Frustrations from the Front: The Myth of Theological Liberalism

I worked within and for the AAR and SBL for a long time, editing Religious Studies News, and although I saw a fair bit of ego and pomp I didn’t ever deal with anyone that I would consider to be a capital j Jerk. There are plenty of quarrels, but I never saw censorship of the kind you mention. If anything, it went the other way – such that sometimes liberation theology and feminist theology was not seriously considered. In terms of Hebrew Bible and the Greek Scriptures, there was always a wide range of interpretative effort. I’m trying to think of the SBL as anything but conservative – maybe it’s radically different now…. but it’s really difficult to imagine.

Heidi, these anecdotes are not even the tip of the iceberg. The problem is systemic. I’ve seen grown men booed out of a room because they held to the wrong view on the Synoptic problem. I’ve seen panel discussions in which the lone evangelical was treated as though his views were antiquated and wrong, even though no evidence was given. In one of my own lectures at SBL, a person said, as I was walking to the front of the room, “What could this idiot say that could possibly convince us that his view is even plausible?” He was silent afterward: I had spent 900 hours, working in seven languages, on that essay, later published in Biblica. A woman in her 70s, working on her doctorate at a major university, came up to me after that lecture, with tears in her eyes, and said, “Why didn’t I ever hear this position at my school?” Regularly, several of my liberal friends ask for any articles that I get published in conservative journals (I do publish in conservative journals as well as non-confessional ones) because they don’t get those journals at their school. Really open-minded, isn’t it?

I agree with TAVW that we must do a better job acquainting students to the various viewpoints, and I am grieved to hear that in some departments critical issues are not dealt with adequately. But I also have received numerous emails sent to me privately since I posted this essay yesterday—all from my current and former students who have gotten only disrespect from various scholars with whom they desperately want to study. You mentioned that a school does color a person, whether they like it or not. That’s true, but here’s a new wrinkle on that: A student who is shut out of a mainline school’s doctoral program because he or she is evangelical may go to an evangelical school instead. But this doesn’t mean that that’s the school he or she would “choose” as his first option. Your statement that a person is judged by the school he or she chooses is a little too black and white for the reality out there.

Sue, can you tell me what the language requirements are for the equivalent degree at most other seminaries—i.e., the MDiv (which DTS does not have)? And how much Greek and Hebrew are required in those programs? I know of PhD programs in biblical studies that do not require ANY Greek or Hebrew! And I also know of several of my ThM students who will have gotten multiple years of Greek and Hebrew, not to mention German, French, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and/or Aramaic. Two years ago, DTS had the largest Coptic class offered in the world. It’s by no means required, but there were several students in the course. In the PhD program, a student must pass a German and French exam in order to continue in his or her coursework. Latin is not required, but for the dissertation, ALL materials must be examined in their original language. Some thus go on to work on Latin, while others learn other languages.

Sorry, Michael, missed you there.

Defining “Christian” is a pursuit that has a history of its own and has meant different things at different times and for different purposes for different people. First of all, it was a way to exclude others… but that didn’t happen for a long, long time, and it mostly had to do with political control.

At its simplest, to me being a Christian simply means to follow the Christ and his teachings, to realize the transcendent and connecting spirit of love within, and to express kindness and forgiveness and caring without. To walk in humility, but to stand up for compassionate ethics. We are all sons and daughters of God and we mustn’t treat anyone as subhuman.

Anything more is interpretation and commentary, and people will differ. Anything less is no longer Christian.

Jesus preached pretty much what other charismatic healers of his time preached, his story had the elements that were expected… What was important about him, to me, was the message expressed through the person.

That won’t satisfy the readers here, but I’ve been all over the spectrum on this from the Jehovah’s Witnesses of my youth, to comparative mythology, to observing what horrors religion can bring, to working through a path in which I am again guided – gently but firmly – to exploration, thinking, insight, meditation, and communion.

I’ve met dedicated Christians from all points of view – progressive, conservative, and everywhere in-between.

But I’m not a church member anymore, nor do I teach at a university because of student loan debt – between those two things, I suppose all my studies and struggles could be considered meaningless by those who hold those things close to their hearts – but they aren’t.

