couldn’t evangelical academics have found jobs elsewhere?
Pete Enns is almost as worried about the plight facing evangelical biblical scholars as Congress is about Obamacare:
Folks, we have a real problem on our hands, and everyone has to bear some responsibility. Here’s the familiar scenario. The “best and brightest” students in Evangelical seminaries work hard and are encouraged and aided by their professors to pursue doctoral work. Many wind up going to some of the best research universities in the world.
This is a feather in everyone’s cap, and often they are hired back by their Evangelical school or elsewhere in the Evangelical system.
Sooner or later, these professors find out that their degree may be valued but their education is not.
During graduate school they begin to see issues from a different perspective–after all, this is what an education does. An education does not confirm what we already know, but exposes us to new things in order to broaden our horizons.
Once they start teaching, they bring with them the excitement of learning new things, some synthesis of old and new for their students, because they feel such conversations are necessary for intellectual and spiritual health.
Someone listening to this complaint from outside the Reformed and evangelical worlds might actually wonder why the graduate students who become so well educated couldn’t figure out that what they are learning is not what they had formerly understood at their Protestant institution. Or why could they not, owing to their brilliance, find a job at an institution that values learning as they now understand it, say at a secular research university or even a mainline Protsestant institution? And again, if these folks are so smart, why can’t they anticipate the difficulty that may await them if they do take a job at their Protestant alma mater?
Maybe it’s just (all about) I, but one indication of brightness in my experience is learning what is permissible to say and teach in certain contexts. Another sign of smartness is understanding that everyone does not think the way you do and doesn’t even want to.
Old Life 
If they’re so smart, they should be able to figure out how to eat their cake and have it too.
In my past evangelical life, my experience at brand X seminary suggested that a professor could go fairly far afield without bringing down censure upon himself. Such concern about academic evangelical enforcement of doctrine makes me wonder how broad these horizons are.
LikeLike
Sounds a lot like sour grapes to me. It seems to me that basic integrity demands that if one cannot honestly sign a statement of faith required at a religious school, one should resign that position. I really don’t have any sympathy with these professors who are under such great stress because they have to be guarded about what they say. Yeah, the academic job market is tough – particularly when you aren’t as good as you though you were – but no one has a right to academic position.
LikeLike
dgh: Or why could they not, owing to their brilliance, find a job at an institution that values learning as they now understand it, say at a secular research university or even a mainline Protsestant institution?
mark: oh the things we would learn about those in the evangelical academy if there were no jobs involved, and no pensions or endowment funds. Troeltsch was not completely wrong about the next generation and sect-to-church (“kingdom institutions”?) If there were no jobs in the evangelical academy, there might not be such a thing as an “evangelical”.
But you are correct that these smart guys tend to think that you would agree with them, if only you had more time to think (or could think) or had read the same books they have read. They have left the Zwinglians have been left behind with the gnostics and the dualists and the marcionites. That’s the way the trajectory goes–but some get off the path and never become Anglicans or Romanists.
we need to make a list of the names 2k folks get called——
anabaptists too dumb to know that they are anabaptists?
pie-in-the-sky-some-day?
defenders of slavery?
dgh—one sign of smartness is understanding that everyone does not think the way you do and doesn’t even want to.
LikeLike
now, here’s something smart
http://www.ibtimes.com/simpsons-season-25-treehouse-horror-xxiv-episode-2-watch-guillermo-del-toros-couch-gag-video-1414910
and the dr seuss segment was even smarter
LikeLike
The more things change the more they stay the same. We humans have always struggled with constraints, it was this way in the beginning and continues to this day. I suppose that in some academic disciplines the notion of “academic freedom” and intellectual liberty can be the source of very fruitful learning, research, and advance certain bodies of knowledge in ways that they otherwise could not be.
However, for those involved in theological education, especially in the training of ministers, they are a bridge between two very different worlds. In truth, theologians (and related academics) must accept the constraints of orthodoxy, their intellectual objectives are bounded in service of truths that the church has come to confess over the last 2000 years. All of their hypotheses must operate within these boundaries.
