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.
Patrick:
The rhetoric in your post implies that: (1) those who hold to certain confessions are inherently less sophisticated or supple in reasoning, (2) that agnosticism in its broadest sense is the key to discovering truth, and (3) that truth is something found by the sure methods of reason. Hmm, sounds like you believe in something, a certain epistemological certainty, the inerrancy of skeptical inquiry? My point is simply this: you call certain people unsophisticated and then hit us with a modernistic epistemology that has holes big enough for a family-sized King James Bible to fit through.
Derek Leman
Pat,
Thanks for the post. I was an intern of Dan’s at one time and was privy to the post before it went up on Parchment and Pen. I think what should be kept in mind is that a student’s ability and/or ideological framework should not be equated with their institution.
Patrick,
Thanks for the write-up. I’m a student at Dallas Seminary who was unaware of the public (scholarly) perception until within the past year and it has been quite disheartening to me. I’m unsure if I want to go into academics yet, but if I do it appears if I wanted to go anywhere other than a conservative seminary (which I would not want to go the conservative route), I would have a pretty hard time getting in! It’s frustrating as a student since I don’t share a lot of the same convictions the school does and downright disagree with them on other things, not to mention I didn’t know any of this before I came.
The thing about DTS is, and I know you said you viewed it as “rigid,” the faculty is more diverse than you think. We have scholars who are borderline fundies and those who push the envelope theologically and exegetically. A history of the school has just been written by John Hannah showing precisely how diverse it is. I’ve been quite amazed at this and thought it would be more monolithic, though I’m quite pleased it’s not. Perhaps that’s one reason why the students you have met from here have been sharp. Basically, our NT and OT studies departments have some legitimate profs that keep me here. I was out of fundamentalism before I came to DTS, but since I’ve been here I can say I’m totally out and never going back! Strange for a “rigid” school, but I find that quite common amongst the student population here. I can honestly say that I am less conservative (much less) as a result of being here 3 years. Believe it or not, I couldn’t name one of my friends who wouldn’t tell you the exact same thing! The NT & OT departments do a pretty good job of helping us think and introducing us to the issues (along with a stray professor here and there from other departments).
I find it pretty common for people to have this view of DTS. 20-30 years ago, it was the rigid place as you describe. They were big on eschatology, ridiculous prophecy junk (modern day), had a strange obsession with the modern-day nation state Israel, and were ultra-conservative. Honestly though, I don’t find that to be the case with a lot of the profs here anymore. I have hardly heard the word “dispensationalism” in class unless it’s been to refute some eccentric view a “classical dispensationalist” held to. Honestly, I’m still not really sure what dispensationalism is! Although there are still some things here that drive me insane and need reform, it has progressed more than you think (it’s “conservative,” so things take time). There are a couple of departments here that maintain the status quo though, so I’m sure that’s the picture most people get of it.
Regarding Bingham, I’m sure he made it sound more rigid than what it is. He thinks he’s the theological police anyways (I call him “the dictator of all things ‘orthodox’”). I don’t know much about PhD work here, but I don’t believe they have to sign on to the doctrinal statement. If the masters students doesn’t, then why would they? In any case, that certainly rules me out because there is no way I could do it! About the inerrancy thing, they don’t define it for us. I’ll leave it at that (I could go into more doctrinal issues but I graduate in a year, you can email if you want to discuss more; though I’m sure you don’t really care!). It’s probably unwise of me posting this in the first place, so I’m making my name anonymous if that’s okay (it wasn’t before I typed this sentence; email if you want b/c we have mutual acquaintances). I know this just affirms the academic honesty thing others have mentioned, but it’s not as bad as others make it out to be.
Fuller was actually on my list of seminaries (I’m a big Goldingay fan, and getting Joel Green didn’t hurt much either). I had it narrowed down to Fuller and DTS and ended up choosing DTS mainly for finances (and more language work too). I was going to have to pay nearly twice as much at Fuller when cost of living was factored in. It’s still a school I greatly respect. Was your experience there positive?
Anyways, thanks again for the post Patrick.
Rob said in a sentence what it took me 4 paragraphs to say. Thanks Rob
Pat,
Keep in mind however recent inerrency debates. You are right, it’s so loosely defined now to the extent that it doesn’t even mean what it use to mean. Nonetheless, this loose definition is why many profs and students are able to remain at DTS.
A paradigm shift doesn’t happen overnight, but for now, leaving the term ambiguously defined rather than throwing it out will have to be sufficient.
Other than that, I echo Rob Reid’s statement above.
By the way, how many students from non-confessional institutions had the complete disregard for religious spirit to offer to buy you a beer?
This should at least say something about the landscape of DTS.
You wrote:
“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.”
This sounds disingenuous to me. Signing a statement you don’t really believe in?
i found it a bit surprising that you, like wallace, sort of guessed what the statistics are about the percentage of christians in biblical scholarship. is there any way to see some actual data? surely the numbers from all those exit forms for accreditation purposes are display somewhere, right? i think that would be helpful since you’re basically saying, “no mr. wallace, in fact it’s the other way around.”
and you’re right about the uselessness of inerrancy these days – most evangelical institutions are REALLY more concerned with whether or not you take the bible as authoritative/normative while letting folks affirm the inerrancy of the original manuscripts (which don’t exist)
The Lollards would recant whenever captured, and then unrecant as soon as they were released. They reasoned God would forgive them, but if they died they couldn’t go on with their work of spreading the Gospel.
I’m just saying.
Hey, JBR. Drop by my office sometime in Hendricks (not to be confused with Hendrix, though I like him, too). I’d love to meet you.
