Yesterday, Christopher Skinner wrote a post lamenting that one of his colleagues denies that a teacher can separate his/her faith-commitments from his/her teaching in biblical studies (read here). He argues that it is possible to compartmentalize in order to teach objectively. I agree to some extent (i.e. one can pretend objectivity), though I am not as impressed with Academia is she is with herself so I personally don’t feel obligated to be something I am not in order to gain the appreciation of others who won’t be forced to deny their premises. I understand that those seeking to have a successful academic career in the university system must do this. Some are able and to them I tip my hat.
What caught my attention was James McGrath’s comment on the post. He writes (here), “I would comment that, even if the colleague is right, to be unable to separate the two need not mean that one’s faith tradition is allowed to override critical/academic methods. It is possible instead to be a person of faith but to accept that, in light of critical study of the Bible, you will have to change your mind about many things you once assumed.”
Again, I agree to some extent. The operative word here is “have to” and “must”. No, no one has to change their mind about anything because of critical scholarship. For one, critical scholarship has as much disagreement on various things as it does agreement. I understand that the university must discover new and novel insights to secure funding, but the church doesn’t owe the university utter allegiance. We don’t have to go this way and that way with every SBL annual meeting.
Second, there are premises that drive critical scholarship that we may not be able to reconcile with reading through “eyes of faith”. If we believe God speaks in Scripture what can we do. We will read it differently than someone who sees the canon as merely a collection of documents that provide insight into the beginning of a religion.
Third, epistemological humility demands that we do not always forsake the traditions of the church for the whims of academia just because they say something novel. If we decide to be mavericks against the ‘Great Tradition’ it better be in “fear and trembling” to steal a phrase from Kierkegaard! We better be sure in our guts that we are doing the right thing. If you can’t say with Luther, “Here I stand. I can do no other!” then patiently be agnostic about something until you can further explore traditions claims against the new insights of academia.
So I say yes, we must listen to critical scholars. No, we must not affirm their conclusions. To do so by default is (in my opinion) to assume that a certain group of scholars monopolize biblical studies. There are legitimate “scholars” of Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Pentecostal, and many other persuasions that bring different premises that must be discusses and explored but that do not coincide with a secularized approach to Scripture. These scholars are just as good as secularized scholars and their voices are just as valuable.
So yes, listen, but be critical. Be as critical of what is new as you are of what is old. There is usually a good reason for why Christian tradition has become Christian tradition. There is usually a good reason why it has staying power while modern scholarship fluctuates like the sea.
the archives near Emmaus 
Brian, I think I understand your concern about scholarship – I remember a friend saying that doctoral research encourages, perhaps even requires, heresy, since you are supposed to come up with something new.
But of course, the demand that you be able to produce new insights and ideas as a scholar is counterbalanced by a scholarly community that will critically sift through your claims and arguments, with very little likely to stand the test of time.
And so I often tell my students that when there is a widespread scholarly consensus, that probably indicates that the evidence points strongly in a particular direction. And when scholars are widely divided, that almost certainly indicates that the evidence is less than clear or complete.
But I think the way you have worded your post could be understood by some readers to be encouraging picking and choosing. Many think they are being “critical” when they reject scholarly conclusions that disagree with their own presuppositions or with the teaching of their church.
The views of Christians over the centuries have changed and developed at least as much as those of scholars. And so the contrast between an allegedly static orthodoxy and an academy that supposedly is constantly in flux seems at best a caricature or a partial truth. Is staying the same always good? Is change always bad?
I think a good scholar should be able to engage in good descriptive work (re-constructive), but that once this step is made; that the good scholar should also be able to engage said work through their own prescriptive (constructive) mode of engagement. In other words, as you said, like Luther, be able to say: “here I stand, I can do no other.” You know, like actually believe something. I used to hate it, while in undergrad, some profs (unnamed) would just lay out all of the various views on something (like on spiritual gifts); and then not own one themselves. I know they think that’s good pedagogy, I don’t!
Anyway, good post; I agree with you!
