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"
Bryan,
The whole history of the research University is tied up in relation to Evangelicalism, and not to Islam. The social dynamics governing modern Islamic departments are entirely different, and the social dynamics are important in understanding the situation – it’s not merely a matter of logic. We have an academic history with these institutions in a very different way than the Muslims, and the types of people teaching Islam at schools are also very different. It’s not the University in the Abstract, but the specific departments, the type of scholarship these departments do, and the history of specific departments with their religious traditions.
BTW, Bryan, I find the reference to the towers distasteful – that has next to nothing to do with the social issue of Muslims and the University vs. Evangelicals and the University. Muslims who are doing work at Universities are not and should not be viewed through the lens of 9/11. The negative history of Evangelicals and the Universities is real and specific to Evangelicals and the Universities, not some isolated incident wrapped up in political events worldwide.
Michael – where have you been living lately?
1. “Secular” is not a creed. (or it should not be).
— Yes it is and the first tenant is that the Bible is a bunch of stories knitted together about people that never existed in a place that no one really believes was ordered and ordain by the Almighty himself as His place on a planet He created – if they even believe in the HE they need to keep quiet about that.
2. “University” by its nature promotes unity and diversity.
— May I refer you to Climate-gate. University is all about the money and grants and sponsorships and endowments and endowments for Chairs. Which translates into “avoid anyone that might say anything that will make the money go elsewhere.”
3. We don’t seek to give up the culture, whether this be in politics or education (i.e. we are not separatists).
— Ummm, yes you do and yes you are.
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”).
— The issue is “persuasive”; maybe we don’t want to be persuaded to the best representation of the/your truth. And the point of being a student at a university is to learn what they are teaching not to go there and teach them your best representation of the truth. In short, your reputation precedes you and not in a good way.
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.
— Yes, but what price is one willing to pay for those opportunities. In short are you willing to shut up about your beliefs in order to be in the program? I think DTS would ask much more from an atheist wanting admittance.
6. The university is part of the American heritage of which we are a part.
— Totally true in a romantic sort of way. Reality; not so much. The vast majority of people evangelical or not never make it to Associate or Bachelor level let alone Master and Doctorate or Dan’s super important only one in ten level or his doubly super important self-imposed job of getting all these old documents into digital media.
The archetypal figure of the white-coated scientist is actually out of date. Even scientific discourse is metaphorical. And… of course there have been some developments in theory and criticism in the last 50 or so years…
I would like to add to my post at 287 that I think almost all scholars seek to harmonize the text at some level.
The evangelical views Christian scriptures as existing in a theistic realm in which one God has created the world and revealed himself to man. The Bible is the only book that needs to be harmonized withing itself.
The unitarian, for example, may believe that the Christian scriptures sit within a deistic framework but also believe that the Koran, the Book of Mormon, etc. do as well. They are seeking to harmonize the Bible with these other books in an effort to understand the higher power they believe in.
The atheist believes that the Christian scriptures sit in a materialistic, determinisitic milieu. They look at how religious beliefs have evolved and the Christian scriptures are, along with other religious texts, and texts that have nothing to do with religion, are evidence of this. The commonalities point to how man creates belief structures in societies.
The main difference between these scholars is what worldview they are bringing with them.
Ha Vinny I love your post 299.
I led a discussion session for the incoming College students at the beginning of this quarter. One of the articles we read detailed the history of the University as a German-style research institution, and its role in the triumph of science over dogmatism. It was interesting to read about the 1890s-1930s from the perspective of a University president – a heroic tale in the opposite sense of the same tale I heard at Bible school and DTS. Universities view themselves as a triumph of science over dogma, and biblical studies departments view themselves as a triumph of historical criticism over Evangelical literalism. And hey, we’re trying to get in – they must be right!
No actually they are. Secular Jewish studies departments are not friendly to Orthodox or Hasidic Jews who use religious paradigms for similar reasons. Any Muslim who attempted to argue the Koran as indisputable fact based on direct revelation from Gabriel would have a similar problem.
This has been an interesting read-through, and I’m not quite done yet. Two quick comments along the way…
Does someone really think that the King James translation was carried out by Christians? I always thought it was mostly secular scholars who knew the languages. I could be wrong.
I would say that a true Christian must be convinced that the resurrection of Jesus was an actual event. There is a statement that some of these people don’t believe that Jesus paid for our sins – which I must admit that as I was reading I simply understood this to mean a belief in the atonement. Thus it was interesting later on to be reminded that someone can be a Christian who believes in the atonement, without believing that the atonement is an equivalent of Jesus paying for our sins.