Daniel – You make good points. If it’s a systemic issue, it should be brought up to the president, vp, and other officers. Behavior such as you describe has no place in a serious academic setting. The political situation in the States today has made this issue a pretty fiery one, but there should be a way to hold to standards in such a forum. I think there are scholars who dismiss evangelical work too easly, but I can understand why the tendency is there. My students at different universities were very poorly trained, many of them not even ready for college-level work. Some felt that the only christian way to read a text was to identify with the protagonist and then make moral judgments about their behavior. My own nephew dropped out of college when a bible course tried to present some current biblical scholarship – he couldn’t take the cognitive dissonance. That, and behavior such as trying to shout down and exclude others in the classroom based on some idea of a direct line to God makes some professors leery of directing dissertations by evangelicals. Who wants to end up on the Rush Limbaugh show? Who wants to sign their name to someone’s work when there is a good chance that it won’t be up to par? It’s not all black and white (I’m not fond of binaries, as you might suspect) – but perhaps the way to begin to change attitudes is to do exactly what you’re doing by publishing, showing excellence – and encouraging others to do the same. If the writing sample is preachy or judgmental, I can understand not wanting to direct the student, just as is also the case with people who have any other axe to grind.

Heidi, finally we agree on something! I know that conservatives can be jerks in their doctoral programs, and master’s programs, and bachelor’s programs. My wife and I trained our four boys for ten years on how to get the most out of their college education. Each went to a secular school, fully approved by us. One of our boys was taking a class on ethics from an agnostic/atheistic (he never was sure which) philosophy professor. I told Noah, “Now, don’t be a jerk. Learn from him everything you possibly can. How often do you get a chance to learn ethics from a first-class scholar who may be agnostic/atheistic?” Noah took that advice and learned much from the prof; there was a mutually positive relationship that developed.

Now, about SBL: the problem is that SBL is itself only symptomatic of the real problem. Contrary to how you read what I wrote earlier, I do not feel persecuted. I’m not concerned about how SBL members view me. Rather, I am concerned that my better students, who have diligently prepared themselves for doctoral studies, are not getting any notice by the top tier schools because of their DTS pedigree. No matter how much some of us publish, the message doesn’t seem to be getting through.

Dan, can you give us some examples of schools that are characteristically turning down DTS grads?

Dr. Nordberg,

I suspect, given the content of Dr. Wallace’s post, that he is speaking as much from a sense of “proxy” persecution as from a sense of personal persecution.

I.e., he’s frustrated on behalf of his students.

Hmmm… perhaps your’e right. I could have gotten sidewiped by that claim about unbelievers (in your sense) not welcoming the spirit…

Pragmatically here, going to the campus and meeting the professors they’d like to work with is really a very good idea because it makes you stand out. Sending their best piece of work with the application, and sending a couple more recommendations than what is required helps too. Comment #19 from Mike seems promising, at least.

The main thing to remember in my opinion is that the institution is less important than the resources available for the specific area of study. In my own studies, I had to search the country for someone who taught religion and literature – they don’t go together well except in masterpieces. Find the scholar, and go where the scholar is. Make sure they’ve got others there who can work with them, too (my director had a stroke before I was finished).

Admission committees fight for a small number of positions (growing smaller every year) but if they know you, there’s a better chance that they will fight to have you admitted as their student. Remember – there’s a *lot* of competition at those schools.

Michael, I certainly can, but I hesitate to do so. If I name names, it may well bring about greater entrenchment from them. That is, rather than change their attitude, they might try to justify it further and be even more resolved to reject DTS grads. Since I am in the midst of writing recommendation letters for half a dozen students this month, it’s best not to identify any such schools here.

BTW, one of the key things the NT faculty ask students who want to get into our department for a PhD is how open they are to historical criticism. They may hold to a view that is far to the right of where we are, but if they are open to the evidence and can affirm a willingness to engage, rather than shut down or shout down, then they’re a decent candidate. Otherwise, not. This is all I would ask of those faculty at schools where some of DTS’s better graduates are applying.

Heidi, I agree: personal appearances, getting to know the professors, etc. are very important. Michael is doing the right thing. (He’s one of my interns, by the way.) However, some schools do not allow prospective students to even write to the faculty, let alone visit them. And some professors refuse to answer emails from students from evangelical schools. It’s hard to make an appointment with a prof who won’t acknowledge that you exist!

Well, and some professors don’t respond to emails at all – or only the ones relating to their own students and work.

That’s why snailmail and visits are important. The departmental admin staff can set up an appointment sometimes, or just go directly to the Director of Graduate Studies for the department to arrange a campus visit and/or phone interviews.

Yes, of course. Then again, some of us don’t respond to snail mail at all–takes too much time!

