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"
Kit,
I was not arguing that all man-made works are incoherent and inconsistent. I was responding to Michael’s question “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?” My point is that when we compare writings by different authors based on our knowledge of other writings and writers—i.e., whatever characteristics we might observe in all man-made works—we are using empirically observed patterns. I don’t think that this is a presupposition. On the other hand, when we insist upon reading two writings as coherent due to a divine mind operating above both writers, we are imposing a pattern of a type for which we have no observational data.
Vinny: You said:
But doesn’t that just assume your conclusion? On what basis do you say that we have no “observational data” for such when the “two writings” might provide exactly that data?
“It is only when it comes to the events that occurred in early first century Palestine ….”
When you still think that those first century souls were Palestinians and spoke Greek and thought in Greek-style, you are not seeing what is being dug up from the ground in ISRAEL or what is being said in the very words of the script of the letters and gospels. Hebrew scholars studying in the Land (Judaic and Christian) say that on average American religion is 50 years behind the scholarship in Israel. Even Finkelstein knows that what he has found changes Judaism (not as much as he wants to change it but it changes the bias and basis of the religion). What has been found also changes Christianity and what we thought we knew. Are a few of your confessionals going to fall – yes they are and yes they should; they are old dead men’s Greco-Roman understanding. They don’t fit the evidence any more – if they ever did.
Open up, catch up, be bold. You don’t have to go full liberal but you must come out of the Dark Ages. Or what you have to offer the conversation – esp that divine part and the Resurrection – will never be heard or worse lost forever.
Michael Patton wrote: Dallas Theological Seminary “has never required its students to adhere to this [dispensational] system of interpretation.”
True enough, but please note what they MUST adhere to, a list that includes Inerrancy. Inerrancy does not permit the existence of many if any genuinely important questions and distinctions between the Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith. There are also NON-INERRANTIST Christians, including Evangelicals who are non-Inerrantists and semi-inerrantists, but apparently those are all heretics according to DTS’s list of core Christian beliefs (See Dr. Robert M. Price’s recent book, INERRANT THE WIND: THE TROUBLED HOUSE OF NORTH AMERICAN EVANGELICALS):
Core Beliefs
While our faculty and board annually affirm their agreement with the full doctrinal statement (below), students need only agree with these seven essentials:
the Trinity
the full deity and humanity of Christ
the spiritual lostness of the human race
the substitutionary atonement and bodily resurrection of Christ
salvation by faith alone in Christ alone
the physical return of Christ
the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.
@Joe B (#236)
“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.”
I believe all those things, but I was a believer in Christ long before I heard the words ‘atonement’ or ‘divinity’. I still can’t explain them well, today. So perhaps there’s a strong point behind what you are saying, but I do wish you’d clarify… and perhaps simplify? Or Dan, CMP or someone else?
The definition (somewhere above) of “christian” as “someone who follows Christ’s teaching” is always going to be more attractive to the general public. The definition of “holding” a list of doctrines will always be a bit askew from illustrating who what Christ-ones really are. My definition – “someone who lives in Christ” is generally too experiential for most ecclesiastical theologians, who traditionally feel more comfortable with verifiable litmus test of doctrine.
All three definitions have some validity. All three are lacking in some way(s). Again, perhaps we can simplify?
What is a “christian”?
Bill, a Christian is one who is indwelt by the Holy Spirt.
Secondly, conservative Christian interpretations of the Bible and history have been tried, and found wanting by every university over 150-200 years old. That’s why all conservative Christian universities in the U.S. are relatively young establishments, many founded in the 1920s during the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, while Harvard, Yale, Princeton, even Calvin’s original college in Geneva, though all founded as conservative Christian seminaries, now discuss the historical approach to the Bible and keep in mind all the questions that raises, without providing their students unquestionable answers to such questions.
And Edward Babinski is a perfect example of what Dan described as the liberal scholar who was once a confessed evangelical….who now thrives on finding contradictions in order to validate his more recent anti-Chritian confessional stance.
CSC makes some very trenchant points.
I also found a great deal of variation in the academic level of the bible and theology courses I tool during my first degree, with no meaningful work by the administration to ensure a particular approach (are we scholarly? pastoral? remedial?) or standard of excellence among either professors or students.
In addition, I’ve found the environment to be very different between universities and confessional (i.e., confess to belief in Jesus) institutions. University was much more competitive (students hid library books). Confessional institutions are places with students that go their to park for a year, because they want to top up their bible knowledge before they go to university / college, because their parents want them to or paid for it, etc. Not exactly the environment that is accepting of demanding profs, nor a competitive environment for students.
Furthermore, students often choose confessional institutions because of the underlying belief system in place and promoted (reformed, methodist, pentecostal, anabaptist, etc.), whereas that is not the case at a university. Consequently, there is a lot more group think or common think and less questioning of oneself and others than at university. Consequently its not surprising that many scholars, etc. don’t have a crisis of faith until after they leave the confessional institution: Bart Ehrman as a case in point. These crises should be happening at the confessional institutions if they were doing their teaching job properly (in the sense of teaching inquiry and challenge as at university).
What happens, at least from my perspective, is that these public transformations away from evangelicalism or fundamentalism indicate to the wider world, including university admissions, that evangelical schools are not doing a good job of educating and creating open inquiring well-prepared minds, but are just training students to believe what they grew up believing.
Then there are the cases like Peter Enns. It’s obvious what that signals to secular institutions. I wouldn’t be surprised if John Walton eventually has to hit the road.
In addition, evangelical institutions don’t do enough to separate themselves from, and critique the “nut job” evangelical insitutions that teach young earth creationism. So everyone gets lumped in together.