Hello all,
Loving the thread (though its length should make us believers in eternity if we were not already!) Anyways, forgive me if what I am about to ask was addressed in one of the last 249 posts…but here it goes…
Is it possible that credible, evangelical practicioners of HC who on the one hand desire respect from the secular and/or non-confessional institutions also treat those they label as ‘fundamentalist’ with the same ire by which they are treated by the ‘liberals’?
Scraping for an example…okay: if in the name of open-minded evangelicalism I do not take seriously someone who believes in something like literary independence (because it’s “too divine” to think that or “too dinosaur”), should I be surprised that someone on the liberal end of the spectrum would treat me with the same attitude with which I treated the one who was fundamental?
Finally finding my point (I think), it appears to me that we all find ourselves somewhere on this spectrum: some community is too good for my own archaic beliefs (real, perceived, labeled, or what have you) and in the same breath, my own community is too good for another’s real or perceived archaic presuppositions. I wonder how this plays into argument of equal treatment. Thus, if I went through the HC method honestly, and still came away with a position such as, say, literary independence as my conclusion to the synoptic “problem”, would my diligent work still be accepted, or would I be labeled and typecast in much the same way within my own evangelical community as those very evangelicals who are pursuing education in the secular realm are being typecast?
If you don’t know what I am referring to, see for instance Robin Collins’ (Messiah College) thoughts on the subject. I was looking at posts 23, 24, 27, 236, 253 (find key words “atonement” and “paid”). There is a view that says that Christ is a substitutionary atonement, that he died for our sins, while rejecting the view that he “paid” for our sins, basically arguing that there was never really a “price” to pay.
CSC,
I’m looking at the historic Church’s view of the Bible in order to get my view of inerrancy, not some fundamentalists in the 19th Cent., so No, it’s not a manipulation of the term.
Here is where presupps play a part, of course. You’re essentially asking me about a miracle that is in a piece of literature that never reports to be solely historical, and then asking me what I would do if it was meant to be solely historical and then concluded that a miracle did not take place.
First, I don’t know what criteria I would use to reject that a miracle took place. I wasn’t there, and must either believe or disbelieve the report. It is a matter of belief then, not empirical determination. As it is a matter of belief for those who accept it, it is equally a matter of disbelief on the part of those who reject it. That belief goes hand in hand with whatever ultimate beliefs one holds. So, to me, this is simply a matter of whether I would change my ultimate beliefs. I don’t believe such decisions are made apart from those beliefs.
Your comment reminds me a bit of what an atheist friend of mine said to me about my interpretation of the serpent in Gen 3. I interpret the serpent to be the chaos agent in ancient Near Eastern thought (coupled with wisdom symbolism), not as a literal serpent. He, of course, wants to show me that the Bible is absurd, so he wants to interpret that as a literal talking snake. I have no problem with any of the multiple interpretations of that text within my belief system, so ironically, I’m open to any of those options. He, however, is committed to seeing it literalistically because this, so he seems to think, supports his preconceptions/conclusions more than my view. So to him, I’m just conveniently explaining these things away. To me, I’m honestly looking at the data in its ancient Near Eastern and literary context. Does it fit my beliefs about the larger canon and my presuppositions? Of course it does. But my views of the issue have changed within my belief system, so I do think that I am open to more possibilities than the secular scholar who wants to prove something by it.
So I would caution against presenting your opponent’s interpretations as catering to their presupps as though everyone didn’t have them. My point is only that my beliefs allow for both the literalistic interpretation and the more non-literal, so the question is essentially asking me if I believed the earth was round what if I analyzed it and came to the conclusion that the earth was flat. Based on report, I don’t believe the earth is flat, so how exactly would I come to that conclusion based on empirical study?
DAN WROTE:
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.
TO WHICH I REPLY: Bruce Metzger was at Princeton, and an Evangelical, but he was not an INERRANTIST. Therefore one of the world’s leaders in textual criticism was not an INERRANTIST. (DTS says all students and faculty must be INERRANTISTS.)
Conservative Christians in the 1920s found Princeton unacceptable so they founded Westminster Seminary led by a professor who hated “modernism” and quit Princeton at that time, Machen. Westminster’s dream was to keep a staff purely of inerrantists.
Today Westminster is having difficulties keeping scholarly questions at bay, what with Peter Enns and his book INSPIRATION AND INCARNATION, that led to a hearing being held to examine his views for possible heresy, and a fairly high percentage of professors supporting him and all the questions he raised in his book, contra the admistration’s wishes to thoroughly vet his beliefs. Which proves that even when you found your own seminary in the 1920s in reaction to Princeton’s creeping modernism, that was not enough to keep the questions at bay and being asked even at Westminster Seminary. Westminster alum, Paul Seely, and his articles in Westminster’s theological journal have also raised plenty of questions, such that Westminster is beginning to catch up to where Princeton was in the 1920s.
Harvard was founded as a conservative seminary, but then Yale was founded due to the “theological excesses” of Harvard.