This has been very valuable and interesting.

Thank you for working hard for your students.

Heidi, thank YOU for your willingness to dialogue on this issue. I’m encouraged.

Dan,

I concede. Language requirements are not quite what I thought. You are right about that.

However, I do find this puts some in a curious position since the ETS doctrinal statement says that Christ is equal in power and glory – this is a reference to Christ being equal to God in exousia, that is “authority.”

I was called out on this by a CBMW staff member, who simply was unwilling to follow the trail, which is that exousia was translated in the Vulgate as potestas, and this was translated by the KJV as “power” and ended up in the Westminster confession among other places, intended to mean that Christ was equal to God in exousia.

Either the CBMW was unable to trace the linguistic route through Latin, or they felt that the translation history of key phrases in the doctrinal statement are irrelevant. I don’t know which.

I do regard this as a serious anti-intellectualism on the part of those who hold to the ETS doctrinal statement as well as the eternal subordination of the Son. Its odd, and does not invite respect.

For me, Latin holds a key place as it is the vehicle through which we receive most if not all of our theological language in English. The CBMW called me out but I was unable to see where they defended their position on this point.

As an outsider, I can’t speak on prejudice against evangelicals in academia, but I sure have noticed it in biblioblogs and discussion groups throughout the net. And if I can pick up on the bigotry, it speaks volumes about the intolerant mind-sets of those spouting it.

TAVW,

The responses to you, I find, are right on. Typically those top notch students who look to pursue PhD studies from DTS are students in the Old Testament or New Testament departments and have a language focus.

You seemed perplexed that a student from DTS may graduate without having read Augustine, et al, however, I find it quite perplexing that there are students getting into reputable PhD programs without having a solid handle on Hebrew, Greek, and other Near Eastern languages.

My focus on language indeed has me behind in “being read,” however, I’d much rather come out of a ThM program with a solid handle on 3-4 ancient languages and make up the reading as I go, than go into a PhD program being “well read” and then needing to spend 3 years getting to the point where I can have any facility with language.

To not have facility with language means that you are solely relying on the arguments of others who can deal first hand with the primary resources, whose works one would not be able to properly evaluate without language training. This type of PhD then writes a dissertation based on one’s own personal biases and argumentation that has not been properly assessed.

With that said, I’ll take DTS’s language program up against any Master’s language program in the US. To not give DTS respect and credit here is disingenuous on your part.

Rob

Do you really WANT to study somewhere who doesn’t want you as a student? If you’re an evangelical, do you really want to be subject to the marking of someone who isn’t? Instead of hanging out with people 60% of which aren’t believers, why not stop hanging out with them and ignore them?

John, your position was addressed back in the 1940s when Carl Henry and others decided to abandon the fundamentalist separatism for a more robust, engaged faith that dialogued with those who did not believe. This is how Christianity Today got its start. I have answered this already, however: the reason is that we have things that we can learn from these scholars. To take but two examples: far and away the best Greek New Testament lexicon, which has a tradition going back over 125 years, got its major impetus from Walter Bauer, a man who was anything BUT a conservative. He dedicated most of his career to searching out lexical parallels to the NT in hellenistic literature. In the 1950s, his lexicon was translated into English for the first time. Later, a revised German edition came out. So important was the German edition that any bona fide NT scholar needed to work with the German text since it was the most up-to-date. In 2000, the third English edition came out. This lexicon is the standard today, and it stands behind virtually every modern translation of the New Testament.

Now, if you don’t like Bauer, perhaps you would prefer Thayer’s lexicon? Unfortunately, it’s outdated and was so almost as soon as it came off the press in the late 1800s. But I suspect you would have just as severe problems with Thayer as you would with Bauer, since Thayer was a Unitarian. Dallas Seminary requires all of its Greek students to get a copy of the Bauer lexicon.

Or consider the standard NT grammar by Blass-Debrunner-Funk. I don’t know the spiritual status of the first two, but Funk was the head of the Jesus Seminar. He didn’t believe much. I worked with Bob Funk for several years on a revision of this great grammar. The revised BDF never came to light, but I require all of my students in my elective in Greek grammar to get this grammar.

If you really want to have no association with those who are not Christians, then your world will be very small. You’ll need to throw out almost all books on the Christian faith–at least almost all those that are worth anything–because somehow in some way the authors have been influenced by liberal scholars. And you’ll have to read the King James Bible.

