Last week nearly 10,000 people invaded the French Quarter of New Orleans for a three-day conference. It wasn’t a convention of Mardi Gras mask-makers, a congregation of Bourbon Street miscreants, or an assembly of Hustler devotees. No, this was the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. This is a collective of the world’s religious scholars. SBL is the largest society of biblical scholars on the planet. The program of lectures and meetings is the size of a phone book for a mid-sized city. Too many choices! So many great biblical scholars were there: N. T. Wright, Jon Dominic Crossan, D. A. Carson, Bart Ehrman, Stanley Porter, Frederick Danker, Alan Culpepper, Craig Evans, Robert Stein, Joel Marcus, April Deconick, Elaine Pagels, John Kloppenborg, R. B. Hays, Peter Enns, Buist Fanning, Harold Attridge, Luke Timothy Johnson, Peter Davids, Craig Keener, Ben Witherington, Rikki Watts, Robert Gundry, Emanuel Tov, Walter Brueggemann, Eric Myers, Eugene Boring, J. K. Elliott—that’s just a small sampling of the names. Liberals and evangelicals, theists and atheists, those who are open and those who are hostile to the Christian faith—all were there.
Overall, the Society of Biblical Literature is comprised of professors who teach religion, humanities, biblical studies, history, ethics, English literature, and theology at virtually all the schools in the nation that offer such subjects. Not just the United States, but a multitude of other countries are represented (although because of the long distances and short conference, many scholars did not come). Private schools, public schools, elite schools, and unknown schools—all were represented. Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Tübingen, Chicago, Duke, Dallas Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Fuller Seminary, Princeton, Yale, Biola, Claremont, Manchester, Durham, St Andrews, Westminster Seminary, Wheaton, Gordon-Conwell, Emory, TCU’s Brite Divinity School, SMU, University of Texas, Northwestern University, Rice, Brandeis, London School of Theology, Münster University, Notre Dame, community colleges, even unaccredited schools were represented.
As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead. The post-lecture discussions are often spirited, and occasionally get downright nasty.
The annual SBL conference is a place where young scholars can present their papers, meet senior scholars, and talk to publishers about book projects. Great opportunities are at SBL! Master’s students meet with professors whom they’d like to study with for their PhDs. They make appointments, go out for coffee, or just happen to bump into them at the conference.
Now, what I’ve said about SBL so far sounds like an exciting, positive event in which a good exchange of ideas occurs, and people grapple with what the Bible is all about. To a degree that is true, but a darker underbelly to the conference, never far from the surface, shows up often enough. It has to do with the posture of many liberal scholars toward evangelicals.
One of my interns, a very bright student who is preparing for doctoral studies, met with one scholar to discuss the possibility of studying under him for his doctorate. The scholar was cordial, friendly, and a fine Christian man. He encouraged James to pursue the doctorate at his non-confessional school in the UK. (We have found the UK schools to be far more open to evangelical students, since they are more concerned that a student make a plausible defense of his views than that he or she holds the party line.) Later, James met a world-class scholar of early Christian literature and engaged him in conversation. James demonstrated deep awareness of the professor’s field, asking intelligent questions and showing great interest in the subject. Then, the professor asked him where he was earning his master’s degree. “Dallas Seminary” was the response. The conversation immediately went south. The scholar no longer was interested in this young man. James was, to this professor, an evangelical and therefore a poorly educated Neanderthal, a narrow-minded bigot, an uncouth doctrinaire neophyte—or worse.
This was no isolated case. I’ve seen it happen time and time again. There is an assumption that students from an evangelical school—especially a dispensational school—only get a second-class education and are blissfully ignorant of the historical-critical issues of biblical scholarship. Many of the mainline liberal schools routinely reject applications to their doctoral programs from evangelical students who are more qualified than their liberal counterparts—solely because they’re evangelicals. And Dallas Seminary students especially have a tough time getting into primo institutes because of the stigma of coming from, yes, I’ll say it again—a dispensational school. One of my interns was earning his second master’s degree at a mainline school, even taking doctoral courses. He was head and shoulders above most of the doctoral students there. But when he applied for the PhD at the same school, he was rejected. His Dallas Seminary degree eliminated him.
The prejudice runs deep—almost as deep as the ignorance. Yes, Dallas Seminary is a dispensational school. But it’s not your father’s dispensational school. Progressive dispensationalism, engineered by Darrell Bock, Craig Blaising, et alii, about twenty-five years ago has tied a dispensational hermeneutic to a more nuanced appreciation of the biblical covenants. Gone are the days of seeing two New Covenants, of distinguishing the ‘kingdom of God’ from the ‘kingdom of heaven’ in Matthew, and of seeing eschatology as not-yet but not already. The differences between other hermeneutical systems and the dispensationalism of today are not nearly as great as they used to be. But much of liberal scholarship has simply not kept up. There is widespread ignorance about what dispensationalists believe along with what seems to be an unwillingness to find out.
Further, the great irony is that so many liberal scholars don’t even realize that Dallas Seminary not only has only one unit on dispensationalism, but it has never required its students to adhere to this system of interpretation. So much more could be said here; I would simply invite those who are interested in learning more to read Progressive Dispensationalism by Bock and Blaising.
I can speak to issues in New Testament studies at Dallas Seminary, which I know best. Our NT faculty have degrees from Oxford, Cambridge, Aberdeen, Sheffield, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Dallas Seminary, and Glasgow. We teach a historical-critical method of interpretation, tempered by our presuppositions that the universe is not a closed-system but one in which God has been active. Our students are trained extensively in exegesis of the New and Old Testament, are conversant with the secondary literature, and are able to interact with various viewpoints. Something like 80% of our doctoral dissertations are now getting published—and in prestigious, world-class series no less. (The same, by the way, is true of our master’s students who earn their doctorates elsewhere.) When Harold Hoehner was alive, there were three members in the department who were members of the prestigious Society of New Testament Studies. Now, down to two, we are anticipating several others getting voted in, in due time.
What irritates me is that so many so-called liberal scholars have already predetermined that DTS students get an unacceptable education. They are closed-minded themselves, thinking they know what is taught at the seminary. A genuine liberal used to be someone who was open to all the evidence and examined all the plausible viewpoints. Now, “liberal” has become a hollow term, invested only with the relic of yesteryear’s justifiably proud designation. Today, all too often, “liberal” means no more than left-wing fundamentalist, for the prejudices that guide a liberal’s viewpoints are not to be tampered with, not to be challenged. Doors have been shut in the students’ faces, opportunities denied. Spending $100 on an application is too frequently a waste of time and money, since applications coming from DTS students are routinely chucked into the round file.
