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"
Brett,
I think that one of the things this post demonstrates is that we need to understand fundamentalism as an attitude, not so much a movement.
I think you will always have trouble disassociating yourself from the presumption of the separationist and obscurantist attitude and methodology since that is automatically assumed about Fundamentalists. I would say that it is an uphill battle, but, hey, look at the battle even Evangelicals (who are essentially fundamentalists to liberals!) have to face. But I would say that if your presumptions are not your guide, you are, dare I say, a true liberal. If you are committed to philosophical naturalism in your studies (which you are not), you are a “left winged fundamentalist”, as Dan put it.
But, that was addressed to Dan. I am just so excited the site is back up I had to post.
John 1543,
I would suggest that there is a difference between studying the use of Tarot cards as a cultural phenomenon and using Tarot cards to determine that one conclusion is to be preferred over another.
Mark,
Well said.
Vinny,
The tarot card analogy really isn’t analogous to what happens in evangelical scholarship. My point before was that a student who believes that the Bible has supernatural origins isn’t going to argue that his interpretation is true because God told him so. Instead, he is going to approach the Bible with a view of ultimate complementation instead of ultimate contradiction. However, the philosophic naturalist is going to approach the Bible with a view of contradiction (not that it all contradicts, but that there is no reason to take variation as complementation, since the Bible is purely man made anyway). This would be fine, except for the fact that the former’s approach is not allowed. This is what I meant by saying that everyone has ultimate beliefs that play out in his or her hermeneutical/interpretive decisions. To claim that you have no such assumption based on a negative proposition is to misunderstand from whence the hermeneutical principles you just laid out above come. One doesn’t have knowledge of the metaphysical reality of the Bible from empirical analysis. This is true; but this does not mean that one does not have knowledge of the metaphysical reality of the Bible. The problem is that reality cannot be confined to what I can observe, and that belief helps me pursue passages all the more. For example, often my liberal friends would just dismiss a passage as contradiction or as the remnants of a misapplied source; but my desire to see the Bible as a coherent text leads me to look into the matter even further, and often (although not always) I have found the more obvious connection within the literary structure of the book.
That’s what I was getting at before. No one I know of is going to get to a university and start writing papers on how God told me this issue is resolved by such and such. In fact, as I argued before, the university should not be asking what metaphysical reality is true, but instead allow multiple views to present the data well argued, but consistent, with each individual’s ultimate beliefs.
To give a good example, when I read a commentary by a secular scholar, I analyze his empirical observations as though they could be 100% accurate; but that does not mean that I adopt his interpretation of that data that stems from his ultimate beliefs. I can, therefore, go to a university, do all of my papers and dissertation, and congenially rub elbows with my more liberal counterparts without even mentioning or even defending my supernatural beliefs. There is essentially no necessary difference between an evangelical’s analysis of the data and a secular scholar’s analysis except for when it comes to the underlying approach to the text as ultimately coherent, and any question that might come up as to whether what TEXT A teaches is true. The university should have no problem with an approach to literary texts that sees them as ultimately coherent, and should not be making any judgments, either way, on the truthfulness of a metaphysical claim. Nor should it exclude anyone who doesn’t answer that metaphysical question “correctly.”
Bryan,
I believe that you are bringing to the fore the issue I had in mind when I wrote,
“For example, authorship is by self attestation, scripture must be consistent, it must always have a message, and so on.”
The underlying issue may be that of belief in inerrancy but on the surface, the difficulty arises in that one group is committed to coherency and the other group is not.
IMO evnagelicals are committed to the scriptures being consistent within themselves, and being relevant for today. But for liberals the scriptures may or may not be coherent.
The evangelical may perhaps spend longer on the text, examining it in order to find coherence. I believe that in some cases they do. I know for sure that egalitarian evangelicals spend endless hours researching each piece of evidence for various studies on women, looking at copies of the original documents and the context. Whereas a liberal egalitarian would likely shrug it all off.
The flipside is that some articles on these topics, by evangelicals of both persuasions, can be totally off base. A thesis is often built out of thin air and rests on nothing more than a presupposition.
The desire to make the scriptures both consistent and relevant has created some unusual exegesis.
So, there really are errors, of distance, for the liberals, and of manipulation for the fundamentalists.
Which sin is less grave, that of assuming the text must be consistent and sometimes manipulating it so that it is demonstrated to be consistent, OR not really caring either way and therefore not engaging in the same kind of detailed (but not necessarily superior) research.
Sue,
I am not sure that I follow or agree that those who believe that the Scriptures are relevant or coherent necessarily manipulate the Scripture. I would certainly agree that many do and have done this since the very beginning, but what is being argued here is that many Evangelicals can and do handle the Scriptures with integrity, being first committed to a historical-grammatical (or historical-critical) approach, not to their theological presuppositions.
The implications of interpretation produce and contribute to a theology. The theology attempts to be consistent. Where there seem to be inconsistencies, one’s belief may or may not manipulate the data in an unjustified way. But this does not have to be the case.
For example, some will explain what seem to be inconsistencies with a belief in progressive revelation and intra-canonical development. In this, the inconsistencies will often remain and have a perfectly valid (and somewhat natural) explanation. Does that mean the explanation is correct? No. But there are many predetermined factors that will contribute to the direction taken.
Does the egalitarian, for example, manipulate the text in order to preserve their belief. It just depends. Same goes for the complementarian. To say nothing of other theological commitments. But there are many solutions that allow for the tension to remain and don’t necessitate an either/or approach. Therefore, the Evangelical can say both/and to many of the tensions.
