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"
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.
Weren’t Harvard and Yale both founded as Puritan institutions? I’ve never heard anyone describe the first 100 years or so of either institution as being free from ideology.
Sue, I already warned about hijacking this thread for your purposes. I specifically warned about going in that direction.
Please read the rules of this blog and heed to them.
Keep on target. This thread is going too good to be sidetracked.
The sidetracking comments have been deleted.
Josh,
Good point. There is no such thing as an absolutely “ideology free” university, nor could their be since the very idea is self defeating!!
However, there is certianly a place for breadth in the education.
Here are the blog rules once again:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/04/blog-rules/
Rob,
How am I supposed to take your comment concerning BE and BE students as BE Ph.D. student?
[…] Good Discussion and A Not So Good Memory Dan Wallace’s post Frustrations from the Front: The Myth of Theological Liberalism has generated some really good discussion over the past couple of days. I haven’t found an […]
Charles,
I can’t speak for the PhD program only the ThM program. You are free to voice your disagreement.
Rob
One other note on my previous comment:
What I am getting at is that the Academic preparation resides in the OT and NT departments. The BE department surely has a good ministerial purpose as well as helping students who are not acquainted with the Bible learn the overall message, but when it comes down to PhD preparation a student should gravitate towards other departments.
I don’t want to be accused of drifting off topic here. But I would suggest that your remarks about BE are unnecessarily disparaging. Keep in mind that one of the distinctives of DTS has and continues to be coverage of all 66 biblical books. This distinctive cannot be accomplished with the more intensified and focused study of select books in the OT and NT courses. Survey type BE courses are not “excess fat” for students that come to DTS without previous exposure to much of the Bible. Should not biblical and theological students be exposed to the ultimate primary source, the Bible itself? But BE as a discipline is not just about Bible survey. Rather the discipline is a convergence point of hermeneutics, biblical and systematic theology, exegesis, and homiletics, etc.
Rob,
It seems to me that your continued comments fail to grasp the academic contributions of BE as a discipline in its own right. You are certainly welcome to your opinion concerning what constitutes proper academic preparation for Ph.D. work but I would disagree.
Charles,
Did you post this before my second response to you (comment 07) which further clarified?
RCK
Yes, we disagree. However, I’ll again say that I can speak for the PhD program.
can’t*
Yes, but I think your further comment is also unfortunate as reflected in my second response.
I am not merely speaking of the BE Ph.D.. program. I would suggest that my remarks also relate to the Th.M. program.
I’m happy to further elaborate off list.
Heidi,
Sorry I’ve been gone and haven’t had a full chance to respond to your definition of Christian. I’m honestly not going to try to convince you your wrong in your definition, however it seems to me that your definition is just as arbitrary as the historical one that people like Dan or Michael would advocate. One could certainly think of ways to draw the boundaries wider then you do and on the other hand I could draw it so narrow if I wanted to that I would be the only Christian there is.
In the end game I don’t think it is academically improper for CMP or Dan to define Christianity as they do in such a way that excludes some people. Ultimately what I think makes a good student (and a good academic) is not whether or not they hold presuppositions or beliefs (face it we all do) on certain issues, but whether or not they are willing to question and reexamine those presuppositions and beliefs in light of the evidence presented.
I have to say that this has been better than the last ten books I have read combined!
Thanks you all for your continued discussion here.
Here is a direction that I think these types of conversations inevitably go. Wait…let me start with a saying:
“To offer options is academic. To offer opinions is naive.”
Once we begin to separate these issues (options and opinions), we have lost our cause and are wasting time. At that point just go watch reruns of Grey’s Anatomy and you will be better equipped for life.
I cannot speak for Dan with certainty, but I hardly think that he is attempting to drive a wedge in the different academic disciplines that DTS (or any other seminary) have to offer. While there are different levels of academics here (exegesis, biblical theology, systematic theology, homiletics, and pastoral ministries), there are not different priorities.
I used to listen on a certain theologian over a cup of coffee every day for years as he complained about the OT department and their inability to “do” theology. I have heard exegetical scholars scoff at the idea of church history as I proposed a book project to them that included looking more into the traditions of the church. I continually deal with philosophers who believe that all of these (exegesis, theology, biblical studies) are complete vanity as truth is too dynamic to pin down with any sufficient relevance.