If we’re to judge liberal vs. conservative by one’s method, then the new liberal is the evangelical and neo-evangelical who is willing to engage the evidence, examine all sides, and wrestle with the primary data through the various prisms of secondary literature. He’s open. I tell my students every year, “I will respect you far more if you pursue truth and change your views than if you protect your presuppositions and don’t.” And they know my mantra, “Go where the evidence leads.” Sadly, some of the most brilliant scholars in biblical studies have become radically intolerant of conservatives. When conservative professors have that same attitude, they’re usually afraid of having their ideas challenged because they’re insecure in their beliefs. And they’re labeled as fundamentalists. When many “liberal” scholars are just as intolerant, what should we call them?
583 replies to "Frustrations from the Front: The Myth of Theological Liberalism"
There is a difference between being called or recognized as a Christian by other humans and being recognized as a Christian by God.
Furthermore the Bible indicates that we must know Christ, where know means more than just propositional knowledge but includes it as well. So take for example the guy on the cross beside Jesus. There is a likelihood that he did not know all of the seven facts about Jesus, but he got to go to paradise. However, given that he knew Christ, he would have agreed with all 7 propositions had they been presented with them. Disagreeing with those propositions is not recognizing the true Christ and turning one’s back on Christ. Failure to accede to the truth of those propositions would be equivalent to failing to hear and recognize the voice of Christ (My sheep know my voice . . . ).
regards,
#John
“Even with a more modern example: a 21st century American church-goer is baptized, attends church and respects priests, believes Jesus is a good man and engages in forms of self-worship including pornography, family abuse, and cutthroat ambition in the workplace.”
Okay, some of the top theologians have happily signed the statement against the TNIV (not Dr. Wallace or anyone from DTS that I know of). But frankly, when the editor general of one bible translation publishes a statement against the Bible translation of his close colleagues, that it is not trustworthy, and cannot defend his statement when interviewed, what do you call it?
One Christian separates from the same sex blessing, but I separated from those who slander. Given my experience in the church, I wonder if there would be even one man left standing, so to speak.
Greg (#445),
I know you addressed your post to Dan, but as a student I’d like to respond on two of your notes (I’ll leave the first alone, though I suspect 80% is too high a number as well). I first off want to say your new book looks interesting and I may have to check it out. It’s right up my alley interest wise.
On point #2, you admit the bias against DTS in the academy and say it’s a legit bias because you “know” DTS students have not engaged the full range of scholarly opinion regarding modern-day hermeneutical methods, but maybe only yesteryear’s historical-critical ones. You then essentially make the claim that inerrancy makes this task (engaging current scholarly opinion) impossible.
As a student at DTS, I have to respectfully disagree. We may not have classes entitled “Intro. to Feminist hermeneutics” or “Intro to postcolonial criticism,” but that hardly means both students and professors are unaware of these things and don’t engage them in classes and papers. On the contrary, I can think of papers off the top of my head I’ve written that have dealt with feminist criticism (positively) and rhetorical criticism (positively). I have read books on both and am extremely interested in all of these modern strategies and believe they provide a lens to view Scripture from that allows us as students to see things we never would have seen before. I have no reason to believe I am less knowledgeable in these things as a student at any other institution. These methods are of extreme value and one of my primary interests. So the word “know” that you use is a little strong here because it’s simply not true.
I have even recently spoken with a professor who is teaching a NT intro. course in the spring time where he plans to introduce all the student to “all of the above” of these approaches (queer theory, feminist criticism, post-colonial criticism, social-scientific criticism, canonical criticism, literary criticism, hermeneutics of suspicion, etc.) This is a required course for the students as well.
Also, how could inerrancy, which is a doctrine the students have to adhere to but are not given the definition of, negate a student or professor interacting with all of these methods? How could inerrancy make engaging current scholarly opinion impossible? You can be a flaming fundamentalist and believe the USA is the new Israel and still engage scholarly opinion. I’m trying to see some validity in your claims and respect where you’re coming from, but I’m just not following you at any of these points. My personal experience is a testimony to its inaccuracy.
About the DTS bias not being monolithic, I would certainly agree here. One of my OT professors formerly taught where you are at. The point I have said all along is that a student’s ability and ideology should not be equated with the institution. Students don’t have to agree with everything they stand for and often come to radically different conclusions…
>>> Heidi, I fully agree with you that a Christian is also defined by his or her actions. But if you make that the only criterion…
I don’t. What makes someone a Christian is who they are becoming, the path that they construct/follow, the relationship they have with God, and a million other things that have little to do with assenting to a particular interpretive creed. Defining a Christian in terms of membership is milk – the communion of spirit is the meat. Ethical actions help everyone develop and thrive, and are in harmony with the kingdom as it is described. Judgment is for God to do, and is always in love and kindness and perfect justice.
>>>Heidi, if being a Christian was determined by living by Christ’s example (being a good and kind and loving person) then we would have to ask: How much is enough? How do I know when I have gained acceptance…forgiveness…eternal life?
You don’t, because you can never to enough to deserve such acceptance and forgiveness. You do it not to earn points, but to participate in that kingdom to which Jesus and others tried to open our hearts and minds and spirits.
>>How does it come to pass that one becomes indwelt?
Always already indwelling, as a gift and offering – but it is the human that has to accept forgiveness, open their eyes, and live in love. Repentance is understanding that with your heart, not just your mind, and turning away from sin because of the greater value of love. That’s why faith and works are so intertwined.
>>To that I would say, it isn’t a matter of faith toward the spirit of love…but rather faith in Jesus Christ, Emanuel, God with us…Himself!
Do you see that as a binary? I don’t. The Spirit of Love = God, and to Christians, also Jesus. To some of the early ones, the spirit was considered indwelling – and maybe even in us too, if we opened our hearts. That’s a kingdom of the highest order.
Baptism? Well, there is baptism of water, and baptism of spirit – sometimes they coincide.
I’m not saying that there aren’t beliefs, but this is more descriptive than proscriptive. The early Christians embraced and recognized a wide range of gifts.
On the points Dan mention:
1. All believe that Jesus was born of a virgin;
2. All believe that Jesus was, in fact, the theanthropic person;
3. All believe that he lived a sinless life, healed people, cast out demons, and raised people from the dead.
4. All believe he really died on a Roman cross outside the city walls of Jerusalem.
6. All believe that he was bodily raised from the dead.
7. All believe that his death somehow but very profoundly relates to us as an atonement in some sense.
See: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrcarddoc.htm
Or substitute the names of Krishna or Horus and see how many of those items still hold. Or do some research on something like miraculous birth stories in the surrounding regions and cultures of the time.
Sue —
Depends where. For many countries it still doesn’t. For example your average European country is still kind of in a grey area. I’ll pick Denmark as a representative example.
