Arrogantly assuming Academic Elevation

In a Facebook group dedicated to the subject of “New Testament Textual Criticism,” a contributor using the name Stephen Ford posted a criticism of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Probably an atheist or agnostic (since he speaks of Christians in the 3rd person), his primary aim is to show that “The fact that the 4 gospels’ portrayals of the Easter story do indeed contradict each other…calls into question the essential reliability of the narratives as historical or eyewitness sources.”[i] At the moment I bypass the fact that Ford is merely regurgitating claims that have been reliably answered multitudes of times. What I want to notice is a peculiar, or particular, example of the arrogance of some textual critics. The names are changed to protect the guilty, and the particular group is not named because I respect the creator of the group (who was not involved in the exchange).[ii] 

The post was wrongly placed in this group because Stephen Ford does not (hopefully now, “did not”) understand the difference between New Testament textual criticism and criticizing the New Testament.[iii] When challenged for being “off topic,” he replied, “Pointing out discrepancies in a text is a criticism of the text, is it not?” Eventually, this led to mocking on the part of two text critics (and the moderator, who may also be a text critic).  

Boyd Stevens wrote: “If one doesn’t know what textual criticism is, it’s hard to take serious the entire post above.” The moderator who called attention to it being off topic agreed with Stevens (yet continued to leave the post up for commenting).[iv] 

Mitchell Timmons agreed: “I mean, the basic meaning of Textual Criticism is something that one learns about in Bibliology 101.”

J. Phillips correctly pointed out to Ford, “The sorts of discrepancies you see in the accounts are exactly what you see in real historical reporting. There are no actual contradictions.” Also, an exchange developed between Ford and a defender of the resurrection accounts, to which text critic Timmons looked down disgustedly and replied, “oh boy...”

Now, I understand that the post did not belong in this group, based on the criteria of what for and why the group exists. However, the particular moderator chose to leave it up for discussion before deleting it, to make an example as an illustration of people not knowing what text criticism is. Fair enough, I suppose. However, the mockery misses the point of truth by a mile. It is not that Ford does not know what text criticism is – but that he does not believe and misunderstands the Bible itself. You don’t have to be a text critic to harmonize and believe the Gospel accounts of the resurrection.

The comments of text critics Stevens and Timmons illustrate the arrogance of the Academy, the uplifting of the universities, and smirk of the scholastics. Knowing and understanding the biblical truth of the resurrection has nothing to do with knowing what the definition of text criticism is. Plenty of lay church members who know their Bibles “inside and out” and yet know little to nothing about text criticism. They understand the resurrection historically and theologically. You do not have to know what text criticism is to know what the Bible teaches,[v] however arrogantly some academics assume they know it all – and that you must bow before them if you wish to know it all. These text critics and the moderator do not get an “A” for effort, should go directly to jail, do not pass go, and do not collect $200!

• “Don’t let your boy’s schooling interfere with his education.” – Grant Allen
• “Pride brings a person low, but the lowly in spirit gain honor.” Proverbs 29:23

---

[i] This likely is his real name, since he linked to an article “Conflicting Details in the Easter Story” on his blog.
[ii] And does not himself usually play the scholar card.
[iii] Textual criticism is the study of a literary work that aims to establish the original text, including the analysis of the transmission of said text from its origin to the present. Bart Ehrman explains it this way: “Textual criticism is the attempt to establish what an author originally wrote whenever there is some uncertainty about it. For example, if Dante wrote the Inferno by hand, and we don’t actually have the hand-written copy he produced, and different surviving copies of the work have differences among them – which one is most like what he actually wrote?”
[iv] The thread was closed after staying up for reading and commenting 48 hours. In contrast, some moderator in that same group quickly closed a critique of Mark Ward’s KJV Parallel Bible website – even though both Ward and leading evangelical text critic have called it “A New Tool for Teaching Textual Criticism to English Speakers” (therefore patently relevant to the group’s purpose).
[v] Unless they are wrong in constantly claiming their work affects no major Bible doctrine.

Going up the way you come down

There’s an old story (apocryphal, perhaps) told about a young Southern preacher who swaggered up into the pulpit with great confidence. He had prepared his sermon expertly, memorized it exactly, knew it was excellent, and knew it would amaze the listening congregation. Yet when he stood to deliver the sermon, he flailed and floundered, missing his mark, bewildering the listeners. The sermon was a disaster. After the sermon boomeranged, he humbly walked out of the pulpit with stooped shoulders and sad countenance.