One of the things that separates us as believers is that we have a commitment to truth, not for truth’s sake, but for the sake of the great commission and the glory of God. We don’t always lead with that, but we do always conclude with it.
I, like Charles, think that saying that biblical studies is “excess fat” is very one dimensional and would only expect something like that from an unbeliever or someone who has run into a bit of tunnel vision in his ministry. I could just as well say as an epistemological philosopher that everything outside of ontology and epistemology is not only excess fat, but an unjustifiable marathon. However, I would never say that. Not because I am not a philosopher (which I am not), but because I understand the value and necessity of seeing all of these areas work together.
However, I do think that for the type of academic ministry that Dan is talking about, the non-confessional schools are not ever going to be interested in anything other than first level academics. That is not a slight to biblical studies or theology, it is just because the institutions are going to remain non-confessional and speculative. But this is a theory that is being challenged by Dan’s assertion that “liberal” schools are not truly liberal when that are biased against DTS grads.
Charles, relative to the topic of this post, the issue is not whether the ThM program adequately prepares a student for PhD work in a conservative evangelical seminary but if it provides adequate preparation for work in a mainstream academics.
This presumes that at the ThM level, students are introduced to and engaged in rigorous critical analysis of positions that differ from their own. Not to speak for Rob, but does the BE department really allow for such engagement?
To be candid, I have found the ST and NT courses to be far more revealing this type of analysis than in BE. That is not to say that BE does not provides excellent preparation for ministry or even continuing PhD work at DTS or other similar institutions. I’m sure it does.
CMP,
You say,
“I, like Charles, think that saying that biblical studies is “excess fat” is very one dimensional and would only expect something like that from an unbeliever or someone who has run into a bit of tunnel vision in his ministry. I could just as well say as an epistemological philosopher that everything outside of ontology and epistemology is not only excess fat, but an unjustifiable marathon.”
But here you are not taking into account 2 things:
1) I qualified my statement with an explanation that it is not helpful for PhD studies. 2) Charles himself admitted its helpful for students that have no exposure to the Bible (as I also affirmed the BE dept is helpful here). In the context of this discussion we’re comparing DTS with other top tier institutions, such basic training is assumed at these institutions.
All that to say the words “excess fat” in the context of this conversation is fair and appropriate. Moreover, I don’t follow the example of the epistemological philosopher–if you make this illustration completely analagous I think you’ll see more of my point. A student PhD bound in epistemological philosophy is surely going to call several survey courses “excess fat” when matched up with other top teir institutions who are preparing students for PhD studies because at these other institutions these survey courses will be assumed knowledge. So again, I defer to the context of this conversation, one which is comparing DTS with first rate master’s programs throughout the US.
I’m sorry to hear that you think such comments have bearing on whether or not someone is acting as a believer or unbeliever. That’s unfortuneate.
Rob,
I said and unbeliever or one dimensional. We do have a lot of unbelievers who come on this blog so it was not meant to be cutting in any way, especially since I don’t know you and did not even remember who made the “excess fat” comment (if it was you). I am sorry if it was taken the wrong way.
You misunderstood my comment about philosopher. I was saying that they COULD call all else, including original language studies, excess fat. In fact, I have seen them do this very often. Have had this argument with an atheistic philosopher ad nauseam. But, in those cases, I have to grant their starting point unless I am a presuppositionalist in that respect.
I understand what you are saying about PhD at the type of institution with regard to BE. I would even say that same thing with regard to the theology department. One normally should expect to go into comparative religions instead of “theology” when a PhD is sought. However, I think that “excess fat” was not a good way to put it as all Masters programs will carry important yet “non-relevant” (probably a better way to put it) for the particular PhD that is sought. This is especially the case with DTS as their ThM is 120 hours.
Either way, no need to get side tracked based upon a difference of opinon about what was the best wording.
Daniel —
Let me give you an example of the problem which comes right from the school you mention Dallas, and a Professor you respect Darrell Bock. Bock has written two books, The Missing Gospels and Breaking the daVinci Code, examining the New School. (For lurkers the new school is Walter Bauer and modern followers: Pagels, Koester, Ehrman, Birger Pearson, John Turner, Karen King….)