The Danish National Church is a state church. The Bishops have secular responsibilities for which they receive a government salary and the church uniquely performs secular duties for which it receives fees. The church receives money for every Dane, about $100 / head, but only members in the church have this cost passed on to them (about 82% of the population).
The Danish National Church must recognize any baptized person who applies for membership (not sure about excommunicated) from another denomination, and anyone baptized in this church is automatically a member. You can stop being a member only by joining another officially recognized religious community. Prior to 1970 there were only 8 of these representing long standing faiths: catholics, jews…. Today there are over 100 but the government still retains the right to recognize or not recognize. It is still a matter of public policy and citizens feel it is their right to reject other religions they don’t see as being legitimately part of Denmark.
Until 1869 it was illegal to not be a member of one of the 8.
etc….
Hi Kit —
I understand they are likely to disagree. I think American evangelicals because there is no history of a state church don’t realize how far from the historical norm they are. If you are saying I’m wrong, I’d like some evidence for that. Just to pick an example from that time period, the Albigensian Crusade. A person who had been baptized, even as an infant, was tried by a church court on charges of heresy for being an Cathar and the church retained jurisdiction. If they renounced their baptism during their church trial claiming to be a Cathar, they would be handed over to the state immediately for burning; the church had no authority. If they had never been baptized the church made no claim to having authority, “they could burned, but not tried”. The policy couldn’t be more clear. If you had been baptized ever you were under the rightful authority of the church regardless of your own beliefs unless you renounced your baptism.
I agree that’s the opinion of most Evangelicals. My disagreement with Dan was that this position was historical. If you are asserting the historical position is “wrong” and the evangelical position is “right” we aren’t disagreeing. I don’t have an opinion on that issue. My opinion is limited solely to what was the belief until recently.
Prejudice what can I say about this?
While many have been accused DTS as too conservative school, I had an experience to hear opposite accusation against DTS not because it is conservative, but because it is liberal. It is all subjective matter.
I went to very fundamental independent Baptist college (Pensacola Christian College), and when I requested a transcript to send it out to DTS for application process, the dean of bible called me up and strongly discouraged me to go to DTS. He said,
“DTS teaches textual criticism, so don’t even think about it; KJV is only bible. Going DTS will weaken your faith.”
After all that, I almost got kicked out of school because they do not allow any Calvinistic approach to the Bible. In fact, one of bible teachers at PCC was Ph.D from DTS Jerry Hullinger was asked to leave the school because many students have turned in application to DTS. Since Dr. Hullinger too outstanding compare to any other bible staff, the students were wondering where he got his degree which was DTS, and they also wanted to pursue the study at DTS because of his such an outstanding teaching. Because of this reason, simply his teaching of the Word too good, he was let go of his job, and I almost did not get to finish my undergrad. degree as well.
Prejudice, what is this all about that messes up people’s life?
On one side, as Dan Wallace says, many turn down DTS students because their prejudice of thinking DTS students as who don’t know anything since they are from conservative evangelical school; on the other side, as soon as I turned in my application to DTS, I almost got kicked out of undergrad school because they think that DTS as too liberal school.
Since many students were trying to go to DTS to seek the truth, vice president of the school gathered ministerial students and said, “DTS is where evil reigns.” I had a different business that I did not get to hear the comment in person, but a number of my friends came up to me and told me what the vice president said since I was the one who was superb excited to go to DTS.
Prejudice, what is this that so hurts?
I lost a whole lot in my last semester because of all this prejudice.
Oh, well… what can I say?
Prejudice, can we leave that aside and love one another as Jesus loved? Maybe, God calls us to suffer as Jesus Himself suffered by religious leader’s prejudice against Him.
Greg (#445),
I’m sorry, I’m getting “Lancasters” mixed up. I don’t have a prof. that taught where you are at. In any case, I appreciate your perspective on this situation.
A couple of quick comments for you all. First, I need to temper what I said earlier—or at least clarify it. I did not mean that all liberal scholars or non-confessional institutes are closed-minded to evangelicals. I have seen some great strides in openness on many fronts. I’ve already mentioned the UK schools; they are a great model on this score. But some US schools are showing signs of openness. Princeton Seminary, for one. I’m eager to see what things will look like for evangelicals applying there in the coming years. University of Michigan may be there, too. DTS has had a student at Vanderbilt (one of my interns), but that was a long time ago. Catholic University of America (not a non-confessional school of course, but a first-rate school) accepted two DTS students into their NT PhD program a few years ago (both interns of mine)—and they accept only two in each program each year—and these guys excelled in the program.
I am hoping that the exchange of thoughts here will continue to be civil, and that we can learn from each other. I have learned a great deal from the comments, and am very pleased to get to ‘know’ some of you. Maybe we can connect at the next SBL and go out for a drink.
In the end, if we are all seeking the same thing (roughly), viz., what the Bible meant and what it means today, then we should be able to cooperate in this great endeavor. Evangelicals will still define a Christian in the way I have because that represents the early period of the church in terms of the creeds, and began to emerge in the first century already. If you ask us to change our definition of Christian, you are asking us to abandon what to us is our ultimate authority, the Bible—as seen through the high points of church history, filtered through tradition, but not without critical assessment.
Heidi, the supernatural birth narratives you mentioned are another issue, but a very important issue. You know that those parallels have hardly gone unchallenged for their appropriateness. The dates, terminology, view of history, availability to the masses, all render them suspect as genuine parallels to Jesus and his birth. Machen’s The Virgin Birth, though quite old, dealt with a lot of these questions, and still has a place at the table. Metzger and Yamauchi as well as a host of others have also dealt with the religionsgeschichtliche Schüle. I’m just surprised that it keeps cropping up, when I thought the battles were over. But I’m open to the evidence: if you’ve got some works you’d recommend for me to look at, I’ll be happy to give them a read.
At bottom, I still stand with what I believe all of the apostolic band stood for: Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was bodily raised from the dead. Without that core historical datum, the Christian faith is ruined—as Paul himself said. So to have a Christianity that looks more like designer spirituality may be popular and politically correct today, but it does not look like the early…
kerygma that the apostles preached.
Dan,
Wow! I’m amazed at the dialogue that has taken place over this post and the many directions the conversation has taken. I wanted to make just a few comments, though I do so reluctantly coming in at the tail-end of the discussion.
As you know, I am a DTS (ThM) grad who is now pursuing a ‘non-US’ PhD at Durham University in the UK (let the reader understand). In addition, since my supervisor recently moved to the US I am now in Princeton, NJ as a visiting student writing my doctoral thesis at Princeton Seminary. I think this allows me to comment on a few observations I have made.
