In my post on C. S. Lewis and inerrancy earlier in the week, I mentioned that British evangelicalism was different from American evangelicalism in several ways. This quote by F. F. Bruce, the consummate British evangelical of the twentieth century, indicates some of the differences. Michael Bird pointed out the quote on IVP's blog.
In the quote, Bruce is pointing out the differences between the constraints of then pre-Vatican 2 scholarship and the limits of evangelical scholarship in the Tyndale Fellowship, the closest equivalent Britain has to the Evangelical Theological Society:
"No such conclusions are prescribed for members of the Tyndale Fellowship. In such critical cruces, for example, as the codification of the Pentateuch, the composition of Isaiah, the date of Daniel, the sources of the Gospels, or the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles, each of us is free to hold and proclaim the conclusion to which all the available evidence points. Any research worthy of the name, we take it for granted, must necessarily be unfettered."
F. F. Bruce, “The Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research,” The Evangelical Quarterly 19 (1947) 52-61.
Very interesting!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Academic freedom should not be limited, so as to "contain" findings that are in accordance with one's "commitments". This is dogmatism, not research...as you put it; "the Christian reading..." It presumes upon the text, bringing a theological bias to the text.
Just because someone believes something is true, does not mean that it is true, as far as history is concerned. And even then, a researcher can only affirm certain things about history, other things are a matter of "faith". And faith is a personal choice of commitment.
If one begins with an affirmation of Scripture, as the evangelicals believe "in faith", then, certainly, one cannot deconstruct the text or see the historical Jesus as just a person in history that made a difference for peasant outcasts (which obviously means that one affirms tradition, as well.). This is evangelicalism's absolute exclusive claims to "revelation".
But, if one begins with reason, and approaches the text, understanding that human history has been fraught with "myths", religions, and cultures that result from those myths, then one affirms the "objective" nature of cultural understandings and values accordingly. But, there are no exclusive claims, only universal principles, or concepts of understanding. Understanding the universality of religion's texts does not "dismiss" or diminish "truth's claims", as it concerns religion. It only enhances religion's truthfulness and universiality, as it pertains to man's search for meaning and man's unique nature, in opposition to an animal.(Making a distinction between the animal and human, would be an affirmation of Christian claims)..
Although the later would be contrued by some as liberal, it does affirm religion's "ideals", which touch on the transcendent realm. And it does affirm that man desires "connection" to a transcendental realm. There is a "residue" of "diffence in potential" for man, as man, in the Christian context, is the epitome of creation or evolutionary development.
BTW, I don't think that we can discount experience, Not in regards to personal experience, but in regards to the NT witnesses' experiences. The use of OT scripture was an attempt to validate their understanding and experience with Judiasm's God.
The "psychology of religions" approach is the way to understand the universiality of these experiences, I suppose, whereas, the "history of traditions", and the "philosophy of religions" is the way to approach reason and history (tradition).
This is a very modernist response. The problem is in, for example, Thomas Kuhn's argument that paradigm shifts are as much about sociology as about the upward path toward absolute truth by an objective, Spock-like path. We simply can't think of researchers as objective evaluators of evidence simply following the data to its logical conclusion. It's a good ideal and one I support, but it is as much a dream as anything.
For example, science involves myth just as any other field. Its myths are much more precise in expressing mysteries on a very minute and precise scale. But we should not think that science is about truth any more than a piece of art that captures well the feeling of its artist. Or perhaps I should say the piece of art is no less about truth. The scale of precision is vastly different, but the level of truthfulness can be the same, I believe.
Foucault would remind us that there is no such thing as absolute free speech (as would the Constitution). An institution such as IWU would deconstruct into non-existence if it allowed a professor to continue teaching here who had honestly come to the conclusion that God does not literally exist. A professor is free to reach that conclusion, just not free to continue to teach here if that is what they are teaching. This is perfectly legitimate because universities are as much social institutions as conveyers of absolute truth.
What I am getting at is that issue is not black and white as to what a professor can conclude and remain a professor within a particular social community. Frankly, the strings seem much more cut throat and endangering at secular universities than here, where everyone pretty much gets along and wishes each other the best (for the most part).
Free speech is a nice idea, but let me tell you about the trouble this blog has occasionally got me into or about the guy that asked me to delete his comments as he was getting ready to enter the work world. A person can complain "free speech" as much as they want. But the real world doesn't care much.
The rock of political reality cannot be avoided, and it will crush the idealist shouting, "Free speech"! Always has; always will. I say this not as a crusher, but as one who has spent a good deal of time thinking about being crushed.
No offence but I am so glad we are different :-)
For those who don't know James, he's a Scottish Nazarene :-)
Scottish like FF Bruce, Nazarene like ... struggling on this one
I know that we approach education with a bias of faith in something. You have concluded that my approach is purely modernistic, which I don't believe undermines faith, necessarily. And I have given credence to a reasonable distinction between the animal and human, I believe. I just find that I am comfortable with a more modernist approach for now. That is not saying that I deny God's existence, as agnosticism just says that there is not certainty.
As far as freedom of speech, I wonder why you connected freedom of speech with academic freedom. ?
And if you believe that science is just like art, then, why do people apply scientific principles when it comes to human beings and social structures...that would undermine psychology, sociology, organizational structures, etc...
On my comparison of art and science, the issue for me is the precision of expression, not the accuracy.
Post a Comment