Ted is the author of two new books: Oasis of Imagination: Engaging our World through a Better Creativity and Imagination Manifesto: A Call to Plant Oases of Imagination.

This video is an interview about his books and ministry.

Inertia is “a tendency to do nothing or to remain unchanged” or “a lack of activity especially when movement is needed.” Intellectual inertia is mental laziness and anti-intellectualism.

The Bible commands Christians to honor God “with all of our mind” (Mark 12:30). I suggest, however, that a profound inertia hinders many evangelicals from obeying this demand. Mental activity is desperately needed, but many Christians are unable or unwilling to embrace intellectual discipleship or to integrate faith and ideas according to the biblical worldview.

The inevitable result is the status quo, marginalization of the church, aversion to risk and entrepreneurialism, and worst of all, the restriction of evangelical Christianity to private emotionalism and cultural irrelevance. Where I live, the evangelical church has little impact upon the educated or elite, the university community, and the cultural gatekeepers. Many believers have ceded worldview dominion, popular culture, and public policy to secular power brokers.

Sadly, our intellectual sluggishness affects every aspect of Christian life and practice. It is “deliberate ignorance,” according to the theologian, John Frame. Why? Because the hegemony of the secular worldview fosters an anti-intellectual outlook that severely restricts faith and practice to the private, subjective, and behavioral realms. As a result, the biblical worldview is neither intellectually plausible nor existentially credible. And of course, God is not honored with our minds and his glory is not displayed in our ideas and practice. Evangelical Christians are complicit and culpable in this dilemma.

When we retreat from the world of ideas, theoretical analysis or cultural critique, how can we discern, for example, the relationship between faith and philosophy, conflicting truth claims and alternative worldviews, faith and science, political ideology and social advocacy, psychology and counseling, business and economics, education, the arts, and so forth?

In contrast, Frame declares that Christians have a God-given “stewardship of the mind and intellect.” He wrote:

It is remarkable that Christians so readily identify the lordship of Christ in matters of worship, salvation, and ethics, but not in thinking. But . . . God in Scripture over and over demands obedience of his people in matters of wisdom, thinking, knowledge, understanding, and so forth. (“A History of Western Philosophy and Theology,” p. 5)

Perhaps then, we should ask a few honest questions that promote intellectual self-awareness:

Are we personally afflicted with self-imposed intellectual inertia?

Is there inertia that hinders the gospel and limits the evangelical church, particularly in your culture?

What does it mean to “love God with all the mind” in your society, especially among cultural gatekeepers, such as the educated and elite classes?

I have been a Christian for more than fifty years. During this time, I have sung many of the same songs―over and over again. The choruses, especially, are problematic―and repetitive, so repetitive. Quite honestly, it is now boring.

It is boring, because our songs are often simply expressions of emotion: how we feel or what we experience. So often, the music is all about “me”: my needs, my emotions, my benefits in Christ.

(Watch this brief satire about “me worship,” using popular choruses with lyrics altered to highlight the “me focus”: “It’s All About Me.”)

It is boring, because so often the musical style is the same―light rock and pop music genres. Is it possible, however, to worship God with other musical genres: folk, classical, or jazz, for example?

It is boring, because many songs concern the experience of conversion, so they are too simple or shallow for mature believers. Could there be hymns about suffering, sanctification, or the perplexities of life or the demands of the gospel or our future in eternity?

It is boring, because there is so little doctrine or intellectual content. Could there be songs that echo the themes of the psalms or prayers of Paul or the deeper doctrines of the Bible? Could we rediscover some of the ancient and classic hymns of the church?

R. C. Sproul commented about contemporary worship, “We have passion―indeed hearts on fire for the things of God. But that passion must resist with intensity the anti-intellectual spirit of the world.” Similarly, Ethan Renow in his article, “The Tragedy of Dumbing-Down Christianity,” summarizes the issue quite well:

We are happy to float along the surface with a “Hillsong-deep theology” and call it  good. And we wonder why people are leaving the Church in droves. A church that offers  only emotional, feel-good theology is going to lose the long-term wrestling match to a   well-read and convincing atheist nearly every time.