Dr. Wallace

With this post you ably demonstrate the closed-mindedness of academic liberals which exists across the broad spectrum of academia, not just Biblical Studies departments. I’m thinking that the comments from those outside of the evangelical fold illustrate your point better than you might have imagined. And I think he may have been able to earn a little respect for DTS and perhaps evangelical scholarship along the way with those who hold the views he describes in his post.

But I submit the classic definition of liberalism that is used in this post (i.e. tolerant, open to different points of view, etc.) has not really been an accurate descriptor for liberals since the early part of the 20th century at the latest. One only has to look at the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy (which DTS was essentially a product of) in the Northern Presbyterian Church to see that. A cursory glance at the treatment given by liberals to orthodox men like J. Gresham Machen, Clarence McCartney and others will reveal that liberals were anything but tolerant or open minded in the 1920’s and 30’s. Indeed, it was the moderates whose toleration of the liberals eventually led to the conservatives either being pushed out or sitting down, shutting up and being disengaged from denominational life. Now it’s true that those liberals had some differences with today’s liberals, (at the time of course, they were all still in the same church) but it’s essentially the same dynamic, one in which battle lines and identities have hardened after the better part of a century.

Outside of places like SBL, evangelicals and liberal academics do not talk much, and this often poisons the well when there is interaction. However, I don’t think we can erase the lines drawn by the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy any more than we can erase those drawn by the Protestant Reformation and Rome’s counter reformation.

(FWIW political liberalism in the USA also has little to do with classic liberalism, which has more in common with libertarianism. In Europe it seems the traditional use of the term liberal in the political realm still holds.)

Heidi,

I apologize for how you perceived my remarks to Sue, and I apologize to Sue if she took offense. I just didn’t want to see this post go down the complementarian/egalitarian route yet again.

My main point was that students at conservative institutions very often do not hold the same values and beliefs as those institutions and the professors that teach at them. Scholars and PhD committees should take this into mind when reviewing candidates from conservative institutions.

The way the system is set up now, I would probably have to go and get a second masters from a mainline institution if I wanted to have a chance of getting into a respectable PhD program at a mainline institution. Either that, or I would have to absolutely work my tail off at the conservative institution, learn 5 languages BEFORE I applied, travel to various schools BEFORE I applied (not cheap), try to get published BEFORE I applied. This is all doable, and I know someone who has done just that. It just doesn’t seem fair to put in all that extra work just so I can be considered for a respectable (non-confessional) program in the states. I would say this is downright impossible if you have a family. You’re going to have to work your tail off to get in a respectable PhD program no matter where you are educated, but why do those being educated at an evangelical seminary have to go the extra 10 miles?

I can’t speak for John (comment #70) but only for myself. But is it necessary to study directly under certain academics at prestigious institutions (as the world counts prestige) to be conversant with their work and thought? I doubt anyone would say that it is necessary. It’s possible that may be what John had in mind. Whether it is or it isn’t, I think a distinction can clearly be made between using tools like Bauer’s lexicon and the necessity studying directly under those holding those views. (And I don’t take Dr. Wallace here to be arguing that it is necessary, only desirable in certain circumstances with certain students.)

I would also think that Dr. Wallace and Dr. Patton would agree that the kind of study contemplated in the post here is not something that someone pursuing a pastorate in an evangelical church would be advised to pursue. Dr. Patton seemed to allude to that earlier. Likewise, someone who is intending on an academic career in a secular institution might be best served taking a masters degree from somewhere other than an evangelical school an a dispensational one at that.

This post and thread also illustrate the need to count the cost before entering into a course of study. Calvinists shouldn’t be surprised if their views are met with hostility in more Arminian institutions. Likewise covenantalists in dispensational schools and vice versa. One example that comes to mind is hearing of students at the Masters Seminary complaining about the dispensationalism taught there, exclaiming “I thought John MacArthur was more Reformed than this.” Those students apparently didn’t even take the time to read the school’s doctrinal statement. The same goes for evangelicals in non-evangelical schools, and to students of a more liberal bent at confessional evangelical schools as well. Of course, those who change their views significantly (theologically and/or with regard to their calling) during their course of study will have to adjust accordingly.

I do think that the results of the New Evangelicalism that Dr. Wallace notes in his last comment (#71) that led to the founding of Christianity Today, Fuller Seminary, the NAE and a more inclusive approach taken by the Billy Graham crusades is decidedly mixed. I think an argument can be made that that split led to tragic results in both fundamentalism and evangelicalism, with the former arguably overemphasizing separatism and the latter arguably becoming too inclusive. But that’s probably a subject best left for another time and perhaps also for my own blog.