At the end of the day, Enns comes off sounding narcissistic, and a bit whiny. Theology is not biology, or linguistics, or English Literature, it exists as a field of inquiry that is meant to serve the church and advance her cause with all the requisite fear of God that is due to the field. So what if theologians don’t get to have their cake and eat it too – they are not, nor should they view themselves as unbridled intellectuals. Their work, for good or for ill has real spiritual consequences, forgive me for not feeling sorry where their consciences are pricked over the “shackles” of orthodoxy. Those that view themselves this way should have no entitlement to train up ministers, and they need to line up for those jobs available in institutions that have no commitments to orthodoxy so that they can enjoy the freedoms that their former (conservative/orthodox) institutions do not and should not afford them. Of course these positions are highly competitive, and they might end up in a non-academic field as a result, but that’s the gamble that anyone who pursues a career in academia faces, regardless of who they are or what field of study they belong to.
LikeLike
It’s impossible to feel sorry for a guy who is surprised that he can’t find a job because he’s too liberal for Evangelical seminaries and too conservative for secular academics to take seriously.
LikeLike
And you gotta be REALLY smart, pastors, to do what TKNY says you need to do:
“In short, if I as a pastor want to help both believers and inquirers to relate science and faith coherently, I must read the works of scientists, exegetes, philosophers, and theologians and then interpret them for my people. Someone might counter that this is too great a burden to put on pastors, that instead they should simply refer their laypeople to the works of scholars. But if pastors are not ‘up to the job’ of distilling and understanding the writings of scholars in various disciplines, how will our laypeople do it? This is one of the things that parishioners want from their pastors. We are to be a bridge between the world of scholarship and the world of the street and the pew. I’m aware of what a burden this is. I don’t know that there has ever been a culture in which the job of the pastor has been more challenging. Nevertheless, I believe this is our calling.”
I’m sure he meant to say that much subtlety, niceties of nuance, and black-turtleneck-smart-guy aura helps too.
http://biologos.org/blog/creation-evolution-and-christian-laypeople-part-1
LikeLike
Robert, I wouldn’t put it that way as someone who lost a job. I do feel sorry for people who devote years to training and can’t find or lose work. What I have trouble with is Pete’s inability to admit the very categories you use. Sometimes smarts lead to honest self-assessment.
LikeLike
CW, pastor as think tank. Not to sound like a Bible thumper, but I believe you’d have a hard time finding Keller’s understanding of ministry in Paul’s exhortation to Timothy. And I also think you’d have trouble finding your average pastor at your average congregation with the time or resources to do all that reading — not if he is preparing two sermons, pastoral visitation, and keeping up with family. NYC to Keller is what Constantine was to Christianity — it causes you to lose perspective on what endures.
LikeLike
DGH, double ding — what (all about) you said is what I was thinking when I read that quote — from an Enns-affiliated site, of course.
LikeLike
Makes me kind of wonder whether we need to restore “the fourth office” – doctor – to the local church or presbytery, instead of farming it out to independent institutions. Have those whose task it is to know and interpret new knowledge and “facts” in the light of confessional orthodoxy – what to keep, what to toss, what to tweak.
LikeLike
Mark B., so do you think this is what Pete Enns had in mind?
LikeLike
Maybe they trusted Mohler when he told them that evangelical institutions allow their faculty more freedom to explore “the life of the mind” than their secular counterparts. Because evangelicals are just plain better at everything than secular folk.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/10/08/evidences-of-a-maturing-evangelical-mind/
LikeLike
Caleb, self-patting backs is so unbecoming.
LikeLike
That’s what conferences and blurbs are for—sermons also. You quote your friends, and they quote you. You tell their stories, and they tell yours. And then everybody knows what the “mainstream” says.
I did think, when reading this essay–here hart hit a home-run. But I won’t say that, since almost all patting backs leads to….
bad and worse
you lost a job because you weren’t “evangelical” enough?
