But I’m open to being surprised! I am responding here to Dan Wallace and his challenge that the academy of biblical scholars are hostile towards his kind. That is, the conservative evangelical kind as represented at Dallas Seminary.
A few years ago, I went to a session at SBL which reviewed the inner workings of a number of Ph.D. programs. It was great because I was on the market as an M.Div. student at the time, looking for a good program. I wasn’t considering Dallas Seminary as a prospective doctoral program, to say the least, but I was interested to see what they would say in this diverse group. D. Jeffrey Bingham, Department Chair, was representing DTS. Bingham came out and said explicitly that Dallas students must agree with the school’s doctrinal positions and research cannot “offend” their doctrinal base. I find that bothersome, from the perspective of scholarship. (See also this comment in response to James’ post, quoting this link at the DTS website.)
Another confession. I have a difficult time understanding how one can affirm inerrancy of the Bible while also being a biblical scholar. To me, the two seem mutually exclusive.
On both counts, however, I have been surprised. I have a good friend who is a solid scholar of Christian origins, with a very nuanced and complex understanding of the New Testament and other early Christian documents. He says that he could sign a document with an inerrancy statement if required by his place of employment. That blows me away. My interpretation of what he has told me, though, is that he doesn’t really believe in inerrancy. “Inerrancy” is so watered down that it’s something else entirely and is only used as a way to remain within the conservative evangelical community. Power to him. That community needs him!
I have interacted online and in person with a number of DTS students who have also shocked me in their complexity of perspective and sophistication of argument. I wonder how these students avoid “offending” the doctrinal base of the school. I heard about the story Wallace cites in his recent post while at SBL, talking with another DTS master’s student there. In fact, I even know the scholar in question who walked away at the mention of Dallas Seminary. I personally wouldn’t have taken the same action as this scholar (walking away), but I too would have been a bit surprised at a sophisticated student coming from a place like Dallas, which I view as rigid. This was a scholar of texts outside of the NT canon, though, and perhaps he had just been approached by too many conservatives who were trying to “hide out” from the difficult questions posed by biblical scholarship. Perhaps he should have asked some more probing questions rather than giving up on the student.
I don’t think Wallace helps his case, though, when he falsely states: “As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians.” [Doug also pointed this out in his carnival.] It is “remarkable” how incorrect Wallace’s statement is. Perhaps there are many who are not the same sort of Christian that he is. Actually, my experience is that SBL is wonderfully diverse. We also, of course, have many people calling out SBL as being too influenced by confessional stances. I have a number of friends who are on the job market and are having a very difficult time simply because they are not religious. The fact that it is more difficult for a person without faith commitments to get a job than someone with faith commitments should tell us something.
Others have weighed in. See James, Doug, James again, Rob, Mike, Nick. I like Doug’s post the most thus far: “It’s unclear to me, however, how ‘going where the evidence leads’ would work at a conservative evangelical college or seminary.” My feeling too.
