Can Evangelical Colleges and Seminaries Be Truly Academic Institutions?

[Grazer]

Peter Enns has written a series of blogs, some from other people, over the spate of resignations by scholars in evangelical colleges. The picture that gets painted is that these people were forced out of their positions for daring to go against orthodoxy.

If it's true, this presents a worrying situation, especially since these same evangelicals criticise certain universities for not allowing discussion that goes against Darwins theory of evolution. It's hypocrisy, plain and simple. Surely, scholars and others should be allowed to discuss scripture from different angles and use different premises, isn't it how we learn?

So the question that Dr Enns asks is; Can an institution claim to be fundamentally academic while at the same time centered on defending certain positions that are largely, if not wholly, out of sync with generations of academic discourse outside of evangelical boundaries?

I've put the links to the relevant blogs below:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/petere...nd-seminaries-be-truly-academic-institutions/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/petere...ce-for-believing-criticism-in-evangelicalism/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/petere...-followers-of-jesus-dont-rush-me-im-thinking/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/petere...s-of-how-jesus-wants-you-to-fire-a-colleague/

 

[Aardverk]

Peter Enns has written a series of blogs, some from other people, over the spate of resignations by scholars in evangelical colleges. The picture that gets painted is that these people were forced out of their positions for daring to go against orthodoxy.

If it's true, this presents a worrying situation, especially since these same evangelicals criticise certain universities for not allowing discussion that goes against Darwins theory of evolution. It's hypocrisy, plain and simple. Surely, scholars and others should be allowed to discuss scripture from different angles and use different premises, isn't it how we learn?

So the question that Dr Enns asks is; Can an institution claim to be fundamentally academic while at the same time centered on defending certain positions that are largely, if not wholly, out of sync with generations of academic discourse outside of evangelical boundaries?

These articles are excellent. I do wish everyone would read and understand them.

There are obviously many variations on a theme but as far as I can see, there are two basic forms of belief. One is the traditional, and perfectly acceptable, 'I believe it all and refuse to think about anything else', and the other is 'intelligent belief' constantly striving to understand better what was really going on 2,000 and more, years ago.

I had never thought of that very simple distinction before, between those two basic views, but it does seem to explain a lot of the petty squabbles that we see here and in the real world. Is there a formal name for it? There certainly should be; that way we may know in advance which view each other has and thereby avoid pointless disagreement where there is little or no common frame of reference.

For future reference, I place myself very firmly in the 'intelligent belief' camp. It would be better however to have a formal name for it.

I realize this is a deliberately emotive photograph but what a brilliant way to sum up the difference between the two camps.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

So the question that Dr Enns asks is; Can an institution claim to be fundamentally academic while at the same time centered on defending certain positions that are largely, if not wholly, out of sync with generations of academic discourse outside of evangelical boundaries?

The very question disqualifies his authority to speak on the matter, given that he does not recognize that the "generations of academic discourse outside of evangelical boundaries" are irrelevant to the discussion of evangelical doctrine.

What would Dr. Enns do if the unproven theory of evolution were to be questioned in the open halls of academia? Oh, wait ... no need to speculate: It's been done. What happened? The challengers of this pet theory of most academics are ridiculed, condemned, denied tenure, fired or otherwise prevented from "poisoning" the "logic" of academic thought by daring to suggest it's wrong.

 

[farouk]

Part of the problem is local congregations relying on colleges to produce preachers. If the congregation is conservative, they expect the college board, to which they give money, to wield the big stick if someone on the faculty steps out of line. Nice people can easily turn nasty if they think someone is stepping out of line.

Why not nurture young preachers over many years within the congregation, instead of sending them away to some college to learn how to be a preacher and be ritually oh so surprised when some of them don't come back, or else come back with oh so surprisingly different ideas?

This is the pattern that Paul used with Timothy. Silas worked alongside Paul, etc.

But I do also think that a college, Christian or not, is a place where by definition people are going to have to come to terms with a whole variety of ideas.

 

[Aardverk]

The very question disqualifies his authority to speak on the matter, given that he does not recognize that the "generations of academic discourse outside of evangelical boundaries" are irrelevant to the discussion of evangelical doctrine.

I think you raise an interesting point. Given that academia is usually defined as: Higher level education and research, there is no overwhelming reason why an academic subject should not be rigidly constrained to the study of The Bible. Indeed it could simply be called 'Bible Studies'. It need then have no interaction with other subjects which may or may not conflict.