LikeLike
DG – Mine was more a response to CWs comment about pastors gaining such knowledge as part of their ministry. I think that it can and should be offloaded from them, but within the confessional boundaries. Theoretically our seminaries would handle such things and teach our pastors, being a continuing resource. In practice, the seminaries are a large part of the problem (I seem to remember that Peter Enns taught at some famous seminary or other…). And few reformed seminaries now answer to a denomination.
Ideally this task would move closer to home, with men in each church or at the presbytery level called (commissioned? ordained? volunteering?) to work through these things, publically, showing their work. The iron needs to remain where it can be easily sharpened, even if it seems like a duplication of effort.
LikeLike
McMark, no. Lehman Brothers.
LikeLike
Mark, I hear you. If Pete were a churchman, he might think this way. But I do believe he is an evangelical at heart and all the Presbyterian-stuff is too much like Turabian — claptrap.
LikeLike
I didn’t know exactly where to put this comment but since we’re talking about smartness as ability to understand your work environs and make honest assessment of one’s self, I figured this was a fair spot. It’s an observation of American sports culture and American popular temperament as well when faced with two distasteful choices(it’s an evaluation of the sports fan’s popular reaction to the series outcome between the Braves and Dodgers, I thought it had carry over value to how moralists of the evangelical stripe or theonomist stripe are probably received)
“But one of the notable aspects of American society is that when asked to choose between plutocrats(Dodgers) on one side and dour moralizers(Braves) on the other, Americans will choose the plutocrats every time. Most of us aspire to be rich; very few of us aspire to be douche bags.”
LikeLike
Lehman brothers? You weren’t able to overcome your theonomic scruples against usury?
I hope they at least gave you a good reference for Intercollegiate Studies Institute
LikeLike
McMark, when Lehman caused the economy to tank, ISI cut me off.
LikeLike
Sean, maybe that applies in Texas. But in places like Phila. and Detroit, humans like the underdog and hate the Yankees (or Cowboys).
LikeLike
Darryl, its true that losers rarely take the blame and Jerry Springfield pulled a certain segment. Point taken.
LikeLike
Sorry that was Springer. Not familiar obviously.
LikeLike
The delusion starts at the seminary level though. A lot of whom need to work out what they want to do with current scholarship.
LikeLike
I understand that the economy led to your defunding, but had ISI taken a position in favor of deregulation? So that financial institutions too big to fail would be allowed to fail. I am looking for some poetic justice here in the providential events.
By analogy, “poetic justice” is the feeling we have in Philadelphia when Romo throws another interception for the Cowboys.
LikeLike
“By analogy, “poetic justice” is the feeling we have in Philadelphia when Romo throws another interception for the Cowboys”
Ah yes, more of voyeuristic and comparative moralism that feeds the TV and image addled American public. I will say this, JJ has cured me of my fanaticism. But, winners get to do what they want and Jerry’s boys are worth a few billion at last count.
LikeLike
Professors at theological seminaries and Christian colleges which require them to subscribe to a confessional document or to adhere to a statement of faith should be stable and mature enough in their personal faith and orthodoxy that their research and learning won’t easily cause them to be tossed about by every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:14). I agree with comments above that those who come to different convictions and can no longer in good conscience subscribe to their insitution’s doctrinal position should demonstrate personal and professional integrity by resigning their position (just like a Presbyterian and/or Reformed minister who comes to non-confessional views should likewise resign his position and seek to serve in a communion whose confession he can sincerely receive and adopt). This might involve personal hardship for the professor in question, but it is the way of honesty and integrity.
The orthodox gospel and “faith once for all delivered to the saints” is and always will be foolish in the eyes of the worldly wise. Why aren’t more Christian academics wise enough to grasp this? It seems that too many evangelical academics want to be “in” with the worldly wise and to schmooze with their sophisticated worldly-wise colleagues in the faculty lounge; and in order to reach that goal they will offer oblations to the idol of “academic respectability” by going along with sophisticated academic fads which often undermine or run counter to biblical truth and historic Christian orthodoxy. Yes, training an educated ministry is absolutely vital, and academic integrity should be a top priority. And, yes, students should be exposed to ideas and beliefs outside of their own institution’s confessional boundaries. But for Christian institutions (Christian colleges and especially theological seminaries) which instruct from the standpoint of a particular confession or theology, and which exist to serve the church, even more foundational is the theological integrity of their professors and their unequivocal adherence to the institution’s theological and doctrinal perspective. If the professors aren’t in line with the institution’s doctrinal position, then it might as well throw off the veneer of theological integrity and restructure itself as just another secular academic institution.
