Pop and dopp: Biblical Scholarship and Pulpit Punditry (ritual, rejecting)

[doppelgänger]

It seems to me that despite all the excellent, reasonable work being carried out by Bible scholars over the last two centuries in trying to develop something approximating an ordered methodology to religious studies (gradually adopting proper historical method and the developing methodologies of literary crit), barely a drop of it has filtered out into much of the "Christian" world, and has actually seemed to stimulate a response from the pulpit pundits. This seems to be further entrenching an anti-intellectual, authoritarian approach to Christianity among many "believers" who tend to regard most of real Biblical scholarship of the last 200 years as threatening and misguided.

In other words, what, if anything, can be done to make the innovations in thought coming out of real scholarship work it's way into the actual world of "Christian" ideas without stimulating further backlash in the minds of "conservative Christian" culture warriors? Is it possible? Is it desirable? And if not, what really is the purpose of rigorous Biblical scholarship other than the personal satisfaction of knowing that "Wives submit to your husbands" is horribly misunderstood and misused most of the time?

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, dopp... I think that it is possible, but it is a complex problem.

1) Biblical scholarship is sort of like the Wild West. Everyone pretty much does "what is right in their own eyes" but the hard and fast divisions between the various fields within it are finally loosening with the growing popularity of "multi-disciplinary studies." In other words, biblical scholars have a hard enough time being relevant to one another, much less to folks who are not experts.

2) Contemporary theological relevancy IMHO is defined by the minister's ability to take the non-scholarly spiritual interaction with God and blend it with the intellectual stuff needed for people to make sense of it in their lives. That is, the minister has to exist in two worlds - the spiritual (bread from heaven, so to speak) and the historical (the actual, material world - that which scholars speak to). As a theologian, I can speak to the spiritual side a bit as well, so that is not totally "un-regulated."

There is hope, I think, because all that we really need to accomplish is getting young ministers to have a proper attitude towards scholarship (eg., not be afraid of having an open mind). At the same time, the seminaries need to have balanced faculties - folks with scholarly and theological POVs that differ.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

In other words, what, if anything, can be done to make the innovations in thought coming out of real scholarship work it's way into the actual world of "Christian" ideas without stimulating further backlash in the minds of "conservative Christian" culture warriors?

This is tough, dopp. A critical component of "konservative khristian kulture" is binary thinking. Everything is reduced to its simplest form and there is no room for the paradox that is characteristic of Christian theology as represented by scholarship. The anti-intellectual Christians prefer their artificial stability from - for example - the doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. When one believes this, no intellectual can penetrate it, because paradox cannot be shown when one rejects paradox in the beginning. Then, one can point to the disagreement between scholars regarding the interpretation of the paradox as inconsistency and therefore inaccuracy... when one refused to review the material in the first place!

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

1) Biblical scholarship is sort of like the Wild West. Everyone pretty much does "what is right in their own eyes" but the hard and fast divisions between the various fields within it are finally loosening with the growing popularity of "multi-disciplinary studies." In other words, biblical scholars have a hard enough time being relevant to one another, much less to folks who are not experts.

It seems to me that one of the unique challenges facing the field of Biblical scholarship is that it's a person's faith more often than not that leads them into that academic field to begin with. I consider the true scholar's first task to be one of better knowing themselves and understanding the degree to which their own perspectives and experience influence how they understand and study their subject. That's a much more daunting task, I think, for Biblical scholars, because in some ways they are reinforcing "faith" methods that tend to inhibit self-discovery. And the work product suffers.

What do you think, Nate?

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

2) Contemporary theological relevancy IMHO is defined by the minister's ability to take the non-scholarly spiritual interaction with God and blend it with the intellectual stuff needed for people to make sense of it in their lives. That is, the minister has to exist in two worlds - the spiritual (bread from heaven, so to speak) and the historical (the actual, material world - that which scholars speak to). As a theologian, I can speak to the spiritual side a bit as well, so that is not totally "un-regulated."