As a learning adventure, I urge you to review the table of contents of any classic hymnal, especially a Calvinist hymnbook. You will discover from the themes listed that our music had once been much deeper and broader―and beautiful.

For this reason, I thank God for the music ministries of Keith and Kristyn Getty and Sovereign Grace Music!

I recently heard about a conversation between a father and his son concerning theology. The son is a university student. He struggles with the non-Christian worldviews taught at the university. He told his father that he studies theology for answers. He said that an intellectual pursuit of God is an important part of serving God. In response, the father cited 1 Corinthians 8:1, where Paul writes that “knowledge puffs up” while “love builds up.” In effect, he counseled, “Son, we don’t need theology.”

This kind of bias against theology―and anti-intellectualism generally―sometimes appears among evangelicals, particularly among fundamentalists, charismatics, and Pentecostals. The assumption seems to be:

Too much thinking is dangerous.
Too much thinking about God is especially dangerous.
Studying theology is thinking about God too much.
Therefore, theology is dangerous and should be avoided. (It is boring too!)

I attended a charismatic church for many years that embraced this bias. True spirituality was expressed in the realm of feelings, subjectivity, and experience. Pastors who had less theological training were held in high regard. I never adapted to this setting, for I was always curious, always reading, and I even studied religion at a secular university! I was suspected as a source of harmful ideas.

Second, it is also important to define theology. Theology is simply the study of God’s revelation, derived from the Greek terms, theos, “God” and logos, (“-ology” or “word”). Theology means “words about God,” “the study of God,” or even “sound doctrine.” In this light, it is insightful to consider Paul’s command for thought leaders (pastors and teachers) in Titus 1:9, “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine [theology] and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”

Third, it is extremely naive to minimize theology in the Christian life. The historical fact is that we stand upon the shoulders of theological giants, who formulated our precious statements of belief, like the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, or Westminster Confession of Faith. Whenever we speak of the Trinity, atonement, sovereignty, or Jesus Christ, for instance, we talk theology. We cannot avoid it. Remember, as well, that the great leaders of the church in the past were often well-trained, such as Augustine, Anselm, Calvin, Wesley, Abraham Kuyper, and C. S. Lewis. Tim Keller, who recently passed away, was an intellectual, theologian, and pastor. Many Christian leaders founded universities, led nations, and served as respected Christian spokesmen.

Finally, an undue fear or avoidance of theology is naive because it fails to recognize that ideas have consequences. I think one of clearest expressions of this reality is the statement of J. Gresham Machen, founder of Westminster Theological Seminary in 1921:

False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the Gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion.  Under such circumstances, what God desires us to do is to destroy the obstacle at its root….What is today a matter of academicspeculation begins to move tomorrow armies and pull down empires. In that second stage, it has gone too far to be combated; the time to stop it was when it was still a matter of impassioned debate. So as Christians we should try to mould the thought of the world in such a way as to make the acceptance of Christianity something more than a logical absurdity.

 So, do we need theology? Yes!

Do theological ideas have consequences? Yes!

Should Christians understand what they believe? Yes!

The Heart’s Back Door: Brief Reflections on Worldview Apologetics, Imagination, and Cultural Engagement
Dr. Ted Turnau

The blog is mostly about worldview apologetics, which means essentially, how to get into the web of idols and false beliefs of a non-Christian, and deconstruct it, that is, blow it up from the inside, so that the non-Christian will be open to see the truth of the gospel. It is a very powerful intellectual challenge to unbelief.

But it has its limits. For one thing, it depends on having a non-Christian friend who can reason semi-cogently. Just as the most beautiful painting will not impress a blind man, so the most erudite and elegant reasoning will make no impact on those who just don’t get it. I notice this more and more among my students (I teach cultural and religious studies at a Czech university). They are much more likely to respond to style, feel, image, passion. They are not stupid. On the contrary, many are very, very intelligent. It’s just that they are not attuned to rational debate. They tend to think with their hearts rather than their heads. And a head-first approach often leaves them feeling threatened and defensive. It can become a dead end.