LikeLike
Geoff,
By “the orthodox gospel” do you mean young earth creationism? What if a seminary prof changes his/her view on that issue? Should that person be forced to resign because they have strayed from “the orthodox gospel”?
I don’t find your characterization of seminary profs who change their position on an issue that conflicts with their seminary’s position as people who just want to be like the cool kids to be all that helpful, or accurate. Is that really why you think that Bruce Waltke took the position that he did?
LikeLike
Caleb W wrote: “By “the orthodox gospel” do you mean young earth creationism? What if a seminary prof changes his/her view on that issue? Should that person be forced to resign because they have strayed from “the orthodox gospel”?”
GW: Of course I don’t believe that “young earth creationism” is to be equated with “the orthodox gospel.” The “orthodox gospel” is the biblical gospel of salvation by Christ’s life, death and resurrection, and is summarized in such places as 1 Cor. 15:3-8. The purpose of my comments was not to address a particular issue (like young earth creationism or evolution or whatever), but rather to make this point: If you choose to teach at a Christian school or seminary that requires you to sign or agree to a confession or statement of faith, then you must stay within the boundaries of that confession or statement in your teachings. (Of course, that means adopting the standards/confession as understood by the institution – its’ “animus imponentis” if you will.) If, in the course of your research and studies, you come to a viewpoint that conflicts with the institution’s confessional/theological position, then the honest and peaceful thing to do is to resign your position at that institution and seek employment elsewhere (at an institution which allows for your viewpoint). Dr. Peter Enns is a perfect example of this. His view that Genesis 1-11 is Divinely inspired mythology, and his view that Adam is a mythological (non-historical) figure, are clearly contrary to the Westminster Standards that serve as the confession of faith at Westminster Theological Seminary where he had taught. Whatever one might think of his views (pro or con), he was rightly dismissed from his teaching position at the seminary (indeed, he should have resigned his position upon coming to his convictions).
Since you bring up YEC as a particular issue, here’s how I would apply this principle in such a case: Say you are a professor at a college or seminary that explicitly teaches and requires its professors to endorse young earth creationism, and you come to disagree with YEC, then, yes, you should resign your service at that institution. If you do not hold to YEC but agree to teach at such an institution but are silent about your non-YEC convictions, then you would be a dishonest equivocator whose employment is based upon deceit, and the institution in question would have every right to terminate your employment if it finds out you signed its statement of faith dishonestly.
Caleb W. wrote: “I don’t find your characterization of seminary profs who change their position on an issue that conflicts with their seminary’s position as people who just want to be like the cool kids to be all that helpful, or accurate. Is that really why you think that Bruce Waltke took the position that he did?”
GW: Caleb, I’m not claiming that all seminary profs who change their position are just trying to be like “cool kids.” If they change their position, fine, but if their new views run contrary to the confessional boundaries of the institutions they serve, then let them do the right thing and go elsewhere. At the same time, as a Calvinist I’m a believer in total depravity and thus in the ongoing presence of sin even in the lives of the regenerate — including regenerate professors. Let’s be honest that in our sin the fear of man and the desire for man’s praise are high motivators, even among God’s people. While I believe there are many Christian professors with a high degree of personal and professional integrity, and while I can’t read the hearts of any professor, at the same time I believe it is naive to think that things like peer pressure, the desire to considered “with it” and “relevant,” and the idolatry of “academic respectability” aren’t real temptations for many academics – including Christian academics.
Regarding Bruce Waltke: I’m almost totally out of the loop on his situation (other than I’ve heard that he holds to some form of theistic evolution), and I didn’t have him in mind when I wrote my comments; so I’m not sure why you bring him up. Like I said, my comments dealt with matters of general principle, not with particular individuals in mind (other than Peter Enns, since Dr. Hart quotes from him in this article).