I have found my interaction with scholars at Princeton Seminary to be not very different than the scholars I know from DTS; that is, they seem to be very confessional, committed Christians. In fact, I am VERY surprised by the tone here considering all I’ve heard in the past. I don’t think it’s fair to colour Princeton as a ‘liberal’ institution, though they might not mind the label. In fact, I find it to ve VERY conservative, but that may be more reflective on where I am at this stage of my journey. In addition, I know of two DTS students who are currently in the PhD program at Princeton so they must not be overly biased against DTS students.
I’m not suggesting that there is no bias at all since I hear comments occasionally about my being a DTS grad, most of those a reference to dispensationalism. What I’m wondering, however, is whether some of the bias that occurs with regard to ThM students at DTS is simply from their not being prepared to enter into a PhD program. When I say that, I don’t mean the education they get is less than adequate or inferior to other programs. On the contrary, I would be foolish to suggest as much and I don’t think this is the case. I am very satisfied with the education I received at DTS. What I’m referring to is the fact that students are simply not educated on “how” to pursue further studies. If a student takes the initiative on his or her own, he or she can figure it out but there is no collected effort on the part of the school to offer this information. Princeton, however, is quite different. It seems there is more of an effort to encourage further studies and to provide the information one needs to know about how to apply. Maybe it’s just me and I missed it!
I would put the education I received at DTS up against any graduate program of that level and am proud to say, when you leave DTS, if you don’t know biblical languages, you simply did not want to! However, I feel I was completely unprepared for knowing “how” to apply to a PhD program or what all was involved. I obviously found that information through a rigorous process of tracking down profs and asking questions. I wonder, however, whether there should be a more pro-active approach.
Dan,
Do you think DTS has done, or is doing, enough to correct its identity crisis? I ask this because it seems that people not familiar with the seminary are ignorant to the kind of education the school provides. Personally, I think much of the identity problem it is currently experiencing comes from its own inability to properly market itself in a way that corrects these mis-perceptions. For example, you mentioned the work of Bock and Blaising in taking the school forward with the changes in ‘progressive dispensationalism.’ At the same time, the school continues to have a department (BE) that vigorously defends the ‘normative’ dispensationalism of Ryrie and Walvoord. How can this be helpful to the schools reputation?
There may be some degree of bias going on, though I’m seeing more DTS people in PhD programs (Durham, Princeton) in spite of this identity crisis. And I do think it’s a crisis. I think the school as a whole must take steps to correct some of the wrong ideas that are circulating. To what degree is the publication and promotion of old line dispensationalism by current professors at DTS hurting the image of the seminary? Can the school do more to establish and develop a more positive identity within academia or is this not a concern? If they can, should they not begin to do so? If it is not a concern, then why are we surprised when the academy rejects our credibility?
Mark
Moving right along, though, it would seem that the primary problem is to change the academic world’s unfair view of DTS and other schools. If the school knows that its _image_ is so bad that its students can’t get into other programs, it has an _obligation_ to help its students by changing that image. (Without compromising its own scholarly and Christian ideals, of course.)
These PR moves could be made officially by the school, or unofficially by a determined group of the professors.
1. Sponsor events at scholarly conferences which include freebies.
2. Publicize the results of impressive outsider reviews of their programs.
3. Invite scholars to visit.
4. Found an academic journal in Dallas of some sort, not connected directly with the school, get lots of interesting papers in it, and have some of the papers by DTS professors.
5. Anything else you can think of.
In short, do a little PR about how academically rigorous the school is, while offering horrifying good brownies (or whatever scholars like) in order to make scholars have warm fuzzy well-fed feelings toward the school.
If DTS people are already doing this, of course, I guess it hasn’t taken effect fully, yet.
Hi Dan M,
I think part of the tension you express is that DTS is not decidedly academic or decidedly ministerial. The goal, as you know, is to equip students for the work of ministry with what the catalog cites “a rich blend of academics, spiritual formation, ministry preparation, fellowship and worship”. One of the things that I think draws such a diverse student body is that it offers something for the academic and something for the church practitioner and everything in between. That’s neither good nor bad, just how it is.
Given the mission of DTS, I do think that for the student who wishes to pursue mainstream academic work, the onus probably weighs a little heavier on the student’s initiative to ensure adequate preparation with the wealth of resources available at DTS. That is not to say that the ThM program itself is not rich; it is especially in the languages. So I do concur, for that student so oriented, I think DTS can provide adequate preparation, particularly with faculty advisement and internships.
I meant Mark M. (#459-460)
Mark, Maureen, Lisa—
These are all great insights and suggestions! I didn’t know that DTS now has two grads in Princeton’s PhD program. Can you tell me who, Mark? (I can guess, but I may be wrong.)
Among the mainline first-tier schools, I’ve always found Princeton to be a warm place, a near-perfect environment for serious academic study, and a great college town to boot!
One of the reasons you may not have gotten the tools needed for getting into a PhD program, Mark, was your internship. I don’t recall who you interned with, but there are some of us faculty who are focused on getting the interns ready for a PhD. We spend time talking about which schools to apply to, how to apply, how to make oneself look the best, what kind of courses to take in the master’s program, etc. The whole focus is on the PhD programs, in other words. I even give the interns a mock oral exam, similar to the one we give our PhD applicants.
Maureen, your suggestions are terrific. My frustration is this: several of our faculty are well known in broad academic circles, yet our students still get ‘the look’ from profs at other schools. We publish in the standard journals, speak at the standard conferences, write academic works in the standard series. There will always be some faculty who are not interested in such things and are simply trying to prepare the students for ministry. What I am objecting to is that in spite of some pretty strong efforts to show that DTS is not what it used to be, there is still this perception that lingers. But I think we haven’t done everything we can; and I plan to take up some of your suggestions in the future.
Dan,
I agree the internship may have been the issue but as you know, you are one of a VERY few who prepare students in this way. I remember you asked me to apply to intern with you but I had already made arrangements otherwise (thinking that you would never ask me to be an intern!!). Anyway, I’ll give you that one. But even as my intern supervisor stated, if someone wants to go on the PhD studies here (DTS), they have to rigorously pursue it, otherwise, they’ll get nothing. BTW, you actually were one who did give me some advice on that issue when it came time to apply, and for that I thank you.
