Some of you may have seen studies floating around recently, like the one above, tracking the loss of trust in public and private institutions over time. Some prominent examples of institutions measured include scientists, the presidency, church and organized religion, the police, and news media. I'm going to make the case that Christians should be concerned with this cultural trend, and that they are uniquely positioned to provide a solution to this Western phenomenon. Christians are after all a people concerned with standing on and proclaiming truth for the good of all people everywhere, so we may be helped by anticipating these reactions in our culture. Whether you have lost all faith in experts and institutions or whether you still think it best to defer to them, I think this post provides a way forward for our society, allowing us all to begin to trust one another again.
The Data
This Gallup poll cites the lowest ever average trust in any institution since they began keeping track in 1979. However, its not just the US, as this poll tracks a general decline in the trust of institutions both in the US and in several other Western countries. However, it is not simply institutions which have lost the trust of the people, as even independent experts now enjoy less trust from the public. For instance this article from the Atlantic, now widely panned, admits in 2021 that "the experts had a rough year" before saying "but we still have to trust them." This was of course before the medical and science community had to walk back several more claims in 2022-23.
Burgeoning distrust in experts is not restricted to the medical community though, as many now question experts in other spheres who proclaim that "trans women are women." This viral video shows a conversation between a female athlete discussing human biology with an anthropologist. The anthropologist claims his inability to distinguish between female and male bone structure, and specifically wields his PhD as a cudgel, an appeal to authority meant to end discussion. While the crowd laughs at his claim, he can be heard shouting "Excuse me! I'm not sure why I'm being laughed at when I'm the expert in the room! I have a PhD!"
Christians should be particularly interested in the public distrust of institutions and experts. The function of the Church is largely realized in its practice as an institution, and by the work of its experts, ordained pastors. Likewise, insofar as Christians are concerned for the truth (Eph 4:25), when multiple disciplines begin redefining and modifying the structures faithfully upholding our society we need to pay attention. Our ability to share the gospel with others, and the likelihood that they will receive it, is inevitably affected by these cultural shifts in the distrust of experts and institutions.
For example, as a PhD researcher in New Testament, my own field is certainly not exempt from colleagues who push ridiculous claims supported only by their title. Dan McClellan (PhD, Exeter) is quickly becoming popular with outlandish claims like "there is no [unified] God of the Bible." Dan frequently drops into conversations on Twitter by beginning with "linguist here" or "public scholar of religion here." You can find endless claims, without evidence, spread around his page. After all, why supply evidence when you can name drop your status as expert in a one minute video instead? As a biblical researcher myself, claims like these are frustrating because they wouldn't pass muster when seriously examined by our colleagues. I also worry that, in eroding trust by blatant lies, experts are fast alienating the laypeople they should be serving. This makes it all that much harder for someone like me, who is tasked with dealing with the fallout of other “experts.”
Therefore, when "public facing" experts make ridiculous claims without evidence to laypeople, they reveal that they are not interested in being challenged. You see, experts who are primarily "public facing" are rescued from facing their colleagues who require high standards of evidence and reasoning. This is especially evident when an expert responds in cruel bitterness to any layperson with questions or counterpoints, as if laypeople who disagree are beneath them. When experts behave like this they show that their interest is not in truth, but in using their power as an expert to exert control over multitudes in spaces where they’re unchallenged. This seems to be the case in other fields too, as with the anthropologist I mentioned above. The fact that we are seeing distrust in institutions and experts across the board clues us into a shift in our society, and we should take notice. After all, experts have their place in serving our society with carefully gained insights. But what are we to do when our experts become untrustworthy?
The Problem of Pluto
This reminds me of a story that illustrates my point well. Back in 2006, the International Astronomical Union caused quite a public stir when they deemed that Pluto, previously the ninth planet in our solar system, could no longer be classified as a planet. Treasured childhood rhymes were disrupted, memories of the hard-won completion of diorama's were tarnished. More than anything though, people were bothered by what seemed a needless technical distinction made up by experts and only applicable to them. People felt that this was a distinction which mainly served to disturb rather than to add anything substantial or helpful to our knowledge. Comedians at the time went wild. I remember a skit in which an expert, the mad scientist behind the Pluto pratfall, ran hither and thither making similar proclamations like "the sky is now green!" and "water is now a solid!" This illustrates where we as a society have found ourselves today, in extreme discomfort because of the proclamations of experts and institutions which seem diametrically opposed to reality and all carefully established knowledge, both common and technical.
Frankly, experts and institutions are suffering skepticism from laypeople because they have worked hard to earn it. When experts and institutions, as a rule, refuse to acknowledge when they are wrong and instead deflect genuine questions and flaws with their research, they evidence their commitment to themselves at the cost of their commitment to the truth. Perhaps more startling, when experts and institutions were right originally but change their opinion to suit the loudest cultural voices, they evidence their unwillingness to stand for what is right. So, when experts and institutions show their lack of trustworthiness, how should we as a society move forward in discernment?
Just as it is folly to swallow everything a given expert says without examining their evidence, it is equally unwise to reject all who hold the title of expert. Instead, I'd like to suggest a more nuanced approach that I believe will be an aid to our society, both experts and laypeople: demand character, depend on evidence. We as a society must 1) demand good character from our experts, and 2) depend not upon their title but upon good evidence. Where we abide by these principles, we will inevitably see a higher standard for both experts and laypeople. Higher standards like these lead to higher mutual trust because it engenders the respect that comes with both parties doing their due diligence on any issue.