He asserts virtually by faith that they are wrong and the traditional view is correct. Open those books and look at the argument it happens in like 2 pages. He daVinice he begs the question by treating Acts as accurate history of the early church and Timothy as a Pauline book, etc… In Missing he goes further and asserts a lack of early evidence for diversity which is precisely what the new school has produced, quasi-Christian literature going back to about 200 BCE.
This is the problem with evangelical scholarship it doesn’t honestly address liberal scholarship. It attacks straw men. And further while it may pretend towards a neutral perspective it is constantly trying to sneak in theological assumptions (like the early dating of Acts). If you read Pearson for example he systematically over the course of a lifetime slowly argues for the ordering of books and considers every piece of evidence carefully. And this is not unique to Bock, you see the same sort of pseudo-science in the evangelical climate debate and in things like creation science.
I’m sorry your students are discriminated against but I imagine the same thing would happen to people who went to a flat earth school trying to study geology or people who went to a creationist school trying to study biology or people who went to a school that focused on the continuous theory of matter who tried to study chemistry. Evangelicals believe that in a secular context that Yahweh should be treated differently than Zeus, Jesus different than Achilles and the Bible differently than Homer. In a secular context just the opposite should occur: the governing assumption is that there are no gods, demons, angels, avatars, nature spirits or ancestral ghosts these mythical entities have a literature which is the subject of study and that is it.
If, in fact, those who are well prepared in languages are still having difficulty getting into a PhD program, then I think the faculty needs to look at this seriously. I don’t think it helps to simply lay the blame at the door of the liberal institutions. Even if they are being intolerant, the real question is about what steps the DTS faculty can do to ameliorate this situation for their own students.
A good place to start is to ask if it really does relate to dispensationalism, or something else. Is it the political climate? What other possibilities? I would like to hear Rob’s take on what he thinks is causing the difficulty.
CD,
Thanks for commenting. Very interesting.
I am wondering how your comments do not demonstrate the point of this post. I am especially taken aback by your statement here: “I imagine the same thing would happen to people who went to a flat earth school trying to study geology.”
If I did not know better, I would think that you were a plant!
Are you equating DTS education in NT studies to a sort-of flat earth mentality in NT? If so, doesn’t this attitude demonstrate that you are not really open minded, but characteristically dismissive of opinions that might be more traditional or considered to the far right of you?
Finally, if I might ask, are you involved in biblical academia? If so, how?
Great questions Sue. I think you’re heading in the right direction. In your opinion, how does the faculty help ameliorate this situation for their students?
I think CD’s point is well taken. Has DTS published books and articles that affect its reputation as an academic institution. And is this fair to its students?
Cross-posting, Luke. First let me say that as someone who spent four years getting skills in five lgs. it is a grueling task, best undertaken as young as possible, and ought to be respected. So, if DTS students are making this commitment, I am behind them.
If I were in leadership in an institution, I would be greatly concerned about the reputation of the institution and take it as my responsibility.
I don’t think it is good enough to talk about the “offense of the cross” or some such thing. This is not going to help. But I don’t really know exactly why DTS students are not desired. I am asking these questions
– lacking broad academic preparation
– dispensationalist
– preach restrictions against women and homosexuals
– believe in inerrancy which means that Paul had to have written Timothy and 1 Cor. 14:34-35.
– polls demonstrate that DTS grads are not against torturing war prisoners
I think number four is the best candidate, but perhaps it is a combination.
C Michael —
To stick with my Bock example I read both of his books. I also read NT Wright’s book on the New School and Peter Jones and a few by conservative Catholics and…. I think that demonstrates I’m open to their arguments. I’ve cited Daniel’s stuff on translation. Yes I’m very familiar with evangelical scholarship on a very wide range of issues.
But, lets be clear there is a huge difference between, co-equal argumentations which lead one to have an open mind, a settled theory and just plain dishonest scholarship. Bock’s books, not say the NET translation are a great example of why DTS has problems. Bocks books were written by an academic about a major important and theory of biblical scholarship with rapidly growing influence. They carried the DTS name quite deliberately. Now I don’t know Bock’s heart but my read is that they deliberately misrepresented his opponent’s positions, deliberately mischaracterizes the evidence and deliberately omitted important facts. That to the best of my knowledge is not acceptable behavior in any kind of scholarship.
