A while back, NT Wrong created a big list categorizing all blogs (s)he could find as some point within the continuum between “Very Conservative” and “Very Liberal.” I was originally labeled as “very conservative,” but upon protest, I was “upgraded” to “fairly conservative.” Even though Wrong gave some vague explanations of these categories, the problem of definition remained.

When the list appeared a little over  a year ago, I registered my complaint about how the continuum blurred the lines between things like theology and methodology. For example, a conservative person appeared to be defined almost entirely based upon whether they were willing to accept the Bible as an inspired document of some kind.

In that previous post, I observed that “what makes one liberal theologically to some laypersons, may make one a conservative in terms of methodology to other scholars.” So, a serious historical-critical scholar will ask questions of the Bible that will often make your average church-going Christian squeamish (and would thus be thought of as a liberal). In today’s academic atmosphere, however, someone who is dedicated to historical-critical work over against ideological criticism would be considered a conservative scholar.

So, should the Biblioblog Top 50 take up this project again? I suspect that most bloggers will prefer not to be pigeon-holed into a label, but I also kind of suspect it will happen anyway. If it does happen, I think the list should be a little more responsible, even if it is in good fun. After all, some of us are on a very scary job market or are in the midst of Ph.D. applications. Not all potential hiring or admission committees who might possibly happen upon these sorts of labels will “get the joke” if it is a joke.

Theology and Inspiration. I agree with Jason and Loren that there should be some sort of multi-categorization. If one of the axes is “theological,” then it should explicitly state what about theology is in question. The previous list was interested in the issue of inspiration, which is probably what a lot of people would be interested in. For example, “very conservative” on this “theological” on “inspiration” axis would include a willingness to accept inerrancy (e.g., any member of the Evangelical Theological Society which requires agreement with this statement: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”).

The problem with this, from my perspective, is that many people say they believe in inerrancy, but really don’t. They qualify the term and water it down to something entirely different so that they can say that they still believe in inerrancy (and thus qualify to be good conservative Evangelicals in the inerrancy litmus test) when they really don’t. I am often shocked to find out when some very open-minded friends of mine feel they could accept the term inerrancy in order to remain within the bounds of a certain Evangelical community.

A further problem of this “theological” category is that it leaves no room for what one thinks about social issues. We learn nothing about where one falls on the issues of women in ministry, or homosexual practice, or nonviolence, etc. These are left to assumptions. But those assumptions might not line up. For instance, perhaps Michael Gorman would be fairly conservative on the issue of inspiration, I suspect (though I could be wrong), but he embraces the issue of nonviolence (typically not considered a “conservative” attribute).

Methodology. A second category of methodology seems appropriate. Summarizing Jason’s explanation, Loren describes this category as a “scholarly axis (one’s openness or resistance to new scholarly ideas).” I think “methodological axis” would probably be more appropriate than “scholarly axis.” As I suggested above, strict historical-critical methodology would probably fall in the “very conservative” side, while unadulterated “ideological approaches” of various kinds and an affinity to postmodernism might fall on the “very liberal” side of things.

Outside Engagement. Finally, Loren summarizes a third category of Jason’s as the “critical axis (one’s willingness or not to engage and interact with those outside one’s camp).” Loren also suggests a fourth category, but I’m a little unclear on it, so I’ll leave it be.

The Problem of Sophistication: How on earth do you analyze 300 blogs with such a sophisticated model? And without having all the data to boot. I’m sure that many bloggers protect many of their “radical views” (be they conservative or liberal) away from public viewing. How could you tell whether a blogger interacts with those outside one’s camp without being intimately familiar with that blogger’s camp and all occurences of interaction? As I mentioned in that previous post, when NT Wrong originally categorized me, (s)he used the method of searching for some posts about inspiration, scanning for a few out-of-context keywords, and quickly categorizing. You can’t do that if you have a sophisticated multi-category labeling continuum.

So, maybe it’s not worth the effort.

So, NT Wrong is an anonymous blogger who likes to get a rise out of folks, particularly “biblical apologists.” His latest project accomplishes that goal pretty well. He has created a list of over 100 bloggers on biblical studies and categorized them between “Very Conservative” and “Very Liberal”. First, the post appeared here, then he moved it to a more permanent home here.