Confessional institutions that want greater secular respect for their students and professors are also looking at what has happened to institutions that did try for more respect or more openness to ideas. They became secular insitutions or universities. They lost their confessional “uniqueness” and their value for churning out like-minded pastors and housewives and church members and elders. It does not seem to me that (other than perhaps Fuller) that evangelical institutions want to go into a neighbourhood (i.e. secular respect) that could get them mugged and turned into a theologically liberal institution.
#John
To the main point:
The best comment I’ve seen so far is Dan’s (somewhere in the middle) that the Liberal Institutions have their unspoken lists, which obviously cannot be officialized in public universities. The whole problem, to me, is that they’re just doing what the ecclesiastical organizations did for so many centuries beforehand. The issue is not about access to the process. The issue is about controlling the end product.
If UK schools are truly more tolerant, it may only reflect Europe’s progression beyond the battles for religious freedom. You’d think the US was founded on that freedom, but theological and political domination by clergy has always been a localized personal experience.
The inherent (sinful) resistance to God Himself notwithstanding, a large portion of this problem can probably be blamed on the church. Until Christian Leaders become more “truly liberal”, the so-called Liberals are likely to feel justified in giving back as good as they get, thus, in their minds, preserving some balance.
———————–
But back to the central point of the post – and in the interest of DTS students like Mike W & Rob K – it seems DTS may only need to spread word about the distinctions of their NT and OT dept’s. On that suggestion, I’m only summarizing what I think I’ve heard here so far. As for myself, IDK.
By the way, many thanks to Dan and everyone. This has truly been a fascinating conversation so far…
CSC,
Thanks for sharing, brother! That was very comprehensive. While prefacing this remark by saying I agree with most of what you say, I do want to note that it is ironic how you say you had “mostly positive experiences” with professors despite the fact that you got your ThM from DTS, and then you go on to list reasons students at DTS have negative experiences with professors and universities and should not be accepted by them! Perhaps you were a rare exception to the rule.
However, I do want to note, that there are many, many students at DTS who are just like you. They come to a conservative seminary because that’s about all they have knowledge of and they are interested in ministry or biblical-theological studies & are getting no substance at church. During the course of their study in the first or second year, they develop a great love for the academic side of biblical studies and it becomes a passion. They want to stay in the academic realm because that helps them learn more about God and they think they can be of greater service to the church if they do so. They have professors who introduce them to the depths of the languages, backgrounds, and complexities of the issues about things we’ve always been given short, pithy answers about. The student wants more because this is new knowledge that he has never pursued and has never heard about.
The student starts reading the likes of James Dunn, Adela Collins, Brevard Childs, Stanley Hauerwas (outside of class, that is!) and realizes that it is at these institutions (Duke, Yale, Princeton, etc.) that the big name people are at. It is at these institutions where the rigorous work is being done. The student then decides to pursue a PhD at one of these institutions to study under these people to become more knowledgeable in the field.
In the student’s pursuit of deeper knowledge and a more robust education, he/she realizes how “out of date” and “silly” some of the classes and departments are at their conservative institution. However, by this time the student is in his/her 3rd year, with one to go. His/her church is supporting them, and they just have one more year to go. Why not finish it out? Despite the fact of the fluff, there are still some legitimate profs who can really help the student in their pursuit of a better education
Then the student realizes something: the great conservative/liberal divide. It doesn’t make much sense to the student, but it’s the way the system is. The student has worked his/her tail off reading the great minds (mostly outside of class!), learning the languages, catching up to date with current scholarship, etc. He/she is trapped. They don’t share the same convictions the institution does. They don’t share the same passions their profs do. But he/she is just as bright as the masters student at Princeton, Yale, Duke. Their GRE scores are just as good, they know more languages, they’re just as knowledgeable about hermeneutics and HC. What…
@Vinny, post 250 – My bad! My winky comment should be addressed to Michael instead 🙂
@Michael – winky comment for you above …
Susan, Thanks for attacking the person rather than addressing the issues of history and the Bible and of scholars who are not apostates but who are not inerrantists either.
Has anyone read professor McGrath’s blog?
He addresses many of these same issues that Michael has raised:
His blog is “Exploring our Matrix” and his recent reply is dated and titled:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Bible, Christianity and Scholarship
Rod said…
I have a friend who went through a heresy trial at Dallas Seminary. After the heresy trial was over, Dallas Seminary wrote to the parents of this said student, explaining that he was an anathema to the church. Dan Wallace’s complaint about liberal intolerance will fall on deaf ear when it comes to me.
Dave Rattigan said…
Even if liberals reject a conservative view out-of-hand, by definition the liberal view is more open, and thus more reasonable.
Basically, the conservative view says, “Only X is true. Everything outside X is false.”
The liberal view (as the conservative view characterizes it) says, “Only X is definitely not true. Everything outside X is possible and open to investigation.”
So which position is more reasonable? To accept only a tiny set conclusions and reject the vast area outside, or to be open to a vast range of possibilities, and reject only one tiny set of conclusions? Logic tells me the liberal approach is more true to the spirit of scholarship.
And I do want to say, CSC, that you’re actually the first person I’ve heard say that the languages at the mainline schools are more challenging and better than the conservative institutions. That’s after not just hearing my conservative professors’ testimony, but after hearing both students’ and professors’ testimonies at the mainline universities and liberal institutions! Perhaps the school you went to is an exception and in the minority, but it’s certainly not the claim I hear from people on both sides of the spectrum.
Also, the student is not required to define “inerrancy” as in-line with the Chicago Statement. I don’t! So that’s a fallacy with people who assume such, and if you assumed this definition during your tenure at DTS then you were reading too much into the term “inerrancy.”
