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).