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"
I’m not anything close to being a scholar, and so I hesitate to enter into this fantastic dialogue. I have a B.A. in Near Eastern Languages/Religious Studies from a very respectable University, which I have parlayed into a very rewarding career as a stay-home mom. I admit I have also skipped over large chunks of the comments, so I don’t know how or if my comments will fit in to anything at this point. What I want to say is that this dialogue has reminded me of my experience taking a course in Children’s Literature at University…. I took the class because I love stories, and that was about the only reason. We took apart some of my most beloved stories, unveiled them, stripped them, dissected them, discussed the authors, historical contexts and in many cases reduced them to little more than words strung together. In the process, in the pursuit of ‘knowledge’ and ‘understanding’, much of the beauty was lost. The poetry was lost. The inherant power of the story was lost. Many of them I simply can no longer read without revulsion… (which may or may not be a bad thing, but I could have gone my entire life without listening to my prof discuss sexual innuendo in The Owl and The Pussycat).
I think that in a way this happens easily with Biblical scholarship, as well. For me, I do believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, and I believe God’s word is infallible… but we are not infallible as readers, or as writers. I believe in the omnipotent power of God, and the power of God’s Story, and the power of the Bible as part of God’s act of Story-telling. I think we need to sometimes take a few steps back, get our nose out of the books, and just listen to the voice of the Story-teller. Get wrapped up in the BIG story that is being written onto your own heart… that God-story that you just have to share because it is just so good. What do we gain, and what do we lose by pouring over words, grammar, sentence structure, historical accuracy, corroborating evidence, authorship, sitz im leben? I think the aim of a Biblical scholar in the secular world, and the aim of a Biblical scholar studying for ministry… I don’t think these are necessarily the same aims. I don’t think a seminary should apologize or feel slighted if they are not respected by a secular institution. I think perhaps I would worry if they were.
I don’t know if this is a right or wrong thing to say, but in the spirit of discussion, I’d like to suggest that perhaps one is about knowledge of the Bible, and one is about knowledge of God? I don’t actually need my pastor to care about the authorship of 2 Peter, but I do need for her or him to be passionate about and pursuing knowledge of God, to be able to discern God’s voice, to be able to recognize truth and error. While I am a huge believer in education, IMHO, this kind of knowledge of God is never found in academia, but on your knees.
So what I am trying to say is that liberals to atheists are as intolerant as anybody else. There is no better or worse in that sense. BUT they appeal to a wider claim.
First, they offer equity to classes of people by their birth condition, but not necessarily by their faith commitments. They use as a reference point data available to the natural senses, data which can be shared by all sentient human beings.
I am not saying that liberals, secularists, and atheists are nicer people, (nor are they worse, and that is an important point.) I am saying that they have something to offer that evangelicals don’t. They offer some kind of shared platform, equally open to all. It is human and flawed but it is something that evangelicals don’t claim to offer.
So my sense is that somehow, these institutions are not going to change much, and students need a workaround, some way to express themselves as fit candidates for the academy.
An of course even us Evangelicals like to brad that Barth came out of the Liberal tradition!
(But everyone likes to brag if they have a convert.)
Got 400!
[…] Jump to Comments But I’m open to being surprised! I am responding here to Dan Wallace and his challenge that the academy of biblical scholars are hostile towards his kind. That is, the […]
I want to thank all students, faculty and staff of the different institutions that have participated and/or are continuing to do so.
As I’m contemplating what to do next, or more accurately, as I try to figure out and respond to where He is leading me next, this conversation is helpful.
Living in Dallas, DTS is a natural choice. For what I feel He is calling me to do… I’m still not sure whether ThM or MABS would be path. And since my procrastination ensured I missed the November deadline, I have couple of months more to figure that out 😉
Someone told me over lunch yesterday:
“The degree you get will eventually become less important than what you learn and assimilate during the rich time of your journey through seminary”
I see a lot of that reflected in some comments here.
In Him
Mick
[…] Daniel Wallace, Parchment and Pen Dr. Daniel Wallace prompted quite a discussion after posting a few observations following his time at the recent Society of Biblical Literature meeting. The discussion is […]
This has been a great discussion. I am a Th.D. (Doctor of Theology) student at Duke Divinity School. I just wanted to insert two things:
1. It is difficult to get in to top Ph.D. programs in Religion in the United States because usually your tuition is covered and you are given a stipend. Duke University’s Graduate Program in Religion publishes their statistics. http://gradschool.duke.edu/about/statistics/admitrel.htm Last year 207 applied and 9 offers were extended. That is 4% were accepted. With those odds, almost anything an get your application tossed aside. I am sure Dallas Theological Seminary graduates are often dismissed, but I think almost everyone who is not from Yale or Harvard gets quickly dismissed!
