Last night John Piper spoke on “The Pastor as Scholar: A Personal Journey.” There are many things he said that resonate with me. If you ‘re pursuing scholarship, you might put this on your “to read” list. I ‘ll pick out one statement that I agree with and one that is not true for me.
This is one of the differences between me and many scholars that drove me out of the guild. I am regularly bursting to say something about the most precious things in the universe, and not in any disinterested, dispassionate, composed, detached, unemotional, so-called scholarly way, but rather with total interest, warm passion, (if necessary) discomposure, utter attachment, fullness of emotion, and, I hope always, truth.
I’m not, and never will be, in the guild, so I can’t be driven out, but I do presently live in the scholarly world and this reality that Piper describes is an increasing source of pain to me. Why is “evangelical scholarship” an oxymoron? Who let the unbelievers take over our Bible? Why do we so esteem them, bow down to them, and seek praise from them?
The other:
I was teaching in college, not seminary, and so the trickledown effect of my teaching for the good of the church had farther to go than if I had been teaching seminary students. That was frustrating.
But seminary students won’t pick up and move to Africa when they graduate.
You can read notes from D.A. Carson’s talk on the same subject are here.
I was there last night and really appreciated what Piper had to say (the Moody Bible Institute students in front of me, on the other hand, came hoping for a “don’t waste your life” message and left disappointed)
I appreciated his comments about getting to Germany and figuring out that the emperor of scholarship had no clothes on. I’m afraid his list of things that disillusioned him about German scholarship in 1970 are things that disillusion me about American evangelical scholarship in 2009. Carson’s message was a good complement on this front because I think if more scholars listened to that kind of advice things might be in a better place.
BTW, why don’t you want to be in “the guild?”
I read the live-blog site (from your link at the bottom), and appreciated the wisdom found there. Though both sides had some important things to say, I particularly benefited from D.A. Carson’s balanced words of advice . . . especially for those of us who may end up being more involved in academia than in pastoring in a church setting. Though the negative in the scholarly world can certainly be found, it is also an arena needing those who are willing to persevere in standing for truth. For better or for worse, the scholarly world is an influence on the church (and I’m speaking of the church universal . . . not just the “organized” church, per se), and so the truth needs to be proclaimed clearly and without apology . . . and yet it is also to be proclaimed in love. There needs to be a balance . . . for on the one hand, it is not helpful to simply avoid interacting with those with whom we disagree. Yet on the other hand, to do so without that interaction being based on good scholarship, and in a respectful manner, only shuts down communication. For some, I believe, God’s calling for their lives is to be His spokespersons in the scholarly arena. May those so called take on the challenge humbly and heroically . . . for HIS glory!
Very interesting. One of the things I relish is unashamedly standing for God and the gospel at seminary. I enjoy engaging in scholarship from the standpoint of unapologetic belief.
As a 36 year old getting an MDiv, I have the freedom and maturity (I hope) to ask the tough questions, the biblically based God honoring questions. In fact, there’s nothing I love more than bringing a stuffy pedantic debate to an end with a few choice quotations from scripture.
That being said, I wouldn’t want to create a false fundamentalist sort of dichotomy between rigorous scholarship and “true” Christian belief.
Allow me to illustrate. I heard a story the other day. Someone related to me that when Piper was at one of the Wheaton theology conferences a few years back, he and his cohort stayed for all the sessions, but then got up and walked out when Bruce McCormack (one of my professors) rose to speak. Everyone there knew it was a snub. Bruce is a Karl Barth scholar, but he also happens to be a God-fearing evangelical (he attends an evangelical non-denominational church here in town, where his wife is the children’s and women’s leader). One might not agree with Bruce on everything, but he doesn’t deserve to be walked out on.
I fear that this little anecdote tells us more about Piper’s comments here than Piper’s own words do.
Eric – most are capable of either being in the guild or being a good teacher. A few can do both, but I am not one of them. My desire is to be a good teacher, I’m getting a degree that doesn’t lead to the guild, and I’m going to a school that isn’t respected by the guild.
Debbie – I certainly agree that the church needs good scholars. As Carson suggested at the end of his talk, many of those who start out, apparently with good intentions, end up going to hell. One of the problems with the nature of the scholarly world is that the desire to succeed and be recognized can easily lead to compromise. Even if you do compromise, you’re still laughed at or ignored, so the temptation is to compromise more. The road only goes one way. Again, though, the church needs good scholars – not to convert the critics but to provide solid, truthful answers for believers. D.A. Carson is a good example of excellent scholarship that serves the church. Critics ignore him as they do all evangelicals. I’m not sure that I’m convinced of the value of “communication” in any case. I read lots of passages in the Scriptures where the call is for anything but communication with false teachers. This is a key point – who are the false teachers that Scripture warns the church of?