LikeLike
McMark, ISI doesn’t do policy. I’m no more a fan of poetic justice than poetic license. (When did poetry become so friggin’ special?)
LikeLike
Sean, I am glad you have been cured of Jerry Jones. It’s almost Spurs time. Do you do a nba fantasy team or are you too pious for that kind of “voyeuristic and comparative moralism”.
I have been cured of watching basketball
many times now
LikeLike
well, then, this is just for you, dgh:
The heart-mark (of love)
was a tulip
and the eyes of a pupil
a perfect cut
for someone
doubtful.
To die for love
to die of love
to die in love
to die with love
to die over love
to die without love
to die in the mine
to be a “mine”
in the arms of someone
to die of all the above.
fanny howe, the republic of love
and here I was thinking that a certain history of calvinism was something more than prosaic
LikeLike
Thanks for your response, Geoff. That clarifies your view for me.
I mostly agree. I would just like to see some of these institutions rethink what they consider to be their “confessional boundaries.” I brought up Waltke because he is a professor who had to resign (from Reformed Theological Seminary) for coming to believe something contrary to his institution. He “came out” in favor of theistic evolution on the Biologos website. I think that his case is similar to Enns and is a good example of the general principle that is getting support here going too far.
And I do have more sympathy (perhaps because I am in an analogous position) for the people that Peter Enns is describing. It is sad when there is a whole cohort of scholars who are too “liberal” for Christian post secondary institutions and too conservative for secular ones. What a radically divided scene!
LikeLike
McMark, not pious, but way too cool to be associated with fantasy anything. As far as the Spurs, it’s still too soon. The Sixers are gonna suck, so that’s something. MM, promised me his Celts were gonna finally ‘sweep the leg’ on Lebron cuz they’ve got nothing else going on, so here’s hoping.
LikeLike
As an atheist I have to say I can see both sides of this issue it comes down more and more to the issue in higher education of conflicting roles. That being said I think conservative institutions are doing themselves a disservice by being as insular as they are. I’ll pick on Jason Stellman since he’s being a jerk to me on his blog, and you all know who he is.
He’s is a distinguished graduate from Westminster Seminary. AFAICT he’s had 0 exposure to Rudolf Bultmann who is more or less the important Protestant of the 20th century. He’s had no exposure to the development of Protestant theology historically. He’s had no exposure to Christian history of the middle ages. He’s had no exposure to ancient history. He’s had no comparative religions or history of religions. He learned nothing about the Judaism: as it exists today, as it existed at the time of the birth of Christianity. as it existed. He know nothing about the development of Islam. He’s had no exposure to theologies of other major branches of Protestantism in the United States. I think most conservatives would agree that a good theological education requires these sorts of topics be covered. Ministers shouldn’t be sent out into the world unequipped to understand theologies they are likely to encounter and questions about the whys they are likely to face.
I don’t think Jason was likely a bad student. He seems to be a smart guy. Westminister aims to be a first class school on par with Princeton. Yet I think there are real substantial and serious deficiencies in the education at Westminster even when compared to much worse schools from a Liberal Tradition. How did that happen?
The issue isn’t just confessional boundaries. The issue is a wholesale rejection of quality and rigor in terms of education. In theory there is no reason that lack of rigor and a demand for confessionalism should correlate, in practice they do.
I think the key in Ennis’ piece is this
LikeLike
CD-Host, I saw somewhere that Stellman’s undergraduate learning came from Vineyard type of Bible college. May be wrong. Seminaries have some provisions from the accreditors for admitting a limited number of students without a B.A.
LikeLike
I’ve wondered if a conventional liberal arts education would’ve helped that kid. Guess we’ll never know.
LikeLike
CD-Host wrote: “As an atheist I have to say I can see both sides of this issue it comes down more and more to the issue in higher education of conflicting roles. That being said I think conservative institutions are doing themselves a disservice by being as insular as they are.”