I think the same may be true of the peoples of Latin America. They are famous for their passion, joie de vivre, their intensity. I imagine that trying an intellectual approach can be a dead-end for many of them (especially in countries where “reasonable sounding” people have caused much harm and heartache in the past). That’s why I advocate turning to cultural engagement as an alternative to the standard worldview apologetic. It may be that culture, even popular culture, may be a more fertile field than simply rational argumentation alone. Appealing to the heart through imaginative cultural works may open doors that appealing to the head will not.

There is plenty of culture to engage in Latin America. Each of these countries has a rich cultural heritage, a rich tapestry of imaginative works that just beckons the worldview apologist. Just looking at Argentina alone [where Richard Smith lives], it can boast:

• amazing storytellers like Cortázar and Borges (the Argentineans who gave the world magical realism),
• a treasury of visual arts (including some influential graphic arts and work in comics),
• a thriving film industry (I’ve only seen Man Facing Southeast, Motorcycle Diaries, and Historias Minimas, but now I want to see La Historia Oficial and El Secreto de sus Ojos, too),
• television shows that extend far beyond telenovela territory into police procedurals (Hermanos y detectives, Epitafios), romantic comedy (Ciega a citas), adventure (Terra Ribelle), darker dramas (Entre caníbales), and even incorporating elements of magical realism (El hipnotizador),
• and a music scene that extends way beyond the tango into rock nacionale and folk giants including Atahualpa Yupanqui and Mercedes Sosa, whose nueva canción shaped Latin American folk music as a whole.[1]

These cultural works are carriers of worldview, but they work very differently from rational debate. They do not appeal primarily to the intellect (though many are intellectually intriguing). Rather, they appeal to the imagination, and through the imagination, to the heart. When these works are done well, they touch us and cause us to empathize, to feel and see the world from a different perspective. And the results can transform a person, and a nation.

Because these works are so powerful, and sometimes explore territories such as sexuality, crime, vengeance, and rebellion, Christians often draw back and cut themselves off from them. I believe this is a mistake. While we must be careful not to violate our conscience before God, we also must be careful not to isolate ourselves from the imaginative flow of our cultures. This is, after all, where non-Christians live and breathe and have their being. If we wish to understand those we are to love and share God’s love with, we must be willing to engage the culture. We must engage critically, from a biblical worldview perspective, to be sure. But we must also engage appreciatively, looking for what is good, what draws our hearts in, what resonates with truth and grace (it is there, if you’re willing to look for it). And be watching, listening, reading, and willing to talk about these things with non-Christian friends.[2] In short, consider popular culture a sort of mission field for engaging with the imagination of those who share your culture. So the question, then, is: Are Christians in your culture doing this well? If not, what can you do to help? What’s the next step?

Another question worth asking here is: Are Christians actually engaged not just critically, but also creatively? Are Christians in your country making the sorts of cultural works that would draw non-Christians in? Generally, Evangelicals have a very limited view of what culture is for: evangelism. Cultural works made by Christians must preach. But too often, these kinds of cultural works come across as pushy, sentimental, propaganda, not art. Rather, we need talented Christian writers, artists, musicians, game designers, etc. who can create cultural works that open spaces that invite non-Christians in, not push them out. Good art creates space for asking questions, for exploration, for discussion. It’s not a sermon, but a poem. Not a praise anthem, but a song of hope and lament and celebration all mixed together in a way intrigues the passer-by and arouses curiosity, and leaves him or her hungry to know more. It is a rare gift, and one that deserves to be cultivated within the Christian community.

In these ways, by critically and creatively engaging the cultural treasures around us (both elite and popular culture), we can stumble upon the key to the hearts of our non-Christians friends and neighbors. We can find the elusive back door to the heart, open it, and let the light flood in. And who knows how God can use those openings to expand his glory and his Kingdom?