Stratkey – praise God for your stand for the gospel. As for your professor, if he was a plumber, the church he went to might be of interest in determining his beliefs. What his wife did would still be irrelevant. But since he is a scholar, we don’t learn what he thinks from his church’s doctrinal statement but from his own writings. I don’t know Dr. McCormack or his beliefs, but I just read two books by self-described evangelicals who say things that absolutely aren’t evangelical. Those in the evangelical camp who are leading people away from an evangelical position should be considered insidious and dangerous. How the church and evangelical scholars should respond is a very important question. I think there is a point where dialogue should end, for the purity and protection of the church. I think we all (in this present discusson) believe this; we may draw the line in different places. What I see though in “evangelical scholarship” is the unwillingness to ever draw a line, and to ever consider anyone an enemy of biblical faith. Guys like Paul, John, and Jude had no trouble drawing these lines. Jesus warned us of wolves in sheep’s clothing – he wasn’t talking about plumbers, but seminary professors and pastors.
Todd –
“most are capable of either being in the guild or being a good teacher.”
I’ve heard you say this before, and I don’t really understand your reasoning behind this. I think a key ingredient for success as a scholar or teacher is being able to communicate well – either in print or in the classroom. Why would being good at one preclude being good at the other? They seem more complementary to me.
“Those in the evangelical camp who are leading people away from an evangelical position should be considered insidious and dangerous. How the church and evangelical scholars should respond is a very important question. I think there is a point where dialogue should end, for the purity and protection of the church. I think we all (in this present discussion) believe this; we may draw the line in different places.”
I agree, I think. I think exposing error is important, which requires dialogue. I suppose how much dialogue is necessary depends on how subtle and how important the error is. On the other hand, the term “evangelical” (what does it even mean anymore?) and who fits into that category is less important to me than historical orthodoxy with regard to the gospel. This is what needs protection.
Interesting post and interesting comments. On the whole I tend to agree most with Todd’s response. I might note in response to dfrese that I am not sure that “communication” is the primary issue. For me, communication is merely a means to an end. At the end of the day, I suggest that a Christian teacher needs to be responsible for building up the body of Christ. Unfortunately, the “guild” as it were, more often than not, does not share that goal. Furthermore, more often than not, to be in the guild requires playing by the guild’s rules, accepting the guild’s presuppositions, and discussing that which interests the guild, much of which has nothing to do with moving the cause of Christ forward. So to be a part of the guild, one has to expend energy, time, and resources, that are in my opinion, better spent in other ways.
Danny – being a good scholar requires much more than good communication skills. As Piper noted in his talk, it requires voluminous reading. It requires a particular type of education. It requires a certain kind of mind. Interacting with books and ideas in a very technical way is quite different than making truth accessible to beginners. I’ve had many teachers who certainly weren’t good teachers (though whether they were good scholars is another question). One other thing – it requires a massive amount of time. The problem with (good) teaching is that it extends beyond the classroom – to personal interaction and grading. Every minute trying to do a good job grading is one minute less to read a journal article.
The problem with the term “evangelical,” it seems to me, is that for some strange reason those who are not still want to be included. I say it is strange because evangelicals are not particularly respected in the guild. It may have to do with sales. I got an email a few years ago about a book that I recommended on my other blog from one of the authors, unhappy that I said that the book was not conservative (I can’t remember my exact words). He didn’t want any trouble from his evangelical college. But the fact of the matter is, there is absolutely no way that anyone would ever consider that book (a very important recent atlas) as one that upholds the historicity and accuracy of the Bible.
I don’t feel the need to re-invent the wheel. Good scholars have, in recent decades, defined the meaning of inerrancy, explained the biblical basis for it, and defended it in a way I consider successful. This has all been published (details here: http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI.shtml). Just because I’m in a new generation, I don’t feel that I have to scrap it or start over. Those who want to “nuance it” usually mean that they don’t believe it. That’s fine. They should write their own statement that expresses their nuances. But don’t try to change the previous expression to mean something that its writers never intended.
One more item related to all of the above. None of my comments in this post are intended as position statements. They are blog comments, written quickly and with a very narrow focus. I realize that there are other issues and realities, and my statements here are not intended to deny any of those. This is all in the nature of a friendly weekend conversation with friends, and I stand open to correction.
Too bad I checked your blog only now–I missed the discussion.
Two comments:
1) “Who let the unbelievers take over our Bible?” We did. Maybe we (and by this I mean evangelicals in the truest sense) should have done a better job at not letting “scholars” take it in the first place.
2) Question: should evangelical schools have different hiring requirements for their faculty members than non-evang. schools? Why do you virtually HAVE to have a PhD in order to get a teaching position? The PhD has become the ticket in. But should our (evang. schools) standards be different?
Benj:
1) I’ll answer your comment with a question: how should evangelicals respond? Should evangelicals try to meet them on the battlefield? My present position (and it would depend in part on what the issue is) is negative. As a professor frequently says, when you go against non-evangelicals, you have to “tie one hand behind your back,” meaning that you act like revelation/supernatural isn’t a reality. But then he admits, we can’t win if without our other hand. Maybe we get them to move a teeny-weeny bit towards us. Maybe. Even so, what have we gained? I think the goal of scholarly “engagement” is not to win those who hold radically different presuppositions but rather to demonstrate to the church that our faith is intellectually credible.