Check out what the oldest European universities taught concerning the historical study of the Bible 200 years ago, 100 years ago, and today. Catholic universities finally opened up to the historical study of the Bible around the late 1800s, though the church at first forbade the publication of such works by leading priest-scholars.
200 years after Calvin had founded his college, its president was for all intents and purposes a deist who didn’t even believe in Satan.
You are right that there are some conservative Christian scholars in religious academia at prestigious universities. The key word is “some.” And such academics, such as N.T. Wright refuse to declare themselves “inerrantists.” Wright also admittted concerning the study of the Christ of faith in light of the study of the historical Jesus that…
Studying Jesus has been the occasion for huge upheavals in my personal life, my spirituality, my theology, and my psyche Let me put it like this. After fifteen years of serious historical Jesus study, I still say the creed ex animo; but I now mean something very different by it, not least by the word “god” itself. The portrait has been redrawn.
CSC,
“BTW, Bryan, I find the reference to the towers distasteful – that has next to nothing to do with the social issue of Muslims and the University vs. Evangelicals and the University. Muslims who are doing work at Universities are not and should not be viewed through the lens of 9/11. The negative history of Evangelicals and the Universities is real and specific to Evangelicals and the Universities, not some isolated incident wrapped up in political events worldwide.”
I completely reject this statement. It’s all political. The issue has become worse in recent decades since the “moral majority” in republican politics. Evangelicals weren’t viewed the same fifty years ago, so your analysis of why the situation is as it is today is a bit off in my estimation.
Second, I don’t think my Muslim friends should be viewed through that lens either; but my point is that discrimination is taking place based on prejudices, not based on personal and individual data. So why is it not the same with Muslims? Because Muslims aren’t at the forefront against liberal politics. Evangelicals are. These events overlap. Your defense of Muslims should give you equal consideration to evangelicals who share a stigma based on their beliefs. That was my point.
Vinny,
“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.”
So are you saying that universities hold an irrational belief that denies that presuppositional ultimate beliefs determine the conclusions of these scholars when dealing with historical and metaphysical theories? The university ought to get out of the dark ages of modernity and enter the postmodern era with the rest of us.
Hey friends – way to keep the discussion rolling!
@#John1453: in post 278 you say, “If evangelicals want to make a scholarly impact, why are they not doing it on the secular home turf from the get go.” Do I understand your perspective to say that universities are right now the mental property of liberal-fundamentalism? That sounds antithetical to the “unity in diversity” concept of the university – love to hear your perspective on this. Actually, I’ll throw in an @CSC on this, too, because of your (CSC’s) post at 305.
Bryan brought up the question I had earlier, and CD-Host helped answer it at 306: it seems that people who believe in the religion of study are disregarded in their studies of it due to their personal attachments to the material at hand. Would it be akin to forbidding a medical doctor from performing surgery on his own child because of the personal connection? or like keeping a medical student from working on a cadaver of someone s/he knew? or perhaps like how the military keeps commanding officers from having charge over a relative? I’m honestly not sure whether or not it’s ironic that those who would be most motivated to care about the subject at hand are the ones least desired to investigate it because of their personal involvement.
@Dee Adams: per your response to CMP in 302, WTF? (F for Friendly, of course … ?)
@CSC in 291: you have a couple of good “what ifs” in this post. I think that if the what ifs were true, the evangelical would have to make a decision: change his own beliefs, maintain beliefs and lie against the evidence, or keep his beliefs while admitting he has no answer for the evidence he’s found in hope that an answer might come about one day. Do you see any difference between those last two options?
@Vinny: How would you like to see a white-coat evangelical research chemist? I’m pretty closely related to one … In other news: sorry you missed 300. But at this rate, you won’t have to wait long until 400, so get ready!
CD,
Is it that you can’t present the evangelical view accurately because you don’t know it, or that you purposely want to present it this way?
NO ONE argues this way, and I have said it time and time again. If an assumption of ultimate coherence is to be rejected in the same category as someone asking Gabriel for personal information on a text then I don’t know what logical categories are anymore.
Second, Yes, Bible-believing people are equally rejected as applicants. My point is that a Muslim’s paper may not be accepted for such, but a Muslim would not be rejected as a student overall for believing that the Koran is true.
Re Dee at comment 302
I followed your comments with appreciation until your snippity wise-crack about Dan’s “self-imposed job”.
The job is important for historical reasons, reasons that exist even apart from one’s beliefs about whether the documents do credibly speak to a reality in which God exists. Sheesh. Lighten up a bit or you’ll just come across as bitter.
I do agree with CMP about not hiding evangelical convictions, but that is a different issue from using a confessional academic degree to get into a secular institution.