[1] Unfortunately, piracy has really stunted the development of original video games in Argentina, so the country has yet to make much of a cultural contribution in this medium.

[2] If you want more details on how to do this, check out my book Popologetics. In Spanish, Pop-ologética. And I have short articles that might help here:  http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/advice-pop-culturally-perplexed/ and here: https://www.emw.org.uk/magazine-test/on-being-as-wise-as-serpents/.

My two new books are Oasis of Imagination: Engaging our World through a Better Creativity and Imagination Manifesto: A Call to Plant Oases of Imagination.

Sometimes I hear Argentine pastors and laymen lament the negative influence of North American culture, especially among evangelicals. I hear complaints about the kind of music that is sung in church (monotonous choruses) and the sentimental spirituality that is taught. I agree.

The thoughtful Latin American theologian, Rene Padilla, for example, grieves the imported “made in the U.S.A.” evangelicalism saturated by the “American way of life.” He calls this the “Great Lie,” meaning consumerism with its focus upon personal success and happiness. I agree.

The respected evangelical historian, Mark Noll, however, focused on another destructive aspect of North American evangelicalism that is also very influential in Latin America: anti-intellectualism and biblical-theological ignorance. The opening sentence of his well-known book, The Scandal of The Evangelical Mind (1994), makes his critique clear: “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind” (p. 3). He went on to explain rather bluntly:

Fundamentalism, dispensational premillennialism, the Higher Life movement, and Pentecostalism were all evangelical strategies of survival in response to the religious  crises of the late nineteenth century. In different ways each preserved something  essential of the Christian faith. But together they were a disaster for the life of the mind.  (p. 24)

Evangelicals do not, characteristically, look to the intellectual life as an arena in which to  glorify God because, at least in [North] America, our history has been pragmatic, populist, charismatic, and technological more than intellectual. (p. 55)

Lamentably, this mindless Christianity is what we have brought you, a Latino world of immense creativity and intelligence. Regarding the issue of anti-intellectualism and its negative impact upon Latin American evangelicalism, therefore, I also agree (and I am North American).

So, let me present a modest proposal for theological development in Argentina (and maybe for all of Latin America). I suggest a theology in three dimensions.

First, theology should be contextual, as Padilla wisely suggests. It must be local, connected to the issues and trends of its social context. It should be done by thinkers immersed in that setting, incorporating resources from that setting, and answering questions and addressing problems that arise out of that setting.

However, local Christian intellectuals must recognize a deficit that Padilla mentioned in his essay, “The Contextualization of the Gospel” (1979): “The church in Latin America is a church with no theological reflection of its own.” (He argued recently that the situation has improved, but that more development is needed. Watch the video.) The other challenge Padilla implied is that Latin America must not simply replace North American cultural evangelicalism with Latin American cultural evangelicalism. In the same essay he wrote:

No culture completely fulfills the purpose of God; in all cultures there are some elements unfavorable to the understanding of the gospel. For this reason, the gospel never becomes completely incarnate in any given culture. It always transcends cultures, even cultures that it has deeply affected.

Another weakness to avoid in contextualization is reductionism. Theology that focuses too deeply on one’s context and local thinkers, without maintaining the prophetic stance of the Bible that critiques all cultures, often supports the status quo in politics, culture, and worldview. Plus, too much contextual thinking and “thinking from below,” can produce deafness to the voices from the past and from around the globe. Theological reflection must incorporate contextual analysis but cannot be reduced to the context alone.

Second, theology should be global. French, German, Spanish, and English voices (and more) should be heard. People of color should be part of the discussion. Other local contexts have positive and profound contributions to make. Good theology is not only contextual but also listens to others around the world. In fact, perhaps at no time in history has the church had so many gifted leaders of every ethnic group and nation.

Third, theology should be historical. It must be deeply rooted in the scriptures and biblical-theological tradition. At no time in history has the church been blessed with so much excellent scholarship. We should learn from it, especially as a remedy for anti-intellectualism, ignorance, and irrelevance.