2. I think where you’re going with this is here: PhD programs corrupt students, who then become teachers, who then bring their “discoveries” back home. In a sense, evangelical colleges have surrendered the development of their future faculty to unbelievers. Where would we expect to end up given this? On the other hand, there’s a real danger in being insular.
A comment to readers: I think all commenters on this post are current PhD students, except stratkey (and he fits the category in a lot of ways). The broad spectrum of schools is represented here.
I like this discussion; especially as it touches on the relationship of the church and believers to secular biblical studies. A few additional comments:
Re: interacting with unbelieving scholars: I think we should distinguish between two things. The quality of someone ‘s scholarship is completely independent of their presuppositions (whether supernaturalist or naturalist). A secular scholar ‘s work can be fantastic, or totally shoddy – and the same goes for a believing scholar ‘s work. If I don ‘t agree with a secular scholar ‘s conclusions, it is either because his case is unconvincing to me, or because I don ‘t share his presuppositions, or both. But I ‘m not excused from listening to his arguments because I don ‘t agree with his presuppositions – perhaps they ‘re not based on his presuppositions at all. Perhaps his arguments are even better on a particular issue than someone with whom I share my presuppositions.
So, should we meet on the “battlefield”? Yes, insofar as our arguments are not based solely on our different presuppositions. That, I think, is the point of disengagement. I will add that on the whole, I think the quality of scholarship done by secular scholars is higher than that of evangelicals. (As a benchmark, compare papers at ETS meetings with those at SBL meetings.) That ‘s disturbing to me. Complete disengagement, to agree with Todd, is dangerous.
I don ‘t think the church is surrendering anything if believers get degrees at secular schools (in fact I think all graduate study should involve disagreeing with one ‘s professors, perhaps profoundly). Students who go to a university just need to exercise discernment with every thing they read and hear – EXACTLY as they should do at an evangelical seminary.
Who took over our Bible? The university, which favors naturalist presuppositions on the part of its faculty. That ‘s fine by me. They have their presuppositions at their schools, we have ours at our schools. The question is, why is scholarship from evangelicals not on par with their secular counterparts?
Danny,
You asked, “Why is scholarship from evangelicals not on par with their secular counterparts?” I think the prior question is, “What’s our (and their) definition of good scholarship?” Are there dynamics of secular scholarship that have little to no place in biblical scholarship? If so, then to the degree that we give weight to those dynamics in our evaluation of biblical scholarship, to that same degree we will misevaluate biblical scholarship. Not saying you’re doing this; just saying that it’s a significant and legitimate danger.
If we simply take the definition of “good secular scholarship” and import it into biblical scholarship, no biblical scholarship will ever meet that standard because there are at least some standards of measurement that should be different (either in nature or degree).
So what are the universal elements of good scholarship that Scripture affirms as being necessary to biblical scholarship?
Gunner
Hi Gunner,
I agree with your caution; that’s what I was trying to get at above: quality is independent of presuppositions, so a work’s quality should be evaluated without respect to the author’s presuppositions. (When I say presupposition, I’m speaking in general terms about a secular/religious approach to scripture.) My point is that quality is not ours vs. theirs, it’s the same for everyone.
What I mean by good scholarship is this: did the person adduce all relevant data, biblical and extra-biblical? Did they interact critically with all important secondary literature? Did they evaluate the evidence fairly? Do their conclusions follow logically from their evaluation of the data? Do they consider and refute other possible solutions? and Do they give appropriate caution/caveat to their conclusions if necessary? Sloppy work is full of uncritical acceptance (or rejection) of previous work, non-sequitur arguments (or any of a host of other fallacies), over/understatement, etc. These elements are basic to all scholarly work, regardless of the researcher’s personal biases.
Two scholars might both do good work and come to completely opposite conclusions, if their evaluation ultimately hangs on their presuppositions. I would reject the conclusions of a lot of secular scholarship, even though I can acknowledge that their work is good and, from their perspective, is pretty reasonable.
I don’t know that scripture really affirms any elements of good scholarship per se, except perhaps a few very generic precepts (“test everything, hold fast what is good”?).
It’s a fine line between “truth endlessly deferred” and open and honest debate among believers.
It’s dangerous when we close off to listening to others (hence the Piper example above). It’s equally dangerous when we fail to stake our claim on the primacy of scripture.
As long as someone binds themselves to supernatural belief in God, and the authority of scripture above all else, I can have a meaningful discussion/debate/argument with them. Outside of that, I find that I don’t have much to discuss.
Here at Princeton you can find yourself in all sorts of interesting and meaningful discussions. But most of the time you find yourself in an argument with someone only to realize ten minutes later that you’re not operating from the same presuppositions.
I often find myself laying out scripture after scripture to make a point, only to hear a classmate say, “oh that, well I don’t really care about that.” To which I respond, “why are you here?”