While I don’t believe it is necessary to by JW about one’s faith in the classroom (i.e., actively proselytizing in an offensive manner), I do think that it certainly leaves a bad taste in the mouths of others when a Christian deliberately hides what they believe. For example, a young-earth creationist received a doctoral degree in geoscience, and some scientists post-graduation demanded that his degree should be taken away from him. Marcus Ross got a Ph.D. with a dissertation about the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago. Although his thesis advisor describes his work as “impeccable”, some have “argued that his religious beliefs should bar him from earning an advanced degree in paleontology”.
regards,
#John
Bryan —
Lets go back to my policemen analogy. There we see two theories which explain the evidence based on various presuppositions. The meta-issue, which can also be tested, is whether criminals or poltergeists are the more frequent cause of breaking and enterings. Ultimately though there is no way to make more than a probabilistic statement about the specific event, but…. the probabilistic statement is not based on randomness.
There really are high probability theories and low probability theories and those probabilities can be set and argued using public knowledge.
If A has impact B which is public then B should be detectable scientifically even if the person disbelieves in A.
For example lets take the effectiveness of prayer.
A theist will frequently attribute an event to prayer.
An atheist will discount that prayer has an effect on outcomes.
Independent studies have been done involving randomly selected events and prayer. If prayer was highly effective we would expect to see large statistical variations between populations of people prayed for and those who were not. Which leads to possible conclusions like:
a) prayer is not effective
b) only very specific types of prayer are effective
c) prayer only works on a small subset of the population
….
“it seems that people who believe in the religion of study are disregarded in their studies of it due to their personal attachments to the material at hand.”
If that were true, I think it would be difficult for anyone to study anything. It’s important to be aware of your own attachments and to situate where you are speaking from. The problem occurs when some people *reject* strong readings of a text based only on a projection of particular community beliefs as universal truths stamped as such by God. While I don’t see any evidence that Dan does this (in fact, I’m only bothering with this because it would seem he’s one who really tries not to), I do see this theme coming up again and again in the comments.
I don’t actually know of any poll that has been taken on SBL members and their religious beliefs, but I suspect that this is more about squabbling *between* Christians who have different interpretations (not to mention that some Jews may have insights into the Hebrew Scriptures…) than it is a question about universities full of christian-hating atheists or something like that.
In that context, it’s more important than ever to keep that distinction between interpretation and the hubris of the God-stamp of the approval of such interpretation to the exclusion of others. Faith communities are built around different views, but the appeal to authority is about as well-thought of in academe as the ad hominem argument. Not only is it not convincing, it’s also not civil. An evangelist is someone who spreads the good news and treats the least of people as though he/she were Jesus. How does judgment come into it? I remember humility as a Christian value – is any of that left?
Bryan —
I don’t think you are following your own example. Gabriel was applicable to the muslim Sura 4:166:
At that time the Archangel [Gabriel] brought to the Prophet two green pieces of cloth from heaven, one of which was decorated with all kinds of precious stones from the earth, and the other with precious elements from heaven. He opened the first cloth and told the Prophet to sit on it, and he handed him the second one and told him to open it. When he opened it, he received the Holy Koran with words of light, and the secret of that tree in the seventh Heaven was revealed to him
I don’t believe a Christian would be either. I had lots of religious people (including fundamentalists of all different stripes) in classes took and taught. Their religious beliefs would only be a problem if and when they influenced their output. A student is free to believe the world is flat, they can even tell other students the world is flat and I’m an idiot for thinking it is round. But they better do their calculations assuming my idiotic theory of a spherical earth. And when they are done they can even put at the end of their paper “but of course the world is really flat so the correct answer would be ABC” and if ABC is right enough of the time I might even give them extra credit.
No, no – I love Dr. Wallace’s job both in Bible.org and getting all those documents into digital media. I don’t think there is anything more valuable right now than to save those documents…especially the ones that are in the countries we generally don’t get into and are not being treated with the preservation techniques they deserve. Dr. Wallace did create a self imposed job that may be too big of a mountain to chew but the importance is bigger than anything I, the armchair theologian, can accomplish or frankly imagine. I might not agree with all he writes but his is still one in a few that can do what he does and I respect that.
No offense Dr. Wallace my humor sometimes gets a bit sharp.
CD,
You’ve presented the philosophic naturalistic interpretation of metaphysical claims well. Unfortunately, you seem to still be oblivious to the presuppositions that cause you to evaluate a metaphysical claim within an historical text with events that currently are taking place, events of which that texts indicates will not take place in your current situation. In other words, the Bible claims that Israel encountered God in specific events geared toward the authentication TO ISRAEL of the revelation being given to them. Most of these events are not even repeatable in the Biblical world. So we are left with believing or disbelieving the report. You can say you don’t believe it based on your naturalistic form of empiricism, but you can’t say that your belief is more probable. According to what? Your ultimate beliefs that produce your naturalistic empiricism in the first place? That’s begging the question, is it not?