Where it is acceptable is in politics. Politics and scholarship should be separate. In the United States politically there is a wide open debate on global warming, academically there is not. Things that are open to debate politically are not open to debate academically; and visa versa. What I’m saying is that DTS takes positions on issues in line with its political faction (the evangelical movement) even when the scholarship doesn’t support those positions.
Sticking with the climate change analogy will work. There are many scientists who write heavily read articles skeptical of climate change. To the best of my knowledge there are 2 in the United States that have gotten those articles published in peer reviewed journals and those only attacked specific study methodologies. An academic work would treat the skeptical position as fringe, a political work would treat the two positions equally. A climate change scientist heavily funded by the oil industry is going to receive additional scrutiny because at the end of the day he might not be in to knock off a good publication and get tenure.
Being a liberal does not mean being undecided about whether 2+2 is 4 or 5.
Sue,
You forgot a few:
-as a theological school should broaden their studies of the ThM from 120 hours to 240 including English lit and Biology
-preach restrictions against beastiality (implied though it may be)
-are in favor of strong lasting marraiges
-entertianed a department head that believed in Matthian priority
-are pro-life
-are Protestant by confession (i.e. not Roman Catholic)
😉
Michael has deleted one of my comments. But I also believe that certain things have been published by DTS that do its reputation a disservice – things that are not honest scholarship. I think there needs to be more accountability for the sake of the students.
Michael you hit very close to home. Somewhere on the DTS website, I found these wedding vows,
Male: “Always will I perform my headship over you even as Christ does over me, knowing that His Lordship is one of the holiest desires for my life.”
Female: “loving you, obeying you, caring for you and ever seeking to please you.”
Sounds like a man and a golden retriever. Unlike a dog, however, a woman needs a long period of rehab.
IMO, this kind of thing should be sequestered onto some other website, where it won’t attract too much attention. I personally think that the vow of obedience is a form of bestiality.
Okay. I have displayed my ignorance. Is Bible.org a DTS site? Perhaps not. Sorry bout that.
CD-Host
Are you comparing the epistemic certianty about beliefs concerning the authorship of the NT books to mathatical conclusions?
If so, when were such demonstratably certian conclusions reached and by whom? Was it the German scholarship of the 19th century that finalized it, or did it conclude at the time of Bultman or maybe that of Pagels? Which quest for the historic Jesus drew such definitive lines and why wasn’t Bock, Wallace, Wright, Baucham, Evans, and Blomberg told?
I know what you are saying, but overstatements such as these do not do anything but demonstrate the bias that is out there. More importantly it illustrates the problem that most liberals are not really that liberal.
However, I must back off on this some as I don’t know you and therefore don’t know if you comment qualify to demonstrate what is being said. Hope that makes sense.
Thanks, Lisa Robinson. Push away. I matriculated in 2001 and graduated in both 2004 and 2006. According to my transcripts here, I took 67 courses from at least 30 different professors, numbers which, not to put too fine a point on it, I would like to think afford my above comments a certain small measure of weight.
Regarding your comments alleging my inaccuracy in terms of whether or not DTS offers an education in opposing viewpoints (“…a sterile learning environment exclusive of other points of view,” as you put it). Aside from my actually having not painted that picture, let me offer a few anecdotes that gesture towards what I am after. For instance, I recall taking an upper level OT course in archaeology where I watched with excruciating discomfort as our professor tap-danced ever so carefully (perhaps “with an experientially derived fearful paranoia” is the better description) around the possibilities and theological implications of Genesis 1-11’s falling into a genre akin to cosmonogic myth. Presumably, in so doing he could foresee the consequences of implying such things at an evangelical seminary in a way Pete Enns (God love him) could not, leading me to ask, “What are university programs supposed to make of such tap-dancing and/or what happened to Dr. Enns?” This professor was quite candid with me behind closed doors, by the way, about what he feared might happen if he forthrightly suggested a reading of the OT that challenged “scientific creationism”. Yet, whatever it is about DTS that fosters such palpable timidity and educational anxiety is something for which I think university admissions committees are rightly uneasy.