But doesn't it seem like very little of that gets outside into the faith communities?

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

This is tough, dopp. A critical component of "konservative khristian kulture" is binary thinking.Everything is reduced to its simplest form and there is no room for the paradox that is characteristic of Christian theology as represented by scholarship. The anti-intellectual Christians prefer their artificial stability from - for example - the doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture.

That's a very concise marker for the modus operandi of conservative religion generally.

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

When one believes this, no intellectual can penetrate it, because paradox cannot be shown when one rejects paradox in the beginning. Then, one can point to the disagreement between scholars regarding the interpretation of the paradox as inconsistency and therefore inaccuracy... when one refused to review the material in the first place!

Does it concern you that the wide variance in methodology (and, let's face, intellectual honesty and personal clarity) among Biblical scholars tends to reinforce the M.O. you lay out above?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

It seems to me that one of the unique challenges facing the field of Biblical scholarship is that it's a person's faith more often than not that leads them into that academic field to begin with.

Much of this is true. Dr. Duke says that theological influences / loyalties bring out the worst in many otherwise sensible scholars, and we certainly see it among preachers. Honestly, I think that the theological influences or personal faith is personal, and effects each person differently. One must be extra critical of biblical scholarship because you can be reading something and it is perfectly fine until you run across an unrelated supposition that causes the author to be completely wrong.

There are successful biblical of all walks - atheists who have always been so, Buddhists who study Christianity, lapsed Christians, atheists who have become Christian, and an infinite combination of everything out there.

I consider the true scholar's first task to be one of better knowing themselves and understanding the degree to which their own perspectives and experience influence how they understand and study their subject. That's a much more daunting task, I think, for Biblical scholars, because in some ways they are reinforcing "faith" methods that tend to inhibit self-discovery. And the work product suffers.

What do you think, Nate?

Yes, I think that this is much of it. However, I don't think that we can fully know ourselves... we just have to be ourselves and reconcile our relativity. That is, our success in knowing ancient life (which is my goal) is relative to our ability to be informed by ancient sources rather than modern prejudice. So I can know myself to a certain extent: identify modern prejudices where I can and replace them with ancient ones so I can interpret ancient evidence as much like an ancient as I can. But all this is relative to known and unknown variables.

But doesn't it seem like very little of that gets outside into the faith communities?

I think that much of it does, actually.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Does it concern you that the wide variance in methodology (and, let's face, intellectual honesty and personal clarity) among Biblical scholars tends to reinforce the M.O. you lay out above?

Not really. It's just cannon fodder for a mistaken premise. If we were all the same, it would no longer be "scholarship" and we would never discover anything. The only way to add to knowledge is to do something different, so we must have contradiction and paradox to have any movement at all. We can't just keep going around in circles.

The beginning of wisdom is the acceptance of paradox. Scholars may disagree on some things, mostly minutia, and several schools can be mutually exclusive but relatively correct in their ability to inform and enrich a person's experience. Rejecting paradox at the beginning leaves one stranded (e.g., intellectually bankrupt) from the outset.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

There are successful biblical of all walks - atheists who have always been so, Buddhists who study Christianity, lapsed Christians, atheists who have become Christian, and an infinite combination of everything out there.

Yes, but of course, to a believer, that alone is often reason enough to disregard or distrust what the scholar has to say.

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I don't think that we can fully know ourselves... we just have to be ourselves and reconcile our relativity.

I hope I've never given the impression that I think one can completely know one's self and understand the full scope of one's perspective. If so, it is certainly not any meaning I intended. It's a never ending process, self-discovery. But certain approaches to "faith" interfere with and discourage it, and those methods can be (and IMO frequently are) brought into the work of religious scholars (and other types of scholars as well, though it's more apparent to me in Biblical studies).

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

That is, our success in knowing ancient life (which is my goal) is relative to our ability to be informed by ancient sources rather than modern prejudice. So I can know myself to a certain extent: identify modern prejudices where I can and replace them with ancient ones so I can interpret ancient evidence as much like an ancient as I can. But all this is relative to known and unknown variables.