I am curious though as to your thoughts on my remark about DTS’s ‘identity crisis.’ Maureen noted that the school is not decidedly academic nor ministerial. I would respectfully disagree. I think the ThM program is academically rigorous while maintaining a focus on ministry. This is one aspect with which I have always been quite impressed. You stated, ‘in spite of some pretty strong efforts to show that DTS is not what it used to be, there is still this perception that lingers.’ What strong efforts are you referring to? Are you commenting on the individual efforts of the profs like yourself, with which I would agree. Or do you feel the school itself is doing something to correct this? I wonder, especially with other schools reducing the hours of their MDiv programs (72 hours) what can DTS do to finally get rid of the BE classes? These courses are a running joke amongst the students. Moreover, DTS is continually pumping out MA students who take virtually no classes in the NT or OT departments and end up leaving with a graduate degree from DTS having only been exposed to the BE courses. You know how damaging this can be to any academic institution. I know this is a difficult topic to ask you to comment on here and if you cannot, please say so and I’ll drop it. However, I think these are some of the reasons DTS suffers the identity crisis it does. I spend a considerable amount of time trying to convince people that the ThM program is rigorous, because I know it is. And as I said, I would put it up against any program.
What I am speaking of is how students who want to go on to other programs have to suffer from the ‘DTS’ stigma, something the school could correct if it recognized the problem. Obviously the school has come a long way and I think men like yourself and other great profs (especially NT dept) are doing what it takes to uphold a credible reputation. As you said, you guys are publishing well and speaking at the right conferences. But the leadership of the school should take steps to correct this perception. This calls for good marketing. I’ll wrap up saying, I love DTS and am proud to be a graduate. I just wish the leadership would recognize their identity problem and take steps to correct it.
Mark
[…] not so bad.” Jump to Comments On my last post, I responded to Dan Wallace’s provocative entry on the Parchment and Pen blog. I admitted that I do indeed have this impression of Dallas Seminary […]
Post 156 has a key point: that in one group of institutions, students’ degrees depend on how well they conform to the school’s philosophy, while in another group degree completion depends on how well they defend their own views, which may be very different from those of the school.
Posts 203, 273 and some others speak of the goal of the scholar as doing a good analysis, and that the analyses can be equally good regardless of what the student considers to be true or coherent. I agree with the second part, but not entirely with the first.
The analyses can be equally good, just as we can talk about the human Jesus of Nazareth correctly, regardless of how we view his divinity. Jesus was/is both God and man, and our thoughts of him can be as of a human, as of God, or as of both. Equally the Bible can be considered in its human facets, its divine facets, or both. (One of my favorite books on this and on the subject of inerrancy is by Clark Pinnock and Barry Cullen called The Scripture Principle, Pinnock himself being an evangelical whose liberal views have put him in danger of being kicked out of the camp.)
To speak of an education as “secular” means that we are only considering the “this-world” aspects of learning. It does not mean that we are saying that this world is all there is. That’s how I look at it, anyway, but people in these posts are defining “secular” in these two different ways, and it gets confusing.
Just as there are these many Bible scholars from all different belief backgrounds (a fascinating report to consider), there can be people from a common belief background willing to study the Bible from all different scholarly points of view. (That may not be a proper analogy …)
One question here is about what the goal of the student is. If the student believes the Bible to be the Word of God, do they have a calling to study the Word of God, or are the studies a distraction from the calling of applying the Word of God? The academic world can be a cop-out from the difficult road of ministry. On the other hand, God may call some to a ministry within academia. If a student wants to attend a secular institution to be a better minister of the Gospel outside of the academic world, this is probably misguided or dishonest.
When we speak of the goal of the scholar as doing a good analysis, definitely when analyzing the scholar should do a good job of it. In Bloom’s taxonomy, however, there are two levels higher than anaylsis: synthesis and evaluation. One of the problems with secular education is that it does not always aim to deal with the whole person and take students to these two higher levels. (Neither does Christian education always succeed.) The student’s ability to evaluate is a much harder cognitive level for the professors to evaluate, but it must be included in the highest level of education for it to really be the highest level of education.
clarification: If a student wants to attend a secular institution as a Bible student to be a better minister of the Gospel outside of the academic world, this is probably misguided or dishonest.
There is a lot of irony in considering that some of the best Bible critics who may end up discrediting traditional evangelical beliefs are actually the ones from evangelical institutions (masters) that anti-Christian institutions (doctoral) are turning down.
Mark, actually that was me who said that, not Maureen. And I meant that regarding all programs in toto, not just the ThM. So that is very consistent with what you said regarding the non-ThM programs. I am only in my 3rd semester of the ThM and can certainly attest to its rigor, especially looking out at the long road towards completion. Even though I balk at some of the requirements (like the course in Biblical Counseling), I appreciate the breadth of the program for ministry preparation.
[…] confessional statement that prevents students from going beyond a particular line of orthodoxy (see here). Some like Doug Magnum (here), James McGrath (here [which for some unknown reason mentions my blog […]
Dan –
For the following, I owe thanks to a dear friend, who got me up-to-date on these issues. Probably the top biblical scholar for this is Raymond E. Brown. Mattew & Luke describe a virginal conception; the virgin birth comes into the picture only later, in apocryphal birth stories. The claims of the virgin birth and the resurrection being historical facts – well, that’s a matter of Glaube, not Geschichte. Certainty is not historical evidence, and exegesis is not quite scholarship.
The idea that all the “apostles” (a debated word in itself) agreed on everything is anachronistic. Walter Bauer’s *Orthodoxy & Heresy* dispensed with the erroneous view that there was a core set of beliefs, unchanging – and other versions were heresies – decades ago. It’s not even supportable from reading the gospels & Paul, which clearly show there were varying beliefs about Jesus from the moment he started a public ministry. The author of Mark understands Jesus as being God’s son by adoption, an act that occurred at his baptism – there’s no hint of supernatural birth there. Not even in ethereal John, who presents Jesus as a pre-existent divine being, is there any idea of a virginal conception.
Believe what you wish, but perhaps you have a false dichotomy set up here. Either core events as history or “politically correct/designer spirituality”? How insulting to everyone’s faith and intelligence! The point of looking at the parallels isn’t to denigrate Christianity. Claims are made for key figures or founders of religions all over the place. Such claims function as praise, as ways of saying “this person was special from his birth.” They are made after the fact, added into the religion later – and function as faith statements, not historical records. This happens quite often in the early development of religions, but if you don’t know that you can mistake the phenomenon as unique to one religion – then of course any admission of the existence of parallels “ruins” the belief system. But scholars can compare the parallels to see how and why Jesus was emphasized in ways the community would have grasped instantly (and we may not).
Heidi, thanks for your response. I didn’t mean to insult your intelligence; please forgive me if I did that!
You’re making a distinction between virgin birth and virginal conception that, it seems to me, is related to the perpetual virginity of Mary, something articulated in later works—is that correct? I don’t hold to Mary’s perpetual virginity. It is true that Luke and Matthew are the only canonical Gospels to explicitly speak of the virginal conception of Jesus, though I think that John hints at it strongly enough.