Further, as hinted in my initial post, I know of one professor whose approach to pedagogy in an eschatology class was simply what you suggest already pervasively takes place at DTS, namely, to teach the available options or range of views as such. But precisely because this professor focused on teaching the options as such (even though their scope was still circumscribed by generally conservative evangelical theologies) he was essentially forced to resign from the school for generating too many students unsettled about a dispensationalist eschatology. In short, his ability to sign the dispensationalist doctrinal statement required of all professors was called into question given the openness with which he taught the doctrinal alternatives and he was excised from the faculty. So while you are correct that students are often “made aware” of differing theological and doctrinal positions in certain classes, there is something indicated by this particular professor’s experience that hints that the manner in which this awareness is permitted or generated needs further investigation before its simple presence is thought sufficient to render unfounded the bias against which Dr. Wallace complains. […]
[…] Re: the philosophy course issue, I took the required philosophy course (ST620) for academic track ThM students but, tellingly, it was offered only as a distance learning class and, at any rate, is a far cry from meeting the serious academic need for something like a course in philosophical theology qua theology or a required class in theological ethics. If the curriculum has changed in the last 3 years, I am unaware of it.
Lastly, though Dr. Hoehner’s approach to criticism was far, far better than most, I once wrote a paper for him wherein I denied the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter and was subsequently told that I was only one of two students he’d ever had at DTS who took such a position. Yet, given his extended tenure there, that only two of us could arrive at such a conclusion is certainly indicative of something persistent and unusual worthy of consideration.
So, no, I haven’t at all said that DTS maintains a “sterile learning environment exclusive of other points of view”. But my prolonged and varied experiences there, as indicated by the examples above, have taught me that there is a way of exposing students to differing views that validates university prejudice against evangelical seminaries and one which might serve to undercut it. By and large, my time at DTS subsisted almost exclusively in the former modality. And I’m not sure that simply having a theologically diversified library resolves that problem.
Again, I fear I am coming across with greater harness about DTS than I intend. My persistence here is only to encourage us to examine what about university prejudice against evangelical seminaries might be on the mark.
TAVW,
There is much of that I would have to agree with. Although I come down on the conservative side on most of these issues, I did find that when I graduated in 2001 there was still an obscurantist mentality that dictated the theology courses. I learned most of my critical approach, even to theology, from the NT dept and, ironically, the preaching dept.
However, I simply don’t know of any evangelical or liberal school that is non-obscurantist when it comes to theology. I do wish that the theological studies was more intentional about forcing the students to challenge their presuppositions, even if the school held to a particular confession. But I can only speak from 2001.
(However, I would never, never, never even allow anyone to entertain a egalitarian point of view and expect to graduate!)
OK, last part was a joke.
Teach the options, reveal your persuasion, and let the evidence do battle for your mind. I think we should be confident enough in our God to carry ourselves in such a manner.
Someone—about 50 comments ago!—wondered how I would define an HC approach to the NT vs. a historical-grammatical approach (HG). He also wondered if HC was against divine authorship of the Bible and thus whether I could in good conscience sign the DTS doctrinal statement that affirms such.
Essentially, HC and HG are addressing two different things; they are not incompatible, just different. One deals with hermeneutics, the other with history. HG is applied across the board to all books of the NT, while HC focuses most of its attention on the Gospels and Acts.
HC deals with issues such as source criticism (especially the literary interdependence between the Synoptic Gospels), form criticism (the various pericopae in the Gospels seem to have come from detached oral traditions because they are grouped in the Gospels differently and because they all follow certain loosely-defined forms), redaction criticism (what each evangelist does with the material that he is working with, how he shapes his Gospel), narrative criticism, etc.
HC also deals with whether Jesus said and did what the Gospels affirm. Here the criteria of authenticity are used. For example, the criterion of embarrassment says that if there are things in the Gospels that could prove embarrassing to the early Christian communities, then that is an argument for authenticity. The criterion of dissimilarity says if Jesus said something that is different from the Judaism of his day or the early Christianity that followed, this is an argument for authenticity.
