On my last post, I responded to Dan Wallace’s provocative entry on the Parchment and Pen blog. I admitted that I do indeed have this impression of Dallas Seminary that they are prohibited from engaging fully in honest academic inquiry because they are not allowed to “offend” the school’s doctrinal base with their research. I was pleased with the response from some students and alumni from Dallas Seminary.
One commenter remained anonymous as “JBR” because, he said, “It’s probably unwise of me posting this in the first place.” About the DTS prof who I heard describe Dallas in such a rigid way, JBR explained: “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’”).” His impression is that such rigidity was characteristic of the school 20-30 years ago (which I believe was Wallace’s original point), but not any more. What I gather from his comment, though, is that there still exist some stalwarts of the old uber-fundy guard, while there are also others who are a bit looser with their understanding of inerrancy and dispensationalism. They still feel like they need to use those words to remain in their conservative evangelical community, but they have vastly reinterpreted them. As Rob Kashow notes, “this loose definition is why many profs and students are able to remain at DTS.”
At the same time, though, just because the institution uses those words doesn’t necessarily mean that the students are accurately represented by them. This is Rob Reid’s point: “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.” That is a huge favor to ask of the guild, because that’s pretty much a foundational principle of our profession. Conventional wisdom tells us that a Harvard grad is more intelligent and skillful than a Fuller Seminary grad, for example (picking on my own seminary alma mater). Or for that matter, the Harvard Div School grad is more “liberal” than the Fuller Seminary grad. But these things are not necessarily true.
Another issue for me is the role of women in ministry. For some reason, I had this impression of Dallas Seminary that it was one of the places that wouldn’t allow women to take ministry courses, or if so, they wouldn’t allow them degrees for ministry. Turns out, they starting allowing women in courses in 1980 and several degrees within the following decade or so. From my googling around the DTS website, it appears they emphasize the “complementary” roles of men and women in ministry and have a concentration for “Women’s Ministry.” But I think they probably allow women to do other sorts of ministries too (after all, their first woman Ph.D. student studied the Old Testament and then taught OT at DTS). Apparently, according to a D.Min. dissertation by Joye Baker, the more recent women graduates (1991-2003) reported that during their time at DTS, they felt more accepted and respected by the DTS faculty and male students than those women who graduated before 1991.
Okay, so maybe DTS isn’t as rigid as I thought it might be, particularly in practice, even if the “party line” is still quite conservative in writing. Students are supposed to affirm inerrancy, among six other “essentials.” And the professors have to agree with a rather elaborate 21 article doctrinal statement, which includes articles on “ANGELS, FALLEN AND UNFALLEN” (article 2) and “THE DISPENSATIONS” (article 5). Check out Doug Chaplin’s take on these.
I’m not crazy that they still have these doctrinal remnants of a more rigid era, and a few folks trying to uphold them, but it sounds like there’s a little more academic freedom at DTS than I had previously thought. Even if people feel they have to discuss that freedom via anonymous blog comments.
Even if people feel they have to discuss that freedom via anonymous blog comments.
That sounds like change is in process and that not everyone is on board.
I can think of other schools in a similar situation: the Bible department vs. the theology department at Moody Bible Institute are in a similar place. You’ve got some amazing Bible profs who are extremely active in their fields: e.g. Gerald Peterman’s recent article in the first issue of NTS of 2010 or Trevor Burke’s work on metaphor in Paul. But the theology dept continues to be strict and rigid in its outlook.
Pat,
Good points, brother! I honestly don’t think anything would happen if I put my full name on here, but to save my wife and I trouble I remained anonymous. I guess you can’t ever be too safe (well, yes you can, but I wanted to be safe in this case). I kind of do still want to graduate, although I’ve wondered if being kicked out of DTS would look better to an institution than a “ThM Dallas Theological Seminary” would!
At any conservative institution that has been around for decades, there will be those who call for reform and change, and those who are “heresy hunters” and are constantly striving to get back to the “good ol days” and keep things the way they’ve always been. Or, as you say it, there still exist some stalwarts of the old uber-fundy guard (nice terms!!). DTS has both of those, both in the student body and on faculty. In fact, students often come here and are disappointed because they think it’s going liberal and they expected the DTS of the 70s. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is an institution that also thinks we’re going liberal (although most of it is just them becoming more fundamentalist).
Personally, I just didn’t want some “heresy hunter” to find my response, take it to the president & get the board members riled up, and say, “Look at this student! He has called out one of your professors, the English Bible department, and he makes some provocative remarks about inerrancy! You need to have a talk with this guy!”
Why risk it when I can get my point across and remain anonymous? In any case, I’m glad that your perception has changed some.