Afterward an old sister in the congregation sweetly advised the young preacher, “Perhaps if you would have gone up to the pulpit the way you came down, then you might have come down the way you went up.”

Two wrong turns in response to modernism

Two Wrong Turns Don’t Make a Right

Introduction

Beginning in the late 1800s and concluding (to some extent) in the early 1900s,[i] part of American Christianity went through a “Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy.” Reactions for and against higher criticism, Darwinism, and theological liberalism[ii] divided within several Protestant denomination two broad factions – evangelicals/fundamentalist who kept to historic Christian Orthodoxy and modernists/liberals who embraced some or all of higher criticism, Darwinism and theological liberalism. The term “fundamentalist” was coined to identify those who held five theologically orthodox beliefs. The beliefs were first set forth by the Presbyterian Church USA in 1910, in response to the Presbytery of New York licensing three ministerial candidates who did not affirm the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. The Bills and Overtures Committee of the PCUSA developed a “Doctrinal Deliverance” which ministerial candidates would affirm in order to be ordained. In it five “essential and necessary” articles are identified thusly: (1) the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, (2) the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, (3) the substitutionary atonement of Christ, (4) the bodily resurrection of Christ, and (5) the reality and historicity of miracles recorded in the Scriptures.[iii] Sometimes this are rearranged today as:

1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ
2. The Virgin Birth of Jesus
3. The Substitutionary Blood Atonement
4. The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus and His Saints
5. The inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures

From the controversy emerged The Fundamentals: a Testimony to the Truth[iv] – 12 volumes edited by A. C. Dixon, R. A. Torrey and others from 1910 to 1915. Funded by Christian businessmen Lyman and Milton Stewart, The Fundamentals was freely distributed to missionaries, pastors, churches, and seminary professors. It was a massive and masterful work that had immediate effect and historical significance.[v]

Two Wrong Turns

The above is written to lay some historical background. What follows is not directed to specific persons or events detailed above, but rooted in the history. The modernist response to higher criticism and such was one huge U-turn, biblical acquiescence, the laying down of the spiritual weapons of war. In my opinion, inerrantists (conservatives/evangelicals/fundamentalists) took two wrong turns in response to modernism – intellectualism and anti-intellectualism.[vi] These may be defined, based on several dictionaries, as follows:

• Anti-intellectualism: opposition to or hostility toward intellectualism and the academics; or the belief that intellect and reason are less important than actions and emotions in solving practical problems and understanding reality, as well as minimizing an intellectual view or approach.
• Intellectualism: devotion to intellectual pursuits, or excessive emphasis on abstract or intellectual matters; and, in philosophy, the idea that knowledge is wholly or chiefly derived from pure reason.

By the “wrong turn of intellectualism,” I mean the response of orthodox Christians trying to out-do, out-degree, out-scholar, and out-school the modernists – the smugly sophisticated scholar. By the “wrong turn of anti-intellectualism,” I mean the response of trying to emphasize just how anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-tolerance, and anti-everything that one can possibly be – the uncultured Philistine. Oddly enough (or probably not), I have some schizophrenic tendencies in me that want to run in both directions![vii]

Yesterday, when I was young, a popular story told for truth – but likely apocryphal – mocked those who mocked the seminary. A young minister resisted all attempts that were made to convince him to attend seminary to prepare for the ministry. Asked why he would not consider it, he responded, “Why, the seminaries are hindering the second coming of our Lord!” “What?” gasped the questioner, severely taken aback. “Yea, that’s right. Them seminaries teach preachers to think, and the Bible says, ‘for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh’.” Seminarians would tell this for truth, and laugh and laugh. It is sad, if it be true, but it is no laughing matter. The story illustrates the extremes at both ends – the arrogance of the seminarians, and the ignorance of the contrarians – both with which we need to grapple biblically.