CD,
I’m sorry I missed the analogy. My issue would then be to ask why the question of the Koran’s truthfulness is even being discussed in the classroom? What should be analyzed is data, not metaphysical beliefs concerning the data. That’s for a philosophy class, not for a class that studies an ancient text.
“I don’t believe a Christian would be either. I had lots of religious people (including fundamentalists of all different stripes) in classes took and taught. Their religious beliefs would only be a problem if and when they influenced their output.”
Maybe you could supply me with an example, so I know what we’re really discussing here.
Phm16,
Yeah, I think you’re right. There’s a standard critique of people no matter what side of the spectrum they’re on from one’s own position. Those who are to one side are “so broad-minded that they don’t believe anything,” and those on the other, “so narrow-minded that nothing gets in that’s not already there.” At least, that’s the basic stereotyping that happens. Reminds me of the Anabaptists in Austria in the 16th century – so narrow-minded to all around, but of course they had their strong opinions about the Catholics and other Protestants of their time, too. But the question is, is it fair? When is someone so far off that they’re not worth speaking with in an academic setting? So far it sounds like inerrancy or personal attachment to the subject matter are the litmus tests.
Heidi, if what I just said to Phm16 is right, would you agree or disagree? I liked your point that, if there is no attachment whatsoever to the material, it’s difficult to study anything – especially so to study anything with objectivity, because there’s not enough concern to take stock of one’s own predilections.
Thanks! Peace!
One meeting and look what happened!
Still going well folks, but there were some hick-ups a few posts back (maybe 50) that seemed to attack character. We will not put up with this, and it does not matter if you are an Evangelical or Liberal or whatever.
Bryan is right about the common mis-characterization of inerrancy. It seems like that has become the issue to a large degree.
If you are an Evangelical you are okay as long as you don’t ascribe to inerrancy. This makes sense depending on what definition of inerrancy you are talking about.
But it may interest you to note that I first learned of the ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox controversy from Bock who does not hold to ipsissima verba. I know that there is a spectrum of belief in between the two, but most DTS profs that I know of are strongly in favor of ipsissima vox (contra Thomas and Master’s seminary).
I am not saying that ipsissima verba should automatically disqualify one from the university, but I do understand how much its hermeneutical commitments can be a factor. However, this is not the case at most Evangelical seminaries that I know of.
Is the issue inerrancy?
Bryan —
First off secularism basically holds that beliefs without evidence should be rejected. So if there is not an evidentiary basis for those accounts, i.e. they aren’t testable then they should be treated as false not true. The same way that since the events recounted in The Amityville Horror are not testable they are rejected. Hume made this point centuries ago. The probability of somebody being wrong about a miracle is far higher than the probability of a miracle. Without tremendous supporting evidence accounts of miracles should be rejected.
More importantly, non testable claims aren’t generally an issue. For example someone who believed that some collection of supernatural events happened in 1648 Turkey under Sabbatai Zevi could work in a secular context in any area except 17th century Turkish history without any complications. And they could even work in 17th century Turkish history providing they did draw conclusions based upon presuppositions without evidence that would be acceptable to someone who did not share those presuppositions. There would only be a problem if they felt free to draw conclusions from the messianic state of Sabbatai Zevi.
Sextus Empiricus (for whom empiricism is named) concluded his discussion on God with the salient point that either God is empirically observable or empirically irrelevant. Your position seems to be to try and have it both ways. That Christianity influences almost every area of scholarship but is not testable in a way that such a broad theory would be. The primary law governing the motion of bodies (F=MA) influences many many events and hence is verifiable in an infinity of different ways.
Bryan,
Not only the ideology of inerrancy, but the term itself stems from the 19th Century debates you mentioned. If you reject the 19th Century interpretation of it, what’s the use of the term? Doesn’t “inspiration,” “canon,” and “God’s Word” cover what you believe? Why say you’re an inerrantist if you’re not interested in fighting those battles?
You can point to contextual clues to make your argument about Genesis 3 and the serpent, as can I, so I can follow you there. I’m thinking more of Samson pushing down a type of temple structure that hasn’t yet been found in Iron Age Israel. It’s possible to decide that some of the Samson narratives are in the genre of “folk tale” and tell an inerrant truth removed from anything that happened in history. This solution concedes all the points that the original inerrantists were fighting for and would be called theological liberalism by DTS and Westminster. I’m comfortable with it, and I agree that it doesn’t stop me from doing critical work, but I don’t think it solves the problem with truly Evangelical views and University, because given that take on Samson, I would be hard pressed to get a job at an Evangelical institution.