You mention that Walter Bauer’s classic work “*Orthodoxy & Heresy* dispensed with the erroneous view that there was a core set of beliefs… It’s not even supportable from reading the gospels & Paul…” Although it would take up more space in this comment to interact with Bauer, the readers of Parchment & Pen need to be aware that Bauer’s word was not the last on the matter. Conservative scholars have responded strongly and well. And the new book by Andreas Köstenberger addresses the reincarnation of Walter Bauer in Bart Ehrman, painstakingly working through the Bauer-Ehrman hypothesis (not fact, as you seem to imply), and countering it point for point. Your comment that the Gospels and Paul are fundamentally in disagreement about core issues has also been dealt with by numerous authors. That they disagreed over non-core issues is hardly in dispute. But the core issues, especially the bodily resurrection of Christ? Doubtful in the extreme. And Galatians 2.1–10, a passage typically overlooked, shows clearly that Paul did not see his kerygma as in conflict with that of the Jerusalem apostles.
You also said: “The point of looking at the parallels isn’t to denigrate Christianity.” In one sense, you are quite right—in the sense of ‘looking.’ But to say that such parallels are really parallels is, in my view, both poor scholarship (for reasons that I outlined in Reinventing Jesus) and it does, in fact denigrate Christianity. The reason is that, as even you implied, in this approach Jesus was in league with other great people, but was not unique. As Darrell Bock and I argued in Dethroning Jesus, this view is Jesusanity, but not Christianity. You may think that it is not denigrating to Christ, but I would disagree.
You claimed that exegesis is not quite scholarship. I would say that that is insulting to the intelligence of a myriad of scholars—conservative, moderate, and liberal! You suggested that Mark believes that Jesus was adopted as God’s Son at his baptism. Heidi, there are many logical fallacies in the inferences you draw from Mark 1 to make this statement. Here, I think, better exegesis would have made you more prudent in your assessment.
At bottom, however, it is this kind of discussion that I wish were taking place in university PhD programs in biblical studies. There is a party line—which you represent well—but it is Glaube, not Geschichte.
Heidi N.
“Believe what you wish, but perhaps you have a false dichotomy set up here. Either core events as history or “politically correct/designer spirituality”? How insulting to everyone’s faith and intelligence!”
I’m not sure how what you wrote after this proves that Dan set up a false dichotomy. If you could show why Dan’s comment was a false dichotomy it would be helpfu. It seems to me that there are historic faiths (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.) that have a set of Core beliefs which are held by all followers of that faith (for instance all Muslims believe Mohammad was Allah’s prophet – to not believe this would be to deny one of the pillars of the faith making one not a Muslim). Now one can choose to deny any of these Core beliefs based on whatever criteria they wish whether they be personal preference, or objective evidence, however to do so creates a designer faith just as Dan said.
As to insulting another’s faith this is the exact political correctness thing Dan is talking about. I’m a Christian which means almost by definition (I’m trying to think of a way one could accept the central tenants of Christianity and accept Mohammad as God’s prophet and can’t) I don’t accept that Mohammad was God’s prophet. To say this to a person of Muslim faith is insulting yet it is what I believe.
I was interested in the Andreas Köstenberger book Dan mentioned above, it isn’t released yet here is the Heresy of Orthodoxy. I own most of the conservative critiques of the new school, and so far they are uniformly terrible. Hopefully Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger do a better job though 224 pages doesn’t leave me hopeful. In the 75 years since Bauer there has been a lot of good work by people like Pearson, John Turner, Karen King…. to put meat on his theory. I would think just dealing with Alexandrian Judaism at this point is 1000 pages but I’ll try to prejudge.
“Political correctness” is, let’s remember, a derogatory term invented by the right-wing to denigrate the discourse of freedom and liberation. It worked. When that liberatory discourse turned authoritarian – and in a particularly trivial, silly way at times, I lost interest in it and have been dismayed to see such important goals and work get taken over by overly-sensitive bureaucrats and medicocre careerists (with no sense of humor) who had lost track of the movement’s very reasons for being. So I’m not sure what “party line” you think I’m expressing.
Core beliefs are perfectly fine, and I think we agree that some of these are discussions that should be taking place – and do take place more in some places than others. I’m not a bible scholar, so I don’t want to get too far into the weeds here. I haven’t read Bart Ehrman, and I consulted with a friend who wrote an entire dissertation on the miraculous birth narratives in communities in the area before Jesus. My degrees are in English and Comparative Literature, Philosophical Theology and Ethics, and Culture History and Theory. I don’t happen to believe that Jesus was unique and I honestly don’t see why it matters if he wasn’t. It doesn’t take one iota away from the spirit that was speaking through him, and there are many ways of reading biblical texts alongside some other sacred writings. And even if your interpretation of atonement dictates that he has to be unique to be the Christ, it doesn’t mean that every bit of it is historical. Whether it is or not may be of only tangential interest to interpreting a text; the text can be deeply meaningful without being completely historically accurate. What you can do as a scholar is to construct strong arguments for the interpretation of the text, as you know.
Whether you believe the text – or your interpretation of it – is authoritative for Truth (with a capital T) is the question of belief not history. It is not less or more than history, but a different issue. Why should the separation of these two realms be so threatening? You can look at Shakespeare’s plays and study questions of authorship, history, language, politics, and so on without being threatened. Why should faith be so shaken – or even at issue – by differing interpretations of biblical texts?
I grew up as a Jehovah’s Witness. I believed with every bit of my soul that the end would come before I got my driver’s license. I was discouraged from going to college, because it was worldly and also because I was female. I thought God would cast me out forever if I got a blood transfusion, and that only 144,000 would go to heaven (the other “believers” would live on paradise earth after all the bones were picked up from everyone else). People believe lots of things. Heaven’s Gate and Waco communities had beliefs, and they had bible readings to support their beliefs. Belief can’t drive interpretation, and inquiry must be just as free as possible. By what methods do you inquire, beyond language translation? It seems to me that some texts signify a reality in the lives of participants in many different ways, including the insight that it might only be possible to speak of the holy and the sacred in ways that transcend language, or make us realize that language can only point to it, not possess it. Oh, they referred to their interpretation of doctrine as “the Truth” and it was synonymous with the group itself.
Michael, you mention Islam. To say that people who do nor follow Muhammad’s teachings must refrain from making a cartoon of him is not a request for respect, but an outright demand for submission. I don’t believe you should accept the idea that saying you don’t follow the way of Islam is insulting to its followers – nor should it be to Christians. Whether you happen to be a fanatic, orthodox, reformed, liberal, heterodox… there are more similarities across these categories and across religions then within a religion. This seems all the more so for the people of the book. The events of 9/11 smacked of religion, right down to an invocation of the Tower(s) of Babel. Religion without freedom brings us right back to the Dark Ages. I’m for free inquiry in this and every other field of scholarship and learning. To say that this is not allowed or that this is insulting to others is more than ridiculous in this time in our history – it’s dangerous.
