. This is Catholic, right?
E: Indeed it is!
P: Yeah, I thought so — looked familiar! Lately I have been reading about the Catholic Church and the way it deals with various issues in the Bible.
E: Such as?
P: Well, I was pleasantly surprised to find out that some Catholic scholars don’t necessarily take a lot of things in the Bible as “historical” fact. For example, I read that some Catholics question whether Noah’s ark existed, much less that a universal Flood happened! I also read that there is general acceptance today that Paul himself did not write the letter to the Hebrews.[4] That would come as a surprise even to a lot of “old time” Protestants, who don’t often see Catholics as very tuned in to the latest and best scholarship.
E: Yeah, the Catholic tradition has a strong respect for sound historical scholarship, while still holding to the infallible truth of the Sacred Scriptures. Even so, within that scholarship there is always a certain amount of legitimate debate around some Biblical details, especially when it comes to some historical events and individuals. In the Catholic tradition, the truth of God’s Word — and the truth of right reason are both highly valued.[5] How did you encounter these trends in Catholic scholarship?
P: Well, I generally try to keep up on what’s happening in different denominations, so I thought I’d see what the Catholics had going on. In the past, they seemed a little superstitious to me. It was refreshing to see, however, that they have an appreciation of modern scholarship.
E: I see. One of the things I like to tell people who aren’t Catholic is that our Church isn’t afraid of the modern world or modern science. We founded the world’s first universities, provided the Gregorian Calendar, produced Gregor Mendel — the father of genetics, and a priest — and Fr. Lemaître, the Belgian astronomer who came up with the Big Bang theory.
P: Impressive! I didn’t remember some of those facts and didn’t know about some others.
E: Those are just a few examples of the “headliners.” But you were talking about the Bible and Catholicism just now. What was your impression before?
P: I imagined that the Catholics had a stilted view of the cosmos and history, taking events of the Bible that were actually symbolic or literary devices as literal fact. The Protestant side always seemed to be in the forefront of Biblical research, and produced many great scholars whose work is still relied on today.
E: Well, that was true for a little while, as modern scholarship was just getting warmed up. But I actually appreciate the Church’s reserve here. Want to know why?
P: I would, actually.
E: Because it was careful, scholarly reserve. The Catholic Church was not “anti-intellectual” when it came to the Bible. It just took the Church time to process the possibilities of placing modern archeology and anthropology in the service of the Faith. She knew that the Faith was revealed by God, and human reason was subject to error. So, she took her time to assess the situation.
P: I see. What happened that the Church started acting differently?
E: Well, the Church needed to be convinced that the modern scientific methods already in use by Protestant scripture scholars posed no danger to faith and morals, when properly used. Once she saw how this could work, the Catholic side rapidly caught up and, within decades, produced some of the world’s greatest Scriptural experts.[6]
P: Well, I’ve never really believed, even for a moment, that genuine faith and accurate science should be in conflict.
E: Neither have I. They both have God as their ultimate source. But “accurate science” is not something that we can manufacture for ourselves overnight. It takes careful consideration, and a measure of caution. How about I fix you up with some “light reading” that talks more about this? I think you’ll be blown away when you learn more about what Catholics have been saying about reason and faith, historical research and the Bible, and stuff like that. See what we have been up to since the Dark Ages! [laughs].
P: [reciprocates the laughter] Sure, that sounds good. Let’s keep the conversation going!
Concluding Thoughts
The Catholic evangelist should try to discover what place is given to the intellectual life by a more “intellectual” Protestant. Does he or she tend to live in their “head” or do they live more from the ”heart” when it comes to faith in Jesus Christ? Either disposition presents a way for the Catholic evangelist to engage the person well. If it is a focus on “head knowledge,” we can present the Catholic intellectual tradition, without neglecting devotion. If it is “heart knowledge,” then presenting the Faith in more experiential terms would be very helpful, even as you engage with them on an intellectual level. In either case, it might be helpful to review the work of various saints who had a good balance between head-knowledge and heart-knowledge of the Lord.
[1] Acta Sanctae Sedis 26 (1893), 269ff.
[4] Nota Bene: Whether Saint Paul the Apostle, himself, wrote the Letter to the Hebrews has long been a debate within the Church. The fourth century Church historian, Eusebius, wrote about the Letter in his Ecclesiastical History as being among the disputed writings (Book III, chapter 3.5 and 25.5. See also Book VI, chapter 14.2-4). The Western Church counted Hebrews among the canonical Scriptures by the end of the 4th century. The Council of Trent formally and infallibly defined it as canonical in the 16th century. In 1914, the Pontifical Biblical Commission affirmed Hebrews as canonical and Pauline in origin, but left open the question of whether Saint Paul literally wrote it himself (AAS 6 [1914], 417-418. English translation here). Debate continues today on this very question.
[5] Note that the Catholic evangelist does not engage the Protestant on the specific questions. The reason is because he is focused upon listening and befriending, and keeping on the most central issues at hand. Engaging the specifics of that scholarship could (and often should) happen at a later time.
[6] Among many generally acknowledged leaders in post-Conciliar Scripture scholarship, are the following persons:
- Jesuit Father John L. McKenzie (1910-1991), author of the classic and voluminous Dictionary of the Bible (1965, rev. 1995). He was a former president of the Catholic Biblical Association of America (CBAA) and the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL).
- Father Rudolf Schnackenburg (1914-2002), New Testament scholar and one-time member of the Vatican International Theological Commission. He held distinguished faculty positions in his native Germany. Pope Benedict XVI said that he was “probably the most significant German-speaking Catholic exegete of the second half of the twentieth century” (Jesus of Nazareth, Doubleday, 2007).
- Carmelite Father Roland E. Murphy (1917-2002) was not only the first Catholic professor to hold an endowed chair at Duke University’s (Methodist) Divinity School in Durham, North Carolina, but the first Catholic ever to hold a faculty position there. He remains an acknowledged master scholar of Old Testament Scripture.
- Jesuit Father Joseph Fitzmeyer (1920-2016), professor of biblical languages and New Testament studies at several prestigious Catholic universities in the U.S. He served in several significant academic leadership positions, including SBL and CBAA. He was also recognized for his scholarship in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
- Sulpician Father Raymond Brown (1928-1988), a renowned specialist in Johannine New Testament literature (i.e. the works attributed to St. John the Evangelist and his followers).