Just a quick response to what James just said; clearly there should be dynamism within the Tradition, but then again that presupposes that there is some sort of Tradition to work from. In other words, I think what Brian is saying is that we don’t want to simply dump what the Church has taught through the centuries just because it doesn’t meet our modern (critical) sensibilities. There must be some sort of boundaries. I.e. it’s possible to make a distinction between a Liberal Christian and Conservative one on a continuum of belief. The next question is what criteria might be appealed to to determine how we make that distinction? And then the next step may be to ask how that person understands their views relative to what the Church “has” taught over the centuries (on various foci).
Anyway, just spouting off a little 😉 . . .
Good statement Brian! Overall I am very happy I choose the pastoral ministry (Anglican even) over the academy years ago. Though I respect many in the academia, but at the Bema Seat, and the “face” of Christ, it will be faithfulness!
Brian,
“So I say yes, we must listen to critical scholars. No, we must not affirm their conclusions.”
Why should we listen to them if through our hearing we don’t, at times, find our faith changed? What value do they bring to our religious life?
@James: It could encourage picking and choosing, though it doesn’t necessitate it. It could result in a suspension of one’s current beliefs on the matter until they have heard more views. Sometimes it is good to come with the presupposition that Scripture is truthful because it will force further investigation into the matter. For example, we can take the reference to Quirinius in the Gospel of Luke. Many think the author was wrong. Many defend how he could have been right. When I looked at the issue I came away with we don’t have enough data either way to defend or deny historical accuracy (there seems to be a silent era of Quirinius’ career and the language regarding his governorship is also complicated). So while I listen to critical scholarship there does seem to be the benefit of scholars who come with a presupposition that Scripture is truthful because they are not willing to settle as quickly. Too often critical scholars are more than happy to go with the first hint of doubt as evidence against Scripture’s truthfulness.
As to various views within tradition, I agree. I concur with what Bobby noted above though. There is a dynamism to tradition. The ‘Great Tradition’ is fairly steady and we can find views that are held across Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, and Evangelical groups like the Trinity, the deity and humanity unified in the person of Christ, the resurrection, and so forth and so on.
@Bobby: Good thoughts.
@Fr. Robert: Thanks.
@Dan: I do think they help us see aspects of our faith that need to change. But I do not think (1) everything is fair game and (2) that scholarly consensus is all that it is cracked up to be.
@Brian, presumably you are referring to the old idea that Quirinius could have had more than one period as legate of Syria? I am not aware that there is a gap in our knowledge of his career that would allow for him to be involved with a census in Judaea prior to the death of Herod the Great, when Matthew says Jesus was born. So the infancy stories seem to me like a good example of am instance when scholarly study of the Bible might legitimately change our minds about whether we are dealing with historical accounts or something else.
*chose
As I recall there is evidence that speaks to the historicity of Quirinius. I forget the name of the scholar/history — an Asian guy [well known] — who presents some compelling evidence and interpretation that would seem to counter James’ assertion.
So an example of what Brian is saying, me thinks.
@James: The ‘previous’ legate option is possible. Or Jared M. Comption’s option: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/11/01/Once-More-Quiriniuss-Census.aspx#Article or Stephen Carlson’s option: http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2004/12/luke-22-and-the-census.html
Point being: there are a lot of takes and the “Luke was wrong” take is no better than these ones. Could Luke have been historically wrong? Sure. I don’t think he was though and I think if you presuppose a higher view of Scripture (as I do) you will seek options that reconcile historical studies with biblical claims. But to see that Luke could have been wrong and then to assume he was seems like someone has another set of presuppositions already in place.
Brian,
“I do think they help us see aspects of our faith that need to change.”
Do you have a personal experiences like this? Before you had done the reading into the scholarship did you view those aspects of your faith as being ‘fair game’ to be challenged?
I’ve had such experiences myself and whenever they happened it was like a psychological tectonic plate shift. Things I had thought completely off limits suddenly weren’t, so completely had my view of the text changed. How do you know what’s not ‘fair game’ until you have encountered the evidence?
@Brian, I personally am not comfortable saying “Scripture must be right” and then favoring those who write articles that support that stance, and ignoring or dismissing evidence to the contrary.