But to imply that those committed to the Scriptures MUST manipulate the text may be begging the (unspoken) question here.
Maybe I am misreading you?
Michael,
I think you reiterated exactly what I was saying. This is what I wrote,
“Which sin is less grave, that of assuming the text must be consistent and sometimes manipulating it …”
You wrote,
“I would certainly agree that many do and have done this since the very beginning, …”
I am not saying that none deal with the scripture with integrity. Not at all. But the problem is that some DO manipulate the text. It is a great temptation, and many are not at all aware that they are doing so. I would suggest that manipulating the text, or even certain facts, is simply more of a temptation for evangelicals of all stripes, because they ASSUME that the text is coherent.
Liberals, on the other hand, do not ASSUME contradiction, although Bryan certainly seems to suggest that they do. IMO, liberals could not care less if two passages cohere or not. This leaves them free to simply read the text. I have heard the best language scholars admit that two passages appear to be contradictory, and even imcomprehensible, and quite frankly, they are willing to leave it at that.
I suggest that this is sometimes the more honest approach. However, there is a certain commitment and intensity to doing research as an evangelical, because so much hangs on it.
Perhaps the best research would be a mixture of commitments, the evangelical demonstrating the passion of commitment and the liberal demonstrating the need for distance and willingness for an answer to not be forthcoming.
Sue, I would agree with that.
In fact, I would go so far to say (as I do when teaching hermeneutics) that evangelicals have learned more from liberals in the last 100 years on how to interpret the Bible than we have from our own precisely because they have helped us to refocus.
However, this can only be said about true liberals, not necessarily fundamentalist left-wingers. But the problem with the universities is that they do let people in with left-winged bias over those that are theologically to their right. Why is one preferred over the other? If someone starts with the presuppositions that it is incoherent and inconsistent (because all man-made works are), then won’t that cloud their opinions just as well?
And I think that this is what Dan was arguing for in the post. There is no such thing as true academic theological liberalism anymore (at least not as it is assumed to be).
Having said all of this, do you (this goes for everyone) think that one who assumes inconsistency should be admitted? Is their bias any less threatening to the text?
Not having the time nor the energy to read thru all the comments here …so maybe someone has already made the observation;
Mr. Wallace states, “Sadly, some of the most brilliant scholars in biblical studies have become radically intolerant of conservatives.”
I’m not sure how clear my thinking is here, but has it occured to anyone to ask the question; where does “brillance” end & intolerance begin? In what sense can someone be called “brillant” when their intolerance speaks louder than anything they may have to say from within their own expertise? From my own experience (and it is just that, mine) some of the most “brillant” people I have crossed paths with don’t have any pedigree to speak of. Whereas, some of the most closed minded and intolerant are the ones who do have a high pedigree and many sheep skins hanging on their walls to validate their accomplishments. Whence “brillance?”
One additional comment: Mr. Wallace needn’t be taken to task for pointing all this out, but I do wonder why we evangelicals sometimes seem to think we have to receive some sort of applause and recognition from the world’s academic elite’s, and to be disappointed when the acceptance we seem to crave isn’t forthcoming? It seems to me that a lot of our energies are spent trying to get the scholarly “brillant” (there’s that word again) to stand up and take notice of our efforts. It sometimes makes me think it may be the result of some sort of inferiority complex…as if we, in the back of our minds really do wonder if we are correct and true in what & who we believe in.
If Mr. Wallace is correct in his assumption that well over 60% in attendance are not believers, then this antipathy toward the gospel in the academic world should come as no surprise. And it shouldn’t cause us as much unease and travail as it sometimes seems to create within our souls.
Steve, I think this has been answered but this is such an incredibly long thread now that it’s difficult to keep track! Michael said it in the previous post; evangelicals have most likely learned more from liberals in the last 100 years than they have from themselves. This means that there is a great deal to learn from liberals—even those who are closed-minded and are simply left-wing fundamentalists (here, I think I disagree with Michael). It is true, such people are often so deeply ingressed in their own presuppositions that they simply are unable to see the text any other way. April DeConick, for example, wrote last September of some of her unshakeable presuppositions: Jesus was not resurrected, because dead men don’t rise from the dead. Jesus was not born of a virgin, because conception requires a Y chromosome, which must be supplied by a man. Her worldview is one of philosophical naturalism. Should someone study under her to understand the resurrection narratives better? Well, that’s not her specialty. Her specialty is the Gospel of Thomas. And there, she’s a world-class expert. I may disagree with a lot of her presuppositions about Thomas, but I have to wrestle with her opinions and the evidence she brings forth.
Or consider Rudolf Bultmann, perhaps the most radical and certainly the most influential NT scholar of the 20th century. He had a lot of good things to say, and challenged evangelicals in some tremendous ways. Yet he argued that there is no such thing as presuppositionless exegesis. That’s a view that evangelicals would almost unanimously affirm, while many liberals still think that historical positivism and neutrality are possible. Bultmann’s commentary on John is a masterpiece. His NT Theology is must reading for all seminary students. He has a lot to teach us, even though much of it is by way of negative input and über-skepticism. But what skeptics often uncover are embarrassing contradictions in how evangelicals have put their theological and historical constructions together. So, over the decades and centuries, evangelicals have reacted to liberals, but have also refined their own views in light of the interaction. My complaint is that all too often the dialogue is really a one-way street.
Sue,
“Liberals, on the other hand, do not ASSUME contradiction, although Bryan certainly seems to suggest that they do. IMO, liberals could not care less if two passages cohere or not. This leaves them free to simply read the text. I have heard the best language scholars admit that two passages appear to be contradictory, and even imcomprehensible, and quite frankly, they are willing to leave it at that.”
