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.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/11/frustrations-from-the-front-the-myth-of-theological-liberalism/
Steve, I’m not sure what you’re saying here (about the “head” of “the fish”). The statistic from the small snipped of the article that you linked to does not surprise me. Christians who wish to defend their faith have always been put into positions where they’re not in the majority. The Savior gets crucified, and being a faithful Christian has [almost] always meant going against some grain.
ReplyDeleteI was more impressed with Wallace’s description of what’s happening at DTS:
“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.)”
That’s a scenario that’s occurring in a lot of seminaries throughout the US (and other places), and it’s a lot of salt and light being distributed throughout the world.
Wallace sounds like he is just frustrated by the attitudes of the “left-wing fundamentalists” in academia (“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.”)
I’m not an insider, being only here on the outside looking in), but it seems to me that the positive pressures and movements being created by the explosion of knowledge available in programs like the one he described at DTS is cause for great hope.
"I'm not sure what you're saying here (about the 'head' of 'the fish')."
DeleteHi John,
I think the "head" of the fish represents these biblical scholars who are not Christian. They're the ones who should best know the Bible. They're meant to be the teachers.
However, if 60%-80% of Society of Biblical Literature (emphasis mine) members don't even believe what the Bible teaches about the most central and fundamental truths of the faith (e.g. Christ's atonement, Christ's resurrection), if most biblical scholars are not in fact even Christian in the first place, then the fish's head has become rotten. And if the fish's head has become rotten, then the rest of the fish is threatened to rot as well. If enough students take after their teachers (cf. Lk 6:40), then the rot will spread.
I think that's more or less the picture. But, of course, I'm not Steve, so anything I say can and will be used against me in a future response. In which case I'll have to talk to my attorney. :-)
When unbelievers quote "scholarly consensus" to cast doubt on some Biblical claim, this is what "scholarly consensus" actually represents. It's a consensus of scholars who don't believe in the God of the Bible. Scholars who don't believe in miracles.
DeleteAnd that, in turn, infects a lot of Biblical scholarship. Many non-Christian Bible scholars don't publicly state their secular outlook when they write a commentary on the Bible. Yet that's driving their conclusions.
Their commentaries don't mirror the text. Rather, their commentaries mirror their secular presuppositions.
On the other hand, you've got guys like Michael Kruger, working against that "scholarly consensus" with his work on the NT canon.
DeleteThere's something rather tragic about someone as educated as Dan Wallace launching such an epic whinge about... what? About non-Christian scholars not giving Christian scholars enough seats at the table? What table is that?
ReplyDeleteI think if you've got into the position where you're whining that the unbelievers aren't giving you permission to play the game, then you need to back up and review how you got there.
I agree David. Old rule of thumb in debates - the debate is won or lost when the question/rules are framed - everything else is details. The animosity both in Dr.Wallaces article that he describes as well as what you see in a lot of the comment thread shows a lack of awareness that is stunning to me. What? Non believers don't want to hold the door open to believers? Theres gambling going in the Casino? Shocked I tell you shocked… I like many was moved deeply by Dr. Plantinga's article encouraging Christians to get back into the academic world but having been in three major secular philosophical departments in my time now - the missing piece that Plantinga left out was based on the idea that Academia wanted us back! It does not and likely will not. Phil Johnson laid this out well with plenty of anecdotes of people losing their positions. I know of others who were refused tenure, even though they had more qualifications than anyone else in the department. I know of profs who stayed on admissions committees for hearts - when of course most profs endure their temporary punishment of heading up the committee. To assume their is no animus or politics is most naive. That is included in the articles but I don't think it is given enough weight. I have my own stories - being bounced from one department for the sin of accusing ST. HUME of committing a logical fallacy or two. At the time I honestly believed the secular university was just the sort of place for that activity. Boy did I learn my lesson. I reached AbD at my second school only to have my dissertation shot down because I would not write on Nietzsche as a Christian! I know - absurdity but that is the joys of pomo thought these days. The fact that most of the SBL are former Christians is most telling. Why would you make a career of negation? Like the uber religious atheist Nietzsche - write your book about why you hate that whole God thing and then move on with your life. But the SBL parade has made career tenure tracks out of what they don't believe. Fascinating profile in a sick sort of way. And like ex smokers - there is no more vicious creature than the ex fundamentalist - see Dan Barker, etc. I still like the academic rigor for Christians, but I think we need to worry less about who hires us and who publishes us. Since Christians founded most of the ancient Universities, I suppose that is still a reality for us - and publishing is open for us as well, as the EPS has found.
ReplyDeleteStolen from a friend but very on point - "I won't call you heretic if you don't call me stupid". Words to remember and NOT to live by.