Jamie Franke is the guest blogger of the day! He sent the following and asked me to comment. I found it very thought provoking. Thanks to Jamie for drawing my attention to this issue.
There is an interesting article in Mar/Apr 2007 BAR (pgs. 50-57) that seeks to examine how scholarship affects scholars. Hershel Shanks interviews four scholars–two lost their faith and two have not. (At least this is how the article portrays it. Actually, in my opinion none of the four interviewed really believe much of anything. None of them hold to the inerrancy of the Scripture, for example.).
What is especially interesting is that two of them began life as very conservative Christians (holding the inerrancy of the Bible, etc.), and then lost their faith because of their scholarship. In the printed interview, they tell their story.
It seems to me that such an article is helpful for teachers in a conservative Bible college setting for a number of reasons:
1) It shows the danger of liberal critical scholarship. It seems to me that teachers in a Bible college setting must constantly warn of such danger. An article like this causes me to ask, how are we preparing students at CCCB so that their faith will not be destroyed when challenged by attacks of liberal scholarship?
2) It shows the problem with accepting existential philosophy. The Baptist minister in the interview appears to have drunk deeply of this philosophy (and he is the most conservative of the four interviewed!).
3) It shows the need to emphasize the foundations of Christianity and to clearly communicate them. It also shows the need for discussing matters relating to philosophy of religion–particularly in dealing with the problem of evil. One of the individuals lost his faith because he could not deal rightly with issues of theodicy. In my opinion we must clearly and accurately deal with these things.
4) It helps us understand where others (whom we usually refer to as the “liberals”) are coming from. I think this is important. If teachers are going to talk about the positions of others in class, in my opinion we need to be able to accurately state their positions. We do not like it when others refer to us as “baptismal regenerationists” because it does not fairly describe our position relating to baptism. Neither should we be guilty of unfairly describing positions of liberals.
5) It reminds us that scholarship must be subservient to Christ.
Perhaps you would like to take a look at this article and comment in MOAD.
Jamie Franke
—–
MOAD responds:
Jamie,
I read the part of the article available online and found your comments to be very insightful and accurate. I struggled with this issue when attending the University of Missouri a few years ago. I remember talking to Mr. Pelfrey about the issue of having my faith undermined with doctoral studies. His point was something like this: “At least when you attend a state university you are more aware of the attacks than if you attend a seminary where you weren’t expecting your faith to be undermined.”
I remember well, sitting in the library at Lincoln Christian Seminary, studying for a paper I was writing on Revelation. The realization finally hit me, “There’s no way I can study for a Ph.D in New Testament. I’m not willing to interact with the material necessary in order to earn it.” It’s not that Lincoln was undermining my faith, but the research I had to do there showed me that there was a whole body of “scholarship” that would force me to interact with thoughts that had the potential to undermine the commitments I already had.
Could I have handled it? Probably, but I was aware of the danger nevertheless. I’m wondering if these scholars were properly warned before they pursued their studies of what would be faced. For instance, I know that Bart Ehrman attended Moody Bible Institute. I’m sure he was given a strong foundation for his faith there. But I remember hearing a fellow student of his at Moody once commenting that the difference between Ehrman and himself (wish I could remember his name, but he had remained a faithful, conservative Bible writer and teacher) was that Ehrman was always cynical. Perhaps it’s a personality trait? People who have a tendency to be cynical and pessimistic are more in danger of being toppled from their faith if they are exposed to more critical scholarship than is healthy.
If that’s the case, then knowing your own limitations (and predilections) would be a good way to prevent “truth decay.” If I know where I am vulnerable, then I must avoid those pitfalls, even though it meant studying communication instead of New Testament at the doctoral level.
MOAD
Franke’s thoughtful response to Hershel Shank’s article, [in the Mar/Apr 2007 BAR (pgs. 50-57)] that seeks to examine how scholarship affects scholars, hit a homerun. The response of teachers at the conservative Bible college level, missions, and churches must take personal note, especially to #3 and 4 of his response.
“If teachers are going to talk about the positions of others in class, [in churches, and on the mission field], in my opinion we need to be able to accurately state their positions.” This should be practiced without failure.
However, I’d like to extend this a step further . . . . Assuming the teacher/preacher/missionary has all of his facts in order regarding dissenting or liberal views (“the other side”) there is an incredible responsibility of delivery.