And one more thing; some DTS students ARE the cream of the crop. The professor just doesn’t think so because it says “DTS” beside their name. Obviously, you were the cream of the crop and you graduated from DTS. There are more “yous” here than you think. I personally wouldn’t want to get my PhD at the same place I got my masters, and I would suggest many students from conservative seminaries want to go to the mainline divinity schools because the well has run dry with the conservatives and they want to be challenged more and respected in the field.
Students should be evaluated by a host of factors, not just where they got their masters degree. Like I said above, seminary/divinity school is often what you make of it. A seminary student at DTS can get twice as much out of his/her education as an MDiv student at Duke or MAR student at Yale. He/she may have to work twice as hard and it may be more challenging, but it can be done (independent studies, self-study, alternative readings outside of class, developing relationships with profs at other institutions, etc.).
You should pick the institution you want to be educated at based upon your vocational goals. The problem is, most are unsure of their vocational goals until their 2nd & 3rd year of school. Now the system says they’re essentially trapped, and that’s why I think the system needs reform. It’s a mistake on the part of the university to think the education the student at the conservative institution received is inferior, fundamentalist, etc. It’s a mistake to think they hold to the same values all conservatives do, it’s a mistake to think they are less knowledgeable than another student who graduated from a more prestigious school, and it’s a mistake to assume they’re a narrow-minded bigot. Students at conservative institutions push the envelope just as much as their counterparts at the prestigious schools. They may be fewer percentage wise, but they are there. My personal experience will not allow me to say otherwise.
Ed, I don’t mean what I said as an attack, but rather it is a truthful observation based on conversations I have had with you, and those I have observed you having with others. Much like Bart Ehrman,you seem to have a desire to lead others down your trail– thus divorcing themselves from Christianity.
[…] Other Good Discussion Most of us are aware of the good discussion taking place at Parchment and Pen on Dan Wallace’s recent post but there’s been another […]
Ed, “So which position is more reasonable? To accept only a tiny set conclusions and reject the vast area outside, or to be open to a vast range of possibilities, and reject only one tiny set of conclusions? Logic tells me the liberal approach is more true to the spirit of scholarship.”
But, not necessarily true to God’s Spirit, who is very specific about truth.
Let me respond to a few:
Mark Howell (#233): A very well stated comment which I agree with nearly 100%, and have stated similarly myself. Indeed, most institutions/communities operate within fairly rigid paradigms (we ALL, necessarily, utilize organized patterns to make sense of almost anythng… just important we regularly step back and re-examine and perhaps revise them, which gets tougher and tougher the more one has at stake, as you wisely point out).
The point of my personal Claremont example was partly to say that there are degrees of openness and true academic freedom and to seek out and support the more open models…. Ironically, less “Christian” Europe may be ahead of America re. this, if Dan is correct. But Mark, your point is valid and important that bottom line, every community is exclusive at some point. Even one being as broad and inclusive as possible cannot logically include exclusivism, else it cancels the inclusivism. So, in that sense, no group CAN be truly inclusive… a point the “inclusive” crowd often misses, causing confusion.
“Truth Unites…” (#237): I do think I’d have left the Evangelical/orthodox fold without attending Claremont, as I never stop asking deeper questions, seeking answers from diverse angles… it just might have taken longer. My experience there knocked down some stereotypes I’d picked up and exposed me to a LOT of good deeper information and thought as well as “liberal,” “process,” “neoorthodox,” etc. devotion to God, Christ, and spirituality.
Ed Babinski (#253, 6) and Susan (#257): Thanks for the good points and specifics on DTS… about what I’d expect from my knowledge and my own experience at Talbot (similar theology), which DID, in my days there, require assent to a Pre-Trib position (thankfully no longer, I believe). Susan, could it not also be that for Ed, as I’d say for myself, that he found contradictions, disconnects, spin, etc. FIRST, leading him to new positions, rather than citing them just to “validate his more recent anti-Christian confessional stance?” (Somehow mysteriously or “rebelliously” arrived at? Perhaps deceived by Satan?)
Last time I checked there were not yet 220 comments on this blog post. I teach my classes and come back and we’re in the 260’s! Apparently, it’s hitting a nerve. I appreciate how civil the conversations have been. This is an important dialogue. I would like to pick up on a couple of comments:
Edward said, “Conservative Christian interpretations of the Bible and history have been tried, and found wanting by every university over 150-200 years old.” Edward, that’s simply not true. Cambridge University, Oxford University, Tübingen University, Durham, Edinburgh, Duke, Manchester, St Andrews, Aberdeen, etc. have conservative Christians in the faculty of their religion departments. Well respected faculty, too. And Princeton Seminary, though not a university, had Bruce Metzger for 46 years. Conservatives have had a huge influence, and their views have not been tried and found wanting. Their views have actually refined liberal views, and vice versa. The attitude that says the game is over is the very kind of attitude that I have argued is a closed-mindedness that is not helpful for dialogue.
John 1453 said: “Confessional institutions are places with students that go their [sic] to park for a year, because they want to top up their bible knowledge before they go to university / college, because their parents want them to or paid for it, etc. Not exactly the environment that is accepting of demanding profs, nor a competitive environment for students.” This, too, betrays an attitude that is not related to any confessional seminary I know of. No demanding profs at these schools? Have you ever heard of Bruce Waltke? He was so demanding a prof that students would regularly fail his courses, but because he was so brilliant and godly, they took the courses from him. He has two earned doctorates, one from Harvard in Semitics. The man knows close to 50 languages. I have found that many universities breed apathy, not competition. Or competition that is all the wrong sort. Can you tell me what schools you were thinking of?