Dan Wallace:

// I really don’t think I’m being narrow at all if I define a Christian by what all three branches of Christendom, at a minimum, define one as.//

I know you’re addressing the direct question of whether you consider Penal Substitution necessary to salvation and the definition of a Christian by resorting to repeating this statement. Can you please, however, justify your belief directly, with Biblical support?

… sorry, that sounded a little harsher than I meant it to be.

I don’t know that I wanted to suggest that everything secular is bad. Secular people can make good English dictionaries, and probably good Greek ones too. Lexicons and grammar are not essentially theological. Just because secular people can do useful work, doesn’t mean I want to study under them in a theological context. I guess it depends if you want to study something theological in nature, or something that is only tangentially related like Greek.

RobK, thanks for the engagement. I’m not sure you’re tracking with the core of my complaints. I’ve tried to be clear that my issues are largely regarding theological pedagogy (which, let us not forget, is necessarily involved in something as basic as language acquisition and biblical exegesis, how such is prioritized, etc.). On that side of things Dr. Wallace (who I have always appreciated for both his candor and theological courage in our limited personal interactions) appears to have largely conceded my point. And I would certainly never disparage DTS for its language programs; they are indeed virtually second to none. But I haven’t located the bulk of my displeasure in the above with DTS’s curriculum on its ability to produce nuts-and-bolts exegetes of the canon, have I? I’m talking about the broader theological sweep within which exegesis necessarily falls. That, and only that, is the locus of my angst.

Interestingly, however, the question that seems generally to have been left unexamined here is why it is that the obviously existent institutional/theological prejudice that Dr. Wallace has outlined has come to be. What is the genealogy of this discrimination and of what valid historical realities is it a distortion? This prejudice, after all, hasn’t arisen out of thin air. Part of what I’ve been gesturing towards here with my previous comments are the broader (and frequently ongoing) theological reasons this unfortunate, but not entirely baseless, bias has come to be. I think, in other words, there might be some concessions that need to be made alongside of Dr. Wallace’s complaints. He, at least, ostensibly sees some merit in what I’m after. Am I wrong on that front, Dr. Wallace?

TAVW,

I think I’m with ya. It’s not an arbitrary prejudice, it’s rooted in the history of evangelicalism, the history of DTS, the history of how our fathers and grandfathers behaved, etc. I’d be the first to admit this, if that’s what you’re getting at.

The point I want to make, while conceding to your claim, is that history is not static. Just because our fathers and grandfathers conservative institutions behaved and believed this way does not mean that we automatically follow suit. Every new generation should be given a fresh hearing and we should not have to pay for our fathers’ shortcomings. Agreed?

Thanks, Luke. Well, I don’t want to say that we shouldn’t have to pay for our fathers’ shortcomings, but I would definitely say that most inaccurate or unethical prejudices are typically sustained by either intellectual laziness or a failure of sufficient curiosity on the part of those who hold them. So I agree with you that those professors who automatically and without second thought disregard doctoral applications from DTS students simply because of their alma mater are in the wrong and in need of serious intellectual and moral correction.

But, further, (and you put it well, Luke) we musn’t forget that academic track ThM graduates who emphasize in biblical studies aren’t applying to university PhD programs with transcripts whose contents are limited only to those courses taken with intellectually serious and theologically inquisitive professors. A NT graduate from DTS doesn’t send her application to Yale in a historical, social, or theological vaccum that can somehow escape the bigger context that is Dallas Theological Seminary and all that that entails. There are some very serious and completely legitimate reasons for doctoral admissions committees to be wary of DTS applicants because of that in which that broader context subsists and I think these needed to be ceded as genuinely valid (and, again, often ongoing) liabilities (if only for the purposes of DTS’s making the proper emendations). I am, in other words, simply asking that we be mindful of potential beams in our adamance regarding institutionally discriminatory specks.

And I don’t say any of this as one who cannot empathize with the discriminated against; as I’ve said, it took a masters degree from Duke (equaling my third, Lord have mercy!) before anyone gave my doctoral applications any credence.

Luke, you’ve got an Ezekiel-type prophetic streak somewhere in that last comment. 🙂

[…] More. Posted in Theology | No Comments » Leave a Comment […]

Yeah, you can learn something from an atheist, but is it worth the aggravation? What is the ultimate purpose of all this learning anyways?