Heidi,
I don’t think any of us are here are saying that there shouldn’t be free inquiry. Everyone is free to examine the evidence and make their own decision regarding what they believe. I think the problem is when people come to beliefs which fall outside the core beliefs of Christianity and still want to be called “Christian”. They are then are not happy with conservatives who refuse to do so. Simply liking the ethical teachings of Jesus is not enough to be called Christian and most Christians throughout history would agree with this. To call those who are outside the scope of the historical Core beliefs of Christianity “Christian” deprives the word of any meaning.
Furthermore, on a more pastoral level, many of us are fearful of giving false assurances to those we believe may be outside the scope of saving grace. Now you may disagree with our assessment and what we believe is necessary for saving grace, but this cannot relieve these fears. I would rather be wrong about the nature of saving graces and the existence of hell then to give false assurances to people who may be headed there in the interest of not insulting people.
I would agree with you from a pastoral level, since that is at the point where belief knits the community. Still, wouldn’t most Christians tend to believe also that grace is for God to judge? Perhaps I’m wrong on that, and humans are granted this ability.
Well, I only follow Jesus on what a Christian is… I don’t give a flip about what others might have thought.
Heidi,
I think there is a difference between telling someone point blank your going to hell which is forbidden and saying that this is our understanding of what is required for salvation and we will not have Christian fellowship with or call Christian those who do not share these common beliefs (and btw when I say “beliefs” I am referring to those listed by Dan earlier as the sine qua non of Christianity).
“Well, I only follow Jesus on what a Christian is… I don’t give a flip about what others might have thought.”
How do you determine this? I mean if the Gospel accounts aren’t accurate (I’m sorry if I’m putting words in your mouth here – someone has indicated this and I thought it was you, but I don’t have time to read through 480+ posts at the moment) what evidence do we really have to go on? I would, and I think Dan would forcefully argue that there is no difference between what Jesus thought and the sine qua non beliefs of historical Christianity. Now I know many scholars would disagree with this while many others would agree, I happen to side with those who agree and thus when the rubber hits the road I have to act in a manner which is congruent with this belief.
CD-Host,
Thanks for the information on Andreas Köstenberger’s book. That looks quite interesting & I may have to check it out. Dan, have you been given access to this or something? It says it won’t be available until June of next year!
Nevermind, I just saw on Amazon that you had a blurb for the book. I am curious though where James Dunn would fit on this spectrum in his “Unity and Diversity.” Anybody with knowledge about this issue care to chime in? I believe his conclusion is that there wasn’t a “core set of beliefs,” but a “core belief.” I plan on reading the book in its entirety this summer. Perhaps Köstenberger’s book will be good to read alongside it.
I didn’t say that the Gospels were entirely inaccurate. There are many kinds and levels of truth. I said that doctrinal translations and interpretations of ultimate appeal to authority and claim to literal history were perhaps looking in only one direction when there may be several.
One ought always to act in accordance with one’s belief, and if you have a pastoral responsibility to use doctrines like one of the views of the afterlife to regulate acceptability within the community, well – that’s on you to do. But the original post said:
It seems to me that if much of the doctrinal – or say, some, or even any – is not accurate, then where is this method by which the evangelical has somehow become the new (methodological) liberal?
Is that the problem? I thought the problem was that Conservatives felt like they weren’t being taken seriously by academic institutions because they considered themselves the only Christians.
The “evidence” actually leads us to believe that Jesus and the early church thought of the Holy Spirit as feminine.
The Comforter by Bulgakov assumes the Spirit is a feminine principle, Moltmann also, and yet Donald Bloesch writes in defense of the masculine,
“Yves Congar cautions us not to abandon traditional terminology simply because ruach in Hebrew and Syriac happens to be feminine.” Page 62, The Holy Spirit.
I notice that the NET Bible translates “the Spirit himself” in Romans 8 without evidence that the Spirit is masculine.
While some may point out that the Advocate is masculine, others associate the Advocate with the female counselor of the Wisdom of Solomon.
I notice that there is no footnote for “the Spirit himself,” all the more remarkable since the Spirit was not refered to in any English Bible by a masculine pronoun until 1881.
I personally would not promote the notion that the Spirit was either feminine or masculine, but it is rather difficult to claim that exegetes in the west ” go where the evidence leads.”
I would like to add a note about Kostenberger. First, he was originally one of the most rigid exegetes on the role of women, positing the patriocentric family, with the wife presenting children to the patriarch.
However, he has revised his exegesis to accord with the facts on a couple of issues. One in particular is noteworthy. He has publicly admitted that there is no lexical evidence that authentein had a positive connotation in NT times. Curiously very few people have cited him on this, and the ESV study Bible and Don Carson on CBMW continue to claim that authentein did have a positive connotation.
I just want to say that Kostenberger, although likely unmoved on the limitations he sets on women, does consider evidence and rework his exegesis every once in a while to reflect this.
Sue,
Huh??? Not sure where you’re going or how the femininity or masculinity of the holy spirit has anything whatsoever to do with this.
It has to do with following the evidence. It is an example. I was very surprised when I realized that the translation of the Bible uses “himself” for purely traditional western reasons, and no scriptural or textual reasons.
I come from a fundamentalist background and I really believed all that I was taught. When I realized that there is no textual basis for referring to the Spirit as “he” I was taken aback. I know that on the role of women, I had expected a bit of a mess. But somehow I still thought of matters relating to God as sacred. Then I realized that not much is sacred.
This was one of those moments for me where it remains vivid in my mind. I have to say that the virgin birth and resurrection are in the scriptures, so I don’t feel that anyone deliberately invented this as a truth. It is part of the traditional understanding of the text.
But with the gender of the Spirit, I suddenly realized that this is something that has been known to readers of Greek forever, it is not masculine at all. I felt that I had been taken in. I think this is where some ex evangelicals are coming from.
Something like this can afford a moment of clarity that everything one has always believed might not be true.
Perhaps what is happening is that when students become really competent in Greek, they start to see things that they had not seen before.
Sue,
I’m glad you’ve examined the evidence and come to this conclusion. However, it would appear that there are those who disagree with you. What about them? Do they just not examine the evidence impartially like you?? Are they intentionally ignoring the evidence?? Or is there simply a disagreement between you and them about the weight of the various evidences??