Rod said: “I have a friend who went through a heresy trial at Dallas Seminary. After the heresy trial was over, Dallas Seminary wrote to the parents of this said student, explaining that he was an anathema to the church. Dan Wallace’s complaint about liberal intolerance will fall on deaf ear when it comes to me.” This story has all the earmarks of an apocryphal tale to me. Why on earth would the parents of a grown man be told about any such heresy trial? When did this happen? And anathema? I’ve been on faculty at DTS for 25 years; I’ve never heard of any student here fall under such a curse. Let’s stick to facts, not hearsay.
What university wants to graduate a student with a PhD where that believes in a young earth and that belief is important to the subject under study? Such a belief wouldn’t make a difference to a PhD in textiles or engineering, but it would in geology or biblical or divinity studies. [I paust to note that my previous comment put scare quotes around “nut job” to indicate that such is the perspective of secular insitutions]
Think of that ruckus (and institutional embarrassment) in the past couple of years caused by that PhD student who graduate with a PhD in (paleontology?)
Institutions have long memories because of the long tenure of the professors in them. What professor will forget that Geisler of DTS advocated the teaching of special creation in the Arkansas creation trial?
And what about those DTS profs who promoted a book attacking Hugh Ross? They wrote back cover blurbs: “Hugh Ross’s claims for Progressive Creationism are carefully and critically countered from cripture, science, and theology in this timely book.”
Robert P. Lightner, Th.M, Th.D — Professor of Systematic Theology, Dallas Theological Seminary; and “Anyone making a serious study of the early chapters of Genesis should have this book. …Authors Mark Van Bebber and Paul S. Taylor have given us a strong argument for the literal account of creation days in Genesis.” John L. Mitchell, Th.D. — former Board Member of Dallas Theological Seminary; past President of Arizona College of the Bible; Pastor Emeritus of Bethany Bible Church, Phoenix, Arizona
It’s those sort of things that kill respect for students coming from confessional institutions.
I wouldn’t say that confessional institutions are glorified Sunday schools, nor would I say that secular insitutions are uniformly challenging and of high calibre, nevertheless there is a significant and remaining difference.
William Lane Craig, in a speech he gave in Europe, described how secularists often view evangelicals: ” For the secular person you may as well tell him to believe in fairies or leprechauns as in Jesus Christ! Or, to give a more realistic illustration, it is like a devotee of the Hare Krishna movement approaching you on the street and inviting you to believe in Krishna. Such an invitation strikes us as bizarre, freakish, even amusing. But to a person on the streets of Bombay, such an invitation would, I assume, appear quite reasonable and cause for reflection. I fear that evangelicals appear almost as weird to persons on the streets of Bonn, Stockholm, or Paris as do the devotees of Krishna.”
Craig went on to discuss how necessary, but currently lacking, it was for evangelicals to meet secular scholars on their own turf: “False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation to be controlled by…
Bryan #180 —
In looking at your dialogue neither one of them is drawing conclusions based on evidence. There isn’t enough evidence for either Sam or Ben’s conclusions. The most that can be said is that the existence of an idol is fully consistent with both the evolution of religion theory and the biblical’s description of the popular religion.
CD,
That’s my point. When it comes to historical past events one uses evidence to support his or her theory of the past. There is no such thing as a purely evidence based theory. The only conclusion one can come to is that there is a statue found, the characteristics of that statue, in what strata it was found, in what sort of area, etc. Once someone places a theory to the evidence, that theory is going to be in accord with their presuppositions and ultimate beliefs.
Vinny,
“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.”
This is a caricature. I don’t know of any academic evangelicals who look to demons as the source of their car breaking down. Christians look to both physical and metaphysical explanations for something in their lives, not just to physical. The immediate problem may be with the mechanics of the car, so the Christian pursues that; but he may also include a layer of meaning to the event that a philosophic naturalist would not. This is the difference that should not matter, frankly, because both are looking at physical evidence and can see an immediate source for the event. The evangelical, however, often sees these events as supernaturally meaningful as well. It is the latter that does not need to be discussed in a classroom.
So to answer Sue’s question as to whether an evangelical would be able to keep silent on his beliefs about women’s roles and homosexuality, Yes, I would, because whether I believe something “extra” when compared to the philosophic naturalist, my analysis of what Paul believed on the subject would be based on the physical text, in its historical-grammatical context. The university should be concerned with that analysis, not what its students believe about the subject.
Re comment 269 and response to my comment about parking.
I totally agree that there are many very well qualified and also demanding profs at confessional schools. I was taught by a couple of such myself. I also agree that my personal experience is anecdotal in relation to the specific schools I went to. However, from what I’ve read over the years, and my discussions with others has led me to conclude that my experience was and is not unique. Confessional institutions do get more students, at least in the first two years of undergrad, who are not there to pursue a career or to pursue learning, in comparison to secular schools. Kudos to DTS if it keeps standards high despite such students.
Moreover, I’m not alone in have such ideas about the weakness of evangelical and fundamentalist higher education.
Further to my above quote of WL Craig, he went on to say, “So what, we may ask, are European evangelicals doing to win this scholarly debate and so change the university? Well, frankly, the answer must be: very little, indeed. With the notable exception of Great Britain and to a lesser extent Germany, Europe has produced few, distinguished evangelical scholars. What evangelical scholars there are tend to be big fish in a very small pond. Their influence extends very little beyond the evangelical subculture. They teach for the most part at evangelical Bible schools and seminaries instead of the universities; they tend to publish with evangelical presses, so that their works remain largely unread by non-evangelical scholars; and instead of participating in the standard professional societies, they shun these in favor of evangelical conferences. As a result, their light is put under a bushel, they have little leavening effect for the sake of the Gospel in their professional fields, and the deadening effect of secularism on the culture at large goes unchecked.
