|        As the 
		title suggests, there is something wrong in evangelicalism today.  
		Christians are forsaking our God-given responsibility to love the Lord 
		with the mind.  By this, Noll means that evangelicals are not 
		making significant contributions to the arts and sciences in the world 
		today.  As a result, evangelicals will be less and less successful 
		in attempting to lead the lost to Christ.  Noll believes 
		evangelicals need to wake up and nurture the mind so that they can be a 
		significant influence in the world.      One would 
		find it hard to argue with Noll's belief - Evangelicals, by and large, 
		do not use their minds anywhere near as much as they could.  The 
		problem with Noll's book is that he is utterly repulsed by any viewpoint 
		that smacks of fundamentalism.  It is true that many 
		fundamentalists are guilty of neglecting the development of the mind in 
		favor of clinging to blind (or mostly blind) faith.  Nevertheless, 
		Noll is quick to dismiss any view that is usually attributed to 
		fundamentalism.      Of primary 
		concern to Noll are two issues that are very popular among evangelicals: 
		premillennialism and young earth creationism.  About one-third of 
		the book consists of an extended tirade against these two views.  
		First, Noll attacks premillennialists for their emphasis on the study of 
		end times events.  It may be true that some premillennialists are 
		so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good but that certainly 
		cannot be said for all of them.  Neither are postmillennialists and 
		amillennialists immune from criticism on this point.  All 
		eschatalogical views have adherents who are guilty of neglecting the 
		Christian mind and all have those who have become outstanding scholars.  
		Noll's criticism on this point is simply unfair and misguided.      By far the 
		biggest problem with Noll's book is his unrelenting assault against 
		young earth creationism (YEC).  He sees YECs, like myself, as being 
		ignorant of science and guilty of forcing a new method of interpretation 
		on the Genesis text.  Relying heavily on Ronald Numbers (University 
		of Wisconsin), whom Noll calls "first rate scholars who write with 
		sympathy for their subjects" (p. 14).  He continues by adding, 
		"Numbers describes how a fatally flawed interpretative scheme [young 
		earth creationism] of the sort that no responsible Christian teacher in 
		the history of the church ever endorsed before this century came to 
		dominate the minds of American evangelicals on scientific questions" (p. 
		14).  Apparently, this first rate scholar and Noll (a leading 
		evangelical historian) are completely ignorant of the truth on this 
		matter.  That is, unless, Noll does not consider Luther or Calvin 
		to be responsible Christian teachers in church history.  Both of 
		these men held to a young earth creationist view.  So did the 
		"scriptural geologists" who studied and wrote at the start of the 19th 
		century.  These men used essentially the same biblical arguments 
		utilized by YECs today in their attempts to stem the tide of 
		uniformitarian geology's impact on the church.  Yet, Noll, again 
		quoting Numbers, has the audacity to claim that young earth creationism 
		was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists (p. 189).  This is 
		nothing but a bald-faced lie.      Noll's 
		chapter entitled "Thinking About Science" is a pathetic attempt to trash 
		YEC.  His old earth bias constantly shines through as does his 
		ignorance of science.  He quotes Davis Young, a geologist and 
		fellow OEC, who makes the ridiculous claim that there is no evidence for 
		a worldwide flood.  Worst of all, Noll seems to completely 
		disregard the biblical text.       I gave this 
		book a rating of four out of ten because Noll rightly highlights some 
		problems among evangelicals today.  However, his rants against 
		premillennialism and young earth creationism are completely off base.  
		Tragically, it seems that Noll would be much more comfortable with the 
		Roman Catholics he continually praises in this book even though they 
		hold to a different Gospel.        For a more 
		detailed critique of this book, please see Andrew S. Kulikovsky's 
		outstanding review
		here.   
		(01/26/06) (back to 
		reviews) |