At first, Wrong described me as “Very Conservative.” Apparently, he makes this judgment without actually reading my blog. He’s got over a hundred on there. I’m sure he hasn’t read all of them regularly. When I raised a question about it, he looked at my blog again and shifted me to “Fairly Conservative.” With his definitions, I shifted from:

You probably hold to the doctrine of inerrancy, or some version close to it. You can name a number of heresies offhand. And you have DA Carson, FF Bruce, or an Apollos Commentary in your bookshelf.

To:

The Bible is ‘The Word of God’ in some sense. You have spent time wondering whether ‘emergent’ or ‘emerging’ better describes yourself. You have an NT Wright or James Dunn book in your bookshelf.

The first description cannot possibly describe me for the past ten years, let alone in the few years that I have been blogging. Wrong sees it differently:

I had a look at your blog again, and see that although you’ve been squarely in the ‘very conservative’ group in the past, and some of your posts still show a distinctly fundamentalist mindset, you’ve changed to the ‘fairly conservative’ group now.

From looking at the links viewed on my blog, it appears that he went searching (the link is the actual search someone used today) for posts about inspiration, such as this one and this one. Both of those posts are from 2006 and were viewed today by one person, presumably NT Wrong. Since he’s thinking about past posts, I would assume he’s talking about these ones. Neither of these posts subscribe to inerrancy, but rather question it. If he’s saying that these posts put me in the “Very Conservative” category, which subscribes to inerrancy for him, then he did not read these posts. To just throw “fundamentalist mindset” out there without any examples, then, is suspect. I know some fundamentalists who would be surprised to hear me included in their number! It seems that Wrong searches for some posts about inspiration, scans for a few out-of-context keywords, and quickly categorizes (that’s kinda like what real fundamentalists do with biblical texts!).

For some responses to Wrong thus far, check out:

• John Hobbins, “The Joys of Being ‘Very Conservative’”
• Loren Rosson, “Apparently, I’m Liberal”
• Phil Sumpter, “Why am I ‘very conservative’?”
• Jim Getz, “I’ve been labeled a Liberal”

And many more have gotten caught up in the hubbub. The problem here is that the categories are muddled. Wrong clarifies that he does not mean political leanings, but rather attitudes towards the Bible. But what makes one liberal theologically to some laypersons, may make one a conservative in terms of methodology to other scholars. It seems as though Wrong’s emphasis in conservative labels is some sort of stance on inspiration. Notice his liberal category:

You esteem the Bible for the work it is. You spend a lot of time working out ways to read the Bible which can liberate it for different readers. You have a book on queer readings of the Bible on your bookshelf.

If you are going to liberate the Bible with ideological criticism, it seems to me that you still have an understanding of the Bible as inspired in some way. Otherwise, why would you care to “liberate” it? So, here there is a muddling between theology (a view of how the Bible might be inspired) and methodology (ideological criticism). Here is his “Very Liberal” definition:

You approach biblical books like any other books, taking the good stuff with the bad shit. You often stop and wonder why you bother with a field riddled with so many apologists. You have Foucault, Said, and Philip Pullman on your bookshelf.

I can agree with the first sentence for myself. While I do hold that the Bible is, in some sense, the “word of God” (his “fairly conservative” definition), I also believe that the Bible is a collection of ancient documents that must be studied within their historical context like any other ancient document (“very liberal” definition). The former is a theological assessment, the latter is my methodological framework. My intent is to read the text against my presuppositions and question my findings when they agree with my theological leanings as an Anabaptist Christian.

In terms of ideological versus (the attempt at) objective historical criticism in the world of scholarship, historical criticism is considered more conservative–nay, dead!–by firm believers in ideological criticism. Yet, it appears that Wrong places historical criticism as more liberal than ideological criticism. On the other hand, ideological criticism assumes some sort of inspiration or authority of the Bible, while historical criticism may but does not necessarily assume so. But they are different enterprises, operating on different interpretive levels.

In the end, it seems that Wrong’s categories are a bit muddled. But to be fair to him, these terms are muddled for nearly everyone, not to mention highly subjective. He doesn’t categorize me quite right, but that’s because he probably doesn’t read my blog on a regular basis (and apparently his recent reading was not the most careful). His categories also don’t quite fit my approach to biblical studies. I generally ascribe to a historical criticism that assesses the biblical texts like any other ancient work within their social context and also considers theological implications of those findings, including those based on ideology (esp. gender issues).