We desperately need in Europe evangelical scholars who can compete with secular scholars on their own terms of scholarship. Charles Malik, the former Lebanese ambassador to the United States, in his address at the inauguration of the Billy Graham center at Wheaton College, warned American Christians of the danger of anti-intellectualism. He asked pointedly,
Who among evangelicals can stand up to the great secular scholars on their own terms of scholarship? Who among evangelical scholars is quoted as a normative source by the greatest secular authorities on history or philosophy or psychology or sociology or politics? Does the evangelical mode of thinking have the slightest chance of becoming the dominant mode in the great universities of Europe and America that stamp our entire civilization with their spirit and ideas?”
The liberal bias identified by Wallace (and others on this thread) is an obstacle to evangelicals achieving the kind of necessary changes identified by Craig and Malik.
regards,
#John
Hi Luke,
Yes, you make a good point. While I’m mostly defending the so-called bias of the Universities, my own experience was positive. A few people did say to me, “in all honesty we don’t know what your grades from DTS mean, but we’ll do our best to judge you on your writing sample,” and the like, and I didn’t get in everywhere (including some master’s programs!).
I’m also of course not arguing that DTS students should never be admitted to any great PhD programs. I’m merely saying I understand when they aren’t. Fully-funded PhD positions are extremely competitive, and we have several things going against us, and those things aren’t just a “fundamentalist liberal bias,” but real concerns about the fit of the student with the program. Sure, DTS students realize they want something else all the time, but that doesn’t change the fact that we went to DTS. Can we in reality get a good education? Of course! But hey, PhD positions come down to a 50 people for three slots, and 30 of those people are outstanding. If they’re looking at a Princeton grad and a DTS grad and they have similar quality writing samples and similar GRE scores similar GPAs and courses in the field, I wouldn’t blame them if they choose the Princeton grad and not the DTS grad. The DTS guy might be the cream of the crop, she might not. Would you find fault with them? Keep in mind – while there are plenty of us who change our mind about things in Seminary, there are more who don’t, and another subset of those who think they have but they really haven’t (I have heard some bizarre if earnest appeals to Professors from Evangelicals that show a fundamental misunderstanding of the professor’s interests and the way the professor conceives of the field). It’s not the Universities’ fault that we chose to go to conservative institutions, and they’re not obligated to treat our institutions as other than they are just because we changed our minds halfway through. Universities don’t view confessional schools as part of the system! “The system” is not a single system at all in their minds, and like I said, while many do realize that Evangelical grads can be good and accept them, those who are shy of grads have reason to be – and they usually have plenty of student options graduating from more similar programs.
My comment on languages and the Chicago statement were based on personal experience. A friend of mine asked what DTS meant by “inerrancy” before he signed it and he was referred to the Chicago statement. He refused to sign it and did not take his degree. Of course most students don’t ask. Your standard MDiv grad at University is not getting the language skill of your standard ThM grad at DTS. Languages are commonly not even required at Div School programs. However, those who do take the languages often get a better education in them. At my school this is certainty – without a doubt! – the case…
CSC,
My concern was not whether I got into a program. I realize that there is a massive amount of competition. My concern was that the attitude and comments I received, having come from evangelical schools, let me know that I was not going to be considered in the first place.
I realize that some students from these schools do “make it”; but there is usually a special circumstance in those cases.
As for me, my language ability was not in question. My thesis translated numerous texts from Sumerian, Akkadian, Ugaritic, Egyptian, and Hebrew. I also taught Hebrew as a teaching fellow. In addition, I took four years of graduate course work instead of the one year that was required for my M.A. This does not guarantee admission into a school, but it at least ought to guarantee consideration.
Evangelicals want to go to the university because seminaries and Bible colleges have decided that those degrees are more prestigious and lift the school’s status to some degree. They also want the rigorous study that comes from attending the university; and most want the challenge of learning from others with opposing philosophical viewpoints. The British universities are a good alternative, but as you noted, they are more research degrees and they require more money in your pocket than most evangelicals may be able to spare. So for the evangelical scholar who wants to write and teach in an upper level academic setting, the university is the best option.
CSC,
I think you also hit on an area that is important in that there is a confusion on both sides concerning the issue of inerrancy. Inerrancy does not include in my mind the rejection of higher critical methodologies. It rejects the philosophic naturalism that often fueled them. That is a big difference. I don’t know about the Chicago statement. I haven’t read it; but my definition of inerrancy does not include the need to reject any methodological tool wielded by a secular prof. I just wouldn’t approach metaphysical questions the way that he does.
I do believe that many confessional schools have top-notch demanding instructors and produce top notch students that are as good or better academically and intellectually than those produced at secular institutions. And I do sympathize with their frustration at the lack of respect and obstacles that they face from such institutions and from scholars/profs from those institutions.
But I still sit here and think, “so what?” If one’s career and other aspirations require recognition and respect from secular institutions, why not just go there in the first place? And why should confessional institutions change their raison d’etre just because a few students want to go from Master’s level work at the confessional institution to PhD work at a secular institution? Moreover, it’s not like the students or the profs need the credibility and respect of a secular institution in order to effectively and with credibility address the home crowd. In fact a secular degree might be an obstacle (or even any degree at all, given that Benny Hinn (sp?) is a multimillion dollar success among the unwashed masses).
If evangelicals want to make a scholarly impact, why are they not doing it on the secular home turf from the get go rather than doing a Rodney Dangerfield impression.
WL Craig, challenged his listeners in Europe to engagement, and by way of example he quoted from an article in the journal Philo that complained about God believers invading the university:
“By the second half of the twentieth century, universities . . . had been become in the main secularized. The standard. . . position in each field. . . assumed or involved arguments for a naturalist world-view; departments of theology or religion aimed to understand the meaning and origins of religious writings, not to develop arguments against naturalism. Analytic philosophers . . . treated theism as an anti-realist or non-cognitivist world-view, requiring the reality, not of a deity, but merely of emotive expressions or certain ‘forms of life’. . . .