You reject my statement that the University Bible Departments and Evangelicalism have a long history that informs some of these issues. Ok – rejecting statements is always an option. I on the other hand will not reject your statement that politics also play a part – I made that point earlier. I don’t think that’s the sole reason, however, or Evangelicals would have just as difficult time getting into Universities to study anything – and they don’t.
BTW I personally know Westminster grads who are currently studying Hebrew Bible in the ANE at Harvard, Chicago, and Princeton – and Machinist has accepted tons of Gordon Conwell students into his program – so the bias isn’t all-encompassing.
Vinny —
Just to throw in here I agree with your #299 as well.
Concerning the presuppositions that everyone has and the myth of white coat hermeneutics, let me bring in a bit of Newbigin if I may,
“It is very hard to persuade the practitioners of the historical-critical method to recognize the creedal character of their approach.”
According to Ernest Troeltsch in 1898 here are the principles that should govern biblical interpretation:
1. The principle of critical or methodological doubt: Historical inquiry can never achieve absolute certainty, only relative degrees a probability.
(which I and most Evangelicals that I know of agree with so we are good on assumption #1)
2. The principle of analogy: historical knowledge is possible because all events are similar in principle, past or present. We must assume that the laws of nature in biblical times were the same as now.
This is a huge assumption that will make only certain, none contemporary subjective conclusions, possible. It is completely culturally bias and modern. With this, Evangelicals are not going to agree, making us, ironically, more liberal. It asserts that there can be no event that is unique and if assumes a presupposition that is impossible to prove.
Newbigin: “The assertion (which Christians make) that something unique has happened can of course be doubted, but it cannot be dismissed as an impossibility.”
3. The principle of correlation: the phenomena of history are interrelated and interdependent, and no event can be isolated from the sequence of historical causes and effects.
But this assumes that there CAN’T (not just isn’t) a cause and effect purpose that is transcendent. They admit this (without transcendent justification) in issues of morality, yet are unable to entertain it anywhere else.
As Newbigin says, “this is a creed”! If this is required, do we not have a confessional institutions that is not really liberal?
CD,
“they aren’t testable then they should be treated as false not true.”
History isn’t testable. The origins of the universe aren’t testable. What you had for breakfast isn’t testable. Why? Because these are past events. What philosophic naturalism supposes is that what is currently available to analyze as reoccurring should be the pattern for all events without exception. The Christian believes that these are the pattern for most events, except for those events that require belief in variation due to supernaturalism and a claim that attests to such, and is consistent with their ultimate beliefs.
I understand philosophic naturalism. You don’t have to continue repeating its methodology over and over again. The problem seems to be that you think if you can present the worldview as self-evident then it should be our default position. The view, however, is not self-evident because it assumes itself in order to prove itself.
Now, I don’t believe that all ultimate beliefs are valid. I tolerate other beliefs, but I’m a presuppositionalist, so I believe that everyone ultimately assumes a theistic/trascendent entity in their worldview; but since this is not what this post is about, I would rather not go there. So let’s not discuss the validity of philosophic naturalism, as though all knowledge can only be gained through empiricism, which is in essence what you are claiming here.
I give up – can’t read it all but here is a smattering. I liked something Bryan said but I forget what.
Then I noticed this,
…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.
This desribes my program. Perhaps then there is a difference. I am concerned that evangelicals don’t learn classical Greek first, learning to read the language, tackle several dialects and then take up the NT.
I have to say that I have seen egregious errors in articles written on gender issues. They are typically simple errors of fact, and not interpretation. They have remained uncorrected since so few seem to have the facility to understand them.
I also believe that software theology is the death knell of scholarship. The articles based on computer searches probably stand among the most unusual published articles I have ever read.
A few years ago, when I wrote on the Better Bibles Blog, I had fellows from two different software companies ask me if we could meet up at SBL. One of them explicitly was trying to imitate one of my studies using software. Frankly I don’t think it can be done.
However, I am not against technology per se. I am an experienced tech trainer in my workplace and posted on the Unicode list for some time.
But, quite simply, I read posts by both men working with Bible software which promoted the notion that women would experience their redemption within the boundaries of the domestic, with childbearing symbolizing their submission to the male.
I wrapped myself in a duvet, cried my eyes out, and slowly withdrew from posting in the bibliosphere. My girly parts belong only to me now. They are not the business of anybody else.
The upshot is that at SBL only men presented Bible software. It is NOT that women don’t like software, but that some people say things about women that are HIGHLY inappropriate and some women are driven away.
This is just one little area where the conservative evangelical agenda against women has impoverished the field of technology.
Bryan —
Well yes that is the precisely the point. The secular university lays claim to empirical methods as being the sole method for gaining knowledge. That is the epistemology of the secular university. All they claim to teach you is how to be a better empiricist in a particular discipline. Not being interested in empiricism and going to college is like not being interested in construction and going for a degree in plumbing.