TAVW,

As a current student, I appreciate your insights and honesty regarding the educational process at DTS. On one hand, I would agree with you in that certain courses are taught with a presuppositional hermeneutic. Moreover, in conjunction with CMP’s comment about DTS’s primary goal being ministry training, not all course work does involve extensive critical examination nor do all students care to or even do engage in a rigorous critical examination of theology, particularly their own (she’s says by way of observation).

But I’m going to push back a little on your overall treatise of inadequate academic preparation as a whole. I find that for the serious minded and academically oriented students, there are significant opportunities to engage in scholarship consistent with other institutions. First, you paint a picture that portrays a sterile learning environment exclusive of other points of view. This simply isn’t the case. Students are at least made aware of other theological and hermeneutical methods, particularly in the systematic courses. I have had reading and writing assignments in these courses that have involved non-evangelical, non-protestant and even liberal based material.

Second, students have tremendous resources at their disposal to engage in more rigorous resources above and beyond the course work. Most notably the professors, many of whom have published a wealth of academic material themselves. Not only can students utilize up to four credit hours of independent research guided by faculty, but internship opportunities exists with faculty members that affords the serious student with research and insights in the academic community. There is also a plethora of resources available in the library to engage with the divergent opinions that are at least mentioned in some courses for the student so motivated to research them. So at least be fair about the opportunities that exist.

I’m also curious what year you graduated? I am in the systematic theology track and do have to take at least one philosophy of religion course, possible two.

John: “Just because secular people can do useful work, doesn’t mean I want to study under them in a theological context.”

I get the impression that complaining about a Biblical scholar because of their beliefs is like complaining about a grandmaster chess player because in their last game they played the black side.

As a ‘conservative’ student who studied in Germany, the cradle of the ‘liberal’ theology, I am quite surprised to see such agitation.

The debates between ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ scholars, at least what I know about Germany, has nothing to do with theological evidences. It’s a matter of presuppositions: Someone who believes that the Bible is the Word of God written by men, cannot be scientific!

It took as in Germany decades to get a accreditation for a Seminary with conservative background. And this still doesn’t mean that these students will be accepted at the Universities. Again, it has nothing to do with the evidences. It’s a matter of presuppositions.

It is true, we can learn a lot from ‘liberal’ scholars. They’re asking often very good questions (if the answers are good is another question). My question, after I have read the article from Dr. Wallace and the comments would be:

How would you define the difference between the Historic-Critical Method and Historic-Grammatical Method?

Juergen,

Interesting question. I have never really seen the two distinguished as if they represent different interpretive camps. Those along with “authorial intent hermeneutics” and “historical-literary hermeneutics” are all synonymous to me.

My understanding is that the historical-critical method, birthed out of German rationalism, examines the Bible as a literary device exclusive from divine revelation. The resulting higher criticism analyzes the text in context of comparative literature to derive at a reasoned understanding of what it could mean separate from any divine meaning. Under historical criticism, language is a tool of contemporary culture of that time.

The historical-grammatical method examines the literary functions from a similar stance but does not divorce the writings from its divine source. The historical-grammatical method would have as foundational 2 Timothy 3:16-17, that all Scripture is breathed out by God, and delivered through human authorship under divine guidance. Thus, historical-grammatical would adhere to verbal plenary inspiration and also consider the text in context of God’s overall program.

Of course, if I got any of this right in relation to where Dr. Wallace is coming from, I’m now curious how advanced work in NT would necessitate utilizing an historical-critical model.

Liberalism in theological circles imitates that of the secular world having become the new bastion of bigoted intolerance. The theological “liberal fundamentalist” pines for legitimacy just as awkwardly as the statist fundamentalist does in his political domain. The objectives of each intertwine in an amazingly close circle. Anthony Freeman, a New Age Anglican with still standing ordination, denies the existence of a monotheistic God while fully embracing the Statist inclinations of an anti-Christian society and he is far from alone. Whether Unitarian or Congregationalist, the joining of intolerant and bigoted mindsets with sectarian counterparts is a growing influence in Christendom (I deliberately contrast such a span of Christian influenced thought from that of Christianity within the pale of orthodoxy). Perhaps the proper course is to allow a schism to be defined between those so inclined and orthodoxy itself.

