In response to your doctor analogy, I can see where a NT scholar with a more secular perspective may not appreciate it. Not all non-faith-based scholars only want to talk to themselves, of course. Many of them want to disseminate the information to the masses, but they don’t define the masses as only the church. Look at Ehrman, Pagels, and King. Also Borg, Crossan, etc. Some of them direct their popularized scholarship to the liberal church, but others direct it to society in general, like Berlinerblau and his article in the Chronicle (he also has a book called The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously). I also appreciate it when I see biblical and religious scholars make it onto The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

I would also like to interact with nonbelievers. So I guess you could say that I’m interested in all three conversations: with the scholars, with the church, and with those outside the church (be they part of other religions or not part of any particular faith). That’s a lot to take on!

I think that you are highlighting an important problem here. I like to couch the debate like this: who is our audience as biblical scholars: the Church or each other? It seems to me that you are arguing a little of both, i.e. one engages in academic debate and then attempts to make it applicable to the general pew-sitter.

I agree. The unfortunate thing is that scholars who attempt to keep contact with the Church are sometimes looked down upon by the Academy (like Fee, Moo, almost any “traditionalist,” and even NT Wright to some extent). This is really sad to me. It would be as if research doctors simply wrote about treatment plans in journals but never shared them with practicing doctors and their patients. What purpose would the research doctors serve then?

The only bridges now between the Church and the Academy are the few pastors and leaders who know the Bible-geek jargon well enough and find it useful week in and week out and the few scholars who purposefully make “hardcore” scholarship somewhat applicable.

This situation could get better though…it seems like there is a new crop of us that are more interested in communicating with the Church than one another. Lets hope so.

I agree that scholars wield tremendous power, which can be dangerous. Scholars obviously have bad ideas as well as the non-scholars, and that’s why I want be “in” on the scholarly conversation to be able to sift through all dirt and find the gold. That reminds me of one of my favorite sayings in the Mishnah:

“There are four traits among those who sit before the sages: a sponge, a funnel, a strainer, and a sifter. A sponge—because he sponges everything up; a funnel—because he takes in on one side and lets out on the other; a strainer—for he lets out the wine and keeps in the lees; and a sifter—for he lets out the flour and keeps in the finest flour.” ~m. Abot 5:15 (Neusner’s translation – forgive the lack of gender inclusive language)

I want to be that sifter, who then brings the best of what’s left to those who don’t have the opportunity for this education.

But I think it’s also important to point out how extremely important and valuable scholarship is. The Old and New Testaments are products of a culture, world-view, etc that is, for most people, a terra incognita. People inevitably must read their own culture, values, and present-day concepts into the text since they are so detached from it. But naiveté and impressionism are dangerous roads to take.

Also, historically speaking, there is a trickle-down effect whereby the educated elite direct the future currents of the artistic, and the artistic disseminate that into the popular and folkloric. So in a very real sense, scholars and philosophers have tremendous power to shape society and the future.