I suggested that they assume an over emphasized humanity to the Bible that functions, in essence, as a naturalistic tendency within their hermeneutics. I’m not quite sure what use of “liberal” you are using here, however, so I won’t pursue that too closely.
Your observation, however, is precisely what I was commenting upon before. The idea that “those other guys are biased, but we’re neutral because we don’t care” assumes a host of presuppositions. Are you telling me that liberals don’t care if hell is real? Liberals don’t care if the exclusive claims of the Bible are true? Liberals don’t care if the God of the Old Testament is the one true God who will judge them? Liberals care, Sue; and this gives them as much of an agenda to “disprove” the Bible via contradiction (e.g. Bart Ehrman) as an evangelical might have to see it as coherent. The difference is that I can allow for immediate contradiction within a text or between authors because my theology sees coherence in the canon as a whole to where those contradictions are used by God ultimately as complementation. The secular scholar cannot do the same with the entire Bible. He must find ultimate contradictions because it helps him disprove the Bible’s divine origins in his own mind. I hardly think that is unbiased.
Your comment, of course, also assumes a view of man that sets him both as outside the box of his existence/culture, as well as assuming a Pelagian concept, where rebellion is absent from the human interpreter’s disposition. Even if humans are a blank slate, that’s a comment on humanity’s metaphysical condition rooted firmly in ultimate beliefs about metaphysical reality that must be served with one’s scholarship. So much for interpreting without presupps and bias.
If someone starts with the presuppositions that it is incoherent and inconsistent (because all man-made works are), then won’t that cloud their opinions just as well?
Michael,
If in fact we observe that all man-made works are incoherent and inconsistent, then it is not really a presupposition is it? It is a perfectly justifiable working hypothesis that the apparent contradictions amongst the various writings of the Bible do in fact reflect different understandings by the various authors. The presupposition lies on the side of the person who wishes to read coherence into the various writings because he has no empirical criteria by which he discern a single guiding mind acting supernaturally through different authors.
Let me just be clear that I believe that this “disproving” of the Bible is often an unconscious thing. I don’t think all secular scholars are running around even thinking about this in any conscious sense.
To answer a previous poster: “Liberals, on the other hand, do not ASSUME contradiction, although Bryan certainly seems to suggest that they do. IMO, liberals could not care less if two passages cohere or not.” I think a major issue has been overlooked in this assertion. The vast majority of liberal theologians used to be fundamentalists or evangelicals. (One liberal scholar, a good friend of mine, said it’s close to 100%!) They changed in their views while in school, and jettisoned their former faith. There are several reasons for this. One of them is to be laid at the feet of evangelicals and fundamentalists: all too often, the tough questions coming from the genuinely inquiring student are treated as though the person had leprosy. He is shut up: “That’s not an appropriate question to ask at this seminary!” After awhile, the bewildered student begins to feel as though his or her teachers are hiding something. When he/she goes for further education, he/she suddenly realizes that s/he can’t hold to the views s/he once held to. The experience is so emotional, however, that the student feels as though his or her teachers deceived him/her. And the result? A full-blown liberal scholar who, consciously or not, is adamantly against evangelicals and makes it his/her mission in life to destroy the evangelical faith.
Craig Evans once noted that such liberal scholars often end up holding to views that are far more radical on the left side of things than their former conservative position was on the right. In other words, it’s not true that liberals have no agenda or presuppositions when they come to the Bible. They do not interpret it in a vacuum. The more contradictions they can find, the more they feel vindicated in their abandonment of the faith.
Vinny:
So which one of these assumption do you think you are starting with:
1. The Bible is definitely not inspired because we have never seen anything inspired before.
2. The Bible is probably not inspired and should not be given the benefit of the doubt.
3. The Bible might be inspired (as it and tradition claim) but inspiration is not a foundational issue of interpretation.
4. The Bible is inspired and this is a foundational issue of interpretation?
5. I have no presuppositions at all one way or another.
It seems that you start with one and assume that all Christians go to 4. Am I right?
Vinny,
philosophic naturalism (e.g. here your idea that one must gain knowledge only through what is empirically observable rather than through testimony as well) is the presupposition, not the observations that stem from it. The irony is that no one I know adopts this methodology until they want to use it to counter a metaphysical claim, which of course is one of many things it can’t do.
BTW, those uniform occurrences that stem from trascendent laws of logic and science are the result of what natural source?
I just threw that one in. I don’t really want to rabbit trail on that one. 🙂
Brian, you presuppositionalist you 🙂
Michael,
Guilty as charged. 🙂
TO ALL:
This is both a commendation and a bit of a flu shot:
Thank you all for keeping things so civil. I know how passionate that people can be about these things and that there are many who are reading this that are very committed to one side or another (and may be bitting the left (or right!) side of their tongue).
Let’s do our best to keep it this way showing gentleness, respect, and (as is the subject of our post here) openness.
Michael,
I know of no way to discern inspiredness in a writing. I know that various people throughout history have claimed that various writings were inspired but I know of no criteria by which their various claims can be evaluated other than ones that are suggested by the people who make the claims which, not surprisingly, always seem to confirm that their preferred writing is inspired. I don’t think that this is a question of assumptions or presuppositions. It is simply the state of my knowledge.
So, you are open to the possibility, but you don’t ever think that any known criteria could meet the demands of confirmation?
