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 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.

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.

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.

Keep in mind the blogging (and commenting) etiquette I have stated on the sidebar.

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.

P.S. I teach in the Pastoral Ministries and Christian Ed departments.