This is just getting uglier by the minute, and I’m not entirely sure I understand why it’s even occurring. For those who don’t know what I’m talking about . . . It all started with the threat of University of Sheffield shutting down their biblical studies department. After much international backlash, the school decided to backpedal on that decision. Then, Christianity Today covered the events in this article. Ben Witherington was quoted in that article:
Evangelically minded faculty, including Andrew Lincoln and Loveday Alexander, were not replaced with scholars who held similar views. Other faculty were “bent on the deconstruction of the Bible, and indeed of their students’ faith,” according to Ben Witherington, a New Testament scholar at Asbury Theological Seminary.
When challenged on this (see comments [Update: the comments have since been deleted]), Witherington has not stated that he was misquoted (though he did say something about contacting the author at CT). He also stated that he doubts there will be any public apology for the remarks, presumably either from the reporter or from Witherington himself. In these comments, he says past scholars in the department “at least nurtured people in their Christian faith” (implying the present ones do not). He reaffirms his quoted comments in the article and takes a stance on the hiring procedures at Sheffield, which goes about, he says, “deliberately avoiding hiring people of faith, and further the issue is deliberately trying to deconstruct someone else’s faith.”
To be honest, I’m not certain why Witherington would have been consulted for such opinions in this article in the first place. Why did the CT author, Collin Hansen, consider Witherington an expert on the faculty at Sheffield? True, BW3 earned his Ph.D. at Durham, another UK institution. But this was close to 30 years ago and, more importantly, it wasn’t Sheffield. Okay, so, Witherington has heard things from former Sheffield students. Still, he is not a proper primary source for the situation.
When pressed further by Stephanie Fisher, Witherington directed Steph to Ralph Martin (who is incidentally emeritus faculty with my own seminary alma mater). It seems as though Witherington has heard some things from Martin and is sharing those thoughts. He also refers to “those Sheffield students over many years who found the denials of historical substance in the Bible, among other things, not merely disturbing but problematic.”
In Sheffield dept. chair James Crossley’s most recent reply to Witherington, James explains why Witherington’s comments are unjustified. Do read his comments on the topic. An earlier post pointed out that it is actually illegal for the school to hire on the basis of religion.
This should be a warning to us all, I think. When approached for comment by a news organization, on some subject upon which we are not directly experts, proceed with caution. Perhaps we should just say, “I’m sorry I don’t have enough information about that for you.” Particularly if our comments could be perceived as hurtful to those directly involved with the issue.
Update: I just noticed this comment from Witherington:
Going forward one of the questions that ought to be seriously discussed is the issue of sensitivity to and tolerance of theological differences in the students and a thoughtful addressing of issues when students feel that pejorative comments about the Bible or about their faith are at the least not fair, and hardly value neutral.
Now, I might be comfortable with a bit more challenge to students than Ben seems to be, but as a larger issue, I do think he has a point. There is a delicate balancing act when talking about biblical literature, between doing necessary historical work and–in Witherington’s words–avoiding perceived “pejorative comments about the Bible or about their faith.” The key unknown here, however, is the matter of student perception. It’s not always something that an educator can control.
I’m not sure Witherington does have a point in the quotation you posted in the update. Would Witherington show the same “sensitivity” and “tolerance” to an atheist student at an avowedly Christian institution?
Perhaps, Pat, you should ask yourself what kind of blank ideological cheque is being signed if we decide to agree with Witherington when he writes about the concerns of “some of the more conservative Christian students who have gone through Sheffield, and indeed have felt both their faith and the Bible and its historical substance disrespected” (cf. his response to James Crossley).
I’m not sure when Sheffield began the process of shutting down the Biblical Studies department but, unless I’ve missed something, A.T. Lincoln has been a chaired professor in the Religious and Theological Studies department at the University of Gloucestershire since 1999 so I’m not sure if he was affected by all of this or not. Of course this isn’t part of the “meat” of the conflict anyway but I just wonder whether Lincoln ought to be included in the group of those who were replaced with other scholars (despite their leanings one way or the other).