Mark Noll wrote, “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.”[viii] The Bible promotes wisdom, knowledge and learning – at least that of the spiritual kind. One purpose of the proverbs of Solomon was that the wise man would hear, and hearing would increase in learning (Proverbs 1:5). The Bible praises Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego for their knowledge, skill, wisdom, and in the learning and language of the Chaldees (Daniel 1). It blasts ignorance and does not tolerate fools (Proverbs 14:9; Matthew 23:16-19; 2 Corinthians 11:19; 1 Peter 2:15).[ix] The Bible is not the companion of deliberately entrenched ignorance or bumptious negligence in thought.

Job aptly upbraided his friends who knew it all, “No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you” (Job 12:2). The Bible warns against the wisdom and ways of the world (1 Corinthians 3:19). All that passes for intelligence in the sight of men does not pass for intelligence in the sight of God. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 111:10). He who is not educated in the Bible is not educated. The Bible is the companion of the meek and lowly in heart, who love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God. The proud look and proud heart is an abomination to God (Proverbs 6:17; Proverbs 16:5).

Each reader probably knows one of these types. We might even be one of them! May we rather look to the Scriptures, and look like those in the Scriptures.

• Jesus, at age 12 and without formal education, attended the center of religious instruction and amazed the doctors (“sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions,” Luke 2:46-47).
• The education of Jesus was not accredited or recognized by the doctors of the law. Jesus’s marvelous teaching was made all the more marvelous by the fact it could not be traced to the centers of Jewish learning (“And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?” John 7:15).
• The education of the Twelve was not accredited or recognized by the doctors of the law. (“Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” Acts 4:13)
• Paul received an education that was highly regarded among the Jews (the school of Gamaliel, Acts 5:34, Acts 22:3), but the haughty philosophers at Athens mocked his manner of presentation (“What will this babbler say”) and message (“when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked”).
• In the midst of intellectualism and mysticism, the disciples of Jesus are to walk a middle road. (“we preach Christ crucified…the power of God, and the wisdom of God,” 1 Corinthians 1:21-24)

There is both rhyme and reason in God’s purpose: 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence.

Part of the intellectual direction includes assuming that people know what they’re talking about based on the number of degrees attached to the front and back sides of their names. The anti-intellectuals who flock to the degree mills are sucked into the same black hole – the felt need for a prop to exude authority. How different from our unaccredited Lord, who simply spoke with authority (Matthew 7:28-29).[x] The Philistines may in turn rush to the guys without training! We must teach folks to discern whether persons have biblical knowledge, rather than assuming they are educated based on their degrees. If not, how does one discern a conservative Bible-believer with a lesser degree (or none at all) is more trustworthy than a liberal Bible-denier with a more respectable degree?

True Christians do not create castes of greater and lesser degrees based on the levels of education they have received! We do not search the letters before and behind the name – or the institutions behind the letters – for an academic pedigree. “Deep calleth unto deep.” Things alike recognize one another. By the Word and the Spirit we recognize the credentials of the one speaking or writing by what is spoken or written. [Those of Berea] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so (Acts 17:10-11).

Regardless of how respectable we try to become in the eyes of the world, the Bible-believing, Bible-keeping Christian will never be quite acceptable in a culture that casts away God and his moral compass.

The Middle Road

An important answer to the two wayside roads is found in an intelligent Bible-believing culture at the local church level – from the greatest to the least. Understand Paul’s exhortations to the Corinthians: that God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27) and Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant... (1 Corinthians 10:1). Without being recognized by the doctors, Jesus nevertheless confounded them, so that they could not answer him (Matthew 22:41-46). On the other hand, he chided those who had not read (Matthew 12:3) did not understand (Mark 8:21) and needed to search the scriptures (John 5:39). He tolerated neither intellectual elitism nor refusal to study.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15

---

[i] Many divided and went their separate ways in this period. The much-later “Inerrancy Controversy” (Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover) in the Southern Baptist Convention demonstrates that all was not resolved in the early 1900s.

[ii] “In a nutshell, then, the liberal theological ethos accords to ‘the best of modern thought’ the weight of authority in theology alongside or stronger than biblical revelation (and certainly than tradition).” – Roger Olson, What is “theological liberalism?”

[iii] This is my summary. The full “Doctrinal Deliverance” may be viewed HERE.

[iv] The linked book is Volume 1.

[v] The Untold Story of The Fundamentals by Paul W. Rood II

[vi] These two terms are problematic, in that the latter has a much great negative connotation. Nevertheless, I never know no better terms to use.