While the article focuses on the dangers of delving into liberal, critical scholarship, I believe that these dangers are not merely isolated to this area. Unfortunately, many Christian educators are disrespectful when they refer to others with opposing views. The result: students view teachers, preachers, and ministers as smug and self-righteous when they sarcastically or jokingly undercut those with liberal views. If Christ is the supreme example of exposing untruth . . . we must follow His lead, with knowledge (Scriptural), love, and wisdom.
Those in leadership positions must be acutely aware of personal pride (self-righteousness)while they are “emphasiz[ing] the foundations of Christianity; they must constantly assess their responses by asking: “Am I communicating in love and wisdom” and “Who am I outside the class, church, missionfield? Students are watching.”
Lastly Christian educators, unfortunately, are fiercely scrutinized and must be very careful that they themselves do not project themselves as being the very stumbling block that liberal scholarship itself poses.
dwhite
MOAD responds:
Thanks Debi,
One of the questions we’ve been asking potential professors recently is how they feel about handling students from other denominations. It’s more than just being able to teach someone with a background different than yours. It’s being able to explain your position fairly and compassionately so that they will hang around long enough to listen.
My observation of students who come from non-Restoration Movement backgrounds is this: If they will stay longer than one semester, we have a chance to make a difference in the way they think. But if we come across in a way that drives them out by the end of the first semester, they will leave without too many beliefs modified. They will put up their defenses to last the rest of the semester, and then leave to be relieved of the pressure of feeling on the defensive.
We also have to be careful in the classroom to tone our students down. Sometimes our students ask questions which betray a lack of gracefulness or patience with those who disagree with us. It’s nice to step in at that point and simply rephrase the question in a more polite and understanding way. This provides those in the class who are on the edge a little bit of a safety net to keep them from feeling like they are being pushed over the cliff.
We demand our students in writing classes to give a fair representation of people they disagree with in the author’s own words. I don’t think as teachers we can fairly provide any less.
MOAD
In the realm of Biblical Archaeology, you will find that faith is sometimes destroyed not by increased knowledge, but in presuppositions that color the data received and lead to false interpretations of the data.
Of course, it is common for many archaeologists to have a dim view of Scripture (called minimalists, such men as Bill Dever and Israel Finkelstein and yes, to a degree Hershel Shanks the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review) due to their exposure to their teachers. They work off the presupposition that the Bible is a work of man, as opposed to the work of God (our presupposition!)
One presupposition that has caused some problems is the so-called Late Date Exodus which proclaims that the children of Israel left Egypt in the 13th century B. C. However, archaeologists soon point out that Jericho, supposedly destroyed they say by Israel, wasn’t even inhabited at the time. So archaeologists suggest the Bible is in error, and can lead to a demolition of faith.
The error actually is in the Late Date Exodus understanding of the Biblical text, not the text itself (which if read literally suggests a 15th century Exodus). This is just one example of how a presupposition that is false, can lead to demolished faith.
All people have presuppositions they work from, some come from good sources, others from bad sources, and some from well-meaning sources that are still bad.
It is the presuppositions that men operate from that must be challenged and fought, not the data itself (though in cases it does need reexamined).
Chad Summa
MOAD responds:
The discussion about presuppositions is helpful and it reminds me of one of the key differences I think can be seen between undergraduate and graduate education. At the undergraduate level, we must provide the students the presuppositions that are conducive to faith and ministry. We must help them also know why we reject the presuppositions that are hostile to faith and ministry. At the graduate level, they will be asked to examine those presuppositions for themselves and make sure they have a personal commitment to what they have earlier assumed to be true.
Perhaps the likelihood that they hold to their presuppositions at the graduate level will be proportionate to the level of honor they have for those who first instilled those presuppositions at the undergraduate level. Connecting this to the earlier comment, I believe this is the reason we must communicate truth gently and graciously. I suspect our students will honor us (and our presuppositions) more if they remember us to be teachers who displayed more honor.
MOAD
2 Cor 5:13
Thank you for this wonderful discussion concerning higher-critical studies of the biblical text. Hershal Shank’s interview was especially interesting to me as I’m currently in seminary (a Restoration Movement Seminary) and am being introduced to critical studies of the text.
As is mentioned, higher critical studies can pose serious problems to those who view Scripture in light of verbal-plenary inspiration. For these people, Scripture is the very “Word of God” breathed through the author of Scripture. The product of this process is an inerrant infallible book which God uses to communicate directly to man. He uses His Word to both bring the non-believer to repentance and the believer to a more fulfilling relationship with Christ. Therefore, it is the very “core” of the believer’s life, and is the believer’s central authority pertaining to the things of God.