The difference between liberal and conservative applications of HC lies in the presuppositions involved. The Jesus Seminar, for example, explicitly denied the possibility of genuine prophecy. This put them in an awkward position of denying any authenticity to the Olivet Discourse—even though it satisfied the criterion of dissimilarity in that Jesus spoke of himself as the Son of Man. Neither the Judaism of his day nor the early Christian community envisioned the Messiah in such terms. C. F. D. Moule, by no means as conservative scholar, argued in New Testament Studies that every genre in the Gospels in which “Son of Man” appeared should be regarded as authentic. But if prophecy is already ruled out, then the criterion cannot be applied consistently.
The criterion of embarrassment has shown, on a purely historical level, that John baptized Jesus. This is because John’s baptism was a baptism for repentance. Mark just says that John baptized Jesus; Matthew adds that Jesus was not in need of repentance. But the criterion of embarrassment has also been used to argue that because women were the first to see the resurrected Jesus, he really was raised from the dead since the testimony of women was not respected in Jewish courts. Why on earth would the evangelists make this up if they were trying to win converts? But someone who presupposes that resurrection is impossible will simply deny this criterion…
Thanks, C. Michael Patton (especially for the much needed humor). I admit being somewhat curious about what constitutes “obscurantist” in your mind, though I suspect we’d likely agree in large measure. That you wonder if any US theology program avoids obscurantism, however, makes me curious as to whether or not you mean something to the effect that if a theology program isn’t rooted in student’s/professors’ ability to derive their theological positions primarily (or even foundationally) from extended exegesis of the canon in the original languages then theological/doctrinal obscurantism is the necessary result. If so, I would submit that such an opinion is one deeply reflective of the kind of education DTS provides it’s students and illustrates part of what I find frustrating about DTS. For the idea that primary-language exegesis is the only valid starting point for legitimate theologizing (lest assumption-based obscurantism is all one has available) is likewise a theological presupposition into which we were indoctrinated at DTS that never itself received critical evaluation or justification. This is not to suggest that one must always be scrutinizing and challenging one’s theological approach in pursuit of methodological perfection before one can competently begin the theological task, but rather is to say that such self-criticism should receive extended attention at some point in the curriculum; yet I never recall it ever having done so at DTS in a way that really called “observation, interpretation, application” to account for itself historically, philosophically, or theologically. I’m not sure most, or hardly any, DTS ThM grads could give a genealogical accounting or historically, philosophically, and theologically self-aware apologetic for that methodological assumption. I contrast this (alleged) reality with the curriculum at Duke wherein students are not only taught a theological method and its resulting theological content but are also trained so as to be able to give an accounting for why, how, and wherefore that particular method was proffered. This is a sidebar to your post, I suppose, but I’m still trying to make sure that my specific gripes are sufficiently clear here. Does the above square with your experience at DTS, as well? Thanks again for your engagement.
I went to an accredited school, with professor’s that had PhD’s, that offered BAs and MAs and Ddivs. However, it was a given (understood by faculty and students, and given as advice) that any one who wanted to go on to a PhD and an academic career would not do their Master’s work at that institution. Anyone that did (and a few of my former classmates are now profs at secular universities in fields related to the Bible) went off to secular schools for their further education. We knew that our faith would be challenged, but we knew it was the only way to gain the wider exposure, the complete academic freedom, and the challenges necessary to be good scholars who were readily recognized as good.
Which is fair. Conservative schools have to decide what they want to be and I’m not sure it is possible for an institution to be distinctively evangelical in the long run and not have issues with acceptance academically of its graduates or acceptance with funders (students, parents, churches) for the wider mass of students who go their for something else. My school did not require the signing of any statement of belief, and were I a prof at any secular university I would immediately look askance at anyone who came from a school that did.
Is the academic respectibility track one that DTS wants to go down? Is it fully compatible with what it has to be for the greater majority of students? I don’t know a lot about DTS except that I once had a systematic theology prof from there, whom none of the academically gifted students “respected” academically (i.e., in a scholarly manner because of his dispensationalist views; He was a very nice person though, and well liked).
Fascinating discussion.
regards,
#John
TAVW, I’d be interested to know what resources you use for theological methods that you have found particularly inciteful. I’m always on the look out for such material. Thanks.
Agggh, I mean insightful. I always mispel that. It must be some kind of Freudian slip 🙁
And do you always misspell ‘mispel’? :-/
Just wondering….
