4/6/2008 10:44:11 AM

My experience is that evangelicalism has in their midst at least four kinds of scholars. First, there are those who really don’t know the critical evidence (because they found a grad program in which they could avoid it) and so don’t teach it or, if they do teach it, they present the criticism as a straw man that’s easily bested by their fundamentalism.

Second, there are scholars who know something about the evidence and recognize that it’s problematic, but their response is “Hey, we just don’t know everything.” These scholars don’t give much attention to the critical issues because for any number of reasons they don’t want to take the time to mess with it. I call these, the “Don’t worry be happy” scholars. In the Enns situation, they are the scholars who think its bad business that Pete’s in trouble, they realize why Pete thinks what he thinks, but they don’t have the courage to say something in his support.

Third, there are evangelicals who know the critical evidence quite well and privately recognize the serious problems that it creates for standard evangelical theology, but in actual scholarship and discourse they handle themselves pretty much like those in category 2. One only knows their real views in private.

Finally, we have what I’d now call the “Pete Enns” evangelicals. They recognize the problems and are ready to engage them for the sake of God and kingdom.

Some evangelicals simply don’t like dealing with these problems because they fear that it will damage “the faith.” My response: if working through the evidence that’s right in front of our eyes, in the Bible, is troubling for faith — then maybe the faith isn’t what we think it is.

Steve Ranney Says:
April 6, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Kent Sparks: I am about 1/3 through your book, and it is great. It came out at a perfect time, for me anyway.

‘Some evangelicals simply don’t like dealing with these problems because they fear that it will damage “the faith.”’

I am a grad of a seminary in Dallas and we read those evangelical scholars you cite. At the time I figured I knew both sides. Growing up in that world, you don’t know anything else. I am very grateful I stumbled upon some other perspectives after many years.

The long term damage being done by teaching these half (or less) truths by fundamentalists is going to take a few generations to repair, if it ever happens.

Steve:

Thank you for your encouraging comments. Of course, one thing we should remember is that, no matter how hard we try to avoid it, “damage” is always done by our efforts to tackle tough problems. Some readers will face serious faith-defying bouts with cognitive dissonance when they read my book, even as others–such as yourself–are aided by it.

I wrote the book because I truly believe that, on balance, the damage done by the alchemy in fundamentalistic evangelical biblical scholarship outweighs the problems raised for faith by my book. This is in part because I view our struggle with faith as a difficult but necessary aspect of human life, just as life’s struggles in generally are endemic to all human experience.

When we insulate adult believers from normal bouts with faith-challenging information and perspectives, we do little else but provide them with a theology that could fit comfortably into any third-grade Sunday School class.