BTW this is an honest question. I’m a lawyer not a Bible scholar. My personal understanding as an Evangelical has always been that God is neither male nor female, but spirit, though it? has often revealed itself? in masculine terms. The only member of the Trinity to have a actual gender was Jesus.
Luke —
I haven’t read Dunn but from what I’ve heard I’d put him within the New School (Bauer school). The core idea of the new school is that there was no apostolic faith but rather a diverse collection of faiths that jelled together to form Christianity. The difference between heresy and orthodoxy in ancient Christianity is who eventually won the political battle, not who was remaining faithful to the “original teachings”. Dunn seems to be arguing that 1st century biblical Christianity was little more than a collection of faiths that paid homage to an earthy and/or a divine Jesus. This seems consistent with New School views.
Michael T,
I think you ask some honest questions. First, there is relatively little to work with if one wants to argue from the text that the Spirit is revealed in masculine terms. But rather more argues for the feminine.
I don’t actually know of any serious scholars who argue for the masculine. I have read Dr. Wallace on this, and he does not, AFAIK, argue that there is linguistic evidence for calling the Spirit “he.”
I know the term Advocate sounds masculine, and is grammatically masculine in Greek, but it appears to refer back to the counselor in the Wisdom of Solomon who is the beloved spouse, or bride, that is Sophia. But the early church thought of her as the mother.
Quite simply, we don’t believe that Jesus was speaking Greek, so we are more or less compelled to believe that for Jesus, the Spirit was a feminine term, and had metaphorically feminine values. That does not mean that the Spirit was gendered, but that linguistically, the terms were feminine.
I don’t think we can understand Bulgakov and Eastern theology of the Spirit unless we realize that they do NOT see any masculine terms for the Spirit in Greek.
But to continue, no I don’t think that there is one definitive right answer for most interpretational issues. But some interpretations can be based on the text more easily than others.
I don’t think of myself as impartial, but I have traveled a long road and read things in many different ways. I also cut myself off from reading in English for a couple of years, only reading in French, just to get the experience of how different knowledge is in a different – although still western – lg.
I think what bothers me the most is that the thought of a feminine term being used for the Spirit by Jesus is a totally foreign thought to me – it sounds so different from what I had been taught. But now I can’t deny that the first time “him” or “himself” was used for the Spirit in an English Bible was 1881.
I mean, I would have thought that it had always been so, but the facts don’t support it.
But this is just an example. Even if I stick to the notion of an inerrant text, I can’t get the same theology from that text that many evangelicals do.
Perhaps the metaphorical gender of the Spirit is such a secondary issue that it doesn’t matter. I can accept that. But it is just that this surprise has made me more expectant that other things I have been taught about the Bible are also not as advertised.
Michael T —
What exactly do you mean in your statement to Heidi by the beliefs of historic Christianity about who was Christian? Those beliefs are mainly focused on baptism and have little to do with doctrine. “The faithful are born anew by the sacrament of baptism” (CCC 1212).
This is sort of where Dan and I blocked.
As long as we are having this rather civil discussion, I’d love to get to the bottom of this issue. How is that an educated Protestant make claim on history when they reject virtually every Christian doctrine that is based in history: Mariology, importance/authority of Bishops, centrality of the Eucharist…? Either history / tradition is binding or it isn’t. I can understand the Catholic view (though I think they are wrong on the facts), and the independent fundamentalist baptist view (though I think they underestimate how much tradition dictates their readings) but I can’t understand what you and Dan are claiming.
When I say I read for a while only French, I do mean I also read Greek and studied exegesis in a Swiss ecole biblique, after studying the classics and some Near Eastern Studies, Hellenstic Greek, Hebrew and so on.
The truth is that I don’t particularly find that the Spirit being feminine is all that useful to the feminst cause, so this is not wishful thinking, but simply an honest understanding of the metaphorical use of grammatical gender, – IMO, of course.
CD,
I think it is interesting that Bloesch claims to use tradition to continue to call the Spirit “he” while admitting that the facts are otherwise. So he is using tradition, but only a sliver of it. He is ignoring the rather strong tradition that the Spirit is the feminine principle in the dyadic incarnation of word and spirit. And, before I forget, the Spirit morphed into the Virgin Mary, the life-bearer in Anselm.
But overall, perhaps you have better examples of things that were clearly historic Christianity that the evangelicals of today are not so attached to.
Mainline and University Bias?…
A post by Dan Wallace, over at Parchment and Pen, has more than 400 comments and I’ve been asked to weigh in via this letter below. The gist is that Professor Wallace (at Dallas) has suggested there’s enough bias against……
Sue —
Absolutely. If you look at the proto-Christian literature like the Odes to Solomon you have the suffering messiah who fulfills the prophecies as being sophia (wisdom) incarnate not logos (word/law) incarnate. Wikipedia has a good article on this topic you can point people to Gender of the Holy Spirit.
Sticking with the more new school theme, this goes back much further. The whole Sun is the child of the Moon goddess(another example) imagery predates Christianity by millennia.
Sue —
I responded above, but I messed up a quote on the HTML and when I corrected it got kicked into moderation.
If you look at the proto-Christian literature like the Odes to Solomon you have the suffering messiah who fulfills the prophecies as being sophia (wisdom) incarnate not logos (word/law) incarnate. Wikipedia has a good article on this topic you can point people to Gender of the Holy Spirit.
The next paragraph had 3 hyperlinks
Sticking with the more new school theme, this goes back much further. The whole Sun is the child of the Moon goddess(another example) imagery predates Christianity by millennia.
I think most of what Dr. Wallace is saying becomes somewhat of a moot point when you consider the number of scholars from “evangelical” institutions teaching and publishing very creative and respected work. J. Cameron Carter, for example, is a DTS graduate who teaches at Duke Divinity School and earned his doctorate from The University of Virginia.
Of course, I wasn’t with Dr. Carter through his application process and thus I don’t know what sort of struggles he faced. However, I just don’t believe Dr. Wallace’s suggested widespread bias has any basis is fact or reality. Maybe I’m naive, but I do believe that most schools accept or reject people based on the quality of their work and their promise for scholarship. This was the case with the students I met from doctoral program at Duke (both in the religious studies department and in the Th.D. program) while I was a “visiting student” there.
A question I would ask Dr. Wallace (and any other professor at DTS) in light of his “openness” to other perspectives is whether (if he were given the choice) he would be willing to take on a liberal doctoral candidate or whether DTS would be willing to hire a liberal scholar on their faculty. I have my own guesses about what the responses would be but I’m willing to give Dr. Wallace the benefit of a doubt.
[…] deeply, and how far, these things reach. What brings these things to mind today? An article over at Parchment and Pen, closely aligned with Reclaiming the Mind ministries. Last week nearly 10,000 people invaded the […]