GW: I think you are probably correct about some conservative, evangelical, and perhaps even some Reformed institutions of higher learning being “insular,” but I believe the better ones try to expose their students to the cultural, philosophical and theological trends they will encounter in the outside world. As just one example, I recall reading about a newer Reformed seminary (I think Northwestern Seminary?) that not only requires its students to master some of the classical Reformed theologians, but also requires them to become well-versed in Schleiermacher’s writings (Schleiermacher being a “father” of classical liberal theology).
Regarding the problem of being “insular,” I would contend that insularity is not only present in some conservative and Christian institutions. I believe it is also quite rampant in ideologically more progressive and liberal institutions as well, where it seems students are often not even exposed to the best conservative and historic Christian rebuttals to progressive and non-Christian dogmas (or if they are exposed to such non-progressive viewpoints, it is often to the worst representations of such viewpoints, intended to lead the student to simply dismiss non-progressive views as unworthy of consideration). To offer a piece of anecdotal evidence, at the evangelical seminary where I trained (Gordon Conwell), I once took an elective on contemporary theology. We studied representative writings from liberation theologians, feminist theologians, etc., and had visiting professors representing such theologies come and address our class. One allegedly brilliant theologian from an ultra-liberal seminary who had written a number of important scholarly books was addressing our class one day. It became evident during the question and answer period that he was almost entirely ignorant of the work of evangelical scholarship and the writings of evangelical theologians. Here we were, trying to be non-insular by interacting with his views, but it was obvious that he lived and moved and worked within the narrowly insular world of liberal theology and liberal theological scholarship. In my opinion, liberal academia often seems to be even more of an “echo chamber” than its conservative counterpart. So the “insular” problem isn’t just a “conservative” problem in academia. Insularity can cut both ways.
LikeLike
Just me here, CD-Host, but do you really want to be associated with Jason and his website by posting comments out there? If he doesn’t want you posting on his website, that’s all the more reason to shake the dust off your feet, IMHO. Just ask Doug Sowers, the proprietor here allows all sorts of comments to be posted. There are theology blogs, and then, there are theology blogs. Take care.
LikeLike
Andrew B “Just me here, CD-Host, but do you really want to be associated with Jason and his website by posting comments out there? If he doesn’t want you posting on his website, that’s all the more reason to shake the dust off your feet, IMHO. Just ask Doug Sowers, the proprietor here allows all sorts of comments to be posted. There are theology blogs, and then, there are theology blogs. Take care.”
True
LikeLike
Geoff
I’m not going to disagree that Liberal Protestant seminaries do their students a disservice by not exposing them to evangelical thought. Couldn’t agree more. I was just addressing Ennis’ point.
I’d agree the problem exists to some extent on both sides. Also, liberalism via. its ties to mainstream academics picks up rigor from other related disciplines. There is exposure to it. Conservatism, as it exists today, with a suspicion of academics often picks up good quality history of ideas but not rigor. That is since conservatives are generally fairly close to the views in previous centuries liberals are on average less harmed by being ignorant of contemporary conservative thought that conservatives are of liberal thought. There is a fundamental asymmetry by nature of the fact that one side is “conserving”.
LikeLike
CD,
Can you give us a link to where he is being rude?
LikeLike
CD-Host wrote: “I’d agree the problem exists to some extent on both sides. Also, liberalism via. its ties to mainstream academics picks up rigor from other related disciplines. There is exposure to it. Conservatism, as it exists today, with a suspicion of academics often picks up good quality history of ideas but not rigor. That is since conservatives are generally fairly close to the views in previous centuries liberals are on average less harmed by being ignorant of contemporary conservative thought that conservatives are of liberal thought. There is a fundamental asymmetry by nature of the fact that one side is “conserving”.”