We should learn, for instance, from church history: our creeds, great thinkers, and accepted doctrines and practices. How did Abraham Kuyper and Dietrich Bonhoeffer confront the ideologies of their day? How did Pascal and C. S. Lewis communicate the Christian worldview? How did William Wilberforce, the Guinness family, and Martin Luther King alleviate critical social problems? What can we learn from our great thinkers of the past: Augustine, Anselm, Calvin, the Radical Reformers, Comenius, the English Puritans, Wesley, Edwards, and the Niebuhr brothers, for example? Learning from our wiser forefathers’ grounds our faith and prevents us from repeating foolish mistakes. History teaches us humility and wisdom.

So, this is my humble proposal: Latin American theology in Argentina should be three dimensional. It ought to listen to the context, voices from around the globe, and church history:

Now, if this proposal is acceptable, the next question is: What infrastructure is required to create a deeper and broader theology in Argentina and, indeed, in all Latin America?

Watch this interesting presentation by Dr. Ted Turnau based on his two new books: Oasis of Imagination: Engaging Our World Through a Better Creativity and Imagination Manifesto: A Call to Plant Oases of Imagination.

Back in the 1980’s I first heard the moving hymn by William P. Merrill (1867–1954), “Rise Up O Man of God.” Years later, when I lived in Prague, I sang it in an Anglican church that I attended. The lyrics, I believe, are quite provocative and relevant today:

Rise up, O men of God!
Have done with lesser things.
Give heart and mind and soul and strength
to serve the King of kings.

Rise up, O men of God!
The kingdom tarries long.
Bring in the day of brotherhood
and end the night of wrong.

Rise up, O men of God!
The church for you doth wait,
her strength unequal to her task;
rise up, and make her great!

Lift high the cross of Christ!
Tread where his feet have trod.
As brothers of the Son of Man,
rise up, O men of God!

I am particularly interested in the first stanza, which alludes to Mark 12:30. In response to the question, “What is the most important commandment of all?,” Jesus answered: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” He cited the famous Shema from the Old Testament (Deut 6:5).

The Shema teaches that all areas of life, every activity, and every moment are subject to God’s rule. Nothing, no one, no place or time is exempt. There is no secular realm. There are no “God-free zones.” God’s reign is absolute and exclusive, requiring complete loyalty and total devotion. Nothing can be held back or directed to something or someone else. This kind of love for God forbids any form of idolatry. Anything other than devotion to God, therefore, is a “lesser thing.”

Further, the love that God expects originates in the “heart” (our mind), extends to the “soul” (our motivations and desires), and is expressed “with all your strength,” which means resources. This includes all that God provides to us: capability, time, assets, gifts, as well as physical strength and mental competency.

The stanza also declares, “Have done with lesser things.” What qualifies as “lesser things” in this time and place? I suspect that our answers include: my time is organized around sports, family, pleasure, and work (in other words, myself); my money is spent on consumer items, lifestyle, and social status; my mind is focused on Facebook and other forms of chatter; my passions are often directed to dubious pleasures; I pay too much attention to whatever popular media tells me; and I allow other narratives to define my identity other than the story of God.

Let us consider, therefore, these questions:

How could we “rise up” today within our churche and culture?

What would it mean for us to give God all our “heart and mind and soul and strength” and to make his church “great”?

Rise up, O men and women of God!

Listen to a modern remake of the hymn by Phil Keagy.

Listen to a classic version with full chorus and pipe organ.

A friend of mine, a pastor of many years, decided to leave his church because of ecclesiological pragmatism that stifled spiritual growth. He saw that “success” in the evangelical church merely required four aspects: a concert-feel worship service, simple practical how-to preaching on popular topics using humor with a non-confrontational challenge, a fun-clean-safe children’s ministry, and a similar teen meeting concurrent with the adult service.