2. Still, I have tried to give people as much advice about getting in as possible to Duke’s programs. http://www.andyrowell.net/andy_rowell/2009/03/advice-about-duke-thd-and-phd-programs-in-theology.html In Duke’s Th.D. and Ph.D. programs there are people from Wheaton College, Taylor University, Trinity Evangelical Seminary, Masters Seminary, Talbot Seminary, Regent College, Reformed Seminary (FL), North Park, and Covenant Seminary (St. Louis). See my full advice at the link.
Michael L,
By all means, don’t do the MABS. The strength of the school lies in the language departments. In the MABS you get none of the above. They really need another degree that is academic in nature. The current ThM is half academic, 25% ministerial, and 25% nothing. A 60 credit-hour degree focusing on languages, exegesis, and biblical theology would be most welcome. I think some of the profs are pushing for this.
Andy,
Thanks for chiming in. I found your words quite comforting. I was very surprised by a couple of the schools on your list. Masters Seminary! There is hope!
Some have challenged me about my definition of “Christian.” This reminds me of an old cartoon in Christian Century (yes, we closed-minded evango-fundamentalists actually can read, and we read Christian Century from time to time) that appeared years ago. A conservative Christian man is speaking to a bona fide biblical scholar. Exasperated, he said, “Alright! I’ll call you a Christian if you call me a scholar.” It cut to the heart of what we are discussing. More liberal folks want to be acknowledged as bona finde Christians because they like Jesus and agree with what they think are his ethics. They actually long for (but my guess, is not very much) some sort of affirmation from conservative Christians that they, too, are Christians.
We cannot give them that affirmation. It would be to betray our faith, a historical faith, a faith that transcends all three branches of Christentom, for it unites them in a common confession. Up until relatively recently, all three branches of the Christian faith—Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox—would have zero disunity over key affirmations:
1. All believe that Jesus was born of a virgin;
2. All believe that Jesus was, in fact, the theanthropic person;
3. All believe that he lived a sinless life, healed people, cast out demons, and raised people from the dead.
4. All believe he really died on a Roman cross outside the city walls of Jerusalem.
6. All believe that he was bodily raised from the dead.
7. All believe that his death somehow but very profoundly relates to us as an atonement in some sense.
That’s a pretty strong core of beliefs found in all three branches of the Christian faith. However, for over 150 years in Protestantism and for over 50 years in Catholicism, these beliefs have been chipped away at. Unquestionably, theological liberalism grew out of Protestantism. The strange beliefs of academics, then, began within the Protestant branch, largely because in its branch is a systemic flaw: Although revelation is still regarded as that which gives us our highest knowledge of God, we access it–not through tradition, but through reason. These details were never worked out. It thus unconsciously elevated reason to the same level as revelation, since reason was essential for us to gain access to revelation.
The seeds of its own destruction have thus been planted by Luther within Protestantism. But there is some bright news: more and more folks, in this postmodern age, are seeking spiritual fellowship in which tradition is taking a bigger role. Some evangelicals are switching to Anglican, Catholic, or even Orthodox communions. They recognize that popular evangelicalism has disdained the traditions and icons and incense, and has done so to its own peril. It is not just “me and my Bible and damn the 20 centuries in between!” Evangelicals are waking up to history, and that’s a good thing. In the process, they frequently stray from their evangelical communion and get into other branches of…
CONTINUED: Christendom. Does this make them non-Christian? Of course not. But if they stray from the historic beliefs of the Christian faith—as defined by the core beliefs that all three branches can affirm—on what basis can they claim to be Christian? Folks thought I was defining things too narrowly, almost as if to say that ‘Christian’ and ‘evangelical’ were coterminous. No, my definition is a historical one.
So, the question is, On what basis can someone who disagrees with any of the seven creedal points made in my previous post say that he or she is a Christian? I don’t have the right to change the rules of the game—a game that has been going on for two millennia—just because I want to! Could someone proclaim himself a Jew because he thinks Moses was a cool guy who knew how to kick some Egyptian a#*? Or worse, could someone become a Muslim who believed that Jesus was divine?
I don’t wish to change the rules of what constitutes a Muslim—let the Muslims do that. And therefore, I don’t want to change the rules of what constitutes a Christian—let the Christians do that. Liberal Christianity is not a historic branch of the Church and thus has no say in the matter. My definition is no more narrow than history, and by history I mean all three branches of Christendom.
Sue,
Re: Comment 395
I think this comment is kinda off topic, but I think it needs a response. You talk about “civil society” in this post and then you talk about religion. As a political science grad and someone with some strong separationalist tendancies (meaning separation of church and state) some sirens went off in my head when I read your comment.