Problems only appear when people try to make The Bible fit into our current knowledge rather than just studying it and trying to to understand it as it would have been understood 1,700 years ago. We struggle to understand some parts of The Bible but maybe it was all crystal clear to people in 325 AD?

We are constantly finding things which make 'academics' of all sorts interested in The Bible because they are trying to understand it with academic discipline as an historical document and not as an instruction book. Things like 'Bethlehem' for example - I have only recently learned that many archaeologists and theologians now believe that Jesus was born in the Bethlehem in Galilee. Given that it was only about 3 miles from Nazareth, it seems far more plausible that heavily pregnant Mary rode there on a donkey for a census rather than 100 miles to the other Bethlehem (It could be less than 3 miles as the location of Nazareth is also questioned).

It is purely a personal choice whether we choose to ignore this 'new information', and other 'discoveries', but if we are truly interested in understanding The Bible, I think it would be short sighted to ignore them. I feel therefore that The Bible should be studied as a normal rigorous academic subject rather than unsullied 'Bible Studies'. Christianity would be rather isolated if, for example, the rest of the world established that Nazareth and Bethlehem were actually somewhere else and we ignored that just to retain a tradition. That tradition would rapidly be discredited.

Academia exists to extend and disseminate human knowledge. Deliberately cutting ourselves off from it is probably not a good idea. I think that is the point of the original article.

 

[farouk]

A:

What you mean by 'unsullied "Bible studies" ' is presumably that you don't want the Bible to speak for itself?

Don't be surprised if on a Christian site, this is exactly what Christians do want.

 

[Grazer]

It is purely a personal choice whether we choose to ignore this 'new information', and other 'discoveries', but if we are truly interested in understanding The Bible, I think it would be short sighted to ignore them. I feel therefore that The Bible should be studied as a normal rigorous academic subject rather than unsullied 'Bible Studies'. Christianity would be rather isolated if, for example, the rest of the world established that Nazareth and Bethlehem were actually somewhere else and we ignored that just to retain a tradition. That tradition would rapidly be discredited.

Academia exists to extend and disseminate human knowledge. Deliberately cutting ourselves off from it is probably not a good idea. I think that is the point of the original article.

Agree with this.

 

[farouk]

Agree with this.

G: So, an in built bias against prophecy and the unity of the Scriptures?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Problems only appear when people try to make The Bible fit into our current knowledge rather than just studying it and trying to to understand it as it would have been understood 1,700 years ago. We struggle to understand some parts of The Bible but maybe it was all crystal clear to people in 325 AD?

I don't believe there is any difficulty whatsoever in understanding the Bible not only as it applied to those in the first or third century, but as it applies to us today. Why? Because the human condition isn't any different than it was then.

We are constantly finding things which make 'academics' of all sorts interested in The Bible because they are trying to understand it with academic discipline as an historical document and not as an instruction book. Things like 'Bethlehem' for example - I have only recently learned that many archaeologists and theologians now believe that Jesus was born in the Bethlehem in Galilee.

That's another problem with those academics. Claims like that are made while ignoring the most obvious evidence, that Luke wrote of Joseph and Mary traveling to the City of David (Luke 2:4) which is most assuredly not that obscure and forgotten village in Galilee.

Given that it was only about 3 miles from Nazareth, it seems far more plausible that heavily pregnant Mary rode there on a donkey for a census rather than 100 miles to the other Bethlehem (It could be less than 3 miles as the location of Nazareth is also questioned).

The command from Caesar Agustus was for every male citizen of the Empire to return to his place of birth. Agustust wouldn't have cared one way or another how that affected a young pregnant teenager in the backwater land of Israel. Birth records were kept in hometowns, in the synagogue in the case of Israel, in other houses of worship for whatever faiths other subjugated lands were under Roman control. Besides, pregnant women are far more resilient than we stupid men give them credit. She might have been uncomfortable, but she could have endured a three-day trip to Bethlehem east of Jerusalem. She came from a people who worked in the field until birth pangs overtook them, went into the house, birthed the child and went back out to the field the next day. In fact, we're sending women home from the hospital the next day. It isn't easy being nine months pregnant, I'm sure, but it isn't a life threatening situation in most cases, either.

It is purely a personal choice whether we choose to ignore this 'new information', and other 'discoveries', but if we are truly interested in understanding The Bible, I think it would be short sighted to ignore them.

If there were valid evidence that did not disregard existing evidence, not only from the Bible but from archeological findings over the centuries, it would be worth looking at. But the historical account in the Bible fits perfectly with the known facts of who Joseph was and why he would be compelled to make such a journey with his young pregnant fiance.

