Last week, Karl Giberson and Randall Stephens wrote an Op-Ed for The New York Times in which they critique what they see as the anti-intellectualism of evangelicalism. Their complaint, however, really amounted to a disdain for the authority of the Bible. Today, Albert Mohler has penned an excellent response. He concludes:
What are we to make of their essay in The New York Times? Did Giberson and Stephens hope to shift the evangelical mainstream by means of their essay? Not likely. They have made their preference for “secular knowledge” and secular affirmation clear enough. They could rest assured that the readership of The New York Times would overwhelmingly agree with their worldview and with their assessment of evangelical Christianity. That, we must assume, is their reward.
They have, however, set the central issue before us. Evangelical Christians will either stand upon the authority and total truthfulness of the Bible, or we will inevitably capitulate to the secular worldview. Giberson and Stephens force us to see, and to acknowledge, the consequences of the evangelical surrender of truth.
Giberson’s article reads like an edited ad for his new book. I think it simply tried to make too many points in one article, thereby setting it up for Mohler’s response.