[vii] For an example of the “anti” direction, see “Who You Gonna Believe?” – though I do not repudiate any of it, and though it appears on Seeking the Old Paths “intellectualized” a bit from its original appearance many years before.

[viii] The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Mark A. Noll, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994, p. 3; he goes further, writing, “Notwithstanding all their other virtues, however, American evangelicals are not exemplary for their thinking, and they have not been so for several generations.”

[ix] Yet what passes for wisdom and folly in the world is not always so (e.g. Psalm 14:1; Romans 1:22).

[x] None of us can speak with authority in the manner of Jesus, but my point is that the hearers were able to distinguish his authority to speak and teach without inquiring of which degrees he held.

The Reverend Doctor Mess

Last week Pastor Jim attended a preachers’ conference at the High Street Baptist Church.  The lofty room turned out to be full of “doctors” – so he found as each preacher introduced himself. Quickly adjusting to the situation, Pastor Jim began to introduce himself as an “intern.” When questioned about this Jim explained, “Well, someone has to clean up the messes that doctors make!”

The ignorant condescending conceit of the ignorant educated elite

Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally -- "Last night [Nov 8] we saw something historic: the dance of the dunces. Never have educated voters so uniformly rejected a candidate. But never before have the lesser-educated so uniformly supported a candidate."

Yo, you ignorant deplorables, listen up.

The privileged who prefer nanny state intrusion to control the masses have a hard time covering their contempt for the average Joe and Josephine. Or maybe they don't even try. First, before the election, Hillary Clinton said "you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables." Now, after the election, Jason Brennan* calls voting for Trump "the dance of the dunces."

* "Jason Brennan is the Robert J. and Elizabeth Flanagan family chair and associate professor of strategy, economics, ethics, and public policy at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business."

Preaching pride, punctured

The new pastor felt good after preaching his first message at his new church. While driving home he asked his wife, "How many great preachers do you think are in the world?"

She answered, "I dunno, but one less than you think there are."

--

A young preacher was invited to a large church to preach. He primped and polished his prize sermon and was filled with the pride of it. He knew he would impress the congregation. When the time arrived he bounded into the pulpit in full confidence with great satisfaction. But once there, looking out at the crowd, he stumbled and fumbled and made quite a mess delivering the message and was not soon enough glad to be finished. After the minutes that seemed like hours, head drooping, he shuffled down the steps toward his seat. The old pastor leaned over and said to him, "Son, if you'd gone up the way you came down, you might have come down the way you went up."

Hero worship and celebrity status clergy

Most dictionaries define "hero worship" as something like "foolish or excessive admiration of someone." Our society is filled with hero worship -- just think sports and movie stars. Churches may be quick to condemn this while celebrating their own style of hero worship. It is not wrong to admire someone, to do as the Bible says "render honour to whom honour is due." But often this admiration becomes unholy, and all that the "hero" does is admirable -- regardless of what he or she does. Very often this in making a pastor or Christian leader the object of one's undue admiration, and justifying with ideas of "pastoral authority" and "touch not God's anointed." The truth is that the human soul cannot withstand such admiration and is lifted up with pride. It is destructive to the person admired and often devolves into the basest of action towards the admirers. May God deliver us all from such.

This morning's links contain stories of one such case.

Pride goeth before destruction

Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. - Isaiah 3: 10, 11

'When I was just a young boy I recall riding my bicycle in the street in front of my house. My dad was setting on the steps reading the paper or something. As I rode past I took my hands off the handlebars, set straight up on the seat, and yelled to my dad, “Hey look, no hands.” (You never did that did you?) So what do you think happened next? You probably guessed it. When I looked to my dad while showing off my new found skill I also caused the balance of things to go haywire. The next thing I knew, in just a split second the handlebars began to wobble back and forth and down I went. Fortunately for me I landed in a grassy area just off the side of the rode. My bike was fine; I was fine, even the yard I landed in did not suffer any damage. But what happened next sure crushed my ego. My dad sort of snickered and said “see what you get for showing off? You got just what you deserved.” Was my dad just being mean? No, he was trying to teach his son that showoffs often stumble over their own pride.'
Living in His Word, by Franklin Senters, August 15, 2006