I feel therefore that The Bible should be studied as a normal rigorous academic subject rather than unsullied 'Bible Studies'.

It has been, and has been found perfectly sound in its teaching.

Christianity would be rather isolated if, for example, the rest of the world established that Nazareth and Bethlehem were actually somewhere else and we ignored that just to retain a tradition. That tradition would rapidly be discredited.

Many efforts have been undertaken to discredit the Bible similarly in the past. They have all failed to meet the test of reality, not just from biblical accounts but again, from archeological and extrabiblical historical evidence.

Academia exists to extend and disseminate human knowledge. Deliberately cutting ourselves off from it is probably not a good idea. I think that is the point of the original article.

No one is suggesting cutting ourselves off from it. But unless there is valid evidence that can be shown to refute conclusively that which is absolutely already known, there is no point in entertaining it. I'm sure you don't believe that the evidence is as solid as I've stated, but it is. Doubt will not change its veracity.

 

[farouk]

I honestly do think that the Bible can be studied by Christian scholars under conditions of integrity; but such a process does not depend on a secular agenda

 

[Carolyn]

The problem is that several generations of academia have closed their minds to the truth of the Bible. I personally know people who have
been told that they will not pass the class if they still believe in Jesus Christ at the end of it. It is not just the professors who are forced to
resign, students are also persecuted for their faith in secular colleges.
Speculation on how far Mary might have ridden is just that--speculation. I know a lady who was breaking broncos in the last week of her
pregnancy. She went full term, too.

 

[farouk]

The problem is that several generations of academia have closed their minds to the truth of the Bible. I personally know people who have
been told that they will not pass the class if they still believe in Jesus Christ at the end of it. It is not just the professors who are forced to
resign, students are also persecuted for their faith in secular colleges.
Speculation on how far Mary might have ridden is just that--speculation. I know a lady who was breaking broncos in the last week of her
pregnancy. She went full term, too.

Carolyn:

Yes, 'the world by wisdom knew not God' (1 Corinthians 1.21) is a very relevant statement of Paul's.

Blessings.

 

[Grazer]

G: So, an in built bias against prophecy and the unity of the Scriptures?

What?? Huh???

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[farouk]

What?? Huh???

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

G: You seemed to cast doubt on aspects of the geography of the New Testament, when there is a unity between Old and New.

So I'm not sure why you are the one that seems surprised.

 

[Grazer]

G: You seemed to cast doubt on aspects of the geography of the New Testament, when there is a unity between Old and New.

So I'm not sure why you are the one that seems surprised.

I take geography to mean locations, physical places etc If you're referring to consistency between the old and new testaments, can you be a bit more specific?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Aardverk]

A:What you mean by 'unsullied "Bible studies" ' is presumably that you don't want the Bible to speak for itself?

Don't be surprised if on a Christian site, this is exactly what Christians do want.

I meant entirely the opposite - that is why I said entirely the opposite (see below). Unless I insert a " ;) " at the end of the line, I always mean exactly what I say. Please don't derail this very interesting thread to have a pop at me, I personally find it impossible to interpret my words the way you have chosen to.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with studying and accepting The Bible at face value. I think you raise an interesting point. Given that academia is usually defined as: Higher level education and research, there is no overwhelming reason why an academic subject should not be rigidly constrained to the study of The Bible. Indeed it could simply be called 'Bible Studies'. It need then have no interaction with other subjects which may or may not conflict.

That seems to me to be completely clear and entirely related to the OP question.

I then linked that view to a more normal interactive academic view - which, again, is very much the subject of the OP. My personal view, is that it is no more appropriate to separate Bible Studies from Archaeology (for example) than it is to separate History from Archaeology. That does not mean that I have anything against people who do make 'rigidly restrained' studies - that is entirely their choice.

 

[Aardverk]

I think we are in danger of straying from the OP subject but you raise some interesting points.

I don't believe there is any difficulty whatsoever in understanding the Bible not only as it applied to those in the first or third century, but as it applies to us today. Why? Because the human condition isn't any different than it was then.

The difficulty in understanding The Bible has led to 200+ Christian denominations and many Christian v Christian wars. The knowledge of the people in 325 AD may have been far superior to ours now or visa versa. Our interpretations are therefore quite likely to be different.

The command from Caesar Agustus was for every male citizen of the Empire to return to his place of birth.

This is an excellent example of where The Bible should(?) interact with history. This Roman practice of making people return to their place of birth for a census is not recorded anywhere else that I have read. I really would be grateful for details of that very odd requirement. That is not sarcasm, I really would be grateful.