The problem with DTS is that the figureheads are NOT the progressives or the new gang with a new outlook. Also the lack of Gals doesn’t help your case either. Honestly, I love Bible.org and Credo and respect the studies and the opinions but I don’t totally believe what you do. I have been “run off” and classed as not Christian and not worthy to be a full member of the body. If I am insulted by all this Christian love – what are the liberals suppose to think when all they know is what they see?
I asked once if “first century context” meant anything to the person trying to unravel a passage – the answer was NO. I asked if a new discovery in Jerusalem meant anything to the passage – the answer was NO. I asked if the Old Testament reference within the passage meant anything to the passage – the answer was NO. I asked if any new discoveries would change his outlook – the answer was NO. You come at us and look for all the world like you know everything and your Systematic Theology needs nothing from anyone else. As much as you say you are open, you really look and sound closed. So start solving the problem by looking at each other and deciding if you are proving your faith or faithfully searching the answers. Because guys you have some things very wrong that a couple of coins with a bit if Hebrew script might just solve if you would quit proofing your faith. — And the applicants might get their doctorates.
Some very good points have been made. I had at first been thinking of some liberal theologians of the methodist tradition who had never been fundamentalists and really had no axe to grind that I could see. I don’t think that ALL liberal theologians are former fundamentalists. I have been privileged to work with some for whom the whole debate seems remote.
However, I will admit that there is some truth, much truth, in saying that many liberal theologians are former evangelicals and have walked the path that Dan describes.
If both sides are equally intolerant, then the question is, why would an evangelical expect to be accepted in a secular institution. If these institutions are the ones who have what the evangelicals want, then there are some serious questions to be asked by evangelicals.
Perhaps EVEN IF liberals, and those in secular institutions, publish scholarship which is manipulative and based on presuppositions, evangelicals have to clean up their act anyway. They simply have to be better, that is, cleaner and more honest. They have to make sure that they do not publish papers that are not squeaky clean.
I can honestly say that there is not a scrap of liberal or secular theology that moved me in the liberal direction, but simply the awareness that evangelical theology is not what it appears to be on the surface. Evangelical theology, or perhaps, evangelical exegesis, may be the major factor in the deconverson of scholars.
Sue,
“If both sides are equally intolerant, then the question is, why would an evangelical expect to be accepted in a secular institution. If these institutions are the ones who have what the evangelicals want, then there are some serious questions to be asked by evangelicals.”
Because Evangelical do not believe that liberal arts, the university, or (even) “secularism” belongs to an agendized group. We don’t want to take it over, we just want a voice. We like that first amendment stuff. And we like the idea of the unity AND diversity that a “university” is supposed to offer. We don’t like the idea that a university can be taken over by left-winged fundamentalists and become a confessional institution all the while claiming to be non-confessional.
Philosophy departments have recognized this in the last 30 years, so should biblical studies and theology deptments.
Sue,
Some good points here. I often say that the most damaging element to a position is not the well thought out argument presented by the opposing party, but a bad argument presented by an advocate of that position.
I don’t think, however, that scholarship is necessarily the issue. I studied under some of the most respected evangelical scholars one can find, and it still did not matter. I have heard numerous disparaging remarks made by secular scholars about these scholars, not on the basis of their scholarship, which is not in question, but because of their beliefs. Still, your point is well taken; and I think good scholarship is something for which we here all strive.
Sue,
The problem is, “evangelical” is not synonymous with “fundamentalist”! Evangelicals use the term “fundamentalist” in a pejorative sense just like the liberals do. Most evangelicals want to distance themselves as far away from the fundamentalist as the liberal does. The problem, as I see it, that some of these institutions have is that they see all evangelicals as fundamentalists. This is a mistake.
Also, they assume that all evangelicals are monolithic (republican, gay-hating complementarians). This is simply not the case.
Also, and back to one of my original points, they think that students at evangelical institutions believe EXACTLY what the institution believes and EXACTLY what the stereotypical evangelical believes. I’m at an evangelical institution, and I could personally care less about the term “evangelical.” Drop it for all I care. Also, there is no way on earth I could teach here. But I consider a good chunk of my education to be solid and it has helped me to think (isn’t that what an education is?). However, in some cases (it is being argued) the only thing the PhD committee sees is the name of the institution beside my name, they say “conservative evangelical!” & out goes the application!
Maybe they should allow more students in so our work can be more squeaky clean. . .
BTW, I think the length of this post displays the frustration that many of us share with Dan toward the academy. As Michael said, we all just want to play ball, and be evaluated for our skills, not what we believe about nature of the game we are playing.
My strongest reaction is that of empathy. Even though I have been accepted into a ThM program, not a well known one, but one that would have made me happy, I am not actually taking courses at the moment. Its not the right time for me. Possibly too late. I am working time and a half to put my own kids through university. It is their turn now.
But I lost the opportunity, perhaps on my own, but assisted by unfortunate circumstances related to gender beliefs in my upbringing and family.
I know how hard it is to give up a dream. I have taken on with gusto the role of provider and protector of my own family, and am no longer concerned about furthering my theological education – maybe next year.
But, at the same time, gender beliefs railroaded my life. So, for those who are young now, I don’t want to see your dreams railroaded. I know the investment that had been made.
The trouble is that liberals are no more intolerant that evangelicals, who are in some sense fundamentalists, although not extremist. And the liberals seem to have the upper hand. I don’t disagree that a lot of good points have been made, but CD- host made some good points also. And ultimately, rather than just call down the liberals, what can be done that is positive.
Rather than just deriding the liberals as intolerant just like us, in fact, let’s think about where the problem lies, and what can be done about it, if anything.
