COLLEGE OF RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION
CHAUNCEY C. RIDDLE
16 November, 1966
It is patent to observe that academicians often make a poor showing in the work of the Church; frequently they are a destructive, negative influence. The paradox is that sometimes these persons of destructive impact have the best of intentions. It is not intentions or desires which count in the long run, however; rather, it is performance. But the good intention makes this paradox worthy of further examination. The problem of the academician can be traced in part to the frame of mind engendered in his professional atmosphere.
One principal aspect of the academic atmosphere at its best is extreme negative criticism. It is critical because of the necessity of constant analysis of one’s own and other men’s ideas, actions, and creations. It must at times be negative because it is concerned with excellence of product. The producer, it is assumed, is enough of a scholar to know the positive aspect of production, to have delight in excellence, and not to take negative criticism personally. The criticism is extreme because of the necessity of making fine discriminations, again in deference to the ideal of performing as perfectly, as expertly as is possible for a given time and circumstance. This is one operation of the academic atmosphere at its best because the world would be flooded even more than it is with specious knowledge, with shoddy performance, with chicanery were it not for the academic crucible which attempts to eliminate the dross. In some respects the academic atmosphere is a great benefit to mankind, and one might lament that its influence is not more widespread. If academicians were not also human beings, the academic atmosphere might well be given far greater influence in society.
In sum then, the academic approach is to achieve excellence of product through intensive, withering criticism of all that men propose, propound or produce. This approach has been of great and demonstrable beneficence to science, particularly, rescuing it from its origins in aesthetic rationalism and making of it a formidable, pragmatic giant.
Contrasted with the academic frame of mind is a gospel frame which is in approach antithetical to the academic in almost every respect. The gospel frame begins with the premise that we are engaged in the work of the Lord, which work has come by personal revelation from the Lord. If we have that testimony, then we know that we are not here concerned with criticism of the projects of men. The man or men who present ideas and projects to us are the Lord’s chosen stewards, the prophets and presiding authorities. The task is not to oppose and criticize what they say, but rather to strive mightily to comprehend and implement what they say. What they say may appear to our critical minds to be irrational, shortsighted. But if we have the personal testimony that the Lord had appointed them as His stewards, to criticize them is to set ourselves us as the judge of the Lord.
The gospel frame of mind has its primary focus on people rather than products. It sees all men as the children of God, as eternal souls who may, if they wish, come to a restoration of their heritage, to know their Father again personally, and to receive of all that he has. Programs and products are seen as devices and opportunities for the building of God-like character in each individual. The most essential ingredient of that character is faith—humble submission as a little child to all that the Father seeth fit to inflict. This is indeed the antitheses of academic criticism. It is learning to be deliberately non-critical of anything that comes from the Lord in order to achieve a proper personal relationship with the Lord. It is to see ourselves as weak, ignorant, biased potential servants of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfect God.
Within this gospel frame of mind one does not criticize. He will search for the will of the Lord through personal revelation if asked for his counsel, but will only bear humble testimony to what he believes the Lord wants. He will never attack a brother or a leader for his ideas, but will examine his own conscience for the necessity of repentance if he finds himself at odds with someone with whom he ought to be in agreement, leaving critical judgment to those who preside. If he presides, he will pronounce the Lord’s judgment, not his own. All things will be done in pure love, in genuine respect for all persons concerned, be they in agreement or disagreement with himself.
In sum, the gospel frame of mind is a positive, joyful acceptance of all that comes from the Lord, with an earnest and eager desire to implement it.
It can readily be seen that the gospel frame of mind employed in an academic situation would wreak havoc. To accept uncritically what is of men is demonstrably disastrous. And to apply the academic frame of mind towards the work of the church or towards anything which is of the Lord is at least equally disastrous. It will serve to alienate us from all good things—from God, from the prophets, from personal revelation—and with considerable alacrity.
Should we then reject one frame of mind—say the academic—and adhere to the gospel? Rejection of either could be as disastrous as mis-application of either. If we reject the critical frame of mind, we might reject the possibility of finding the Lord, for it is only by a careful discrimination that we find the voice of the Lord among the welter of human and spiritual influences which play upon us. To reject criticism would be to leave oneself defenseless against the wiles of the adversary and his minions. And of course if we reject the gospel frame we cut ourselves off from all righteousness, choosing to remain in spiritual darkness and death.
The solution then lies in a thorough mastery of the nature and skillful use of each frame of mind with a corresponding careful attention to the situation of the moment to know which frame to apply. The overall pattern will likely be to emphasize the critical frame until we find the Lord, then to emphasize the gospel frame thereafter. For if we are servants of the Lord, even when we act as acute critics in a proper academic environment, we must above all be saints and be responsive to the person and his spiritual needs even as we dissect what he academically propounds.
“Every scribe well instructed in the things of the kingdom of heaven, is like unto a householder; a man, therefore, which bringeth forth out of his treasure that which is new and old.” (Matthew 13:52)