I think the issues you raise are only issues because the church has bought into the Constantinian compromise and entangled itself in trying to dictate morality on a political level. This is not and should not be the churches place. However, at the same time I don’t think the demands of “civil society” which are subject to drastic variance by time period and culture and thus quite nebulous should in any way influence the beliefs of the Church. If the government wants to allow homosexuals to marry or have civil unions I could care less (I know I differ with a a lot of people on this). The Church has no business trying to dictate to a secular, fallen society what it’s laws should be. At the same time society should not dictate to the Church what it’s rules should be. If the Church determines that homosexuality is a sin and ministers who are homosexual should not be ordained that is their prerogative.
Now to tie this back into scholarship. If someone would refuse to study under someone in a university setting because they are homosexual, female, Muslim, or whatever then your absolutely right. They don’t belong at a secular university and should go to some school that doesn’t allow for such divergent viewpoints. However, if they simply believe that homosexuality is a sin or that women should not be ministers, but are willing to question these presuppositions, and study under people who are of these categories then I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed in. It’s not about the presuppositions, it about willingness to question those presuppositions and perform research as if they weren’t there. Ultimately if they are willing to study under the professors of the school they are applying to and actively engage and investigate other viewpoints this is what matters, not their presuppositions.
Michael T.
I am absolutely in favour of these students being let in. Please don’t misunderstand me. The issue is that the professor who is a woman is not going to be open to questioning her own presupposition that she can teach men. This is never going to happen. So the conservative may hgave to be open to empirical research and secular values, but the others will never be open to the values of the conservative student. It will never be a two way street because it cannot be. The former slave, the woman, the homosexual are simply not going to surrender their rights to a normal life.
But I am NOT saying that the conservative student should not be accepted. I am just saying that they have to accept constraints on the expression of their beliefs out of respect for others.
I believe, for example, that to promote the participation of women in the bibliosphere, men should accept restrictions on commenting that women should not do this or that thing that men are allowed to do. Otherwise this becomes a form of harassment for some women who have experienced these things as oppression.
If people want to do academic work together, then we should focus on the things that we can all do together, as men and women the same thing, the same skills, no mention of complementarity, that does not belong it is sexual in innuendo, but also the Christian and non-Chritian can both share empirical research, but not faith values.
Does this make any sense?
Sue,
Yes, I see where you coming from and agree with you more or less. I apparently misinterpreted what you stated earlier as saying that students with these beliefs shouldn’t be accepted and furthermore the Church should adopt the beliefs of “civil society” in the sacred realm. Sorry for the confusion.
Good word Dr. Wallace, and very important to keep in mind. I think most take issue with claiming someone is or is not a “Christian” based upon an intellectual assent to a proposition. I know there’s no way around this (i.e. adherence to a proposition), but it’s an important point to make. I think it was N.T. Wright who said, “We are justified by faith, not by our belief in justification by faith.” I understand maybe that’s a false dichotomy to an extent, but one can’t deny the atrocities done in history by people who were quite “orthodox” in their theology, as defined by you above and the 3 branches of Christendom (think Christopher Columbus et al.). An intellectual assent to a proposition oftentimes means nothing if the person’s actions are out of line with Christian ethics. There is too much vertical (i.e. theology) in conservative Christianity and not enough horizontal (i.e. ethics). That’s why DTS needs to have ethics classes reading guys like Hauerwas and Richard Hays (I know he’s an NT prof., but he wrote an NT ethics book). I was quite glad to see ETS focus on ethics this year, by the way.
The diversity of early Christianity I think also plays into peoples’ reactions about this because it is not as monolithic as many claim. James Dunn’s book “Unity & Diversity” shows this quite well. If that is the case, then it’s quite difficult to claim that an intellectual assent to x amount of propositions makes one Christian
In regards to the atonement, penal substitution seems to be pretty hotly debated at the moment. Even scholars like Wright seem to shed doubt about it in their works (others would include Greg Boyd, Joel Green, etc.). I think it’s the “penal” part that is troubling to most, not the “substitution.” The stereotypical picture is the “divine child abuse” where God is pissed off at everybody and takes out all his anger on Jesus. I’m kind of working through this myself (for all the other commenters, please save the dozen proof-texts for another time!). The doctrine was not formulated until Anselm in the 11th century and was not the dominant view of the atonement through the first 1,000 years of Christian history. That title would go to Christus Victor. Because of that, I think it’s pretty reasonable there are skeptics about its validity
I’m not very educated on this, but I’m just assuming why people on this thread and around the blogosphere have reacted the way they have to you. I have found it interesting how many have focused almost exclusively on that about your post, when in reality that was a minute point you were making. Maybe they just needed an easy way out and resorted to ad hominems instead of interacting with the substance of your post. This has all been fascinating for me though, so thanks a lot (though I need to be doing homework!). The contributions of everybody have been fantastic
Michael T,
Thanks for the opportunity to clear that up. I am just trying to get to the root of Dr. Wallace’s point about liberal scholars being intolerant. The simple fact is that in order to run a university, the liberal scholars have to be intolerant of many of the presuppositions of conservatives or it would not be a university. However, the converse is not true.