This is not to say that none of the scholars in the various academic fields were [sic] realist theists in their ‘private lives’; but realist theists, for the most part, excluded their theism from their publications and teaching, in large part because theism . . . was mainly considered to have such a low epistemic status that it did not meet the standards of an ‘academically respectable’ position to hold. The secularization of mainstream academia began to quickly unravel upon the publication of Plantinga’s influential book, God and Other Minds, in 1967. It became apparent to the philosophical profession that this book displayed that realist theists were not outmatched by naturalists in terms of the most valued standards of analytic philosophy: conceptual precision, rigor of argumentation, technical erudition, and an in-depth defense of an original world-view. This book, followed seven years later by Plantinga’s even more…
…I speak as someone who took many, many language classes at DTS and graded for many (both Hebrew and Greek) as well. After four years of Hebrew I took intermediate Hebrew at my University and it completely rocked my world. A person with two years of Hebrew from my school will be light years ahead of your standard DTS ThM grad, and very far ahead of even the cream of the DTS crop (if I am a good example of the cream of the DTS crop). If you are in the MA/MDiv here for NT, you will be trained in Classical Greek by some of the top Classicists in the world. You’ll also take Latin. Koine will be merely one of the Greek dialects you have mastered.
When you apply to PhD schools, you’re applying against people who have taken advantage of the superior language programs at the University Div Schools they’re at. We can pat ourselves on the back for requiring lots of Greek – DTS requires more than most schools – but believe me, I graded Greek and Hebrew exegesis at DTS, and a large percentage of people going through that program are not in the same stratosphere as people studying languages at top-tier Universities. So ok, you’re the cream of the crop, you can compete with the people at the top-tier Universities, but they have a smaller, much more consistently amazing crop from their language classes than does DTS.
In the Hebrew classes I take with Div school students at my school, we are required to prepare a chapter of Hebrew each class session. We must come ready to discuss arguments from Rashi to last month’s JBL, obscure grammar details, text critical issues, as well as rigorous application of critical method (which we don’t do much at DTS, especially in OT). One must be ready to read the Hebrew out loud, translate it, and answer any question about any of these topics at any time, and notes are forbidden. A cream-of-the-crop DTS student would have no problem with this, and would probably love it. You couldn’t run an exegetical class this way at DTS though – or at least people don’t – because too many people couldn’t do it. EVERY MDiv student taking languages in my school can do this consistently, and let me tell you, plenty of them after three years are much more advanced in their language ability – including historical linguistics – than I was upon graduating from DTS. DTS does some aspects of language as well as anyone – particularly interpretive aspects – but this idea that University/Div school students don’t get good language training is a myth, at least in my experience at this one school, and in my conversing with people at Chicago Div, Yale Div, Harvard Div, PTS, UCLA etc.
The reason I paint such a dire picture is this: having come from there and arriving here, I feel like I got lucky! I look at people applying to programs, I know how many people apply, and I while I’m thrilled every time a University professor DOES take a DTS grad seriously and take them in, and I understand when they don’t.
Can a distinction be maintained between excavation of truth in terms of a text (using methods from comparative sociology/anthropology, poetics, linguistics, and other methods) and claims of representations of “God’s truth”? One is an academic/scholarly work, the other is a claim to authority.
Michael,
I certainly don’t want to be saying that.
I would prefer to say it this way. I think that supernatural explanations are unhelpful and unnecessary in the overwhelming majority of cases. I have reached this conclusion based on everything I know and all that I have experienced. I have tried to think through the issues as thoroughly as I can. If I were to revisit the issue de novo based on some new study or circumstance, my new analysis would be based on everything I previously knew and everything I have experienced plus the new circumstance. All I can say is that the new study or circumstance would have to be a real humdinger in either quality or quantity for me to imagine that I am likely to reach a different conclusion. If I were to undertake a new study, I would not presuppose that supernatural explanations are unhelpful and unnecessary, but the study would include all the knowledge and evidence that previously led me to that conclusion.
I frequently get the question “What would it take to convince you of the truth of Christianity, the Bible, the resurrection, etc.” I always find this very difficult to answer because I cannot imagine what fact would change the total mix of data upon which my conclusions are based.
Nick,
I have understood the discussion up until now to be about the perspective the reader brings to his interpretation and I don’t think that he could bring a perspective that depends on what he finds within the writing. I don’t think that precludes the possibility that the two writings could provide such observational data although I am not sure what it would be.
If I were to read letters from two different Founding Fathers about the Constitution that expressed seeming contradictory opinions about the meaning of a particular clause, I would likely conclude that they had different understandings of what was intended. I don’t know what there could be in the writings that would lead me to seek some sort of harmonization based on the idea of a superior mind expressing a single unified conception through both writers.
Bryan,
I am very surprised given your circumstances that you weren’t considered. I know many people, including myself, who have gotten into top-tier PhD programs in NELC with less. I should say that I’m making general statements, that in your case perhaps the institution does indeed have a deep-seated ideological issue that blinds them to your work and potential. I would not be surprised at all if these things happened. I don’t think it’s necessarily characteristic of the entire American University System.
Dan,
I’m not sure how you can call someone as closed-minded as these a “world-class scholar”.
Knowing a bunch of stuff does not a scholar make. A closed-minded liberal is no different than a closed-minded fundamentalist…just has a different set of facts or a different worldview (or both).
Vinny,
“I think that supernatural explanations are unhelpful and unnecessary in the overwhelming majority of cases.”
I would most certainly agree with that, but it does not solve the issue of presuppositions, both yours and mine. Point being that we both have presuppositions and the myth of a white coat scientist approach to anything has, in my opinion, been thoroughly discredited.