If there were valid evidence that did not disregard existing evidence, not only from the Bible but from archeological findings over the centuries, it would be worth looking at.

We are in agreement. It seems from your words that you may have some expertise in this area, it may be interesting therefore to resurrect that old thread, a bit over a year ago, seeking archaeological evidence for the actual location of Nazareth. Rather than derailing this thread, I summarize it below.

No one is suggesting cutting ourselves off from it. But unless there is valid evidence that can be shown to refute conclusively that which is absolutely already known, there is no point in entertaining it. I'm sure you don't believe that the evidence is as solid as I've stated, but it is. Doubt will not change its veracity.

This is indeed the subject of the OP. You say, 'there is no point entertaining it' but unless one entertains it, one can not consider it. If one doesn't consider it, one is living in an isolated bubble making 'rigidly constrained' studies. The question asked was - 'can such studies truly be considered academic'? I think we just agreed that they can not be.





Please do not respond to this information in this thread, this is purely for reference. My summary here is based purely on memory so it may not be very accurate.

The thread running about November 2011 was seeking evidence for the location of Nazareth as it did not appear on early Pilgrim maps. I think the history is that Nazareth was razed to the ground about 60BC, re-built about 150 AD and razed again about 250 AD (all dates from my memory - so don't rely on them). The point is that the destruction of Nazareth accounted for why no one knew where it was.

In the 1st millennium, when the Pope's agents etc were roaming Israel seeking holy relics for reliquaries they were also searching for evidence of the location of Nazareth. To put this in perspective it should be remembered that enough fragments of the 'true cross' were recovered by these agents to build a house. The level of evidence that a particular scull or finger was actually Peter's, Mary's, Paul's etc was obviously zero. They were just taking the seller's word for it.

One day, they came across a particularly enterprising Jewish farmer in what is now known as the Nazareth valley. When told they were seeking Nazareth, he said, look no further, my two huts and those catacombs over there are all that is left of Nazareth. The Pope promptly bought the land and ordered Nazareth re-built. It then started to appear on Pilgrim maps and the Jewish farmer lived happily ever after.

A few years later it was realized that the Jews never built their catacombs in the town, they always built them out of town. Too late, Nazareth had been built in the wrong place - that will do, no one will notice.

In recent years, many archaeologists have searched the valley again and again for evidence that they were in the right place. They could find no evidence that a town or city existed between 60 BC and 150 AD but plenty of evidence for habitation in the valley either side of those dates. All they could find from the right period were two huts that presumably belonged to that Jewish farmer. It seems likely that they are in the right valley but it seems questionable that they are in the right place. Interestingly, the Vatican would not allow them to dig on their land.

About the same time, someone pointed out that there was no cliff nearby that the townsfolk wanted to throw Jesus off. That seemed to support the suggestion that the new Nazareth is built in the wrong place.

Nothing is conclusive either way, it is simply a fascinating tale. The true location of Nazareth is completely unimportant, I am only reminded of that thread by the interaction of belief and academia.

 

[farouk]

A: I must have misunderstood what you said, then; sorry.

 

[Grazer]

Peter Enns with a follow up

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/petere...aders-stop-saying-about-biblical-scholarship/

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The difficulty in understanding The Bible has led to 200+ Christian denominations and many Christian v Christian wars.

I don't believe that to be a true statement. It isn't a lack of understanding or misunderstanding that leads to numerous denominations or so-called "Christian v. Christian" wars. When was the last one of those, anyway? It is willfulness and arrogance, the usurping of God's power and claiming it for their own. It is a choice to ignore what the Bible says, not an inability to understand it.

The knowledge of the people in 325 AD may have been far superior to ours now or visa versa. Our interpretations are therefore quite likely to be different.

Not at all. In fact, they are very similar. Commentaries from the early church indicate the scholars then had an equal understanding and interpretation of the Bible as we do today. God's word is unchanging, and its truth is unwavering. If we were getting a radically different interpretation now than they were then, it would call into question the veracity of God and His word. We don't see the variations you are supposing.

This is an excellent example of where The Bible should(?) interact with history. This Roman practice of making people return to their place of birth for a census is not recorded anywhere else that I have read. I really would be grateful for details of that very odd requirement. That is not sarcasm, I really would be grateful.

This will explain a lot of the cultural and sociopolitical aspects of Quirinius' rule and the decree by Caesar Augustus. Don't pay so much attention to the article itself as to its footnotes.