Basically in order for a class to function in a university, the prof must be intolerant of certain conservative values. But if the conservative cannot be intolerant of certain liberal values. It is not a reciprocal relationship and no one should expect that.
I know it is hard to make this sound logical but this is what I think. This is my disagreement with Dr. Wallace’s post.
Sue,
Yeah I understand. If a student wanted to debate a female professor every class period about whether or not she should be teaching that class in the first place it would be impossible for the university to function. Such a person would not make a good candidate and should not be accepted to the school.
However, I also think your seeing an issue here that you want to see. In reality the number of Evangelicals seeking acceptance to a secular institution who would actually do something like this (whether prof be female, homosexual or whatever) is so small (if there are even any of them) as to not be worth mentioning as a reason why they should be discriminated against in admissions. There are different forms of complementarianism and the majority of those who would say that a man should never learn from a women (I’m a egalitarian on the issue btw) under any circumstance are not generally Evangelical (they are Fundamentalist) and are not going to be looking to go to a secular institution for a Ph.D. It’s simply not a valid issue.
I think the number of students who would so this are infinitesimally small. I don’t think they would do this for a second.
But the number of profs at a school like DTS who would challenge a woman regarding her right to teach, or blog against homosexuality might be quite high in fact.
BTW, not relevant at all but I think that allowing a woman to teach men but wanting women to be subordinate in the home is much much worse. I could and do live a happy life, not teaching men. But I would rather die right now that live the life of subordination once again.
Sue, I am a complementarian, but I really don’t think that most complementarians have a problem with women teaching men in an academic setting….unless they are strongly fundamentalist. Although my church is complementarian (although it is not discussed from the pulpit, nor have I heard it discussed in any SS class settings), there are times when women teach SS classes for mixed groups of adults. I was asked to teach an adult SS class (not permanently–but a class or two, now and then). Our church would not hire a female pastor, as a senior pastor….nor as an associate pastor who has a key teaching role of both men and women. I’ve never met a woman, in 30+ years of attending our church, who had a problem with that. It’s not ‘oppressive’ (a word you use a lot). There aren’t a lot of women who even want to teach large SS classes of men and women, but there are opportunities for women to do so, if they are qualified and willing. I think that this is true of many ‘complementarian’ evangelical churches. You paint complemterianism in the most extreme light….like it’s all about men dominating women.
So, I think we know that your problem with Dan Wallace is that he is a complementerian NY scholar whom you blame for all sorts of evil oppression against women…and you just can’t leave it alone. You are wrong about him….and he has even told me that he thinks there are instances where it is appropriate for women to teach in the church (not exclusively to women and children).
Susan,
I don’t actually think that it is “oppressive” for women not to be able to have certain posts like pastor or prof, because these things are not in view for me. But for women who do want the opportunity to participate in the academy, to have access to research etc. it would be oppressive to be told you should not want this.
However, personally I think that the view that a woman should be subordinate in her own home is the most unbearable cruelty. There are now many blogs where former fundamentalist women are pouring out their grief and they are not as polite about it as I am.
Whatever Dr. Wallace’s views are on this, I do know that he challenged me for wanting so badly to teach men, as if this were a wrong thing.
Why should I have to debate this? It isn’t even true – but so what – suppose that it was true – would I have to be ashamed of this ambition. I put in 8 years of intensive language preparation and then, of course, due to circumstances I was unable to pursue this further.
But what if I had wanted to? Should I be made to feel ashamed of the study that I did?
Sue, God, in His word, calls homosexuality sin. As Christians, we recognize that we are subordinate to God our creator. God hasn’t changed His mind about homosexuality, nor about adultery or fornication….they are all sins. Just because society has changed it’s mind, doesn’t mean that the creator should too. Nor should Christian scholars feel constrained to capitulate to societal pressures. A good Christian Bible scholar is one who is on his knees before God submissively wanting to know what God has intended to say in His word, the Bible. Such a scholar (man or woman) recognizes that they are under God’s authority. You seem entirely at odds with the concept of submission (although you probably wanted your children to submit to you at times).
BUT, this is all going way off-topic, of course!!!
Sue, you said: “Whatever Dr. Wallace’s views are on this, I do know that he challenged me for wanting so badly to teach men, as if this were a wrong thing.”
I remember that conversation. You have misconstued his words
Sue,
1. There are too many well respected female scholars, emerging scholars and students encouraged by even conservative evangelical faculty members in the arena of Biblical studies for your argument to have any validity. Dr Wallace himself has had a number of female interns, that I understand he heartily endorses and encourages.
2. The topic of the post is about liberal institutions, not conservative ones, and definitely not what goes on in the home. That is completely irrelevant to the topic.
I don’t think so. It was a debate on authentein and my comment that there is no lexical evidence that it means “to have authority” in a good way.
