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.