1) Demand Good Character
We've all done it. Whether through lack of time to research ourselves or just the convenience of the internet, we've all just read a headline, a tweet, or the top Google search result and concluded that it must reflect the truth. After all, it wouldn't be there if someone qualified wasn't behind it, right? The Christian perspective in cases like these is that even if you are the smartest, most accomplished expert in a field, you are nonetheless a flawed human, a product of the Fall, and capable of lying or limited knowledge (Eph 4:18; Pr 6:16-19). Being intelligent or an expert does not preclude you from being a liar, or coating the truth, or having bias. Trust is earned. If we set the bar higher for the character of our experts, then we encourage them to rise to it. This is especially so in Twitter spaces, where experts have more and wider contact with laypeople than ever before. On Twitter, experts often wield their titles as a spiteful cudgel with self-importance, finger pointing, and arrogant name calling. Romans 16:17-18 warns us of those who sow division and seek to upend well-reasoned truth, warning of the smooth talk which deceives the naïve. If we instead make character a requirement for those experts and institutions courting our trust, then we will encourage a better class of expert, and we will get a better quality of expertise, the kind which is worthy of our trust.
However, you don't have to be a Christian to understand that people lie and demonize others to save face or accrue power. The world is replete with examples which establish this. Nevertheless, Scripture provides us with clues to identify those who are worthy of trust. 1 Tim. 3:1-12 lists the requirements for the office of overseers and deacons, the Church's experts in ministry to laypeople. You can find qualities here that even non-Christian folks would heartily approve of, like being "respectable," "not quarrelsome," "not a lover of money," "not violent, but gentle," "not pursuing dishonest gain," and being "tested first." In fact, many have noticed that the requirements for deacons and overseers are little else than having a Christlike character, which I imagine few would object to seeing in their experts and leaders. There is so much more we could say, and so many passages we could explore, but for now I think the qualifications of 1 Timothy serve as a great rubric for testing the character of our experts and institutions. To be sure, wordly experts are not thereby officeholders in the Church, but this passage gives broad guidelines for how a generally trustworthy person should act. In the event that we witness experts and institutions whose practice is demonstrably out of step with these principles, we should be wary of the quality and motives of their findings. This leads us to our second requirement, we must depend not upon titles but upon evidence.
2) Depend Upon Evidence
Titles like PhD, director, expert, professor, and others used to denote that the one who holds that title had undergone an arduous process to demonstrate their expertise, their ability to produce reliable information, and their ability to defend against error in a respectable way. This is no longer the case when prestigious posts are offered for political or social gain. The public distrust of experts seems to coincide with this institutional malpractice. Therefore, laypeople are better served by not trusting experts and institutions unless they offer substantial, suitable evidence for their claims. It is not the case that laypeople are utterly incapable of understanding data and coming to their own conclusions, as many experts may be tempted to believe. When/if experts insist that laypeople are simply incapable of keeping up with their evidence, therefore they need not submit it for public lay review, they are instead submitting evidence that their character is not credible. In such cases, refer back to step 1) Demand Good Character.
However, in an age of information convenience, this will certainly require more focused attention to information on the part of laypeople than a single google search or a single article can offer. We should view the internet not as a spout of facts from experts, but as propositions to be investigated, tested, and adhered to only if they prove trustworthy. Even Christians are told to "test everything, hold fast only to what is good" (1 Thess 5:21). We are also told that it is our responsibility to "destroy arguments" which set themselves against God (2 Cor 10:5), and are commanded against giving "a false report" (Ex 23:1; Pr 24:28). Our Church discipline sets a standard for evidence within the plurality of community witness (Mt 18:16). The Bible is not soft on standards for what makes trustworthy evidence, as Dr. Luke is only satisfied once “many convincing proofs” have been established (Acts 1:3). Therefore where experts demonstrate that they can reliably and repeatedly produce substantial, suitable evidence, they simultaneously demonstrate that they are that much more worthy of our trust. This is especially true when experts don’t bristle when laypeople seek to investigate or challenge their claims, but patiently and convincingly engage laypeople, as good character demands.
The Payoff
When we demand good character from our experts, and when we do our due diligence in demanding and discerning their data, we set new standards for trustworthiness in our experts. As an aspiring expert in Biblical Studies myself, I do not fear these standards, but embrace them because they lead all of us toward greater apprehension and attainment of the truth of God's world. Experts ought not to bristle at lay persons lack of trust in them, but instead ought to rise to the occasion and return to the rigorous standards of evidence our disciplines demand. Both experts and laypeople must remember their place: experts in discovery, not dictates; laypeople in honest, substantive review and free decisions. The payoff for Western culture is that we begin to trust one another again, to listen to one another again, and maybe have a chance at peaceful coexistence and reasoned decisions for our society. The payoff for pastors is to embody what it means to be a trustworthy expert, as Scripture has much to say about “everything pertaining to life and godliness” (2 Pt 1:3-4). The payoff for the Church is a chance to be the standard bearers for a better way of managing data and discourse, an opportunity to lead out with principles from Scripture which demonstrate dynamic discernment.