Regarding women, we have a good group of female students (I think about 30% or so). Admittedly, most of them are in the “Biblical Counseling” (what a ridiculous name!) program, but there are also some in the ThM program. Believe it or not, we have had staunch egalitarians teach here. I get the impression from others profs that they are not as “rigid” on this issue as many think. I’m an egalitarian and know other students who are, so male hierarchy is not constitutive of the student population. We still have a female professor in the OT department that is quite good. DTS has caught some flak over this, but she’s still there. Women can pursue any degree program here. They even take the preaching classes! There is one prof I believe that will not allow women into his preaching courses, but the rest of them do.
About the “angels” section in the doctrinal section, it’s kind of agreed that the profs don’t have to agree with the Scriptural support the statement provides. In other words, the professors are few who actually believe Isaiah is speaking about Satan when describing the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14. If that’s not a bad proof-text, I don’t know what is.
The dispensation language is just silly, plain and simple. I can’t say it any better than you: “They still feel like they need to use those words to remain in their conservative evangelical community, but they have vastly reinterpreted them.”
The institution was birthed in the fundamentalist/liberal controversies in the 1920s and had a fundamentalist president (Chafer). Then a fundamentalist tyrant became the president (Walvoord) for close to 40 years and in my opinion this is where the school gets its bad name (he was obsessed with prophecy and eschatology and saw dispensationalism under every rock). He wouldn’t allow women into the school. Then there was a president who maintained the status quo (Campbell). Then things started changing when Swindoll became president. He’s the one who reformed the institution and caused it to have more academic freedom, got a new dress code (used to be suit & tie), made it more relaxed, etc. The current president is maintaining the status quo of the Swindoll era. We need another reformer who can build on what Swindoll started. My perception is that when most people think of DTS, they have the Walvoord era in mind. As you now know, that era is 30 years out of date.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with this post. Thanks for listening, brother.
Thanks for having peeked behind the curtain of the statement to some real people.
Thanks for this post and the last! Just FYI, there are several women in the Phd program at DTS. Off of the top of my head I count 8 (I am one of them). I am also an adjunct this year in the NT dept. Regarding the doctrinal statement for students and professors: we do have the option of stating our disagreement with one or more areas along with an explanation of our disagreement and views in that area. I do not know how many take that option and I’m quite sure the leeway is slight, but it is available.
I’m a female who has served on the adjunct faculty at DTS for ten years or so. (No desire to go f/t, as I have a rich life elsewhere.) Before that I was a teaching assistant for some of the (mixed-gender) preaching classes. And I feel compelled to say that Dr. Campbell didn’t just maintain the status quo. I did some research on DTS’s history on the role of women for a PhD project at the Univ of Texas at Dallas, and to DTS’s credit they threw open the archives. Dr. Campbell’s correspondence demonstrated he was a tireless advocate for women, often facing a storm of criticism. It was during his watch that DTS threw open the doors to women. I have identified about eight different views on women among our faculty today, so it is quite a diverse group–making for great class discussions!
P.S. I teach in the Pastoral Ministries and Christian Ed departments.
Just because it isn’t as oppressive as it was isn’t saying much.
Dallas teaches a ridiculous set of anti-intellectual beliefs, especially the dispensationalism, which is one of the most illogical and offensive doctrines ever created. It is not as sexist as it was, but it still is, which is a disguisting state of affairs.
So it sounds like some people can get through the program by pretending to ignore all the bad stuff, which is the heart of the institution.
PXF: Have you had personal experience with the school or is this your view from afar?
Keep in mind the blogging (and commenting) etiquette I have stated on the sidebar.
At the outset, Pat, (and I think you and others know this) I want to say that I believe quite differently than DTS’s ‘doctrinal statment.’ Do know that what the DTS doctrinal statement is and what students have to adhere to are quite different. Students do not have to agree to the full doctrinal statement of DTS.
With that said, I’m getting the impression from some of the comments in this blog post and others that because one concludes and believes a certain way than he cannot be seriously considered a scholar. Such a view to me shows just how far from true scholarship those making these comments are. Since when does one’s doctrinal beliefs have to with scholarship? These are the results of scholarship.
For example, if someone is a complementarian (which I am not), most people it seems would conclude, “oh he can’t be a scholar.” This, I think is the spirit of the old fundamentalism at its finest. That is, I will conclude from someone’s belief that they are not a scholar without even researching and considering their argumentation. If you want to critique someone’s scholarship, then read their argumentation and show where it is inadequate and how they are not a scholar. Note, however, that showing where an argument is inadequate doesn’t necessarily deem it unscholarly. For even the finest of scholars have their articles picked apart by reviewers.
