When best friend Scott Mitchell used to come back through Sacramento from Princeton Seminary we would stay up late arguing. I couldn’t understand exactly why he was paying big bucks to have his faith ritually shredded by rabid skepticism. My argument was pretty much “would you go to a school to learn English literature where the professor’s actually hated Shakespeare?”
We got through it (the beer helped – plus good humor and a somewhat undying devotion to one another).
Over the years, although never the least bit “fundamentalist,” I still had some vestiges of self-righteousness to shake off – and that happened in the late 80s.
Did I say “shake-off?” Oh…I miss-spoke.
“Stripped off” – like thick skin off a body would be more apropos.
Years later I would encourage my ex-wife to go to seminary in Berkeley – to the GTU. I knew she had a fine mind for theology and would do well. She did well but somehow in the process decided God no longer exists.
She is quite matter of fact about this now. I think she looks at me like someone in some infantile stage who will one day outgrow a “phase.” Jung now reigns supreme.
Me? I feel no need to address this at all. It would be like her disbelieving that Scott Mitchell exists. I don’t need to convince anyone. I do think it curious that one goes to school to study God (“theology”=”the study of God”) and one comes away with a degree in God’s non-existence. Do you really graduate? (Shouldn’t you anti-graduate? And shouldn’t they tell you ahead of time that it’s essentially a waste of your time and money?)
It is from such stories (and they are legion) that the term “Cemetary” has been applied pejoratively to seminaries. It is where you go to kill and bury your faith.
Well no one really starts that way I do not think. But some professors, it seems, take it as a sort of mission to “disillusion” (and that can be a good thing if you take it at the root meaning “dis -illusion”) their students – many of which come from highly coddled church environments filled with as much christenized mythology and nonsense as they do actual real information.
These students may come from a Christian High School, then College believing in a 7,000 year-old Earth – that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally (that there are no literary forms to be taken as poetry, or metaphor etc…) and they have been force-fed a brand of Americanized Fundagelicalism that merges power, money and even splices America itself into Biblical prophecy.
Well depending on what institution they go to it it is just like shooting ducks in a small barrel – only the ducks fly in and pay to be there.
And most ducks come unarmed.
I have decided advantages.
I’ve never been an unarmed anything. I was deadly even at 21 at CSUS. In fact I terrorized my teachers and made them quack.
But that was Sac State. Not exactly top notch scholars. I got into it with the New Testament Professor on the authorship of Ephesians. He came at me with a knife..I came back with a 14 page annotated summary of twenty-two scholars work on authorship that landed him in another time zone (er, bazooka).
In my current situation no one would be impressed. Maybe a “okay…and?”
Not here I take serious issue with some of the assumptions that are being made prior to investigation. They effect the outcome of the research. In my last paper, the tacit assumption that the psalm (89) was a “psalm of lament” with a rhetorical argument was weak in my view. I made my case directly from the text.
[But I realized later I could have strengthened it with examples of strong “Psalms of Lament” that were not “disarmed” by subordinate considerations like in Psalm 89.. Oh well…]
I want to make it clear that I do not identify with either “Liberals” or “Conservatives” theologically. In both cases it seems to me you have to sign-off on party-line items that require you check your brain at the door.
Not on this suit.
When it comes to issues like the “inerrancy of scripture”, I see that litmus test as a thoroughly modernist construct meant to divide and miss the point of the gravity of scripture as different than any other “Word” with which we have to do. When questions like that crop up I keep seeing myself in that tube with Harrison Ford in The Fugitive as Tommy Lee Jones where Ford keeps jappering away and Jones just says “I DON’T CARE!”
Is it harder to work in a situation where a priori assumptions have to be painstakingly investigated first? Absolutely.
There is no doubting that I am functioning within a deep “hermeneutic of suspicion” where the only thing not under suspicion seems to be that very thing.
Why should you get off scott free?
Why should a purely literary theory currently in vogue in the West (in a highly dualistic currently deconstructionist mindset) hold court over Ancient Middle Eastern documents formed mostly through an oral tradition and formed in a holistic culture?
I’m getting okay with working within the “hermeneutic of suspicion.”
I have to work harder.
Frankly it would be a lot more FUN to work within a system of overt highly-informed belief (possibly at a place like Regent or Fuller) – but my M.A. looks to be in Beckerian studies – which inherently implies someone with the elasticity of mind to move across academic disciplines, bear with wildly divergent views – be deeply committed to pluralism – and all the while not back off one iota from the idea of ultimate Truth.
Let’s hope God brings along some like-minded individuals…
The Psalm 89 paper can be viewed as a .pdf here
Why we are teetering on the verge of Looney Tunes I cannot help but hear Elmer Fudd asking “Wha Happa?”
I mean if you went to culinary school and they really had a disparaging view of food and seemed to not wanna celebrate it you might think you were in the wrong place, no?
So I am reading “scholars” who think that they just made up the whole Epyptian capitivity slavery thing and that the Jews where Canaanites all along who just rose up at a certain time in social revolt but later wnated a better cover story.
And of course all the families with their rich oral traditions and family histories were just gonna buy into this later all at once… when it came time to write it all down.
Okay, “Duane, I’m due back on the planet Earth now.”
And it is exactly there that I really do not care.
Believe what you want.
Let me give you two examples of why.
The first is from the world of psychology. In the early 80s I was struggling to get any kind of coherence out of the psychology department at Sac State. It became obvious it was a vain attempt so I gave up – much to the consternation of onlookers
But no one today tinks that was a mistake. I can say to anyone in the field that I studied during that period and they just just shale their heads “oh…yeah, well.”
The other example is the infamous Graf-Wellahusen JEDP Theory (Source Criticism) which was first plunked in my lap in 1977. It seemed contrived and thin then (but not without some merits) and when it was reintroduced this year it felt about the same. But now – some 38 years later it has come under a high degree of scrutiny – not from Conservative sources, but Liberal sources as well – especially since 1986.
Sure, a rookie comes into the league with a novel fastball that looks pretty tricky; but wait awhile until the real hitters adjust to it and see how long he lasts.
What’s it all about?
I think it is about being cool for the most part – about human meaning.
Me? I am so patently uncool as to possibly be cool. It’s ironic I realize. I truly do not care.
I came here (to seminary) to play ball. I came here to do serious work. I didn;t come to bunt, or take base on balls.
I believe – and I believe for good reasons; smart reasons. The facts are on my side and when there are no facts there is mystery and what Luther called simply ruthless trust in God’s grace and nature.