I totally agree. I felt similarly about Fuller, especially when I was applying for PhD programs, but if they had an inerrancy statement of any kind I wouldn’t have been able to go there in the first place.
J, Thanks for your thoughts. This is the sort of thing I’m talking about. We need to have some sort of insider exposure of DTS to let us know what really goes on. Because there is this thing stating students “need only” affirm “these seven essentials.” That does make me cringe a little bit.
I loved Fuller. It’s a great place. Lots of diversity there too, but my experience was actually there were more socially and politically left-leaning folks than right-leaning. They are still proud of their evangelicalism there, but I view it as more of a progressive evangelicalism. Lots of emerging church stuff happening, missional church as well.
Nevertheless, I’m so happy that I was able to break into a public research university and UCLA in particular, because I’m having a blast!
Derek, I fear you have misread me to some extent, my friend. I’m not on the attack here. I also did not actually “call” anyone unsophisticated. To the contrary, Dan Wallace accused the scholarly community of having a bias against places like DTS. I’m confessing that, yes, I do. I’m not an enemy of DTS or anything. I’m just saying that I have this sort of impression, but I have been pleasantly surprised that I have not been correct in that impression on every occasion. I think Rob and JBR below have understood my meaning a little better.
So, you can put the guns back in the holster, friend. I get the sense that you have this category of the skeptical scholar and you have placed me in it, then have thrown your standard response to people in those category at me. That’s just my feeling. If you didn’t mean to communicate that sort of thing, then forgive me.
I’ll be honest, though. When it comes to inerrancy, I do have a hard time understanding how someone could affirm a hard line on inerrancy, while also engaging the Bible honestly. Sophistication is perhaps not the best term. I do think openness to surprise is a good thing, and being willing to question your own presuppositions (which I do constantly as an Anabaptist). I guess this could have been what you meant by “agnosticism in the broadest sense.”
But by no means do I have “certain epistemological certainty” nor do I believe in “the inerrancy of skeptical inquiry.” As a matter of fact, I think that phrase (”the inerrancy of skeptical inquiry”) is an oxymoron. I don’t really believe in the inerrancy of anything when it comes to scholarship. Nobody can be right all the time!
Patrick,
The diversity, social, & political left-leaning stuff is what attracted me to it. Honestly, I could care less about the word “evangelical” or keeping things “evangelical.” That term has just about lost any meaning just like “inerrancy.” I’m not much for reactionary movements in the first place.
And DTS has more of this stuff than you think, though I’m certain it’s not as prevalent as it is at Fuller. Congrats on UCLA man. I’d love to be on the west coast some day. Dallas sucks. The heat is unbearable (though it’s quite cold right now) and it’s big and ugly. Pretty nice people though I guess. I don’t plan on staying here for more than 30 seconds after I graduate.
Hey, you didn’t offer to buy me one! You scamp!
Of course, I don’t drink, but the gesture would have been kind (wink).
And more germane to the discussion at hand . . . I’ll stay out of this. Let it be said, only, that my undergrad was and is quite liberal, and if I am a product of anywhere it is there. But from there I went to Duke Div School, which was far more conservative in my view (the div school, at least). And now I’m at Baylor, which also has a certain expectation (though I hope and trust people who are aware of who I am and what work I do realize it is hardly in line with such rigid boundaries or presuppositions).
Patrick:
I am not of the DTS stripe either. But your post was condescending toward people who believe in God’s hand in sacred texts. You were surprised to meet some people with faith in such things who nonetheless had an intelligence which you characterize as nearly rising to the level of your own! You wrote the post. I’m just saying.
Derek Leman
Derek,
I am a person who “believe[s] in God’s hand in sacred texts.” If I was condescending towards those people, then I was condescending towards myself. Rather, I just think that there is a particular understanding of inspiration that I think would raise a barrier to honest inquiry. I have been surprised to find that people who I thought held these views seem to be able to engage in such honest inquiry. I’m just trying to be honest about my impressions, that’s all. It’s a confession. I think the issue is that people who hold to a view like inerrancy, don’t actually hold to it as rigidly as the historical understanding of that term.
I’m sure the downtrodden appreciate your noble efforts to defend them from my perceived condescension, but it looks like those who are actually DTS students are doing just fine understanding my meaning and being quite friendly about it in the comments here. I’m not sure they need you to be their white knight. I’m just saying
“This sounds disingenuous to me. Signing a statement you don’t really believe in?”
Brian, my friend and I have had fervent discussions about this very point! He thinks he believes in it, but I don’t think he really does. Let’s just say that we agree to disagree on the matter.
S Glahn,
I would be interested in doing this Sandra, but I don’t quite know what to make of it. Is there some hidden agenda here where I’ll be put on a heresy trial or something? Did some professor tell you to do this so they could figure out who the mysterious “JBR” is and get him kicked out of school? I don’t know if you want to meet out of genuine interest because I said some things that resonated with you, or if you want to “reprimand” me for saying something above.
In other words, you’re going to have to give me more info. than a “drop by my office I’d love to meet you.” I know this is a public blog for all to see so I don’t expect you to spell out the details, but I would appreciate a little more specificity because I don’t know if I should trust you or not.
That post was an overreaction. I’d just like a little more specificity. I’d have to say thing a lot worse than above to be put on a heresy trial! In any case, what I’ve heard other students say about you leads me to trust you. I’ll shoot you an email.
The offer was sincere with no threat or guile. Perhaps it would help you to know I believe good scholars are unafraid to go where the evidence leads, even if it costs them something to find the truth.