He did not ask this question out of an interest in my career goals – nor would he claim it. If you read his article here you would see that he feels that this is a flaw in egalitarian women. He wrote,
“And my wife—whose gifts of discernment are phenomenal—has often noticed that at her work. She’s the receptionist at a private Christian school. The rudest people she has encountered in her job are women who despise her—apparently for being a receptionist. Almost without exception, they are egalitarians. Why would they despise my wife? They only want to deal with men, because men are the only ones worthy of their attention. This is egalitarianism gone awry: women who insist on functional equality with men are often the last ones to extend any respect to other women. In effect, because these women are so insistent on their right to teach men, they end up despising women. Since their whole focus is on the right of women teaching men, they end up exalting men over women. They themselves are the worst examples of treating women as second-class citizens. It’s a sad irony.”
This anecdotal evidence does not relate to other women that Dr. Wallace meets. I have never met his wife or been rude to her. I have never been rude to my school secretary. I wouldn’t dare. Nor are secular egalitarian women normally rude to secretaries.
I accidentally hit ‘submit’ and then was not allowed to edit my comment.
You’ve misconstrued Dan’s question of you. After much dialogue with you he finally asked, “What is it that you so want to teach to men?” He was saying essentially, “OK, if you were going to teach men, what would your topic be…what are you so amped to teach them?” He was asking you a question. The thing which was in my mind at that point was that you seem to have only one topic that you are interested in, and it’s all about the rights of women…is that what you would want to teach men about? Dan might have been enquiring with that same question in mind. He was NOT implying that it was such a bad thing for a woman to teach men, he was just wondering why you seemed so anxious to teach them…as if you might have a particular message which you are burning to teach. You could have answered his question, and told him what you would so like to teach. He has actually encouraged me to teach on a certain topic at my church, which is of concern and interest to me.
Susan —
Why would someone in your church who did feel it was oppressive approach you about it? You are part of the leadership, mainly approve of the church and aren’t hostile. If a women rejects complementarianism they are unlikely to be part of your church in a substantial way. Their rejection is going to be manifest in their leaving.
If you want to get good data, I’d interview female teenagers in your church about how they feel about complementarianism. Particularly in an anonymous survey.
There hasn’t been a good survey on complementarian churches that I know of. But in similar areas to anti-women positions, like anti-homosexuality the results are striking in terms of the level of hostility they generate. But I think discussing this in detail would be very off topic.
Oh, and I should probably add that I have been greatly encouraged by profs at my conservative evangelical institution regarding my areas of research interests (inspiration, scriptural authority and hermeneutics) as well as pursuing doctoral work.
Apparently those are the personal observations of Dan and his wife. I’ve read that article before.
I can even refer you to studies which indicate that women who worked for women rated their bosses more positively than those who worked for men.
So this is not a general truth about egalitarian women, but rather somethine less than scholarly research. It is an article which leads to disrespect for women who “want to teach men.”
This article ought to be removed from the internet, so that the discussion of intolerance on the part of others can move forward with more clarity.
Lisa,
No doubt you have. The difference is that I have a scholarly disagreement with Dr. Wallace’s Junia article.
I am also familiar with the pattern of promoting some women and then still preaching subordination of women in general.
Sue, you said: “I can even refer you to studies which indicate that women who worked for women rated their bosses more positively than those who worked for men.”
Yeah, what does that prove? Dan didn’t say that women generally like working for men over women.
CD Host, I am not part of leadership at my church, actually. In fact there have been times when others in our church have told me they have concerns about some things our pastor has taught. But I’ve never heard any woman, and I have had lots of honest conversations with lots of women….but I have never heard a woman say that she wishes that we had a female senior pastor, or a main teaching pastor who is a woman. You are right, that if a woman felt very strongly about that, they would probably select a church where there are woman employed in such roles. i’m just saying, that it isn’t a point of grievance in our church. When I asked our pastor if it would be OK with him if I teach an adult SS class (because I’d been asked by leaders of the class), his response was that it was fine with him, as long as the teaching was inline with the doctrine of the church (as he preaches it). So, you wouldn’t call our church strictly complementerian. And, as far as homosexuality goes, we welcome homosexuals to come to our church, and some do, but they would not be hired as pastors…..just as we would not hire a pastor who is known to be having an extramarital affair.
Susan,
I never at any time indicated that I wanted to teach men, nor did I give any reason why someone would ask me why I wanted so badly to teach men. It was not a necessary question in the debate but went to me as a person. Ad hominem.
