This is just getting uglier by the minute, and I’m not entirely sure I understand why it’s even occurring. For those who don’t know what I’m talking about . . . It all started with the threat of University of Sheffield shutting down their biblical studies department. After much international backlash, the school decided to backpedal on that decision. Then, Christianity Today covered the events in this article. Ben Witherington was quoted in that article:

Evangelically minded faculty, including Andrew Lincoln and Loveday Alexander, were not replaced with scholars who held similar views. Other faculty were “bent on the deconstruction of the Bible, and indeed of their students’ faith,” according to Ben Witherington, a New Testament scholar at Asbury Theological Seminary.

When challenged on this (see comments [Update: the comments have since been deleted]), Witherington has not stated that he was misquoted (though he did say something about contacting the author at CT). He also stated that he doubts there will be any public apology for the remarks, presumably either from the reporter or from Witherington himself. In these comments, he says past scholars in the department “at least nurtured people in their Christian faith” (implying the present ones do not). He reaffirms his quoted comments in the article and takes a stance on the hiring procedures at Sheffield, which goes about, he says, “deliberately avoiding hiring people of faith, and further the issue is deliberately trying to deconstruct someone else’s faith.”

To be honest, I’m not certain why Witherington would have been consulted for such opinions in this article in the first place. Why did the CT author, Collin Hansen, consider Witherington an expert on the faculty at Sheffield? True, BW3 earned his Ph.D. at Durham, another UK institution. But this was close to 30 years ago and, more importantly, it wasn’t Sheffield. Okay, so, Witherington has heard things from former Sheffield students. Still, he is not a proper primary source for the situation.

When pressed further by Stephanie Fisher, Witherington directed Steph to Ralph Martin (who is incidentally emeritus faculty with my own seminary alma mater). It seems as though Witherington has heard some things from Martin and is sharing those thoughts. He also refers to “those Sheffield students over many years who found the denials of historical substance in the Bible, among other things, not merely disturbing but problematic.”

In Sheffield dept. chair James Crossley’s most recent reply to Witherington, James explains why Witherington’s comments are unjustified. Do read his comments on the topic. An earlier post pointed out that it is actually illegal for the school to hire on the basis of religion.

This should be a warning to us all, I think. When approached for comment by a news organization, on some subject upon which we are not directly experts, proceed with caution. Perhaps we should just say, “I’m sorry I don’t have enough information about that for you.” Particularly if our comments could be perceived as hurtful to those directly involved with the issue.

Update: I just noticed this comment from Witherington:

Going forward one of the questions that ought to be seriously discussed is the issue of sensitivity to and tolerance of theological differences in the students and a thoughtful addressing of issues when students feel that pejorative comments about the Bible or about their faith are at the least not fair, and hardly value neutral.

Now, I might be comfortable with a bit more challenge to students than Ben seems to be, but as a larger issue, I do think he has a point. There is a delicate balancing act when talking about biblical literature, between doing necessary historical work and–in Witherington’s words–avoiding perceived “pejorative comments about the Bible or about their faith.” The key unknown here, however, is the matter of student perception. It’s not always something that an educator can control.