Heidi, you asked me who I would consider to be the top NT scholars…about 100 comments ago, and I almost forgot to answer you:
N. T. Wright, Craig Evans, Darrell Bock, Larry Hurtado, Jon Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman, Richard Bauckham, D. A. Carson, E. P. Sanders, R. B. Hays, James Charlesworth, James Dunn…
Dan is more specifically a top NT Greek grammarian….but personally I would squeeze him into the above list.
Michael, what do you say?? Let’s take a poll……rank Dan among scholars 🙂 !!
I’m just curious as to how students from a institution like Fuller Theological fair when it comes to getting into Ph.D programs at Yale, Harvard, etc. compared to DTS.
That’s a good question Michael. I’d be interested in the same thing. Just thinking aloud, I would imagine it would be much easier and less stressful for Fuller students to get into the respected, mainline institutions such as Yale, Duke, Harvard, etc. for a few reasons.
-Fuller is more progressive theologically and there seems to be more openness of thought. They have professors there that go beyond open theism and those who are Calvinistic. It was birthed, I believe, in the neo-evangelical movement along with Denver seminary around the 60s in reaction to the fundamentalists. Because of this, it is, I imagine, probably the most respected evangelical seminary among liberals.
-I don’t believe the students there have to sign onto to any “doctrinal statement” in order to attend. This is not the case with DTS, where students have to sign a statement of “7 essentials” which includes a few things that are borderline fundamentalist (depending on how you define those things). Liberals probably frown upon that. At Fuller, this probably puts less pressure on the students and allows them more freedom to “go where the evidence leads.”
-Fuller is and always has been against making inerrancy a cardinal doctrine that all of their professors have to believe. This doctrine is a distinctive of the borderline fundamentalists who normally define it very narrowly (e.g. John MacArthur) and to my knowledge is frowned upon by many in the academy who are not evangelical. Fuller has caught some flak for this from other evangelicals, but let’s be honest, the doctrine has just about run its course.
Having said these things, Fuller is still much lighter on languages than DTS. The typical caricature of the conservative vs. liberal institution is that the conservatives are much better on languages (grammar, syntax, etc.) and the liberals are much better on backgrounds (Greco-Roman, Intertestamental, etc.). At Fuller neither one seems to be a distinctive in my opinion after looking at their curriculum.
So I would imagine it is easier for a Fuller student, but the irony is that they are no better equipped, and arguably less equipped than (e.g.) a DTS student (of course, depending on the degree route one takes & electives they offer).
At the end of the day, seminary or divinity school is what you make it no matter where you go. DTS or Fuller may be weak in some areas (e.g. Historical criticism, backgrounds, etc.) but there are always electives offered and independent studies one can take with respected professors that can make up the difference. That’s just one more reason why PhD committees and scholars at the mainline institutions do not need to discriminate against students for the sheer fact that they got their masters degree at a “conservative” institution.
Just my two cents. I would like to see a Fuller student or someone with more knowledge chime in here. I speak from nothing more than mere speculation.
No worries on the misspelling, Lisa. You may have noticed that I totally butchered “cosmogonic” above. 🙂
There are several resources that I think are helpful but I want to stress that what I’m really after here involves something much more to do with a general intellectual/attitudinal habit or overall approach to theology and theological method than anything else. Whatever texts I recommend, then, I don’t want them to obscure that larger matter. [As an aside, in many respects I suppose I’m not saying anything too far afield of what Mark Noll suggests in his “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Press, 1994), a book worth perusing.]