[…] – maybe I can be a scholar. Pat McCullough has a good post with some good comments sparked by Dan Wallace’s odd broadside against liberals and their biases. In that earlier post Wallace claimed that “most biblical […]
Luke, in comment #412, you make some thoroughly valid points. Christianity is not a set of propositions. But consider this: If I ask, How do you define a Christian, there have been several answers given:
1. Someone who embraces certain creeds about Christ (doctrinal, propositional)
2. Someone who is indwelt with the Holy Spirit (spiritual, non-falsifiable)
3. Someone who acts in a certain way (ethical)
4. Someone who really likes Jesus and prefers his teachings to others’, or at least appreciates his teachings (ethical).
My point—and you are affording me the opportunity to clarify—is NOT that ONLY #1 is relevant. But it has become a sine qua non as far as the history of the Church is concerned. I agree with Wright that salvation is not faith in faith but faith in Christ. And I agree with Susan that true Christians are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. I also agree that revelation is both propositional and personal. And finally, I agree with you and others that if there is no ethical component to our faith, then there should be serious doubt whether we are Christians. However, if we go with definition 3 and 4 only, then what is to say that a Buddhist or Hindu is not a Christian? The propositions are key here. And if we look at the Crusades, or the holocaust, or spousal abuse, or any number of evil deeds done in the name of Christ, even though the antagonists may claim faith in Christ their actions reveal that to be a lie. In this case, the ethical component is key.
The whole obsession with defining a Christian by belief-assent has its own history, as I’m sure you must know, so I’m not sure that there’s not some other argument to be made. Were these propositions part of the early christian movement? Nope.
What was?
Faith and commitment toward the Spirit of Love, as incarnated in Jesus and directed by God.
Caring toward others.
Humility.
Following a calling.
Remembering and honoring the humanity of others – visiting people in prison, taking care of the sick.
Giving others a chance – remember the radical moves of sharing a meal with tax collectors (almost universally hated at the time) and other episodes like this.
I could go on – but it’s strange the way “faithless” become “unbelieving.” At certain points in history, it became useful to focus on exclusion rather than inclusion – to distance themselves from the other Jewish movements and eventually to get a government job and start burning down libraries and so on.
What has historically evolved is interesting, but I guess I would remember the words about such things as the traditions of men and false prophets. After all, aren’t we to test the words of leaders in terms of their resonance with Jesus’ actual teachings?
@ Dan (407):
Which of those seven points do you suppose Lucifer denies? Or is Satan also a “Christian”? 😉
PS: Thanks for teaching me the word “theoantropic”.
Hey Heidi!
Apologies for my tardy responses, but I am glad for your contributions to this post. Here are some more thoughts …
I disagree with your last reply toward the court of law analogy because I (presuppositionally?) assume that what happened in the Bible might be a historical reality. A theory of various truths works when no historicity is assumed. In this case, is the factor barring Christians (esp. evangelicals) from academia over the Bible’s categorization as fiction or non-fiction?
I also disagree with an assumption that there were no propositional truths to be accepted in the earliest church. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 spells out:
— Jesus’ life and miraculous ministry (v. 22), cf. Dan post 407.3
— Jesus’ death on the cross (v. 23), cf. Dan 407.4
— Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (v. 24, 31-32), cf. Dan 407.5
— Jesus’ fulfillment of Christological hope in calling Jesus both Lord and Christ (vs. preceding and including 36), cf. Dan 407.2
— Jesus’ sufficiency to save those who repent (v. 38), cf. Dan 407.7
(PS … just noticing that Dan skipped #5 in his list …)
Or do you refer to the early church before this particular Christology and Pentecostal explanation “won out?” If you refer to this early church, I think there’s not enough to solidly grasp in order to tell who’s right and wrong … and we’re both sidelined.
Bill: Just got your last comment. I think you neglected to read Dan’s comment on 433 before your clever comment … take a look at that one, then try again?
Thanks Heidi, and again, I look forward to your thoughts! ~ Kit
Heidi, I fully agree with you that a Christian is also defined by his or her actions. But if you make that the only criterion, then your definition could fit anyone who likes Jesus, but may also like Buddha, thinks Mohammed is pretty cool, etc. That’s why I said that a Christian is defined propositionally, personally, and ethically.
It’s not an obsession to define a Christian propositionally; it’s a historical reality. It would be an obsession if this were new or unique to evangelicals. It is neither. And it was part of the early Christian movement. Do you honestly think that Paul would call someone a Christian who thought that Jesus was not raised from the dead? We see embedded hymns in the NT letters that speak of Jesus’ atoning death, resurrection, ascension, and exaltation; these show us that the early Christians were committed to the propositions that I mentioned earlier. Cf. Phil 2.6-11; Rom 1.3-4; Rom 4.25; 1 Tim 3.16; Col 1.15-20; 1 Peter 2.21-25; 3.18.
We also see this in the proclamation of the gospel, starting with the day of Pentecost on. And Paul explicitly connects his kerygma with that of the apostles (Gal 1-2). This is continued into the Catholic Christianity of the later NT books, such as Jude and 2 Peter. And into the second century. The AF are full of references to the death and resurrection of Jesus (cf. 1 Clem 24, 26, 42; Eph 20.1; Phil inscription, for example).
