Scholarship


Apparently there is a new movie coming out called Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I know this because it has been advertised on every billboard, TV channel, cereal box, and Burger King glass I have seen lately.1 Cable channels are also jumping in by running Indiana Jones marathons constantly or “documentaries” that explore some of the artifacts from the films. Don’t get me wrong, I am very excited about the fourth Indiana Jones film. I only hope it can live up to its advertising.

In the spirit of things, I thought I would get in on all the hype. After all, I love a good bandwagon. So, here is a link to a long lost letter sent to Dr. Jones explaining why he was denied tenure at Marshall College.


  1. Yes, I know the Burget King tie-ins are actually kids toys, but I really miss the days when Burger King gave out actual drinking glasses with movie characters on them. [back]

I have not really been following the kerfuffle at Westinster Theological Seminary. I have not read Peter Enns’s book Inspiration and Incarnation, but the seminary announced on Wednesday that they were suspending from the seminary faculty because of views expressed in this book. Enns has the support of the majority of the faculty at the seminary, which voted 12-8 against suspending him, and a web site has been set up by those who support him.

The issue comes down to the fact that Enns approach to the Scriptures does not line up with traditional Reformed theology, as is recognized by De Regno Christi, a web site set up by Reformed Christian Witness (the author’s of the site seem to approve of Enns’s suspension). My purpose in discussing this issue is not to debate whether Enns should or should not have been suspended. While I generally err on the side of academic freedom, a seminary can have a reasonable expectation that its faculty will teach from the point-of-view of the tradition of the seminary. Any good seminary will have professors from multiple denominations on their faculty, but if they are to serve their primary mission the majority should represent the tradition of the seminary.

My purpose for discussing Enns’s suspension, however, is to point out that this is in fact a Scripture vs. tradition debate. Enns has been suspended not because he has put forth an interpretation of the Bible which is unfaithful to the Scriptures, but because he has put forth an interpretation that is unfaithful to the Reformed tradition. The ironic thing is that this is being done at a Protestant seminary. One of Protestantism founding ideas during the Reformation was that our traditions should never take primacy over Scripture. Enns’s ideas may not be in line with Reformed traditions, but they are certainly in line with Reformation principles of Scripture being allowed to critique tradition.

What this should point out is that there is no such thing as a “Bible only” denomination. We all interpret Scripture within our traditions. This is, of course, how it should be. Scripture and tradition both have a role to play in our theology. It is either intellectually dishonest or just plain arrogant to claim that your church is faithful to the Bible alone while other churches rely on “man-made” traditions. It is never ever an either/or proposition.

We should all continue to interpret the Bible within our own traditions, while at the same time allowing our interpretation of the Bible to critique those traditions. Tradition can never be allowed to become a static entity. It must always be open to revision and — dare I say? — reformation.

Westminster’s “About Us” page contains this paragraph at the top:

Westminster is committed to Scripture and to the systematic exposition of biblical truth known as the Reformed faith. The very name of the institution signals clearly that our systematic theology has been and remains an outworking of the theological documents known as the Westminster Standards. In addition to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, the Seminary treasures the rich and harmonious diversity of creeds and confessions within the historic Reformed tradition. In particular, it recognizes that the system of doctrine contained in Scripture is also confessed in the Three Forms of Unity (the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort).

While their statement beings by noting that they are committed to Scripture, they immediately turn to enumerating the documents that inform their tradition. They are up front about the fact that theology at Westminster is done within the boundaries of these confessions. Their suspension of Enns, however, suggests that theology can never be allowed to go outside of these bounds, even when led there through the study of the Bible.

Update: Nick Norelli has a round up of bloggings pertaining to the Peter Enns situation at WTS at Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth.

By the lack of power vested in him, Chris Brady at Targuman declared January to be International Biblical Studies Writing Month. Bibliobloggers have been announcing what they will be writing about during this month–long burst of writing energy, so I thought I would do the same.

I am a contributor to the new lectionary series put out by Westminster John Knox Press entitled Feasting on the Word: Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary.  For those unfamiliar with this series, it provides commentary on each of the four assigned readings from the Revised Common Lectionary for every Sunday in the three year cycle. The commentary for each reading consists of an exegetical essay, a theological essay, a homiletic essay, and a pastoral essay. I have been asked to contribute the exegetical essays for three readings from Year C:

Why I have been asked to write the commentary for a passage from Acts is unclear, but I will happily accept the $0.08 per word for writing it.