At any rate, I think George A. Lindbeck’s seminal work “The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age” (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1984) is definitely worth checking out. Reinhard Hütter’s “Suffering Divine Things: Theology as Church Practice” (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Press, 2000) is also recommended as, apart from being remarkable in its own right, it is an excellent continuation and development of Lindbeck’s thesis (and, I must say, substantially better than Vanhoozer’s attempt at the same with his “canonical linguistic” approach; Vanhoozer does acknowledge Hütter’s text but in a manner that causes me to question whether or not he actually read it with any care, if at all). Also fantastic is Paul J. Griffiths’ newest work “Intellectual Appetite: A Theological Grammar” (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2009).* In addition, one could do worse than read Alasdair MacIntyre’s hugely important “Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopedia, Genealogy, and Tradition” (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990) and “Whose Justice? Which Rationality?” (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988). I can’t help but likewise recommend that the evangelical student read (in the following order) Nathan Hatch’s “The Democratization of American Christianity” (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), George Marsden’s “Fundamentalism and American Culture” (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), and Joel Carpenter’s “Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism” (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). It would also be worth the effort to investigate Nancey Murphy’s “Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism: How Modern and Postmodern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda” (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1996). There are several, several other books which I might recommend but I fear I’ve potentially overwhelmed you as it is. […]
[…] To be clear, though, I don’t want any potential quibbling over the particular texts I’ve listed to overshadow the bigger point I’m making: there are what we might call significant “meta-theological” issues involved in DTS’s ThM curriculum such that the failure of the same to acknowledge and address said issues places DTS students in the theologically crippling position of lacking any significant awareness of the theological, historical, and philosophical contingencies into and by which they are being shaped in their courses. And, I would submit that it is both many of those contingencies and their lack of being acknowledged as such which partially legitimates the prejudice many of us experience from doctoral admissions committees in academia.
*To be forthright about my own biases, I should point out that Hütter and Griffiths were both professors of mine at Duke. Still, this doesn’t mean their texts I’ve mentioned above aren’t excellent and worthy of consideration.
Luke,
Thanks for the response. I believe you are correct that Fuller students do not have to sign anything, however I do believe that the faculty have at least a basic statement of faith they have to assent to which may not go so far as to require belief in inerrancy, but certainly affirms the inspiration of Scripture. It can be found here.
http://www.fuller.edu/about-fuller/mission-and-history/statement-of-faith.aspx
The reason I asked about Fuller was some of the exact things you pointed out. Among institutions which can be considered to be at least marginally Evangelical (according to how many would define Evangelical, not necessarily the historical definition) I think Fuller would be among those with the most academic freedom and highest degree of acceptance for divergent viewpoints.
Is Denver similar? I don’t know much about them whereas I had a few friends from undergrad go to Fuller. A Th.M might be somewhere on my list of degrees to get.
Someone in a previous comment asked my assessment of why the landscape is as it is with regard to bias against conservative.
While I’m sure there are many contributing factors, some more to the forefront than others, I think the key factor in all this is the attitude that those who hold to any sort of faith or confession cannot legitimately do sound critical scholarship.
Recently, in a blog, April Deconick writes, “Confessional scholarship is willing to compromise and apologize in order to keep ‘history’ aligned with the faith tradition. It is willing to understand theology as history and write about knowledge in these terms.” (full blog-post at: http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com/2009/09/never-ending-confusion-about.html ). Granted, some who I would consider legitimate critical scholars have voiced their disagreement (e.g. Mark Goodacre responds here: http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/confessional-vs-historical-critical.html ), however, it doesn’t take long for one to be in the SBL types of environment to realize the validity of this bias.
Therefore, can this change? In some respects, no. To be confessional by its very nature will always raise flags for critical scholars. However, at the same time, I think the language department of DTS is beginning to show (and has shown at least for the last ten years) that one can honestly wrestle with the data regardless of its conclusions and as Wallace is always found saying, ‘pursuing the truth at all costs.’ Hopefully with confessional scholars following such a model, more and more of the critical scholars will have a perspective as say a Mark Goodacre (see blog-post link above) who do not so easily discriminate against the validity of the scholarship of those holding to any sort of confession. And I do see this happening even now, but to see progress is not enough as it is never enough in any form of discrimination, e.g. racial, gender, etc.
Unless evangelical or conservative schools free their students and professors to pursue the truth wherever it may lead, I think that the secular universities are entirely fair in discounting students who come from those institutions, at least initially. Having any kind of theological statement to sign interferes with being known for pursuit of truth and leads to stereotyping. The stereotyping does serve a useful service, however, for the greater number that goes to such schools for education or who employ graduates. It’s a kind of branding, “if X went to that school they are likely inerrantist and worth interviewing for the Y ministry job”. The branding is not so good for those that want an academic career. But as I said earlier, I’m not sure why anyone who wants an academic career would want to go to a conservative institution for anything beyond an under graduate degree.
regards,
#John