When you say that you just want to play ball, or have a voice, I have to ask, would a conservative scholar or candidate be willing to be completely silent on the issue of the restricted function of women, (and possibly on homosexuality as well.) Would that be too much of a sacrifice. Would it help at all if a school did not publish, or be known to publish, articles which have in view defining the status of women as other than the status of men? Perhaps articles on 1 Tim. 2:15 are not very good advertising? I could be all off base on this, but do you think that this has any adverse affect at all.
So, Sue, you suggest we just cut out of the Bible and ignore those topics which make some people cringe? I suppose it would be a good idea to keep tight lips on the subject of God’s wrath and Hell then too, huh?
I don’t doubt that your husband was just using the ‘submission’ term as an excuse for his abuse….probably throwing it at you just to get a rise, knowing full well that that term wasn’t excusing anything. Abusive men are experts at lame excuses….and twisted logic. You can’t keep blaming Bible scholars for what you went through.
I enjoyed the discussion and read most of the comments. However, between the going back and forth with Vinny, and Byran in regards to sola naturalism vs sola spiritual or super-natural.
Why not look at the issue much like the Incarnation or Chalcedonian Christology, in where both co-exist and work together?
Vinny seems to only look at the issue as if Christ was only human, whereas Byran makes it seem as if Christ was only Divine.
Why couldn’t the Robbers both be using a crow bar as well as being possessed through some sort of poltergeist?
I mostly agree with Byran, but I don’t see why one can’t believe in both…….at least to a certain degree.
ICXC NIKA
Sue,
You’ve been doing a great job of contributing here! Your comments have been fantastic and I have really gleaned a lot from them. Let me just challenge you not to exclusively go down the path I think you might be headed 😉
Trust me, there will be more blog posts where that topic comes up. It grieves me to think of what might have happened to you in your past regarding your husband, it really does. This post and the comments have been too good and on topic to go down that path again though. It’s not a bad path to go down, I just don’t think it’s the best place to start going. Keep those intelligent comments coming!
Sue,
Why are you talking about the role of women (being pastors/clergy) in all this? You seem to have an axe to grind against evangelicals and conservatives in general.
There are evangelicals that believe and have women elders/clergy….so why are you so upset?
Not that I agree with women being clergy……I just don’t understand why the issue was brought up.
ICXC NIKA
Thanks for the interesting report, with a lot of details, Dan.
My exposure to the milieu of which you speak is mostly via reading in recent years, tho years ago I had direct experience of Seminary (Master’s and PhD, the former at Talbot, the latter at Claremont, in “Theology and Personality, emphasis in Religious Ed”).
At least in the case of Claremont in the early to mid 90s, I encountered a situation that did not fit the trends that you described. I entered as a definite Evangelical and left still as one, tho with a more open, questioning posture, admittedly. (Full disclosure: a few years and much personal study later, I concluded I had become an “unbeliever” as to the core doctrines of orthodoxy or “historic Christian faith.”) I found no disrespect or discrimination toward me or the several other conservative Christians there in my fairly small program. For readers not familiar, Claremont is the home of the Center for Process Studies and very influenced by Process Theology (a “liberal” but not “classic liberal” position, difficult to pigeon-hole).
Various scholars have observed and decry the point/counter-point and us-versus-them dynamic between “conservatives” and “liberals.” What I think is greatly needed and should be sought by both “sides” is true productive “dialog,” trite as that may sound — genuine LISTENING and mutual exploring on both sides, looking for understanding and common ground.
I believe I am one example, among many, of coming to creative, positive and exciting third (or 4th, etc.) positions on numerous points and in terms of influencing paradigms. I would have to call myself a “former believer” or “unbeliever” in the way I think you’d define that, Dan, though I have a vital underlying trust in a differently defined God. As such, I do have to say that I take issue with your comment about I Cor. 2:14 in comment #8: “…it is saying that unbelievers do not *welcome* the things of the Spirit of God.” I not only welcome them, but actively seek them out, and I have a lot of “unbelieving” friends who seem to feel and do the same.
Howard, thanks for this helpful reply. Dr. Wallace mentioned earlier that most of the liberal bible scholars were formerly more conservative, and I would say considered themselves Christian in the classical sense.
The thorny issue in dealing with properly basic beliefs is that for most, they are normative. Let me provide two examples.
Example one is a molecular biologist (Joe) at a large research university. He has foundational beliefs about scientific naturalism. These act as guide-rails for everything he does. In fact, these foundational beliefs are really necessary for his acceptance into his community of identity. If this person would change these foundational beliefs, (as sometimes happens), he is at great personal risk. For sure he had better not conduct research guided by different assumptions, not print anything which may be construed as against the foundations of this belief system. He could suffer censure, lose tenure, be academically discredited, and so fourth. You see the point we need to get is that all of us have properly basic beliefs which CONSTRAIN our thinking and research. We all just happen to think out properly basic beliefs are correct.
Example two is a theology scholar (Jill) at a confessional school. She holds to certain properly basic beliefs regarding the Christian faith. Let’s use the Nicene creed as a good summary for these beliefs. Despite diversity and division, this is what as Vincent of Lerins says, has been believed and confessed everywhere, always and by all who are in this particular community. We heard earlier from those reacting to Wallace’s statement of resurrection of Christ as a “telltale” for defining ‘Christian’, and guess what, that is what all communities do. Just as the person applying to work with Joe in example one will be excluded from the community if he states that he has serious problems with scientific naturalism. The main problem in all of this is that we are not careful thinkers about thinking. All this negative talk about exclusivity and presuppositions shows that we do not understand how these things really function. (Scientists are not trained in the philosophy of science by the way) Jill is constrained by the Nicene creed which directs her study and research. Once she changes her foundational beliefs (which sometimes happens), she will no longer be in this community. The day Dr. Wallace says that he followed the evidence and it just happened to lead to the conclusions about Christ reached by the Jesus seminar, he will be asked to hand in his resignation at Dallas seminary.
