On Secondary Sources
Maybe we can't research. But we can discern.
I’ve been recommending that, as Christians, we need to lower our opinion of our own opinions. That’s not true when it comes to the gospel, and it’s not true when it comes to our own vocation.
But when it comes to issues outside our expertise, there’s an appropriate “epistemological humility” (try that one at your next cocktail party) we can have, because we don’t need to know - or be sure - about every hot button issue.
But there are still issues where we need to make decisions. What do we do, there?
For example: most of us aren’t medical experts. But we all need to make decisions about medical issues. I’ve already made the case that we can’t call our looking into these issues “research”, because medical research is something that would take years of training to prepare for.
A word I’d recommend, instead, is: discernment.
We can be discerning without having the ability to be researchers.
So what does that look like? It looks like sifting, as best we can, through secondary sources.
A secondary source is someone who can help you sift through the primary sources.
You might not be equipped to research and look into primary sources, but they are.
I think that actually bears repeating: a quality secondary source is an expert in their field, who’s done the work, and has the training, to sift through primary sources with you, and for you.
Which means: if someone is citing primary sources, but doesn’t have the training/expertise in the field, they are not a credible secondary source.
For example: you will find lots of folks who are happy to cite technicalities in Greek/Hebrew on Twitter in order to support their opinions about the Bible.
However. Many, many times when you hear untrained folks citing the finer points of Greek/Hebrew words, they’re misusing the language.
Why?
Because although they have access to the primary sources (through online lexicons, for instance), they don’t have the years of training it takes to understand the specific rules of Greek/Hebrew language.
And so, often times, these voices are using English language rules and applying them to Greek/Hebrew, and coming to false conclusions. So, for instance:
“This Greek word comes from the root word for…” No. The root of a word could or could not have to do with its later meaning.
“This Hebrew word means ____ in Genesis, therefore it means ___ (the same thing) in Exodus.” Nope. Words often have different meanings, and it all depends on the context: “I zipped up my fly to fly on an airplane that I had to fly in order to catch when a fly landed on my shoulder…” If you don’t know the whole language, you can’t read the sentence. Which means you can’t properly define the word in the sentence.
“In Greek culture, this word meant…” SMH. This is a failure to apply circles of context. The way non-Jewish readers used a word outside the context of the scriptures is the least important piece of data, the most difficult to establish, and would require training in not just koine Greek (New Testament slang) but classical Greek (much harder: Aristotle, etc).
So yes, it takes pretty rigorous training to not only understand the rules, but to apply the rules. For example, one of my assignments in seminary was translating most of the Gospel of Matthew into Greek, circling each participle verb, and deciding, based on context, which of 15-20 grammatical functions it was serving, each of which slightly changed the meaning of the verb, and the sentence.
And dude, that was hard.
But I think, when it comes to these issues, it makes me a pretty good secondary source. I’m happy to show anybody interested how all this works. I’m happy to nerd out about how I came to my conclusions. In fact I think it’s my job to be somewhat open about “showing my work”.
But there are plenty of places where I’m not an expert.
So when it comes to important issues I must make decisions on, I’m often looking to discern these things through the lenses of experts I trust: Secondary sources.
This is why I have people in my life who have:
High competence in their field. My theology of vocation allows me to say that as a pastor, God has given me one job: preach the word. He’s given the farmer to be an authority on farming. He’s given the doctor to be an authority in medicine. This is simply the humility of recognizing the church is a body. So I listen closely to my brothers and sisters whom God has called into their field, when I’m trying to discern things about that field.
High character. As many of my doctor friends will tell you, medicine - for instance - is an industry. You have to make a willing decision to swim against the tide if you want to actually care for patients. Academics is an industry. You have to risk your neck to resist the politically correct answers that get you tenure. So I’m often looking for people - Christians specifically - who have a strong theology of vocation, and who are experts in their field, to help me understand issues. One test for me is: will they show me their work? Will they allow me to think critically? Are they willing to criticize their own industry? Or do they get upset when I ask to understand what’s happening?
I’m going to return to the issue of Critical Race Theory, here, because right now I see this as the place where we Evangelicals are throwing the rules of critical thinking out the window.
There are plenty of high character, high competence Christian voices doing incredible work to help us understand Critical Race Theory.
A few voices I wish Christians would read more:
The voice I’ve most appreciated here is Ed Uszynski, who specifically did his PhD work in this field. His book is highly critical of “Critical Theory” as a destructive worldview, but also highly critical of Evangelicals who refuse to understand it on its own terms.
George Yancey has his PhD in sociology is critical of both the elite and destructive approach to race relations as well as the “colorblind” approach typical of white evangelicals. He teaches at Baylor University.
Gregory Thompson, Phd in Religious studies from the University of Virginia, has expertise a little further afield from Critical Race theory directly, but brings competence to the conversation and beautifully weaves it together with a biblical theology of justice.
Robert Romero is an interesting voice with both a PhD in Latin History and a JD degree, whose position is probably farthest from my own but still brings a high level of competence from a Latino perspective on Critical Race Theory.
These men are credible secondary sources in this conversation. Each of them shows a willingness to swim against the secular tide to expose the pitfalls of these theories on steroids. They also show a willingness to name how these theories help us to better hear the cries of the oppressed.
They’ve done the work.
They have the qualifications.
So why are the best-selling books for evangelicals in the CRT conversation written by people who don’t have any expertise in the field?
And why are the most popular critical reviews of the books above written by…people without any credentials in the field?
I think I sadly understand why: at the end of the day, it doesn’t feel as good to read the discerning and gentle voices of the men above, because it doesn’t make us feel like the world is filled with good guys and bad guys.
And, sadly….these popular Evangelical voices never turn the mirror on us and ask, “Where do we need to repent?”
Instead, they give us what our tickling ears want to hear: Affirmation. Comfort. Self-righteousness.
That, I guess, is the heart of why we reject critical thinking.
Which is why, as a pastor, I’m going to keep on preaching the gospel of grace.