@John: Thanks for the clarification. Was BW3 talking about doctoral students? I assumed this conversation was about undergraduates. My thoughts on sensitivity are mostly about undergraduate students. I think doctoral students, such as myself, should be “treated like adults” and be pushed and stretched in their perspectives as much as possible, in as many directions as possible.
If a doctoral student is still hoping his or her advisor will walk on egg shells, there’s a problem there. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen, as they say.
He accused Sheffield of an “adversarial approach” to the historical substance of the Bible. If this is his view of critical biblical scholarship, it is evidence of own pre-critical thinking. There is pastoral support at Sheffield and really, if you’re more suited to a Theological Seminary, you’re free to go there instead. Nobody destroys anyone’s faith at Sheffield. Students are encouraged to form their own opinions. It is a demonstration of Witherington’s lack of integrity that he deleted our conversation which exposed so much that is potentially damaging to his scholarly credibility.
What hasn’t been mentioned here is his assumption that he should dictate who an independent British university should appoint. As Keith or Philip said – I forget – they haven’t been allowed to appoint anyone anyway! but that is beside the point…
Pat:
I don’t want to get involved in any of this (as in taking sides) but it seems that just as many Christian’s view any challenge to their beliefs about the Bible and God from their atheistic professor as an attack on their faith, perhaps many are also seeing any challenge to their beliefs about Sheffield University’s biblical studies department as an attack on Sheffield’s reputation. Maybe BW3 is really like the college professor calling students to know what they believe about their beloved university department by challenging their cherished beliefs about it. In the end, just like the Christian student, they will either come out stronger in their beliefs about the department or abandon those beliefs altogether. If that’s the case then just as Sheffield is being praised for their approach to teaching students about the Bible maybe we should praise BW3 too for getting us to really know what we believe about Sheffield and why. . .
; )
Or do challenges to beliefs and opinions only get praised as being beneficial when they come from highly educated college professors to their young and impressionable undergraduates? Is it not the same outside of that realm?
Sorry, just having a little fun with all of this : )
Bryan L
Pat:
Of course. Like I said I just thought I’d have a little fun. : )
Bryan L
I wonder whether the primary issue that should be of concern, at least in my humble view, is not necessarily the orientation of the Professor toward the historicity, reliability, or correspondence to reality that religious claims made in the Bible may have….but rather, whether said professor, of whatever religious affiliation, if any, prohibits the research interests of individuals that may have or may not have faith in God/Bible/whatever during the process of their development through said program. That is to say, the question is not, in my mind, whether scholars believe or not, but rather, as educators whether they refuse to graduate or abuse their students’ faith/lack of faith through grading practices that are perhaps subtly prejudicial. Then again, who is without prejudice? Can a scholar make critical judgments without prejudicing some of the data?
Rob,
Not only are external examiners often appointed in all independent British universities, that never happens at Sheffield. Christian scholars pass atheists students, and secular scholars pass believing students even when they disagree. All that is required is evidence and argument. Witherington made serious allegations in his blog conversation with me which were potentially dangerous if someone took action on them. It’s very revealing that he deleted it.
I posted on Witherington here:
http://dunedinschool.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/bewithering-is-becoming-bewildering/
Well, I think he has a point. I’m not saying I agree with his approach to the issue, however. As a new teacher, and a seminary-trained historian teaching UCLA students at that, I am trying to be hyper-sensitive to the very diverse collection of students in my classes. I find myself actually trying to challenge not only the students of faith, but also those who are antogonistic towards religion. I try to focus both on making nuanced historical arguments rather than trying to support their ideological positions.
Hi Andrew, I think that’s part of the point raised by James and Steph. I hear them saying that Witherington has outdated information.
Hi John. I have appreciated your voice on this issue on James’ blog. I have to say, though, that I’m confused as to how my comments could be construed as writing Witherington any sort of “blank check,” let alone an ideological one. See especially my previous comment to Chris, where I state that, as an educator in our field, “I try to focus both ['liberals' and 'conservatives'] on making nuanced historical arguments rather than trying to support their ideological positions.”