So in summary
1. Every community is exclusive or else the term has no meaning.
2. Every statement that makes an assertion of truth is exclusive (it has to exclude the opposite, or else nothing has been posited)
3. Everyone is guided and constrained by foundational, properly basic beliefs. CONSTRAINED. This is enforced by the community of identity for that individual. You are always free to…
60% to 80% of scholars unbelievers? Woe unto us! We are being crowded out.
[…] not help but make a couple comments in the great discussion going on over at Michael’s blog Parchment and Pen where Dr. Dan Wallace began by lamenting the treatment some of his students received when seeking […]
But the same post dismisses anyone who does not hold a particular view of atonement (”Jesus paid for our sins”) as a non-Christian!
I’m sorry, Chris, but I fail to see anything wrong with that. Liberals who do not hold to the atonement of Christ for our sins, His divinity, His bodily ressurection, and His miracles as being true are not Christians. Sorry to burst your bubble there, buddy.
Howard Pepper: “I would have to call myself a “former believer” or “unbeliever” in the way I think you’d define that, Dan, though I have a vital underlying trust in a differently defined God.”
Do you think you would have eventually become an unbeliever even if you never went to Claremont? Or do you think you became an unbeliever in large part due to Claremont?
My point in my comment #198 was that universities allow the study of almost anything from almost any angle (I looked up Tarot as an example because the word had come up already in this thread and it struck me as a bizarre thing to study at university, especially a study of its potential use in therapy). So if one can study the use of Tarot in therapy, why not an evangelical studying the Bible?
It seems apparent that the issue is not one of skill or ability, or even the recognition of such, but the sort of discrimination that cannot be countered by the display of skill and ability. If that is the case, then how do evangelicals overcome it? The only practical approach seems to me to do what was done by the conservatives that took back the Southern Baptist denomination, or the trailblazing as done by Plantinga, etc. That is, one goes the fully secular route and gets a job at a university, joins the committees, etc. and changes it from the inside by pushing for the acceptance of evangelicals.
When I was doing my undergrad, I realized there was not much hope if I pursued graduate degrees at “religious” schools. So I went the secular route. I did another undergrad degree, and ended up having my career go in a different direction (Master of Environmental Studies, etc.).
Anyway, I don’t see the secular institutions changing except from the inside.
The other issue I see is, what does one want to do with one’s degree? Teach at a secular institution or a confessional / religious one? If its the former, why pursue graduate degrees at a religious institution. If its the latter, why is a secular degree necessary? Furthermore, if one is concerned about supporting an evangelical view of the Bible, or doing good research from within that framework, and getting that information to students, pastors and the person in the pew, why the need for a secular degree? One can do great work within the evangelical and fundamentalist world at evangelical and fundamentalist institutions.
regards,
#John
regards,
#John
Interesting but not surprising perspective. I think the root of this however transcends liberal vs. evangelical or merely just a completely unjustified bias although that’s symptomatic. The whole concept pervades the higher educational system at large (ref: George Marsden’s books). If I might be so simple as to suggest that this is more of a sign of the underlying work of the ruler of the age. The religious elite in the first century at best only sniffed at the teachings of the Messiah. Why should His followers expect anything less today?
Hmm … what would happen if we “redefined” conservative and liberal to mean what they originally meant? In other words, a conservative is someone who supports the status quo and a liberal is someone who supports changing the current system. Then if we take a short view, say the last 50 years, everything makes sense. The “theologically liberal” has been in power, and therefore is conservative. While the “theologically conservative” has been out of power, and its attempts at infiltrating academia are liberal.
Thus, in a socio-political sense, the actions of both parties make sense. It’s just the addition of all the history before the last 50 years that confuses everyone.
At the very least, it should be comforting that all liberals in academia are persecuted in such a way … education is, of necessity, a conservative force. What happened to respected researchers who found holes in Darwin’s theory? What happened to the last serious, respected scientist who rejected current projections of global warming? Or literature profs who argued for an older interpretation of Shakespeare? Or even scientists that proposed alternative solutions to global warming besides carbon neutrality?
But, in a sense, theological conservatives now are paying for what “we” dished out earlier. So, I don’t begrudge the liberals their conservatism, even if I don’t find it exceptionally fair. Karma and all that.
But … seriously? Someone said that it is unchristian to believe there is some kind of dividing line? Have you read the gospels?
¡Hola, amigos y amigas!
I feel like I just read a marathon after all 233 posts so far … thanks to all for the stimulation, and thanks for any answers to what lies below 🙂
How do liberal-fundamentalists explain the lack of bias in the English universities who accept DTS grads? I have not yet read a good defense of American academia in contrast to the English sort. (Thanks to Dale for his comments in post 159)
What happens to graduates from other liberal-conservative schools such as TEDS, Wheaton, or Gordon-Conwell when they apply for PhD programs at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc? Thanks to Bryan for his “personal testimony” in post 156 – but as Dan said earlier, it would be great to get up a few more voices. Colleagues of mine from Moody (God bless the school that D.L. Moody founded) chose Wheaton over DTS because of their advancement anxieties; what’s the scoop on these other places?