At issue here is whether the NT and Apostolic Fathers involve a continuity of the faith, or whether the AF are only one among many of the sub-Christian groups—and the one that emerged as orthodox in the fourth century. If you argue the latter, the problem you’ve got is that Gnostics are the best competition to NT Christianity, yet the ethics in Gnosticism are minimal, and the Gnostic documents are late. So, Gnosticism doesn’t fit either your insistence on ‘early’ or ethics. Consequently, I think we’re stuck having to define Christianity by its earliest practitioners, the apostles and their associates.
Bill #435 said, “Which of those seven points do you suppose Lucifer denies? Or is Satan also a “Christian”?” You raise an excellent point, Bill. This is in essence the same point that James makes in 2.19: “You believe that God is one; you do well. The demons also believe and shudder.”
James is picking the doctrinal core of the OT to illustrate his point: the shema. Is he here saying that it’s bad or wrong to hold to certain propositions? Of course not. He says, “You do well” to do so. Is this enough though? Of course not. Hence, he adds the same point you did: propositions are not enough.
But to say that these propositions are insufficient for defining a Christian does not mean that they are unnecessary for doing so. Genuine Christianity, from the resurrection of Jesus on, seems to involve belief in his resurrection as a sine qua non of the faith. Propositions are not enough, but defining Christianity without them is also not enough.
Good point DBW (#438)
regards
#John
Thanks, Dan. I’ll think long and hard about that well nuanced response. For the moment, it might be worth noting that *some* of your readers may have assumed your “necessary” propositions were being expressed as “sufficient” definitions. Personally, I have an experiential, non-propositional definition of “Christian” that I think is sufficient. It bothers me to think those propositions could be denied by a spiritual Christ follower, but it bothers me more to make doctrine a method for sifting the wheat from the tares, a task which we have been assured is supposed to be impossible.
More generally, I’d love to read more of your thoughts about tradition, reason & revelation. I hope you’ll post more on that someday. I’d also like to understand better the process of how and why Protestants have historically marginalized spiritual experience, esp. compared with doctrinal assent. But that last question may be getting off topic a bit…
Thanks again.
I had hoped someone else would jump in here, but essentially it is new to evangelicals. The historical reality is the definition of Christian used by most Christian communities has been: baptism + non-repudiation of the faith. In other words anyone baptized who does not explicitly join another religion is Christian.
Now I can as a baptist arguing that’s the wrong definition. But I can’t see how you can argue that’s not the historical definition.
Heidi and Kit…and Luke, And ALL!
Kit, I was going to site Acts 2 in answer to Heidi’s question….so thanks for saving me the typing (and I like the way you laid it out).
If a Christian is one who is indwelt by God’s Spirit, then the question which needs to be answered is: How does it come to pass that one becomes indwelt?
There are basically two components to salvation (true Christianity). One is correct belief about Jesus (the Savior). The other is (as John the Baptist and Jesus preached) repentance. What is involved in repentance?
A person must come to a point of not only recognizing that they are a sinner, but actually being convicted (genuinely contrite) about this fact. On our own, we will not come to this point. It cannot be self-manufactured. It is God’s Holy Spirit who brings us to a point of conviction over our sin…..of sorrow, and recognition that we have offended a holy God. Until a person truly comes to this point of conviction he/she will not fully understand the need for a Savior; for forgiveness from God.
Repentance then, is a conviction (and admission to God) over sin and a desire to turn from sinful patterns and follow Christ.
Heidi, if being a Christian was determined by living by Christ’s example (being a good and kind and loving person) then we would have to ask: How much is enough? How do I know when I have gained acceptance…forgiveness…eternal life? Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us–“For by grace you are saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God; it is NOT from works, so that no one can boast”.
So, clearly good works are not enough. It has been said that Christianity is the only religion which is not about climbing the ladder to God (by good behavior), but rather we see in scripture that God reached down to sinful man…in our helpless sinful condition, and provided one who would bear the punishment for our sin: Jesus Christ –fully man, but sinless, and fully divine/God. We cannot win favor with God through our good works. It is not enough because we are still sinners separated from a holy and just God.
Those who think they will be justified by their good works are like the Pharisees whom Jesus condemned. “God is apposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” The story of the Pharisee and the tax collector illustrates this point. It was the tax collector who beat his breast in sorrow and said, “have mercy on me–a sinner!” who was forgiven….not the Pharisee who followed the law, and supposed that he was righteous.
Also, Heidi, you said, “Faith and commitment toward the Spirit of Love, as incarnated in Jesus and directed by God.”
To that I would say, it isn’t a matter of faith toward the spirit of love…but rather faith in Jesus Christ, Emanuel, God with us…Himself!