I haven’t said that I agree with the statement you have quoted. I am not agreeing with the specificity of his reference to Sheffield because, honestly, I don’t have any first hand knowledge of the school. The purpose of my update above is to try to move past this somewhat ugly debate and see if we might find any broader issues that might be worthy of more discussion.
Though I don’t know anything about Sheffield, you could take the quote you mention and exchange any number of educational institutions–including my alma mater, Messiah College. Again, the issue is student perception. While I was at Messiah, there was a controversial article in the student newspaper accusing the biblical studies professors of this same kind of bias, calling them the “twisted of the twisted.” He suggested some sort of controversy in hiring practices. The article was way off base, but somehow he perceived these things.
This is the challenge of our profession, right? People who teach about Homer or Shakespeare in historical context don’t have the same kind of backlash from students. I would say, though, that the challenge is even broader than Witherington suggests. As I mentioned, I think we need to find ways to encourage students of any ideological/theological stripe to move past their ideology and to engage in honest historical work. That’s a tricky thing.
Not that Sheffield is doing a bad job of this (as Witherington alleges), because I have know clue about that. But rather, I suspect that every educator in our field should have to ponder what to do about the delicate pedagogical challenge of our profession. It’s just worth thinking about, is all I’m saying. I didn’t think that’d be a controversial suggestion.
Sorry, Pat,
I didn’t mean for that to come across as adversarial. What I was trying to say–badly, I grant you–was that there is a danger in being too sensitive to the concerns of your students. Your position seems quite reasonable to me. But BW3 has gone way beyond what is reasonable in a setting like Sheffield. If questioning historicity is defined per se as disrespecting (denying?) the Bible historical substance (which is what exactly?), and we are in any case not to challenge students until they are ready for it (again which means what exactly?), then we have moved into a entirely different world altogether–that is not a Doctoral programme as I understand them. A PhD student must meet all-comers and doesn’t have the right to feel slighted by any opponents. They must argue their case, and must do so in person in a viva. There they must have an answer for the hard questions. Any supervisor who takes any other line with a student does a grave injustice to his/her programme, institution, and the student, it seems to me. A crisis of faith–like any other crisis–requires support if it happens, but we are not to mollycoddle students in the vain hope of avoiding them having one. So, by ideological blank cheque, what I meant was that it seems to me that accepting BW3’s views effectively means our accepting his view that there is a sacrosanct historical essence to the Bible, the challenging of which = disrespect, and also agreeing to not challenge the views of conservative students when they start their PhD (and perhaps never doing so if they are weak). I can’t agree to do that, I am afraid. So I won’t be signing anything
Once again apologies for the misunderstanding.
He could be talking about UGs, I suppose. But I find it hard then to believe that he has ever met any of them either – they are home students for the most. So we are back with this all being hearsay if that is the case.
To be honest, I think that makes his allegation even more disturbing and damaging. Do Sheffield staff really pick on new UG students and try to destroy their faith? How abusive would that be? I fear Ben can’t tell the difference between challenging and destroying, and certainly has no comprehension of how the department actually worked during the 90s when I was there.
If Ralph Martin is his source as he implied at one point, then we are going back to the end of the 1980s at the latest(I never saw him there from 1991 when I started). If that is so, then I can’t help but feel that the people he likes so much – Andrew and Loveday (plus John Rogerson) – were all around then and would presumably have to share the blame for allowing such abuse to prosper.
All I can say, is that I never witnessed anyone trying to destroy anyone’s faith. What I did see was people with a certain kind of faith struggling to deal with what they met in their studies. One can support such people, but one cannot shield them from what they will eventually find out as they study, even as UGs. And sad to say, Ben’s attitude typifies the belief that you somehow can and should do exactly that.
Interesting analogy, Bryan. There are, of course, profound differences between educators who are employed by a particular institution to guide students through the educational journey and a non-expert making somewhat careless comments to a magazine reporter. But I appreciate comments that put things in a different perspective, so I’ll take your analogy for what it’s worth
[By "non-expert," I mean a "non-expert" on this particular topic.]