If anyone is interested in my own thoughts on the Quirinius census and Luke’s infancy narrative, I have something on my web site here.
@Brian,
As you know, I agree with you. And I think you’re totally on point with the idea of presuppositions. There are always reasonable ways to think about the “apparent” errors or contradictions in Scripture. In fact, I think that if we just start out with the idea and belief that God is a good communicator, hold to a straightforward (even Concursus Dei understanding) of inspiration; then when we find apparent problems in the Text that we can see these as intended and thus work out exegesis that actually highlights the apparent discrepancy as an exegetically rich resource for trying to understand what the Lord was/is trying to communicate through these dynamic points of interpretation. It’s almost like the Bible is a love letter, and a book that is intended for relationship; so God made it in such a way that we would have to wrestle with it, and work through it — and not meet the positivist expectations on either side of that coin. 🙂
We have to go on who God has revealed Himself to be in order to have a good ground for our “presupposition;” and I think our “ground” is in Christ on this so an “analogy of faith.” And I take this to mean that God is the God of History which means all of history (per Col 1). There aren’t two competing histories [our history and then God’s history] (that would be a Nestorian error, christologically); and yet that’s what this discussion presupposes.
@Dan H.: Yes, there are a lot of things about the Gospels, the Pauline epistles, the Apocalypse, and so forth that I would have misunderstood without critical scholarship. For instance, the Book of Revelation was much harder for me to understand until I read about apocalyptic literature in general. Those scholars who have attempted to provide insights into Second Temple Judaism have helped me color in the lines of the gospels.
What I find concerning, for example, would be the marginalization of certain scholars because they have open presuppositions. Let me put it this way: I respect Craig Blomberg and Darrell Bock as much as I respect N.T. Wright and J.D.G Dunn (and more than Marcus Borg and J.D. Crossan). In other words, I don’t see “critical” scholars as better scholars.
It assume certain presuppositions are better than others. Borg and Crossan are not blank slates and neither are Blomberg and Bock. Yet we find too many who talk as if evangelical presuppositions are these terrible prejudices while critical scholars are “open minded”. I don’t buy it.
@James: I understand, that is why I may see you at SBL in San Francisco, but not ETS! 🙂 I have read your take on Quirinius and it makes good sense, but I don’t find it any more conclusive than the other takes and that is what I am saying in general. While I don’t know how to phrase it I should note that I am as skeptical of historicism as many scholars are the presuppositions of evangelicals (e.g. in The Historical Jesus: Five Views I resonated with Luke Timothy Johnson’s skepticism of the whole project).
@Bobby: In part, as I ponder our approach to Scripture and what you say about Christ, it seems awkward to me that I would approach Scripture from a radically different perspective than Jesus himself if I believe he is the Son of God incarnate, fully guided by the Holy Spirit. I recently heard John Goldingay say we don’t necessarily believe in Christ because of the Bible but we have a certain understanding of the Bible because of what we believe about Christ. While this must be nuanced, I think he has a valid point in general.
@Brian,
Here’s how John Wenham summarizes, in a way, what you just said:
The great question for James F. McGrath, will always be, what is evidence? And just what is a place of “comfort”? Where we place our authority must always have some kind of position in and of the historical Church. As too the Holy Scripture, which is a product of the Apostolic Church itself.
“In traditional Judaism and Christianity, the Bible has been more than a historical document to be preserved or a classic of literature to be cherished and admired; it is recognized as the unique record of God’s dealings with people over the ages. The Old Testament sets forth the call of a special people to enter into covenant relation with the God of justice and steadfast love and to bring God’s law to the nations. The New Testament records the life and work of Jesus Christ, the one in whom “the Word became flesh,” as well as describes the rise and spread of the early Christian Church. The Bible carries its full message, not to those who regard it simply as a noble literary heritage of the past or who wish to use it to enhance political purposes and advance otherwise desirable goals, but to all persons and communities who read it so that they may discern and understand what God is saying to them.” (Bruce M. Metzger, Preface to the NRSV)
@Bobby: That is a great quote that captures what Goldingay was saying.