Do you find that your scholarship strips some of your faith of its magic? The dual role of minister/scholar and balancing the two is one I find intriguing.

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I think that much of it does, actually.

In some places, yes, I agree. In many others, don't you see that it actually engenders a backlash?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Yes, but of course, to a believer, that alone is often reason enough to disregard or distrust what the scholar has to say.

Not for a scholar who has proper training... I never look at who is writing, and especially don't care where they were educated, etc. At the same time, I do tend to respect the opinions of scholars that I've read deeply. But as far as the personal beliefs of a scholar, I care more about figuring out their epistemology and philosophy behind their opinions than that.

Now, for other folks, I can't say. It's stupid to reject someone's work just because of personal beliefs, unless it can be shown that the "beliefs" inhibit their work in some way, which is done by every POV in biblical studies.

I hope I've never given the impression that I think one can completely know one's self and understand the full scope of one's perspective. If so, it is certainly not any meaning I intended. It's a never ending process, self-discovery. But certain approaches to "faith" interfere with and discourage it, and those methods can be (and IMO frequently are) brought into the work of religious scholars (and other types of scholars as well, though it's more apparent to me in Biblical studies).

I don't think that you have, dopp. Sometimes I answer you in such a way that more than just me and you can understand.

We're on the same page, here. But also we recognize that assumptions can help/hinder all forms of scholarship. It's something that every field struggles with, and not just biblical scholarship.

Do you find that your scholarship strips some of your faith of its magic? The dual role of minister/scholar and balancing the two is one I find intriguing.

No, my scholarship helps me struggle with my faith, perhaps more than I should. This struggle has been a constant enrichment of faith rather than a "robbery." My experience has been precisely opposite - my faith has become more child-like and magical.

In some places, yes, I agree. In many others, don't you see that it actually engenders a backlash?

I think that there is some balance here. Some scholars are interested in being read by and relevant to preachers and lay-people. Some don't give a rip. I fit somewhere between the two. I personally intend to publish stuff for regular folks (where I care) and most stuff for scholars (and I don't care if lay-people can relate to that, etc). In fact, I hope that a good portion of my work can be used by pastors, but I will publish it first for scholars and then re-package the same stuff for non-scholars.

Where scholarship cares about laypeople is where we have the advantage, and where scholarship doesn't care is where the maltreatment from laypeople is most effective. That is, in caring about laypeople I can hit them where it hurts - pointing out where their view (like inerrancy, for example) actually engenders paradox or is harmful to themselves or others. In most cases, I can package my argument in such a way that it addresses the most significant problem but at the same time appeals to their call from God to love other people. In conservative Christianity, the root intellectual problem is binary thinking, but the spiritual problem is selfishness.

Where scholars don't care about laypeople, they ignore them and their needs altogether. That's a more critical issue than intellectual sophistication, because many laypeople are actually quite able to keep up.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Not for a scholar who has proper training...

That's a bit of a non sequitur.

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Now, for other folks, I can't say. It's stupid to reject someone's work just because of personal beliefs, unless it can be shown that the "beliefs" inhibit their work in some way, which is done by every POV in biblical studies.

Not necessarily. It can seem quite rational and logical to reject someone who thinks that scholarship can question the truth as revealed to me in God's revelation that I hear about every Sunday by my favorite pulpit pundit. I think you may be missing my point in raising this topic, Nate.

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

We're on the same page, here. But also we recognize that assumptions can help/hinder all forms of scholarship. It's something that every field struggles with, and not just biblical scholarship.

Yes. I quite agree.

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

No, my scholarship helps me struggle with my faith, perhaps more than I should. This struggle has been a constant enrichment of faith rather than a "robbery." My experience has been precisely opposite - my faith has become more child-like and magical.

Do you feel this is because you can approach these texts more as an ancient would?

I've begun to notice that you and I almost never have a discussion about the same topic in these threads. Perhaps we have a particular lack of ability to understand each other's writing.