The main point is whether your presuppositions can be admitted to, coherently applied, and reasonably justified. I think that most liberals have the second, but not the first or the third.
If this is the case, there is certainly no reason to prejudice the system.
Edward, your logic should tell you that both the conservative and liberals positions make assertions of truth based on presuppositions. Truth claims are also by nature exclusive. If in fact Christ rose from the dead, then the methodology which is ipso-facto anti-supernatural is going to be the weaker system in regards to explanatory power. If there are events which correspond to reality, then your preference for that which is “open to a vast range of possibilities.” is neither the most logical, nor preferable.
re changing the liberal bias
WL Craig’s prescription for changing the liberal bias includes:
“The point is that the task of desecularization is not hopeless or impossible, nor need significant changes take as long to achieve as one might think. It is this sort of Christian scholarship which represents the best hope for the transformation of culture that Malik and Machen envisioned, and its true impact for the cause of Christ will only be felt in the next generation, as it filters down into popular culture.
I have said all this concerning the challenge that confronts us. What advice, then, might I give to those whom God has burdened with the awesome task of becoming Christian apologists in Europe? Let me be very practical. . . .
It will not be easy. The power structures at European universities are often deeply anti-Christian. Students who are evangelical Christians will be weeded out by denying them degrees or professorships. There will be, and already have been, victims of anti-Christian discrimination in the process. Such fallen brethren are truly intellectual martyrs for the cause of Christ, and my heart breaks for them. But over time, more and more of us will successfully get through. In the United States, graduate programs in philosophy are awash with Christian students gradually working their way up through the system. As the old guard dies off and young Christian philosophers are hired in their places, the face of the university will change. What Thomas Kuhn said of scientific revolutions is also true of Christian revolutions: they proceed one funeral at a time. It can happen in Europe, too. Be patient. Be persistent. Be prayerful. Change will come.”
These sort of comments (and Craig is not the only one to write such things) reinforce my belief that at the present time the route to go is not from confessional school to secular school (at least not after an undergraduate degree) but within the secular system. Then the system can be changed from within as it has been in philosophy.
I think that the bias in secular institutions is defensible to a degree, and so with all due respect to DTS grads, I have to wonder what they were thinking and what their profs advised. There is no justification for sticking around at DTS (or a similar institution) beyond an undergrad if one wants to go to get a PhD from a secular institution.
regards,
#John
If I were to read letters from two different Founding Fathers about the Constitution that expressed seeming contradictory opinions about the meaning of a particular clause, I would likely conclude that they had different understandings of what was intended. I don’t know what there could be in the writings that would lead me to seek some sort of harmonization based on the idea of a superior mind expressing a single unified conception through both writers.
However, if you had a belief that there was an overarching idea that did harmonize these seeming contraditions then you might dig deeper into the philosophical underpinnings of their beliefs. It could be that both are basing there opinions on some Lockean philosophy which supports both opinions but are not readily connectable at the level which the founders opined. I think this is one of the advantages of considering harmony in the scriptures. Not every apparent contradiction will lead to a new discovery but the secular theologian might not even attempt to find it.
The secular theologican needs to make sure his worldview doesn’t encourage him to dismiss the possible harmonizations. Likewise, the evangelical theologian needs to make sure that his worldview doesn’t encourage him to find harmonizations that don’t really exist.
This idea of academic agnosticism being a prereq for entering universities is somewhat bizarre, especially in a post-modern society, is it not.
“If your convictions are too strong, they will necessarily sway the evidence.” I agree that they can and often (mostly) do, but where is the line drawn and who determines who draws it.
For example, let us censor all of these:
1. Graduates of DTS, Trinity, Gorden-Conwell, Fuller, Talbot, and Denver. Why? Because they have evangelical beliefs that they bring to the table.
2. Graduates of the University of Berkley. Why? Because they have (what many consider to be) radical left-winged commitments that they bring to the table.
3. Atheists. Why? Because they presuppose that there is not a God and therefore will interpret the evidence in light of such a supposition.
4. Theists. Why? Because they will see everything through a theistic paradigm.
However, 1 and 4 are much more likely to be censored than 2 and 3.
The idea that only certain worldviews, hermeneutical commitments, doctrinal convictions, and presuppositions are allowed is what seems to be the case. But the thing that is very troublesome is that this is being done while claiming to be non-confessional.
I would not mind if these schools simply established a bias and a creed and followed by it. If they did, an Evangelical would be as likely to seek an education there as an atheist would from DTS. There is simply no reason to.
Heidi,
Yes, I think there is a distinction there. The former ought to be the focus of the university without delving into what a student believes. Otherwise, we’re dealing with discrimination based on religion.
To answer the question that many are asking: “Why do Evangelicals care about being accepted into a secular school?” I would offer the following:
1. “Secular” is not a creed. (or it should not be).
2. “University” by its nature promotes unity and diversity.
3. We don’t seek to give up the culture, whether this be in politics or education (i.e. we are not separatists).
4. We believe that the Evangelical commitments are persuasive and offer the best representation of the truth, why would we want to hide it? (After all, we are “evangelical”).
5. Because the university, like it or not, still hold more prestige to the outside world than do confessional school. Therefore, it offers more opportunities.
6. The university is part of the an American heritage of which we are a part.
Bryan,
Above you said that you presuppose a coherency to the texts. What do you mean by that? What if your close reading of the textual data leads you to believe that one part of the Pent directly contradicts the other, and that the author of part B would be seriously unhappy to be included in the canon with part A? What if you come to the conclusion that something described as a miracle in the Bible most likely did not take place historically, not because you’ve ruled out the supernatural, but because the way it’s described leads you to believe that in a particular case the Bible has creatively appropriated a common-stock myth? However you define inerrancy, it generally has to mean that the Bible is “without error” or contradiction, no? How would you handle these data with your starting supposition that the text is coherent – what do you mean by “coherent?”