If we’re all to “go where the evidence leads,” what if the evidence leads different people to different conclusions – dare I say it, a confessional perspective informed by evidence? We need liberal scholarship that is open to this possibility. Thanks to Mark, post 196, for beginning to address this question, and a kudos to Bryan in post 202 for his best case scenario to explain the refusals of American universities: ultimate conflict over ultimate complementation and ultimate contradiction.
@Vinny in post 211: “If in fact we observe that all man-made works are incoherent and inconsistent … It is a perfectly justifiable working hypothesis …” Which posts of yours here are incoherent or inconsistent? I don’t think you meant to be either, but if this is a good working hypothesis … please explain? 😉
How about this scenario: Would students interested in the research of Egyptian or Roman gods be refused an education where those subjects were taught if they actually believed in them? How about Muslims or Jews? Just curious … (Thanks #John1453, posts 198 and 232)
Apologies for the length of this post: trying to summarize 233 responses to thoughts briefly!
*Side note: I need to find out more about what liberals believe about God’s holiness. Something there doesn’t always seem to jive with God’s love for everybody, everywhere, no matter what – but perhaps I’ll find some material in the library rather than in a blog post here?
#John1453,
The only practical approach seems to me to do what was done by the conservatives that took back the Southern Baptist denomination, or the trailblazing as done by Plantinga, etc. That is, one goes the fully secular route and gets a job at a university, joins the committees, etc. and changes it from the inside by pushing for the acceptance of evangelicals.
I think you know that this will shift the oppression back onto women. I actually believe that women should be able to study without being exposed to opnions that they should not “want to teach men.” That is, if someone wants to discuss what the text says, fine, no problem, but if someone thinks that women should not seek employment in places of higher education, ie teaching “men” then they should actually not express those opinions in a persuasive or evangelizing manner. They should actively attempt to not challenge women and make them uncomfortable for wanting to join in with men in the academy.
The same goes for views on homosexuality and non-Christians, ie Jews, all believers in other faith, former believers and non-believers, going to hell.
If these things are not the issue, and we have decided that scholarship is not the issue, then where next?
I am a DTS student graduate who was accepted into a top-tier PhD program in a Bible field directly out of the ThM. On the whole I had mostly positive experiences interviewing with professors.
A few thoughts:
1) Professors from mainline Universities are inundated with potential students and applications. As a mere grad student I have begun avoiding events with potential students (receptions, etc.), because there are so many people who want to get into programs and who are eager to show off their knowledge. Sometimes shortness or unfriendliness may not be bias at all.
2) With so many applicants, these professors can take the cream of the crop. In biblical studies, DTS students are not always the cream of the crop. If you can choose someone with solid undergraduate and masters work in schools that are one-to-one with yours, why wouldn’t you? The mere fact that DTS students are seeking the prestige of other Universities illustrates the point – if DTS is such an amazing school, why not stay there and do a PhD?
3) The language-counting game is baloney. I have taken exegetical courses at both DTS and at a University Divinity School, and the requirements for the Div classes far exceeded those in Seminary. I have seen students take one year of Hebrew at this school and have more advanced knowledge and facility with the language than my contemporaries at DTS. I took an Advanced Hebrew class at DTS in which half the class was still struggling with the concept “segholate noun,” which made studying the historical grammar of segholate nouns difficult. While acknowledging that a person CAN excel at DTS in languages, it is also possible that a person got through the ThM and still doesn’t have them down. I know of a case – the guy was hot stuff at DTS and ended up dropping out of his PhD program once he learned what real language study was all about. So saying, “I studied x, y and z languages” doesn’t mean everything.
4) British PhDs are not always as rigorous as American PhDs. They give you an excellent research model, but not comprehensive knowledge of the field. That’s because in Britain, you’re expected to have done your BA in a very narrow field. It is common knowledge in the field that Evangelicals often to go England, do a dissertation in a narrow topic, and then come back and teach at confessional schools. PhDs from Oxford are thus not necessarily placed on the same level as PhDs from Harvard when hiring professors in American Universities, unless perhaps the person’s entire education is British.
5) Many biblical studies departments in Universities have self-consciously decided to approach questions from historical-critical vs. confessional approaches. This is a type of bias, but it’s a type of bias that a department is allowed to have. American philosophy departments have largely gone for an analytic approach, and would view as suspect someone who studied Satre and Heidegger in a Continental school and who has little…
Michael,
Because humans are finite beings, I deem all knowledge to be provisional. However, I think that some ideas have stood the test of time sufficiently well that the possibility that they will be overturned seems exceedingly remote. By the same token, I think there are ideas that have proved themselves unsatisfactory to an extent that the possibility that they will be rehabilitated seems similarly remote. Among these are supernatural explanations for the world that we observe including the orthodox Christian notion of the divine inspiration of scripture.
I don’t know that this would meet conventional understandings of “open.” In fact, if I were a university considering a PhD candidate, some might label it “intolerance.”
Bryan,
I don’t think that is quite my idea of philosophic naturalism, but I think we can continue having a constructive without laying out a rigorous definition here. However, I don’t think that it categorically precludes consideration of testimony.
I think that most people use philosophical naturalism so regularly to explain the world around them that it never even occurs to them to name it. When an evangelical Christian’s car acts up or he wakes up feeling under the weather, most will look for a natural explanation of the phenomenon without ever considering the possibility that an angel or demon is at work. If he serves on a jury and hears two witnesses tell conflicting stories, he assumes that only one of them can be correct without ever considering the possibility that some supernatural event occurred that might harmonize the contradictions. In almost all historical inquiries including the history of religions other than his own, he is perfectly content with naturalistic explanations. It is only when it comes to the events that occurred in early first century Palestine that he embraces the explanatory power of revealed truth and subjective spiritual experience.