Critical Scholarship offers another view of the Bible. Critical scholarship affirms that the Bible is composed of beautiful literary pieces authored by the people of God. While the Bible is inspired by God, it also bears within its pages what Robert Hull called “human fingerprints” (See the Stone-Campbell Journal-”Too many Cracked Eggs…”) Critical Scholarship therefore seeks to understand the historical context for which certain biblical pieces were written. This includes developing an understanding of the surrounding cultures. As is widely demonstrated, Israel did not live in a cultural vaccuum. Many cases show that writings from surrounding cultures had direct influence upon the biblical text. (Egyptian Amenope, Suzzerein Vassal Treaties, Royal Apologia, Apocolyptic Literature, etc.) What results is an understanding that the development of the biblical text may be more complex than we originally thought.
Can faith survive with such a view of Scripture? I believe it can. With a little bit of critical studies under my belt, I understand that there were a variety of textual traditions of various biblical books in circulation at different times. At Qumran we found that the Jeremiah preserved in the MT is expansionistic of our very best and earliest manuscripts. We also found additions to Daniel as well as Esther. As there is not sufficient evidence that a canon was produced at Jamia in 90CE, we are left without a canon until more than 200 years later. It is well known that many early Christians probably accepted as canon many of the apocryphal books included in the LXX. We also often forget that between the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, and the Protestant churches there are three seperate traditions of canonical books. With this being said, are Protestants the only TRUE Christians because they are the only ones who use the TRUE WORD OF GOD? I don’t think we can say this. If one actually read some of these apocryphal books, one can see that they are wonderful stories of God’s promises which promote personal piety. Without saying, the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are not the exact 66 books held by people of faith through time. Many know that even some of the standard accepted books in the NT weren’t always accepted as so. 2 Peter in some people’s minds wasn’t canonical. James was discluded by many because it posed a different view of faith and salvation than that presented by Paul.
What critical scholars who are Christians understand is that the biblical text is filled with not just one voice (God’s voice)-but many voices. Human voices. This in essence “frees” the biblical interpreter from the task of “harmonizing” Scripture. Scripture can rather be understood as a work of faith created in a variety of social, political, religious, and economical contexts. This is evident in the Old Testament espescially. While the Deuteronomist wished to affirm that the righteous were to be rewarded and the wicked to be punished, we can understand that other biblical writers understood things differently. Job is the primary example. He was righteous, and yet he suffered. While Ezra affirmed that all foreign wives were to be divorced and the children sent away (a very humane act)[stated sarcastically], Ruth was written to say that even King David had foreign blood in his veins. i.e. Don’t be so hard on these people Ezra!!
In essence, what I’m trying to say is that critical scholarship sees a variety of competing voices within the text. These voices don’t have to all agree. And my faith doesn’t have to be based on the single authorship of Isaiah. It doesn’t have to rest on the date of the Exodus. It doesn’t have to rest on the fact that David and not Elhanan killed Goliath, or who wrote the Proverbs. My faith isn’t based on those things. Rather, my faith is based on the fact that the writings in Scripture show a God who was at work through history. While much of his ways are mysterious in the Old Testament, I still understand that this God-the God who promised to bless all nations eventually came to commune with man through His Son Jesus Christ. I still believe that no matter who edited the books or who wrote them or when they were written, what we have in the Bible is still in fact THE GREATEST STORY. It is the tool of Revelation to all men that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. This is what is important in the end. This is the point that critical scholars (Christian ones) agree with you on.
Bill Dever in my opinion(one of the critical scholars who supposedly has lost his faith because of critical scholarship) has lost his faith for other reasons. I can’t be too sure what these are, but rather than dismissing the discipline of critical studies as a whole, we should stop pointing fingers and continue to pray that people such as Bill Dever find their faith once again and resolve their issues with God. I think faith is a matter of the heart and can not be attributed to critical studies alone.
It has been my purpose to help you understand where Christian critical scholars are coming from. While I can not say that there are people who desire to discredit the bible through scholarship, I do believe that there is a faithful few in the discipline who wish only to bring a greater understanding of the biblical text through their studies. As the text is analyzed in light of various archaeological and literary data, the critical scholar will seek to take these evidences and bring them to bear on our understanding of the text. While this method leads to a different understanding of the text, it is not one which wishes to destroy faith. Faith for all of us is something much greater than that which is written on a page. At the heart it is a personal relationship with God. Men should always seek to develop this relationship through the study of the Scriptures because this is what God has given us (regardless of the human fingerprints) because I do believe that within it lies a supernatural message which is very much alive.