Dr. Wallace,

Just curious, if dispensationalism is supposed to represent the conservative or one of the conservative systems of interpretation what is the liberals system of interpretation? What is it called? :

– ” Dispensationalism ” = Conservative

– ” ???????????????? ” = Liberal (harvard,claremont,etc…)

And also, what are some other systems of interpretations that conservatives hold to? thanks.

While dispensationalism is inclusive of an interpretive method, there are other things that are involved such as a theological assumption of progressive revelation.

However, the authorial intent hermeneutic is not privy to dispensationalism as conservatives and liberals alike use it.

It is the philosophical and theological assumptions that are brought to the table that often shape the outcome that is sometimes at issue, not the interpretive method and certainly not dispensational theology (or, as Dan is arguing, it should not be).

This has been a most stimulating conversation, friends! It’s hard to keep up with the questions that are directed toward me, so I’m sure I’m missing some of them in my response.

As for learning from liberal scholars, as I said earlier, they have a lot to teach us. And it is certainly not true that learning Greek is a fringe topic regarding these matters! The true liberal scholar is one who does not demand from his or her students that they fall lock-step in line with his or her views, but allows their students the freedom to explore, disagree, challenge. In a limited sense, most professors are that way. But they all draw the line somewhere. Dallas Seminary, for example, requires students to sign a seven-point doctrinal statement. Not all of us agree that this should be required, though. BTW, dispensationalism is NOT one of the seven points–nor is premillennialism. In fact, my sense is that perhaps most DTS students are not dispensationalists.

I have learned a great deal from a number of liberal scholars. F. C. Baur, in fact, is somewhat of a hero of mine for his application of Hegelian dialectic to NT studies. I just think he took it too far (both chronologically and theologically), but I agree that there is theological development in the NT. And I learned that from Baur. The fascinating tensions in biblical studies can be seen in the various presuppositions that scholars bring to the table. Generally speaking, liberal NT scholars tend to see greater theological disparity in the NT, roots in a Greco-Roman milieu, later dates to the books, pseudonimity, etc., while conservative scholars tend to move in opposite directions. The best of biblical theology could not have happened without the impetus given by liberal scholarship, and the views on date and authorship would have been mired in unchallenged presuppositions if it weren’t for liberals. Evangelicals have come to appreciate more the Greco-Roman world and have had to wrestle with tensions within the NT because of liberal scholarship.

But as one commenter noted, extremes on either side are driven by presuppositions, not evidence. Martin Hengel once wrote that left-wing radicals and right-wing fundamentalists are cut from the same cloth: they both start with their presuppositions and let them dictate the outcome.

As I said previously, I believe that the historical-critical method (HC) is extremely valuable for biblical studies. The basic difference between the evangelical and the liberal application of such is a few key presuppositions. If you don’t believe that miracles or prophecy are even possible, then that will dictate the outcome of your use of these tools. If you are open to the possibility of the miraculous, but are willing to engage the biblical evidence, then the evidence will have a larger role in the outcome. In this respect, the best evangelical HC may be the only true HC.

Well, I thought I was done with this, but I guess I’m not.

To A. M. Mallett: liberal = bigoted intolerance? That’s double-speak.

I think there are fundamentalists in every religion – and outside religion. What they bring is an insatiable desire for power and control, violence and an inability to listen. I would grant that there are those among the liberals, but compared to conservative authoritarians? I see much in common across religions on this particular line.

I really don’t see how this works out. How about just not demonizing others? My own faith is regularly tested by people who claim to be Christians and then come out with words and behavior that is so anti-agapic as to be surreal. Truly, how can you claim to be a Christian and hate others? How can you claim to be a Christian and have such hubris?

While most of the other commenters are reasonable, it’s this kind of thing that gives me a chill and makes me step back. It’s the kind of thing I hear from JW trolls, and others like them. I have nothing to learn from haters.

The university, by its very nature, is a liberal institution, a place for the sharing of ideas and peer debate and mutual respect. Whenever an ideology of any type can overwhelm that, the university is dying. I agree that the left-wing discourse of liberation and freedom has often been subsumed under a rather silly form of “political correctness” (and remember that terminology is a jibe from the right). They thought that if they modified the language, it might help to change the conditions. They were wrong. But the idea of dialogue and debate and respect are still liberal values. And please, please remember that there are faithful Christians who are progressive, who believe in a God that is Love.

TAVW,

I guess what I’m getting at, which I failed to express in my last comment, is that the students Dr. Wallace seems to have in mind who have been oppressed are not those students that gravitate towards the BE department but rather the OT and NT departments.