The other things you innumerate are and will become the outpouring of God’s Holy Spirit at work in the heart of the convert…changing them from the inside…
CD-Host, when you speak about the historical reality, you implicitly agreed with me: non-repudiation of the faith has some content, doesn’t it? It isn’t ‘non-repudiation of faith,’ but ‘non-repudiation of the faith. That’s content. And when you speak about historical reality, it all depends I think on what period you’re talking about. Certainly in the middle ages there was an assumption in Europe that people were Christians. Of course, if they deviated from such beliefs (i.e., propositional truth), they got the ax! But going back further, can you tell me in which of the universally accepted creeds baptism is listed as a sine qua non for identification in the Christian community?
I do want to also say, Heidi, that having said all of the above, I do appreciate that you see that Jesus’ example is worth following!
Hi, Dan. I admire your work, using your intermediate Greek text for our Greek reading students at Lancaster Seminary. I’m extremely liberal, but I maintain close working relationships with evangelical scholars — Craig Blomberg reviewed by recent book at SBL, and we’ve hit it off quite well. I’ll be assigning a piece by Bock next semester. Jeff Bingham has presented multiple papers in a section I chair, and we’ve corresponded constructively. I might add that a DTS PhD engaged me in a terrific conversation — highly nuanced — concerning Jesus’ meals with sinners in Luke.
But I have to call you on some distortions.
1. There’s no way 80% of SBL members are non-Christian. Most of those I know are indeed passionately Christian, though they would likely disagree with you on many points of theology.
2. Yes, there is an anti-DTS bias in the academy. But there are reasons. I know DTS students have not engaged the full range of scholarly opinion. They may have done so among traditional historical critics, but they’re simply unprepared for feminism, rhetorical analysis, postcolonialism, and so forth. Biblical inerrancy cuts off the range of questions someone may ask of a biblical text, and that cuts off scholarship.
3. The anti-DTS bias exists, but it’s not monolithic. My own institution just called a Dallas grad to the faculty, and he’s outstanding. The question is always, what kind of work are we talking about, and what sort of work has this person done to prepare for it?
Is there a way to build a more constructive conversation about this?
AFAIKT what you were not repudiating was:
1) Membership in your local church, not having an exclusive relationship with another religion.
2) Not preaching against the church.
etc…. There doesn’t seem to have much of a belief content at all. Now I will agree in the earlier church 1st-3rd centuries belief seems to play a central role. From the 4th to the current day (for the vast majority of Christians) it seems to be allegiance not belief that is the must.
As for baptism and membership there are the typical verses which support this position: 1Cor 12:13 (all baptisms are into one body), Gal 3:27 (effectuality of baptism), Eph 4:5 (one baptism), 1 Cor 1:13 (all baptisms are into the name of Christ)
For Creeds I’d say Constantinople (381). There are a large number of Church fathers who write on both sides of the issue during the 3rd and 4th centuries, I can start listing if this becomes a point of dispute. I’d say the fathers are very mixed but a majority in the 4th century take a position that infant baptism is unwise but not that such children were not Christians. Once baptized they were baptized into Christ in the same way an adult was and the baptism could not be repeated.
I’m not exactly sure what periods you are including in middle ages. If you are willing to grant 5-16th centuries we may be down to only disagreeing about the 4th century. I’d certainly say the evidence is very mixed for 1st-3rd. In short my position is:
1st-3rd: no consistent theology of baptism, but strong indications that baptism is a supernatural rite admitting one into the sect. Whether it is necessary or sufficient or neither is unclear on a writer by writer basis.
4th century: a consistent theology with inconsistent practice
5th century-15th century: infant baptism is the norm and baptism constitutes membership in “Christendom”
16th+: infant baptism is the norm but “salvation by faith” which is credal has substantial market share.
In other words it is my contention that an 11th century peasant who is baptized, attends church and respects priests, believes that Jesus is one of the gods and engages in pagan rites which he believes are aimed at other gods would have been seen as a Christian. Otherwise how could church courts have investigated witchcraft cases at all?
Wow.
BTW When did the principle of personal choice override territory in religion?
CD-Host,
Thanks for your faithful contributions to the discussion here. I’m thankful for your viewpoints which make room to keep talking!
I like how you sum up #445 with your peasant example; however, I think evangelicals would disagree with your contention that s/he “would have been seen as a Christian.” Even with a more modern example: a 21st century American church-goer is baptized, attends church and respects priests, believes Jesus is a good man and engages in forms of self-worship including pornography, family abuse, and cutthroat ambition in the workplace. I don’t see this modern-day “peasant” as a Christian at all. What’s his baptism worth? Who cares that he attends church? What priest / pastor / reverend / etc is fooled by his “reverence?”
Perhaps I need to step back and admit that he is “seen as a Christian.” However proudly or reluctantly s/he claims it, s/he will be seen as a Christian because of the motions s/he has gone through. Is there a difference between someone who goes through the superficialities of Christian activity and someone who actually lives Christianly? That’s what I would contend …