Compare this depiction of Tim Keller’s preaching and church services:

Unlike many suburban megachurches, with their soft-rock praise bands and user-friendly sermons, Redeemer’s services were almost defiantly staid, featuring traditional hymns and liturgy. But the sermons were wry and erudite, filled with literary allusions and philosophical references, and Keller was shrewd about urging his congregants to examine their “counterfeit gods”—their pursuit of totems like power, status, and wealth, which the city encouraged. (Michael Luo)

Similarly, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York wrote this about Keller,

The usual canard about Evangelicals—that they were anti-intellectual—did not apply to Pastor Keller. Thus his fascination with Augustine, with C. S. Lewis—whom his dear wife Kathy especially promoted—and Joseph Ratzinger. Thus his 2008 best seller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.

Keller possessed an insatiable intellectual curiosity. He was a broad and voracious reader. He was an astute observer of human relations. He embodied mental piety and intellectual acuity. For this reason, his sermons and lectures were compelling and transformative.

Keller was not a homiletical pragmatist. His teaching was a great example of what many evangelical churches lack. He avoided the false dichotomy between theology and ethics or thinking and doing. He expressed theological and biblical reasoning. He did not merely preach rules or activity.

Last year, Keller published a vision statement about the future evangelical church called, “The Decline and the Renewal of the American Church.” In the last section, he described the “Christian Mind” Project, and he commented, “Evangelicalism has a strong anti-intellectual cast to it that must be overcome without losing its appeal to the majority of the population.” Keller called for increasing the number of Christian professors in the university, developing a “robust intellectual culture” for Protestants, and fostering the development of “Christian public intellectuals” as spokespersons for the biblical worldview and the common good.

Which is to say, Timothy Keller modeled how to love God with the mind in everything he said and did. He demonstrated intellectual piety in all his discourse. He communicated the gospel in ways that were intellectually plausible and existentially credible.

Thank God for his servant, Timothy Keller.

Note: This statement first appeared in Facebook.  Dr. Campbell granted permission to republish it as a guest blog. Keith is a friend and Vice-President at Global Scholars, the ministry with which I serve. His comments deals with an anti-intellectual outlook encountered among evangelicals.)

URGENT PLEA! I recently had a conversation with a well meaning brother in Christ (I’ll call him “Joel”), a conversation that I’ve had at least a hundred times over the years. Joel-–– firmly, confidently and quite condescendingly––said to me that biblical scholars are worthless and a waste of time. All they do, he said, is sit around and discuss worthless things and confuse the “common Christian” (his words, not mine). They should spend their time doing more important things for the Kingdom.

Okay, I understand. Just like in any profession, there are those who don’t contribute much. Fair point. But, hear me well…very well: Joel, and 99% of Earth’s population, cannot read one word––NOT ONE SINGLE WORD––of the Bible without depending on scholars!

Seriously. Take the New Testament, for example. Your New Testament was transcribed from thousands of ancient parchments by scholars, and then translated from Greek into English by other scholars. This is no easy task. It takes a lifetime for one scholar to be able do this for usually just one book of the Bible. And, these scholars stand on the shoulders of literally tens of thousands of other scholars before them. Unless you can read Koine Greek in the original parchments of the first several centuries of the first millennium (or ancient Hebrew), you cannot read your Bibles without the help of scholars (including the Kings James Version and even modern Greek versions).

Besides being unable to read one single word of the Bible without the help of scholars, almost everything your Sunday School teacher and pastor mention on Sunday mornings (aside from most illustrations) comes either directly or indirectly from hundreds of thousands of scholars, throughout thousands of years, who spent lifetimes thinking, debating, and writing so that others can say these kinds of things in just a few simple, easy seconds, such as: (1) “There are four Greek words for the word ‘love’ in the New Testament….”; (2) “In the Roman world, crucifixion was considered the most humiliating ways to die.”; (3) “What this biblical word means is…”; and the list goes on and on and on and on and on!

So, here’s my plea. Please don’t dishonor good, Christian, Jesus- and Bible-loving scholars. In fact, thank them! Your ability to simply read the Bible depends on them.