The 6 required BE classes, as you know, are excess fat. Fair enough. With that said however, even with the excess fat cut out the amount of credits taken in language and electives stands tall with any MAR program out there, and it’s been my experience that PhD programs are most interested in students with a MAR. So at the end of the day, DTS students in my view are just as qualified for reputable PhD programs if they gravitate towards the language departments.

Rob

Dr. Wallace,

Thanks for the post. I can certainly relate. I recently had meeting with an Old Testament professor from Yale University.

When he asked about my academic training and I explained how I currently had 8 semesters of both Greek and Hebrew, plus Aramaic and Ugartic and how I am a research assistant for a former Yale professor, helping him publish several articles and books, the Yale prof was very interested in having me as an applicant for Yale’s PhD program. However, he then asked where I was studying and once he heard DTS the entire conversation went south.

Just another example to illustrate the validity of your comments in this post.

[…] beliefs.  In other words, how a student at a conservative school is stereotyped by liberals. Click here. Want to subscribe?: Subscribe to Rob's blog by clicking the "subscribe to feed" link […]

I would like to temper my previous comments with another point, friends. DTS is very strong in the biblical languages; I think we’re all agreed on that. The strength within this realm is on exegesis. But I don’t think we’re particularly strong in historical criticism. Students get this in NT Intro, and in the Intro to Exegesis course (fourth semester of Greek). They also get it in any Gospels elective they take. But after fourth semester Greek and NTI, the only required NT course is Romans. Now, to be sure, we do talk about embedded hymns in Romans, whether chapters 15 and 16 were added later, etc. And I suggest a few places where oral tradition and dominical sayings are most likely behind what is written. But Romans can only yield so much for HC. The Gospels are the key here. DTS does have a very, very popular elective called “Exegesis in Gospel Narratives.” Co-taught by two of the following three profs: Bock, Harris, and Burer. Well received, and interacts significantly with HC, showing its value and limitations throughout the course. But…

When our graduates go on for doctoral studies, they often find that they were short-changed in one of two areas: either historical criticism or translation. Sometimes both. Once our grads get into various schools, as a rule those schools then open their doors for more DTS graduates. That’s because the students shine in syntax, exegesis, detailed analysis of the text. And they pick up on their translation skills pretty quickly, and get into historical criticism better. But more could be done in these areas to prepare the students more completely. Several faculty are working very hard behind the scenes to shore up both of these weaknesses. It’s an encouraging sign. And, to be sure, a good number of PhD-bound students are also working hard to shore up these weaknesses while in the master’s program by taking key electives.

I’m coming back to my question I asked before, because I think that we are blurring the line to much between, how Dr. Wallace called said, “the true HC” and HC. A clear definition can help us a lot:

“How would you define the difference between the Historic-Critical Method and Historic-Grammatical Method?”

@Dr. Wallace: It would be great if you could give us a definition.

@Lisa: I like your definitions. They are a good starting point.
If your distinction is right (that HC-Scholars deny divine authorship), shouldn’t their be then also a clear distinction in the term we’re using for claiming our own method of exegesis? If it is for HC-Scholars common sense that divine authorship is a fairy tale, do we not desperately need a distinction to avoid a blurred theology?

Dr. Wallace says in his article about the NT-Department at DTS:
“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.”

If the denial of the divine authorship is one of the major characteristic of the HC how does his Statement fits together with the First Article of the Doctrinal Statement of DTS:
“We believe that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” by which we understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture.”

I think we need a clear definition of HC or Dr. Wallace, if he signs this statement, is contradicting himself.

[…] to give a rest for a while, what do I stumble on this evening during a Net-surfing session but this Parchment and Pen post on the recent annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature.  Tales of theological libs […]

RobK,

I just want to say that I feel for you. You have me convinced that there is a legitimate problem. The issue then is whether liberals are simply intolerant – I am sure they are – and whether anything can be done about it.

Is it really dispensationalism itself, or other factors. Some of the problems I see are that believing in divine inspiration often sets certain boundaries. For example, authorship is by self attestation, scripture must be consistent, it must always have a message, and so on. Sometimes this strains belief. It sounds as if the basic tools are in place, but DTS has a reputation for something undesirable.

Although I am quite sure that liberals can be dismissive and intolerant to conservative Christians, they view conservative Christians as intolerant of women, homosexuals and any non-Christians. Are these two kinds of intolerance equivalent?

[Comments deleted by Mod]