This instant dismissal is absurd. Another example, (and note that I am NOT a dispensationalist), but how many of those making comments on your blog or Wallace’s blog, who instantly oppose dispensationism, have ever actually read a book on dispensationism to see their argumentation? And moreoever, how many have read Bock and Blaising’s book that show how Dispensationalism is far from what it used to be? I would guess (i’m not assigning any numbers here, since it seems at a guess at an average is offensible to some) that less than 5% of the people have.
That’s all for now, but I felt this should be said.
Oh and btw, concerning the doctrinal statement and the “angels,” almost every professor disagrees with that and the seminary allows them to stay there. So they dont’ necessarily have to agree with all of the statement, just a majority of it in a way that they stay there with full integrity.
Rob, thanks for your comment. I appreciate you backing up JBR on the issue of angels. It’s great to get that kind of behind the scenes information. That’s basically what I’m trying to do with these two posts, peeking “behind the curtain of the statement to some real people,” as Doug mentioned.
I would like to clarify that the foundational issue I have here is academic freedom. I had thought (and it sounds like a lot of others are with me) that the folks at Dallas didn’t have the kind of academic freedom that I’m finding out they do to some extent. I fear that “inerrancy” as it had historically been understood put up barriers to even attempting honest academic inquiry, even if 100% objectivity may be unattainable.
I should have clarified my issue regarding women and ministry. I do not see this issue as the same foundational sort of problem in the quest for academic honesty as I do a commitment to inerrancy (as it had traditionally been understood). I have seen people on both sides of the issue just as radically subjective in their readings.
At the same time, if an entire institution holds a viewpoint of women that they are incapable of speaking and teaching in church, that to me is an indicator or symptom of very rigid academic chains. That was the rumor that I had heard about Dallas, but apparently referred to a DTS of times gone by.
On the issue of dispensationalism, honestly, I don’t think those people really care to read the reinterpretations of dispensationalism. My understanding is that all of these words which once meant something much more rigid, now mean something quite different. The words, then, are pointless for those outside the community. The conservative evangelical community has found a way to be a part of the academic community by relativizing their litmus test lexicon of hot button theological issues. From the perspective of those outside of the conservative evangelical community: Inerrancy doesn’t really mean inerrancy, dispensationalism doesn’t mean dispensationalism, these are just identity badges (if you will) to demarcate the true conservative evangelicals. So, why would others need to read up on all the nuances that have been given to those theological terms when the rest of the guild cares little about them? They remain identity badges.
The question is, can those outside of the conservative evangelical world take a peek through the identity markers to see that evangelicals are allowing themselves academic freedoms that they didn’t used to have? That’s what I’m trying to do. I hope that makes sense. It’s not intended to sound condescending as a previous commenter on the other post suggested. Just an honest quest for truth.
Pat,
I understand that most aren’t interested in reading up on dispensationalism, but let me in clarifying say that I only mention that point because some even hear the word “dispensationalism” and conclude that person cannot be a scholar, all the while (a guess on my part) not having read a single book on their argumentation. My point here then is only to say a person’s belief does not reflect scholarship rather their argumentation and other similar factors.
Fair enough on your point of lexical gymnastics, but doesn’t everyone’s badge evolve? Are protestants still protesting? Are liberals still liberal? Do methodists still adhere to Wesley’s method? Etc. Times change, theory evolves. If anything it shows regard for scholarship because dispensationalists have heard the critiques of the academic community and nuanced their views on dispensationalism. Moreover, evangelicals realized that the Chicago statement on inerrancy is lacking and thus in need of serious revision. Given this observation, the term as other terms has evolved.
I think we’re on the same page, Rob.
Sandra,
While I admittedly had no idea what Dr. Campbell did for women, my views were influenced by Dr. Hannah’s take on the history of the school’s presidents. Perhaps his views are biased towards what he perceived the president emphasized & accomplished, and maybe he thought the inclusion of females wasn’t quite as important as you or I would hold it. I’m thankful he made such an impact. Fighting for the inclusion of females at an institution that was all males for decades is certainly not status quo, so for that I apologize. Perhaps theologically and academically my claims stand though. However, for such a monumental task I am willing to overlook the theological and academic side of things, so I retract my previous statements about Campbell maintaining the status quo. I’m sorry about that.
PXF,
You obviously have no idea about DTS. There is some of what you say, but to claim it’s constitutive of the entire school and at the “heart” of the institution is completely false. Maybe at the heart of one department, but that’s not the entire institution! Pat has demonstrated his academic rigor in claiming that he had a view like you do of Dallas, but he has been “pleasantly surprised” by the students he has met here. Perhaps you should do more research and speak with more people before you make such claims.