Today’s guest post comes to us from Scott Culpepper, Associate Professor of History at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa. Culpepper teaches courses on the early modern Atlantic World and Religion in American Culture. He holds a Ph.D. from Baylor University and is the author of Francis Johnson and the English Separatist Influence (Mercer, 2011).
I am pausing to reflect on the fickle fate of kings as I prepare to unleash the French Revolution in my undergraduate civilization class. January anniversaries present an interesting study in both the pomp and fragility of power. Few occasions can compete with American presidential inaugurations for extravagant displays of pomp and circumstance. All regular presidential inaugurations since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s second inauguration in 1937 have taken place in January. Another looms on the horizon in just two days.
On the other side of the coin, January plays host to the anniversaries of two lethal royal downfalls. In 1793, Louis XVI of France faced a revolutionary court beginning on January 20. The wheels moved swiftly in his case. By January 21, his royal head joined the growing pile shaved by the “national razor.” A century and a half before his death, Charles I of England also faced accusations of treason against his people, a novel concept at a time when many Europeans still believed that the person of the king and the identity of the state were synonymous. Charles met the executioner’s ax on January 30, 1649. The masses giveth and the masses taketh away, or at least those who claim to speak on their behalf give and take away in their name.
The great political scientist Dennis the Constitutional Peasant was convinced that the masses were models of sound judgment and virtue. He delights each new generation of Dordt College students in my introductory undergraduate classes each fall as I play his famous clip from the cinematic medieval chronicle Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Michael Palin’s Dennis deflates Graham Chapman’s King Arthur by informing him that, “Supreme Executive power derives from a mandate from the masses not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.” Dennis’ comically anachronistic anarcho-syndicalist communism rejects the notion that the Lady of the Lake can bestow divine favor on Arthur without the support of the people. Americans have tended to believe mandates from the masses have authority as well, though our history has demonstrated more than once that the masses can be misguided.
We live in strange times. A man whose unlikely elevation to the highest office in the land is being attributed by some to an electoral uprising of the masses against the establishment will be inaugurated president of the United States this Friday. Yet it is somewhat unclear who these masses really are. If one looks at the tally of the popular vote, the movement that propelled Donald Trump to the presidency represents more of a vocal minority than the majority of Americans. This observation gains even more credibility in light of the large number of people who voted for a third party or chose not to vote at all.
Masses or not, this segment of the population has captured national attention. Among their ranks are many who identify as Christians. Despite the claims of Trump and his supporters to be fighting for Christian ideals, their posture, rhetoric, and emphases cut against the grain of many fundamental values that Christian scholars embrace and seek to propagate.
Christian scholars across the spectrum of theological traditions share a common commitment to fostering intellectual and spiritual maturity, rationality, integrity, and humility in our students, the church and in our cultures. The Trump presidential campaign and transition phase descended to the level of rejecting in both words and very public deeds each of these fundamental ideals. Careful consideration of facts, disciplined analysis of sources, and respectful treatment of other human beings assumed the position of secondary considerations as people rushed to express their angst over the perceived failures of the amorphous “establishment” by elevating a man to power who cares for none of these things. Those of us who invest our lives daily in advocating the alternative stand at best as an inconvenience and at worse as an impediment that must be undermined or removed.
Some have attributed the lack of stronger scholarly influence over Christian popular culture to a problem with evangelical scholars. Comments abound about the need for Christian scholars to curb a supposed tendency towards arrogance or putting on airs. In the blustery rural Southern Baptist culture of my youth, pastors never tired of ridiculing the stereotypical arrogant academic with “more degrees than a thermometer” but little in the way of spiritual or common sense. When I was a young pastor fresh from my undergraduate classes in Greek, I can remember a deacon warning me about using too much of that Greek in sermons because it might make people think I considered myself above them.
Having served eleven years in various staff positions teaching and preaching at the congregational level, it still amazes me how often I am dismissed by fellow Christians as a product of the ivory tower just because my primary arena of service is now a classroom rather than a pulpit. It is as if all the years of walking with real people through their real struggles is somehow negated by the prejudiced view that scholars must not understand the real world. Such biases should be taken seriously and answered kindly, but they should never shame us into being timid about the vocation to which we are called.
Those who remind Christian scholars to avoid the temptation of arrogance do us all a good service. It is a potential pitfall for all of us. But the more I interact with various Christian traditions in the United States, the more I am convinced that the problem is not how we are saying what we are saying. It is what we are saying.
Christian scholars are indeed a subversive influence. Critics are right in labeling us a subversive influence if what they mean is that we subvert the subordination of facts to falsehoods calculated to sway popular opinion, the substitution of shallow shibboleths for deeper reflection, and the sacrifice of principle on the profane altar of political expediency. And there will be a greater need for us to keep on subverting these things with all the energy we can muster in the age of Trump.
The times call for renewed conviction, creativity and courage on the part of Christian scholars. The masses may not know they need us, but they need us. The endorsement of popular influence as a virtue in the framing of our American republic was predicated on the hope that education and character formation would equip people to exercise their rights intelligently. No one is better prepared than Christian scholars and the institutions they serve to provide this kind of education infused with serious attention to character formation.
In a time when forces abound that pressure Christian scholars to adopt a posture of compliance to fit in, we need more than ever to stand up and stand out unapologetically. All clouds pass in time. When they do, a new generation will build on either the ruins or the foundations of the past. That generation sits in our classrooms today. We have the opportunity to model something very different from what they are seeing on the national stage in both church and state. May Christian scholars in the age of Trump have the courage to give the masses what benefits them rather than what has been mandated in their name.