So, in the spirit of International Biblical Studies Writing Month, I hereby vow to have this assignment finished by the end of the month.

Last week, Barry Bonds hit his 756th* career home run, passing Hank Aaron as the all time leader. The asterisk, of course, represents the fact that this record is somewhat tainted, due to Bonds’s use of performance enhancing drugs.

I don’t particularly like Bonds. He is a very arrogant player. This is especially evident when he hits a home run. He - like many others - stands at the plate, nonchalantly admiring his work as if to say, “Of course I hit a home run. What did you expect?”, before beginning to trot down to first base. This does not mean I don’t respect him as a player, though. No matter how many drugs you take, you still have to manage to put the bat on the ball. In this regard, Bonds is like Ty Cobb. Cobb was one of the meanest SOBs to ever play the game, but he was still a great player.

Bonds’s milestone got me thinking about performance enhancing drugs, especially because I spent ten years taking such drugs. I never took anything like steroids or human growth hormones, but I never needed to. I am not an athlete. But I did take antidepressants, and these certainly enhanced my performance as a scholar.

One of the primary symptoms that finally got me to go to a psychologist was the loss of short term memory, something that is often associated with depression. While I was a student, I would be translating some Hebrew or hieroglyphics the night before a class. I would look at the word I needed to translate and then turn to my lexicon. By the time I had turned two or three pages in the lexicon, the letters of the word had rearranged themselves in my head and I no longer had any idea what word I was trying to find. It would take several attempts before I retained the word long enough to find the definition.

For a philologist, such a problem is fairly severe, but it would create difficulty for any scholar. When things are not retained in short-term memory, they never get transferred to long-term memory and therefore do not become a part of our working knowledge. Since knowledge is our stock in trade as scholars, depression makes scholarship difficult.

Once I was prescribed antidepressants, however, the problem went away. This means I am able to do my job better because of antidepressants. That would seem to me to be the very definition of performance enhancing drugs.

It could be argued, of course, that the drugs Bonds took were banned by baseball, while scholarship has never banned antidepressants. (And given the number of scholars I know who take them, this is probably a good thing.) But this points to the fact that rules in baseball and scholarship must be based on something. If merely making you perform better makes a drug illegal, then surely antidepressants would be banned.

Another difference between steroids and antidepressants is that steroids are supposed to make you perform at levels above that of a normal human, while antidepressants simply make your body functional normally. The unstated assumption in this, however, is that we know how a body functions normally, that there is some sort of baseline human against which we can measure ourselves. Such a human is supposedly perfectly healthy, with no physical or psychological problems.

I have never met such a person. This is not surprising, since this person exists only as an abstraction. Everyone has problems of some sort. Theologically we call this our fallen nature. One thing that the Calvinists have right is that sin corrupts everything. It does not remove all goodness, but it does infect every aspect of our being, including our bodies and our minds.

And so, I freely admit that any success I have had as a scholar is due in part to performance enhancing drugs. Antidepressants may not have given me the ability to function as a Hall-of-Fame scholar, but they have allowed me to play the game. Without them, I would never have even made it into the minor leagues.

As of this week I have regained access to two very important resources.

The first of these is the Internet.  As I mentioned before, I had to wait for my Internet access to be set up in my new apartment.  The technician came by and installed cable and Internet today.  The cable stopped working about two hours after he left, but I can live with that. Digital cable is not as impressive when you are watching it on a 12 inch incredibly low definition TV that you bought ten years ago.  The Internet is still working, however, so over the next few days I will be getting in touch with those of you who have offered to write essays for the blogging book.

The second - and ultimately more satisfying - resource is my library.  For the past three years, I have had only a small number of my books with me.  While I was in Lithuania, 90% of my books were in storage.  They, along with furniture and dozens of boxes, were delivered to my new apartment last Saturday. I am so happy to have them back that I am almost giddy. I am now in a position to explore ideas without having to wait until I get to a library to do so.  Having these books here almost makes this place seem like home.

Next Page »