I would submit that everyone you know adopts this methodology almost all the time.
John1453,
I don’t think it is a question of what is being studied. It is a question of how to pursue the ideal of objectivity in the conclusions that are reached about the thing. I don’t see any problem with examining the therapeutic effects of prayer, Tarot readings, exorcisms, astrology, or any other unscientific approach. There is so much we do not know about the interaction of the mind and body, that any attempt to get at the healing triggers may be worthwhile. However, the conclusions must be based on empirical observations rather than reading the Tarot cards.
My first semester @ DTS, I was speaking with a classmate about my background and he asked, “With all of that in your background, what lead you to dispensationalism?”
I can honestly say that I had never even heard the term all throughout my seminary application procedure, nor did I ever feel pressured to believe in the big D while at DTS.
…or no experience doing analytic philosophy, especially when there are 100 other applicants who come from analytical schools. Is this academic bias? Might we argue that the student of Heidegger should have his voice? A biblical studies professor at a University has similar concerns. She wants to do historical criticism and leave all possibilities open. He wants to train his students to DO source criticism in the Hebrew Bible, which requires intensive training, much more than merely learning about it. A student from DTS knows some languages and exegesis, but that’s not everything. A student from Princeton with only one year of Hebrew might know Hebrew better – because e.g. they’re required to read it and comment on it extensively in class rather than sitting and listening to the professor’s notes – and they will have more experience in the TYPE of study that the professor is actively doing in the classroom than a DTS grad. I have seen such MA students graduate from the Divinity school in my program. If it were MY decision, I would choose them over me coming from DTS.
5) I completely agree with TAVW that DTS educational experience has glaring lacunae. While I am grateful to DTS and happy that I got into a good program from DTS, were I to do it over, there is no chance I would attend DTS again. The BE department offers nothing but an extended English Bible survey/trivia course, and many (not all) of the professors in that department are downright anti-intellectual and plain fruity (the ones who aren’t fail to prepare you for the standardized trivia tests). Please, Professor Wallace, go sit in on some of these classes. Listen to Eliot Johnson or Robert Lightner for a semester and tell me the Emperor has clothes. I made it through a slew of theological classes without ever reading Stanley Hauerwas. And with due respect to the NT Department and Professor Wallace, who do a very good job in my opinion, it is not altogether true that you don’t beat up on people who deviate. You may not, but the deviating students must still sign a statement of inerrancy in order to graduate!
6) Dispensationalism stormed forth from highly non-academic, extremely sectarian beginnings. It emerged in the same period and with a similar spirit to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Its gnostic roots are acknowledged by Sys Theo profs at DTS. Yes, Block and Blaising have rescued it – but can we blame those who view modifications of a bizarre, populist theological system as suspect? DTS, Moody, and the like were founded as reactions against the directions liberal Universities wished to go, and they are well-aware of that history and proud of the side they chose. Can we blame them if they don’t welcome us back with open arms because our NT department has some professors who did PhDs in Evangelical-friendly England? This is a far greater divide than Analytic vs. Continental philosophy, and to some degree it’s fair! Ok, we’re in the game to a degree, but we’re late to…
Vinny, so you are saying that there are previous commitments or that you bring which you believe are justified. Therefore, you do not start each and every study with a presuppositionless blank slate. This seems to be an anti-spiritualistic presupposition. Even if the easiest explanation from the data (not your presup) seems to be that something extra-ordinary happened, you do not allow it.
So, like the lady earier…”we know that Christ did not raise from the grave because people do not raise from the grave.”
In the end, this demonstrates our point here. You are not truly liberal and true history cannot be acquired since there are prejudices shaping the outcome.
I know that religious people do just the opposite as they will look for “a devil in every corner,” but your method is not really any different from the standpoint of integrity.
That was my point of the questions earlier. Thanks for answering.
…the game, and the ways in which we’re not in the game are many. That’s ok, too – DTS is not a University and has a different purpose, but that’s why we’re not one-to-one with Universities, and why other Universities and their students are. Universities do not have as their primary goal the training of PhD students to go back to confessional schools and prepare pastors for ministry. But again – we started it.
7) In my mind, and I’m sure in many University professors’ minds, the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy rules out the possibility of doing certain types of historical criticism, the key methodological basis for University Departments. If a graduating DTS student signs a statement agreeing to inerrancy – and if you ask how it’s defined the DTS Powers that Be will point you to the Chicago Statement! – and applies into a PhD program that uses such methods in the same six-month period, what does that mean? The student must either wish to learn these methods and approaches but never use them or find them legitimate, or some intellectual dishonesty is on the loose. Inerrancy is a theological, confessional hermeneutic. Universities are interested in historical-critical hermeneutics. I very much understand why they are nervous to bring on someone who just confessed to a hermeneutic at odds with the methods they plan to use in the classroom for the next three-four years.
Departments at University do seek to define themselves and to produce certain end results. You do not want to become a department that is known for graduating Evangelical students who are very good at languages or who study exclusively something besides biblical studies (say Akkadian) and then go back to Evangelical schools and teach the Bible, ignoring huge swaths of the academic discipline. How many of the biblical studies people at DTS did their PhDs in Universities in biblical studies proper vs. Aramaic or Akkadian or Koine Greek (I don’t think you can get a PhD in Koine Greek alone in an American University!) or Herod Antipas?
I mean no disrespect at all – on the contrary, I have a good deal of respect for DTS NT and OT professors – and I am open to correction if any of my impressions are false.