I’m curious about this, because explaining inerrancy away to a belief in supernaturalism vs. philosophical naturalism seems to be exactly that – explaining it away. A belief in supernaturalism and the truth-claims of scripture doesn’t need the term “inerrant,” does it?
An important point was made awhile ago and missed, I think, to some degree. The university has a problem with evangelicals specifically, not supernaturalists in general. They have a problem with evangelical/historic Christianity’s supernaturalism.
Case in point: Muslims are not discriminated against when applying for a PhD in Islamic Studies based on whether they believe the Koran to be true. Most Muslims do believe it is true, and in an inerrant manner at that. Why is that evangelicals are discriminated against because of their belief that the Bible is true? It’s not because they approach the text absent of higher critical methods, languages, historical context, anthropological considerations, etc. What evangelical academic is going to write a paper on the Hebrew synoptics, using all of these to analyze the text, and then include a one liner at the end that says “and I believe it’s true too”? You can believe in all sorts of supernatural and non-empirical entities (doesn’t Dawkins believe in aliens?). The issue is orthodox Christianity. If you’re a Gnostic, feel free to apply.
Historically, Evangelicals are the ones with whom Universities have had the longstanding feud. We initially rejected their critical methods outright, called them all heretics, and started the Fundamentalist and Bible school movements – DTS’s heritage. At our schools we teach our students that critical methods are passe and wrong – particularly in the Hebrew Bible. Society-wide, the strongest anti-intellectual populist influence in America is Evangelical. They didn’t come up with these feelings out of thin air.
CSC,
Inerrancy doesn’t have to include the idea of literalistic readings of the text. I can conclude that Jonah is an historical fact or that it functions like a parable. This has nothing to do with inerrancy. Also, contradiction is, I believe, a canonical issue, not an immediate textual one. If James says that faith and works is required for justification and Paul says that only faith is required, it may be that those two are in conflict; but my larger presupposition that God ultimately brings the canon together to speak in unity, allows me to see Paul and James in complementation even though it may be that they disagreed with one another (I don’t believe this to be the case, but this is just an example).
In short, inerrancy has to do with what is being taught, not what means through which that teaching comes about. The genre question (i.e., whether something is historical narrative or theological presentation or a mixture of both) is irrelevant to the question of inerrancy. The problem is that there is no one definition of inerrancy, so many confuse a fundamentalist-literalistic reading of the text with inerrancy itself.
CSC,
But this is true of Muslims as well. I mean, it’s not like evangelicals blew up a skyscraper in NY. I see no reason why a Muslim would not be seen as equally irrational as an evangelical, except for the fact that liberals and atheists are usually people who have an actual hatred for evangelicals, having had bad experiences with that particular group on a personal level.
The problem is not that evangelicals cannot get into secular schools (if they couldn’t that would be illegal religious discrimination). The problem is that evangelicals with graduate degrees from evangelical or fundamentalist institutions cannot use those degrees as a means of getting into secular PhD programs and, in addition, find that those degrees are held against them.
For the various reasons mentioned in some of the comments, I would agree that there is justification for treating evangelical degrees thusly. The fact that a well regarded book can be written with the title “the closing of the evangelical mind” speaks volumes about the impression that secular institutions have of evangelical ones.
However, all that does not pose an obstacle to an evangelical getting a PhD. Go to a secular institution for your masters and stop whinging. Or, if the undergrad was not fully recognized, transfer some credits and get a new undergrad (I did that). So profs at secular institutions don’t recognize your degree or it’s a conversation stopper. Get over it. If you want their degree on their home turf you gotta play by their rules.
Uinversities do have a pretty clear creed, and in that creed “non-fessional” means no belief or pre-commitment to inerrancy and a skeptical approach to the supernatural.
regards,
#John
It seems that perhaps some of the problem here is that it seems a little bit difficult for evangelicals to keep these as separate and distinct.
To me, they can better come together in theology (words about God) than in biblical literature (the study of a wide range of genre texts containing words concerning God and other topics as understood by some groups of ancient people).
A confessional reading – based on a particular theologies and rejecting others – isn’t based on the texts at all, but on particular histories of interpretations of those texts in the interests of particular communities of belief. Christians aren’t monolithic, after all.
When I hear the believer/unbeliever talk, I can never forget the word “infidel,” which expresses what is meant much more accurately. In academe, why would anyone be expected to receive admiration for ad hominem attacks? Does the attacking bulldog feel persecuted because he’s not being given biscuits by the person he’s biting?
You can disagree with someone’s religious beliefs and still work with them on scholarly projects in a non-seminarian university setting. And isn’t that really the purpose of such communities as the SBL?
Bryan,
The thing is that’s not what inerrancy was all about from its beginning, and so we’re nuancing it, and that’s great, but I fail to see how that’s different than inspiration, authority, and canon. Also, I’m not asking about genre – I’m saying what if you decide something described as a historical miracle is unlikely to have happened, and not because it’s a theological presentation or a parable. We can finesse away such instances by reference to genre, but that in itself is a theological move spurred on by inerrancy, isn’t it?
Michael,
It occurs to me that the white coat scientist is the presupposition that matters. Whether he is mythological or not, he remains the model and the ideal for the secular university. This model assumes that academic methodologies calculated to achieve objective scholarship are not negated by the presuppositions of individual scholars. Evangelicals, on the other hand, would prefer a model in which presuppositions are accepted as an irreducible element in all scholarship and attempts to overcome presuppositions are deemed intolerance.
Would I have gotten a prize for the 300th post?