On Euangelion, Mike Bird writes about the “end” of Reformed evangelical Biblical scholarship. Mike is keen observer, and this is a sobering post. For those who aren’t up on these things, the venerable Bruce Waltke resigned from Reformed Theological Seminary after a dust-up over his video on faith and science was posted on BioLogos (the video has since been removed). In Mike Bird’s words, the “trend is what I simply have to call a Fundamentalist Resurgence in what were once historical Evangelical Denominations and Institutions.”
Mike is absolutely right, I think, in this assessment: “The job of Christian professors is not to tell the laity what they want to hear (whether that’s on healthcare or science or Bible versions), but to assist students, pastors, and churches to have a “faith seeking understanding” and to help bridge the academy and church divide.”
Unfortunately, as Mike notes, in some institutions it seems that the only approach to Biblical scholarship involves “bowing before Systematic and Historical Theologians and allowing them to dictate the proper relationship of Ancient Near Eastern literature to the Old Testament, to determine the limitations of Science for explaining Creation narratives, to establish the proper meaning of Semitic and oriental languages, to legislate the sources and authorship and date of all Old Testament writings, and to state the proper significance of archaeological evidence relating to biblical places and persons.”
Mike asks, rhetorically and literally: “who wants to do that?”
7 replies on “The End of Reformed Evangelical Biblical Scholarship”
The Waltke affair is beyond disappointing. But is it any different than what happened to Peter Enns? Or Tremper Longman? Each of these men are outstanding OT scholars and yet they’ve either lost positions or have been “uninvited” due one issue and one issue only evolution. Just yesterday I spoke with two classmates about this issue in our systematic theology II class (ironic!) and we all agreed that the future of the American evangelical church depends o n how they address this issue. If the church cannot accept the modern world (and I’m NOT talking about modernist assumptions) and the science that goes with it, then it will eventually lead to a whole generation leaving the church as they come to learn that they were fed pseudo-science. That is more of a threat to the faith passed down through the generations than anything a biologist or a physicist might find. My hope, faint as it is, is that a seminary of good evangelical standing will stand up to the plate and deal with this issue head on. Might I suggest Calvin as a good template, though I would prefer a more conservative seminary to illustrate that you can have a very high view of scripture and still deal honesty with the scientific data. We’ll see if this is even possible. I have my doubts. Thank God Christ is larger than our time and place!
Great comment, John. Where are you at school?
I’m a student at Gordon Conwell Seminary. This has been my dream school for many years and I finally had the chance to come here last fall. I’m an MA in Theology student looking to go into research and writing. My two main areas of interest are the interplay of science and faith (obviously!) and also the effect of religious radicalism on public attitudes and actions, especially Christian radicalism/extremism in America. In a strange way the two issues are related, in that those Christians most prone to reject the scientific consensus regarding evolution (and AGW) are also more likely to hold to other views that tend towards the conspiratorial and a Manichean dichotomy which makes reasoned discourse much more difficult. This demographic subculture, in large measure, just doesn’t accept the same facts as everyone else. So trying to work from an informational baseline that everyone can agree upon becomes all that more difficult. On a more positive note, I have met numerous other students here, all younger than me (I’m 45), who also recognize this as an important issue, and are themselves working to bring the church forward while remaining faithful to the historic core of basic Christian teaching.
John,
Does Gordon Conwell have any science-and-faith working/discussion groups? I’m a scientist who fairly recently moved into the Boston area and have felt some coalescence in New England around this issue.
What I am a little frustrated with is that is seems like most things on this subject these days (like say BioLogos) is very top-down. Rather than helping up-and-coming Evangelical scientists, theologians, philosophers, and pastors work through the issue in some amount of a concerted effort, I see a lot of “preaching” from the “elite” about how stupid Evangelicals are for not dropping their “silly” notions. We know that people learn best if they are allowed to work through the issue, with guidance, rather than beating them over the head. I think maybe we need more “safe spaces” for people to talk with one another, wrestle with the issues, and learn how to articulate what’s going on God’s Word and World both internally to the Church and externally to a needy world.
John B., my (only moderately informed) impression is that the ouster of Pete Enns was not primarily about evolution. I don’t think Inspiration and Incarnation even mentions evolution, although it mentions the slightly related issue of ANE influence on OT texts. I think the issue was that Enns was seen to be undermining the hardline “inerrancy” view of Scripture that some at Westminster saw as essential.
But I sympathize with the rest of what you say, and with what Mike Bird said. This series of sad episodes could make another chapter if a sequel to The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind were written.
JHM,
Unfortunately Gordon Conwell doesn’t have that going on (yet). I agree that a good deal of the problem with this issue is that it tends to be discussed from a top/down perspective. Helping evangelical Christians to work through the “science and theology” issues on the ground level would help in alleviating some of the antagonism that permeates so much of the evangelical culture. If you’d like to continue the discussion, my email is: johnbrandkamp@yahoo.com. I look forward to a fruitful dialogue.
Thanks for your blog post. This confirms some of my suspicions that more reformed theology seems to be headed in the fundamentalist direction. It’s like the 1900’s all over again. I think sites like Biologos are important as first steps to start the conversation for evangelicalism. I’ve tried to discuss some the issues they raise on my blog as a way to help others think about the issue of science and faith. Unfortunately, it seems that doing so often jeopardizes one’s employment or perceived orthodoxy in the church or more conservative seminaries which is too bad. I hope the church can come to a wider understanding of these issues as it continues to wrestle with the implications of living and sharing the Gospel in a postmodern society. Biologos has a book discussion club they are trying to get going at different schools. It could be an opportunity to make the kind of bottom up conversations folks are talking about here.