When I read Michael Licona’s The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach it made me proud to be an evangelical. It was a great example of an evangelical doing serious scholarly work. While many will not accept his approach to historiography it seems like most readers respect him for the content of his work. In other words, even critics will not likely ignore him as an overly bias apologist. He earned his merit.
Yet within evangelicalism itself there are those who want total conformity to their views or they begin a heresy hunt. Norm Geisler is one of those people. Licona suggested that Matthew 27.52-53 (where people rise from the dead after Jesus’ resurrection) may not have been a historical event, but rather some sort of apocalyptic poetic symbolism. Geisler wrote an open letter accusing Licona of abandoning inerrancy (read “An Open Letter to Mike Licona on his View of the Resurrected Saints in Matthew 27.52-53”). One thing that seemed like a veiled threat is his mention of Robert Gundry who was run out of ETS for “dehistoricizing” some of the Gospel of Matthew.
Licona took his time to respond to Geisler on Parchment and Pen (see “Press Release: Michael Licona Response to Norm Geisler”) stating that he still affirms inerrancy and the following:
“I always regarded the entirety of Matthew 27 as historical narrative containing apocalyptic allusions. I selected the term “poetic” in order to allude to similar phenomena in the Greco-Roman literature in general and Virgil in particular. However, since Matthew is a Jew writing to Jews, “apocalyptic” may be the most appropriate technical term, while “special effects” communicates the gist on a popular level.”
In his response he gained the support of conservative evangelical scholars like Craig Blomberg, William Lane Craig, Gary R. Habermas, Craig S. Keener, J.P. Moreland, and Daniel B. Wallace, among others. Geisler wrote a response titled, “A Response to Mike Licona’s Open Letter”. Geisler lists several reasons why he is not satisfied with Licona’s response and he ends the letter saying:
“So, it matters not how many scholars one can line up in support of the consistency of their personal view on inerrancy (and many more than this can be lined up on the other side). What matters is whether Licona’s view is consistent with the view of full inerrancy held down though the ages (see John Hannah, Inerrancy and the Church) and as expressed by the ETS and ICBI framers and as expressed and confirmed in the official ICBI commentaries on the matter. For once we begin to neglect the “authorial intent” (to use a phrase from Licona’s “Open Letter”) of the ETS and ICBI statements, and replace it with what we think it should mean, then “inerrancy” is a wax nose that can be formed into almost anything we want it to mean. Sadly, many names on Licona’s list of scholars are members of ETS (some of whom are on the faculties of evangelical seminaries that require their faculty to sign the ICBI view of inerrancy). What is more, their approval of Licona’s view reveals they are not signing the doctrinal statement in good conscience according to intention expressed by the framers. The ETS and ICBI framers have drawn a line in the sand, and Licona has clearly stepped over it. Only a clear recantation will reverse the matter and, unfortunately, Licona has not done this. Let’s pray that he does.”
Geisler doesn’t care who supports Licona. In his estimation Licona doesn’t affirm inerrancy as Geisler understands it. It’s time for a good ol’ heresy hunt! While there are times when people are unjustified in calling conservative responses “heresy hunts” (as if conservatives like Wright and Evans are trying to annihilate liberals from AAR or SBL, c’mon! e.g. Tony Burke’s “Heresy Hunting in the New Millennium”), this qualifies in my opinion. Geisler’s mention of Gundry, and his disapproval of ETS members supporting Licona, indicates that he wants some recanting done or else.
Gag me!
While I know many ETS members whom I respect greatly, and I know there are moderates like those who support Licona, it is this kind of thing that is an embarrassment to ETS (that and the heresy hunt against the evil “open theist”). It is an example of why I decided to forego renewing my ETS student membership this year (that and I found debates over the semantics of “inerrancy” annoying and irrelevant). These things are distractions to good scholars. Licona shouldn’t have to waste time typing a response to Geisler’s fundamentalist sectarianism.
the archives near Emmaus 
i am learning its “shut up and tow the party line. do not ask questions.”. sad.
@Doug: No kidding.
What is Geisler trying to accomplish with his attack, other than some good publicity for Mike Licona and his book? Is Geisler too wedded to the ICBI view of inerrancy for his own good?
@Paul: I hope it does result in more support for Licona and more publicity for his book. That being said, heresy hunts are rarely fun for the hunted.
strong and well-taken, Brian.
Excellent post Brian. Bang on! I will say this openly, I will never join ETS unless Geisler or the ETS reinstates and invites Bob Gundry back, or Geisler quits. One of the two would be fine with me. Licona is a rising star amongst evangelical NT scholars and I’m proud of the work he has done in his book on the resurrection. What really upsets me is that many young men and women in the SBC will be forced to straddle the line of inerrancy as laid out by guys like Geisler and we may just see a large chunk of the next generation of potential Christian leaders walk to the other side of the line and either become non-Christians or very left-wing Christians. This frankly is embarrassing.
@Eka: Thanks!
@Greg: I worry about the same thing. Evangelicalism could isolate some of their brightest upcoming scholars. Those who would have been solid scholars in support of what evangelicalism holds dearest will leave because of the inerrancy debate. It makes me sad.
Even if we forget how poorly-written Geisler’s response was and how whiney he sounded, Geisler comes across as a grouchy old man. It seems as if he wants to start a witch hunt purely for the sake of witch hunting.
I wonder if it actually the mark of a good scholar to be denounced by Geisler, Piper or any of the GC! 😉
Of course sadly it looks like I too am a heretic!