GW: I appreciate your admission that the problem of insularity exists to some extent on both sides. But I’m not sure I’d agree that it’s more of a problem in contemporary “conservative” thought than in liberal thought. Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems to me that those on the liberal and “progressive” side of things seem to value that which is new — new ideas, new theories, new theologies, the latest “big thing” in culture and academia, etc. – over that which is “old” and time-tested. Whereas, those of us who are more “conservative” and historically confessional (while there is some overlap, the two labels not to be equated, btw, as Hart shows in his “The Lost Soul of American Protestantism”!) tend to value the discoveries, traditions, and theologies of the past which have stood the test of time; thus we tend to be more skeptical of and less taken in by the latest theological or ideological or academic fads. (This is not to say that we think everything that is new is necessarily bad; we just don’t think we necessarily live in the most enlightened age of human history, or that we are necessarily oh so much smarter or more compassionate or more insightful or learned or ethically superior than our ancestors were.) Seems to me that one could spend one’s whole life trying to keep up with “progressive” thought (theological or otherwise), and thus I think conservatives and confessionalists are perhaps more selective on which of the ever-changing liberal fads they choose to keep up with. Which is perhaps why some conservatives and orthodox confessional types are (wrongly) viewed by their progressive and liberal counterparts as being more inclined to insularity. In other words, we’d much rather study John Calvin than Ed Farley (the liberal theological professor from Vanderbilt whom I was referring to in my earlier comment), since we recognize that Calvin’s writings holds more of lasting value for the church than the dense, almost incoherent ramblings of Professor Farley’s writings.
LikeLike
Geoff —
I agree with the distinction you are making between conservatives and liberals. Those are true. And moreover I’d agree that this leads to a sharp difference in the relative amount of time one should spend on the classics. So to use your Calvin example a Liberal might be inclined to study enough Calvin to understand how he influenced later thought while a Conservative might be inclined to study Calvin in and of himself and that leads the conservative to spending perhaps 10x as long as Calvin as he’s looking for hidden nuggets while the Liberal can see the big picture and move on. So grossly oversimplifying Calvin is a tool or a fact for a Liberal while a contemporary that needs to be fully confronted for a Conservative.
I can agree to all that. And in general I tend to lean a bit more towards the conservative position on those debates. I think one can get a good education from the great books of the past. That ideas that have stood the test of time should be read and studied. That a generation is likely to only produce one or two great thinkers on any topic and in real time it can be hard to see who they are.
That’s not what I’m complaining about. I have no problem with conservatives skipping Bishop Spong in favor of Calvin or Aquinas. But when we start talking Bultmann or Harnack or even worse Spinoza, Hegel or Nietzsche you can’t make the same claim of skipping contemporary mediocrity in favor of past greats. Not being familiar with their thoughts on theology is simply a failure to be educated in the critical development of Protestant theology.
At the end of the day Calvin is a reaction to the end of Feudalism an is addressing what a post feudal Christendom will look like. Which while interesting is simply not a contemporary issue of any relevance to a pastor. The PCA and the OPC are reactions against Liberalism and are addressing what an evangelical Christianity can look like in an modern capitalist economy dominated intellectually by empirical positivism. Perforce you need to read later scholars to get that. How do you understand Machen without reading German Liberals?
LikeLike
Enns – I’ve had far too many conversations over the last few years with trained, experienced, and practicing biblical scholars, young, middle aged, and near retirement, working in Evangelical institutions, trying to follow Jesus and use their brains and training to help students navigate the challenging world of biblical interpretation.
And they are dying inside.
Erik – Could be the breakfast at McDonalds…
LikeLike
The bottom line is, if you are required to believe something to hold a job and you cease believing it, find another job. That’s what a person with integrity will do. Say what you want about Stellman, at least he had the decency to do that. He didn’t try to make the PCA Roman Catholic (like a Federal Visionist?).
What if when people in the CRC started to have doubts they had had the decency to leave vs. taking over Calvin Seminary and the entire denomination? In that case maybe we blame the authors of the Three Forms for not being more explicit on women in office. They probably didn’t dream it was necessary, though. They also don’t speak explicitly against gay marriage.
Grow up, be a big boy, and move on. Everything in the world doesn’t have to be mushy and liberal.
LikeLike
Erik, would that apply to the bishops at Vatican II?
LikeLike
D.G.,
No, they are Princes of the Church who must Keep Pressing On!
They serve at the pleasure of the Great Pope and sometimes live in large mansions with many household staff at their disposal.
LikeLike