I just returned home from the ETS national conference, which is always an illuminating venue to attend. A few random thoughts that I jotted down about the conference are below:
- Evangelicalism, despite strenuous objections to the contrary, is not much of a bounded set. But I'm not convinced it's much of a center set either. In fact, I'm not sure that set theory really works as a description for evangelicalism. At best "bounded set" and "center set" are hopeful prescriptions for the movement, and until there is consensus, the labels don't really work as descriptors. And I'm not sure that I even care.
- That being said, I'm still convinced that amorphous, decentralized, and unbounded sets like the evangelicalism of the ETS can be quite valuable. The ETS offers a "village green" where I can talk with instead of at those with whom I disagree; a place for fair hearings and dialogue that are free from shrillness and incivility; a place where humility is fostered by the realization that the pond is so vast that all the fish are small; a place where my ideas can be sharpened, refined, and sometimes discarded by subjecting them to the reasoned objections of constructive critics who are quite often much smarter than I.
- I'm even more convinced that the bounded set of the church is of greater value than evangelicalism for the believer. One very gratifying conclusion that emerged unanimously from the panel discussion on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism was that while idea of evangelicalism might be a good one, the institution of the church is a great one, and its purity is deserving of the most rigorous defense. If we ever find that evangelical get-togethers (whether the scholarly or popular variety) are of greater worth than the church, we are much to be pitied.
- There is a general (though not universal) disconnect between the exegesis papers and philosophy papers presented at ETS, and the systematic theology papers that have the capacity to bridge that divide are scarce. As a result, there are virtually no presuppositions that are sacred in the ETS. This is perhaps the greatest vexation I have when I come home from ETS each year.
- Inerrancy is dying the slow death of a thousand clarifications.
- I know very little, but ETS has a marvelous capacity for encouraging me to know more.
MAS
9 comments:
Two questions:
1. When you say "inerrancy is dying a slow death" do you mean evangelicals are drifting away from holding to inerrancy, and cloaking it with "clarifications"? Or are you suggesting that the "clarifications" are valid? If the latter, could you give a couple examples?
2. Given your description of ETS, once you get past the letters everyone tacks on the end of their name, is there really any philosophical difference between ETS and Internet theological / exegetical / philosophical discussions? Both are amorphous, unbounded, provide opportunities to discuss with others, where the immense "size of the pond" is obvious, and both can encourage us to know more.
Maybe ETS should just become a huge Internet forum for degreed people and save everyone a lot of money. :)
Jon, on #1, I am suggesting that inerrancy is being illegitimately squeezed out of existence by the likes of Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks, who use a collage of myth and literary criticism to redefine inerrancy out of existence. And it's progressing.
On #2, the gigantic difference is that the folks at ETS have generally earned the right to be heard (those letters at the ends of the names do represent something, after all) and have typically studied the art of meaningful dialogue so as to offer reasoned, careful, and qualified presentations in an irenic tone. That doesn't mean that this kind of exchange of ideas is unique to ETS or that it cannot occur on the Internet; nor does it mean that "irenic" equates with "right." It does mean that interpersonal venues such as seminaries and academic conferences are far better suited to the reasoned communication and exchange of ideas than is the blogosphere.
Thanks, Mark, I appreciate your answers. Perhaps your answer to #1 indicates that some of those in answer #2 who have "earned the right to be heard" have perhaps "earned the right to be ignored" instead. :)
When you say "progressing," do you mean "getting worse in their errors," or do you mean "gaining adherents" among those who formerly held a better position? In other words, are a lot of our evangelical brethren drifting towards a barely evangelical or non-evangelical position? Or is it just that some of these guys are getting worse in the error they are pushing? Or both?
I hope I'm not being a pain here. Because of my background, I still have friends on the "softer side" of evangelicalism, and so this kind of thing concerns me.
Mark... "dialogue"??? That's a very loaded word in a historical context. It was the watchword of new evangelicalism.
I suppose you don't mean the same thing they did, do you?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don:
Dialogue (Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary): "A conversation between two or more persons; an exchange of ideas and opinions; a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict aimed at resolution."
Granted, the term was used several decades ago to communicate the idea of Hegelian dialectic between modernism and inerrant biblicism. But that isolated usage of the term doesn't mean that the term itself is corrupted, Don.
It's OK to talk with people. It's even OK to be nice at times. Really.
Jon, you're right of course that not all scholarship is worth hearing. And there was some of that at ETS, too.
What I mean by "progressing" is specifically aimed at the use of myth and genre criticism to uphold uniformitarian models of science and origins. In the last few years, the number of evangelicals who have become comfortable with denials of a historical Adam has become alarming.
I'm no prophet, but this might well be the next major crisis in evangelicalism.
Hi Mark,
Paul Hiebert contrasted well-formed sets (both bounded and centered) with fuzzy sets. I wonder if what you are seeing in evangelicalism (along with what was partly defended in the spectrum of evangelicalism) is actually better gauged in fuzzy sets--where appeals to boundaries can't stick and centers just slide.
Thomas K. Dailey
That sounds about right, Tom. I'll have to remember that.
Thanks, Mark. BTW, I'm not bashing on scholarship (or I wouldn't even read your blog!), just having fun.
I personally think "soft" evangelicalism will ebb and flow on inerrancy. Because of compromises in the movement, weak teaching will come in, and sinful and untaught people will drift into following it.
Because many are also believers, when the drift goes too far they will wake up and there will be a backlash, as people return to a more Biblical position. The tide comes in, the tide goes out. The tide may be going out right now, but it can only go so far before those who are truly believers will say, "Wait a minute, if we follow this there is nothing left!"
Just my opinion, for what it's worth.
Post a Comment