If you want this is the real line in the sand. You don’t have to believe in empiricism but you cannot make use of non empirical methodologies in your research.
CSC,
I still claim inerrancy because my belief is that the Bible has not error in what it attempts to communicate. That’s why I still claim it. The errantists of the 19th Cent were using their version of error to show the Bible as a product of human experiences. I reject this. To say that the “Three Little Pigs” is an erroneous story based on the idea that pigs don’t talk, and the author is, therefore, in error, is erroneous within itself. So I hold to that term because I think it defines the historic position much better than the term “errantist” does. Perhaps I could claim that I hold a form of inerrancy but I think this is unnecessary, since as I said before, I’m open even to the other views of inerrancy should the evidence lead me there (of course, it hasn’t but my ultimate beliefs don’t exclude those options).
BTW, I think Machinist was reacting to my evangelical teachers at Trinity, where I got my M.A. I don’t know what would have happened had I come directly with a degree in Hebrew Bible from Westminster (my degree there was in NT even though I studied under Pete Enns and took more 2d Temple lit there than NT courses per se).
BTW: one DTS prof used to joke:
“There is nothing more than an Evangelical wants than to be called a scholar by a liberal”!
I don’t think that this covers the issues, but I do think that, as this post shows, there is a great deal of respect by Evangelicals for liberals. There is simply a lot of give and take that can be useful to both.
Finally, I do think we need to distinguish between two ways that the word liberal can be used:
1. Liberal in method: which is what we (Evangelicals) are arguing needs to be consistently applied by allowing Evangelicals a voice.
2. Liberal in belief: meaning that they deny cardinal beliefs of the Christian faith such as the existence of God, inspiration (not necessarily inerrancy), the resurrection of Christ, and the possibility of miracles.
The first, we are arguing, does not in any way necessitate the second.
And, more importantly, the second is not a prerequisite for the first.
Quite a fascinating read. I read the initial post a couple of days ago, and I am rather surprised by the nerves it seems to have struck. I won’t say much here that hasn’t already been said, but I will reiterate the ideas of the original post. I’ve seen countless evidences, both within the academic world and in other areas, where “liberalism” really means “left leaning fundamentalism.” Our post-modern culture is tolerant of almost everything except Christianity, which is the most inclusive of religions (you don’t even have to “do” anything!). Thanks, Dan, for speaking out on something that has been a growing systemic issue.
Whew! I’ve read every comment so far, and I have to say this is utterly fascinating. Great post!
Actually they are completely testable. Our current views of the origin of the universe all came from the evidence contradicting other theories.
Most ancient people’s believed that earth always looked much as it looked today. It was only with Paleontology that we came to believe that life on earth had undergone radical changes.
For several centuries are picture of the universe looked essentially like our picture of the Milky Way does today. It was only when parallax confirmed that there were some “stars” which were really very bright entities (billions of times brighter than any known star) and yet vastly further away than any known star that we had a universe filled galaxies.
For most of human history we believed the universe was relatively static. Ideas like “the big bang” were fanciful and seen as remote possibilities, most people believed in a static universe. Until it became clear that all the galaxies were pulling away from one another. Which is to say the universe was in a very real sense “expanding”. Then when radiation was detected which confirmed an explosion of about the right force, during the 1960s….
The theory we have today for the universe was the best explanation for the evidence we had (up until this decade).
And our theory is likely to change, because the evidence is inconsistent with our current theory. Galaxies rotate too fast for our weight estimates. There is something acting like additional mass. Galaxies evidentially have some other energy source acting on them we don’t understand, a sort of “repulsive gravity”.
What is lacking now is any sort of theory with good empirical backing to explain the evidence. Hence these anomalies are known, noted as disconfirming our theory and the quest for a new theory goes on. I’d call that a perfect example of what secular scholarship asks for. Each theory makes predictions about new evidence, new methods allow us to collect new evidence and that new evidence either strengthens are belief that the theory is a good one or disconfirms it and starts the process of finding a new theory.
Glenn —
Somewhat off topic, but yes they were quite Christian:
THE TRANSLATORS OF THE BIBLE WISH
GRACE, MERCY, AND PEACE
THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD.
Michael, you wrote,
To answer the question that many are asking: “Why do Evangelicals care about being accepted into a secular school?” I would offer the following:
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.
I can hardly believe you wrote that! 😉
Don’t some professors at DTS discourage a woman from seeking prestige and further opportunities. Why should anyone care about evangelical men who pursue prestige and opportunity, when they often discourage women.
I do care actually, because I think unfairness and dashed hopes are sad for anyone. But I wish that those who churn out articles instructing men that their wives should be subordinate had had some pity themselves.