I think from now on we can almost assume as a general rule that if any of us are on the wrong side of Geisler, then we are on the nearer side of truth 🙂 Mark, you are probably right. Being denounced by Geisler is like a backhanded compliment! Almost like a gag joke. I can imagine evangelical seminaries wanting to hire somebody and if the candidate was deemed a heretic by Geisler, they will probably get the job!
I just realized something. According to Geisler’s website, he resigned from the ETS back in 2003. Now, read this quote from his response to Licona’s open letter: “The ETS and ICBI framers have drawn a line in the sand, and Licona has clearly stepped over it.” Who are the framers? Geisler? and who else? Who else will speak up to defend Geisler right now? Do any of the “framers” still attend ETS? All this threatening Licona by throwing Bob Gundry under the bus again is all for nothing. Geisler isn’t even part of ETS to do anything. So, what’s the point?
Let’s be careful that we not take on the very attitude that we’re trying to critique. How is rejecting an entire academic body (i.e. ETS) because of the attitudes displayed by a small (though vocal) minority any less of a “fundamentalist” reaction of its own? Isn’t that just a different way of separating ourselves from those with whom we disagree? (I’m not saying that we should all be members of ETS, just that I don’t find this a particularly good reason not to be a member.)
We should also recognize that this kind of discussion will always follow a group that has any kind of confessional statement. Even the original ETS statement with its emphasis on the Trinity raises the question of what qualifies as “trinitarian.” And, when they added the statement on inerrancy, that created a conversation around what that term means and how it relates to academic biblical studies. So, unless you’re willing to say that confessionalism and academic study are antithetical to one another, thus avoiding any group with confessional commitments, you can’t avoid these discussions. (Of course, I don’t think you should even try to, but that’s because I think confessional commitments are valuable and are compatible with academic study.)
So, even though I disagree (as I usually do) with both Geisler’s stance and his tone, it’s going to take a lot more than that to make me change my membership commitments in any group. As Brian rightly points out, the majority of ETS members are far more moderate than this, and I choose to continue supporting the good work of that majority. And, I absolutely refuse to allow hard-liners to become the ones who get to define what it means to be an “evangelical” or an ETS member.
Hi Brian.
I blog over at Deeperwaters.wordpress.com and I happen to be married to Mike Licona’s daughter. I consider myself a serious apologist in my own right seeing as Deeper Waters is working on becoming a 501c3. As of now, we’re a subministry of Tektonics.org. I am also a student at Southern Evangelical Seminary working on a Master’s in Philosophy.
This whole ordeal has been incredibly tough on my wife and I and Geisler’s tone has been the problem along with these kinds of tactics. If my father-in-law changes his mind, it needs to be because a strong case is presented. It does not need to be because he has been bullied into doing it.
There have been serious ramifications of this character assassination and I hope the evangelical world stands up and says that while we hold to orthodoxy, we also hold to orthopraxy and Geisler’s behavior is certainly not biblical in this regards.
@Mike: This does reflect poorly on Geisler’s public image in my mind.
@Greg: Geisler’s absence from ETS is good for the society. I wonder if he wields as much influence as he seems to think he does?
@Marc: I wish the best for ETS, but as someone who has been part of a group where heresy hunting is a tradition I am allergic to any sign of it. That may not be good for me in relation to evangelicalism, but I am just being honest. It is sad to see Licona go through something like this and if he can be chased down then I feel a bit paranoid in such crowds.
@apolog: I am sorry to hear this. I will pray for your family. You are correct that Dr. Licona has earned the right to be respected in his decision. He should not be bullied into changing his mind. I am glad to see so many prominent evangelicals showing him support and I hope to see more support come his way.
good grief…. while empathise with Dr. Lincona and his family and can understand some of the pain they are experiencing, I wonder…since Giesler is no longer in the ETS, who caes what he says? and is it possible the more significant members of ETS could turn the tables on G and call him to account instead?
@Brian: I can sympathize, since I’m not terribly fond of heresy hunters either. I just think we need to be careful about treating an entire group based on how a fairly small sub-group handles itself. I don’t think the issue here is ETS or the ETS statement of faith but how particular people handle themselves with respect to both of those.
@apologianick: What you’ve described is tragic. I’m with Brian in saying that we’ll be praying for you and your family. And, I think your comment frames the issue in the right way. This is a question of how a particular individual has chosen to engage this issue and how the broader community responds to that individual. I’m with you in hoping that we all respond well.
I’ve issued my own challenge to Geisler in this regard:
http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/2011/09/open-challenge-to-norman-geisler.html
@Marc: This is likely true in many respects. I would note that the nature of the debate over inerrancy is dizzying, which is one reason it unnerves me. I don’t think I’m alone in that (1) those of us younger evangelicals who have been interested in ETS are often quite unsure how to define “inerrancy” and (2) we know this is one of only two confessions made. In other words, it is very vague, yet it could impact one’s standing in one’s school or place of employment.
So it may not be ETS (I like ETS), but the word “inerrancy” and it’s importance is scary simply because I don’t know what is meant by it. Is it as strict as Geisler wants it to be (it seems most are saying “no”) or as broad as being a synonym for “infallible”?
@JP: Thanks for sharing.
Everyone that has participated here may want to read Marc Cortez’s guest post: http://nearemmaus.com/2011/09/13/an-opportunity-lost-why-geisler%E2%80%99s-critique-missed-the-mark/