CD, I think you completely missed my point. My point wasn’t that we can’t observe the universe as it is today and make predictions concerning what may have happened in the past. My point is that you cannot recreate a past event because it’s past. For instance, you may tell me that what you had for breakfast this morning was a bowl of Fruitloops. You can then invite me over to your house to observe you eating Fruitloops for the next five years if you like; but this says nothing as to whether you ate Fruitloops in the past. For all I know you ate Cookie Crisps for the past year, ran out of your supply, and started in on your Fruitloops the day I showed up. This is where the limitations of empiricism come into play. I have to simply trust/believe your report or disbelieve it. I can try and gather the evidence up, but in the end, my conclusions for what occurred are going to be in line with my belief or disbelief of your testimony.
BTW, I completely agree that the university’s job is to just deal with the data. Unfortunately, it is not true that it ends there, and the university relies only on empirical data. Instead, it relies on philosophic naturalism wielding empiricism to the exclusion of other viewpoints, and this is the main problem.
[…] have been wanting to respond further to the excellent discussion over at Reclaiming the Mind, to which I linked a couple of days ago, but I’m not really an academic, and Karl Barth […]
So are you saying that universities hold an irrational belief that denies that presuppositional ultimate beliefs determine the conclusions of these scholars when dealing with historical and metaphysical theories?
Not for a minute Bryan.
The fact that pure objective scholarship might never be obtained does not in any way imply that its pursuit is irrational any more than the pursuit of virtue, truth, integrity or honesty are rendered irrational by the fact that man always falls short of these ideals.
This is where I think your arguments fall short. It seems that you believe that exposing the myth of objective scholarship compels its abandonment as a goal by the secular university. I don’t think this follows at all.
Efficient markets don’t exist. Naïve faith in the efficient market hypothesis by political economists and financial industry professionals helped produce the current financial crisis. Nevertheless, the efficient market hypothesis is an incredibly useful tool for modeling and understanding economic activity. Its limitations do not make it irrational.
By the same token, the model of objective scholarship employed by the secular university has proven incredibly useful and effective in practice. It has earned great respect for the secular university which is precisely why evangelicals seek to have their ideas accepted there. If it did not work so well, you wouldn’t care about its attitude towards your positions.
BTW, I do not concede that things are as bad in the secular university as you would describe.
Sue,
It is simply amazing how you can see the women’s issue in everything! Very talented… 😉
Again, I think it needs to be restated that while I am a complementarian, complementarians come in all shapes and sizes. As well, there are a lot of Evangelicals who are egalitarians. It simply has nothing to do with what we are talking about!
(And…if you are a women (and not just a female bot), I will find out and not listen to anything you say anyway…or at least learn from it.)
@Kit #324
I don’t think there is any such thing as complete objectivity – we are limited and empowered by our perspectives, context, cultural lenses, and all sorts of other things.
I don’t know of any scholar that can be committed to an area of research without personal driving factors – including a calling. And there is no absolute truthful reading of a text – not even when you are a member of the same community in the same era and in the same language. However, what a scholar does is to bring together every method that they know, and think just as hard as they can, and try out permutations and possible connecting themes and what could have been unspoken because it was censored or already common knowledge. You research the meansings of a word, you listen for the textures and cadences, you compare genres and repetitions and variations. The more you can draw on, the better. To artifically constrain a reading of a text – from any direction – is destructive to scholarship.
What some people have tried to do is to be honest about exactly where they are speaking from, but then to let the text speak, and to use every bit of insight and every tool from their kit to put together an interpretation that can try to translate what they might have meant into terms that we could access. There is nothing wrong – nothing, whatsoever – with having beliefs that are intertwining with the analyzed text. That’s not the issue, and it hasn’t been for a long time, and I don’t understand why anyone is still debating that. The problem is having the courage and caring to listen to the text, and to really get your ego out of your interpretation just as much as you possibly can.
God did not give us a spirit of cowardice, but rather a spirit of power and of love and of self-discipline. – 2 Timothy 1:7
Vinny,
“This is where I think your arguments fall short. It seems that you believe that exposing the myth of objective scholarship compels its abandonment as a goal by the secular university. I don’t think this follows at all.”
Well, if there isn’t any such thing as objective scholarship then striving after it is a fantasy, so Yes, it does compel an abandonment of that goal. One ought to only realize his ultimate beliefs and argue as well as he can with the evidence from there. That doesn’t mean that his beliefs do not accurately describe reality. It only means that it is impossible for him to discover reality apart from his ultimate beliefs.
BTW, I think the unwillingness to admit that secular viewpoints are based in beliefs, rather than objective facts self evidently speaking for themselves, displays on its own the atmosphere of the secular university. Of course, I am speaking about the Ivy League here, not just any university.