Academic Freedom & Evangelical Seminaries? x2

[headheart]

Ben Witherington and Larry Hurtado comment.jpg

In what I estimate was probably the longest thread ever on this forum, I'm referring to the one started by bertaberts titled: There is no evidence for a biblical jesus (which has 3,454 posts and has been viewed 83,827 times at this writing) the subject of scholarship was repeatedly discussed by Tassman and others (and I even jumped in a bit too ) however as no scholars were around to make their own viewpoint known, I think the following may go a long way towards describing how evangelical scholars think about 'Academic Freedom and Evangelical Seminaries' (I'd suggest you read it all before commenting and if you feel brave why not engage an evangelical scholar directly as his blog is not one that is only for those among us who are)

Here is an excerpt from Prof. Ben Witherington's introduction:

'.... The life of the believing scholar’s mind can be fragile, and more to the point a scholar needs to be able to pursue the evidence wherever it leads. If it leads somewhere that leaves him in a quandry, then things should be discussed. If it leads somewhere where the person thinks the faith statement is not well grounded in the Bible in some respect, then that should be discussed. But it is important that a scholar be allowed to explore various ideas and interpretations of things as he or she seeks to understand God’s Word better. Often some avenues of interpretation that at first look promising, are not. For the believing scholar in any case the search should be for what is true, not what is new, and when I say true I mean historically true, theologically true, ethically true. etc. ....'

Here is an excerpt from what Prof. Harry Hurtado wrote:

'.... I’m fortunate, I know, that the two main institutions in which my scholarly career has been spent (University of Manitoba and University of Edinburgh) are both places in which I’ve been free to pursue my research, write my conclusions, and not fear for my job from simply doing academic work. I say that this sort of “academic freedom” (as it’s called in the trade) actually gives most working academics an accompanying sense of responsibility too. Trust does that, you know. ....'

To read the full article at Bible and Culture, which I strongly recommend you do if you are going to comment here , follow this link: Academic Freedom and Evangelical Seminaries

Peace, and back to work.
Eric

[ZackMartin]

I see an issue - if a scholar works for an institution, where their continued employment requires them to endorse certain conclusions, that might undermine the independence and objectivity of their research. Is your conclusion objective when you'll lose your job (with attendant financial hardships) if you reach a different one? Just like how people criticise drug company funded research on how wonderful drug X is - if the researchers were to find drug X wasn't wonderful, they might not be funded the next time. Or tobacco company funded research about lung cancer?

So why should the work of scholars at confessional institutions be viewed any better than corporate-funded research that reaches conclusions the corporation wants? If it's reasonable to query the work of scientists paid for by vested corporate interests, it is equally reasonable to question the work of biblical scholars employed at institutions that require them to reach certain conclusions to retain their employment.

Of course, that's not to say that staff of purely secular academic institutions are free to say absolutely whatever they want either. Consider the case of Drew Fraser, a law professor in Australia who was forced out of his job due to his public claims that African immigration causes crime, and his membership of a white supremacist group. (Some might claim, it doesn't technically count as a violation of academic freedom, because he didn't lose his job for the content of his research, but rather for opinions expressed off the job.) But I still think secular institutions give a much greater degree of academic freedom than confessional ones do.

[Chrs]

Just like how people criticise drug company funded research on how wonderful drug X is - if the researchers were to find drug X wasn't wonderful, they might not be funded the next time.

Don't be silly, they just don't publish the negative results.

But, yes. This sort of thing does happen - although the idea of Tenure is supposed to counteract this.

[ZackMartin]

This sort of thing does happen - although the idea of Tenure is supposed to counteract this.

But I would think, at a confessional institution, where all staff are required to conform to a statement of faith, tenure wouldn't save them. If the institution's authorities believe that "your research conclusion X disagrees with the statement of faith", then they are gone, tenure or no tenure.

Suppose you are an academic who has tenure at a secular institution. The institution fires you despite your tenure. Although it would depend on the exact laws of the state/country the institution is in, you probably have a decent chance of some success if you took the institution to court (breach of employment contract, unfair dismissal, etc.)

But when a confessional institution fires you because they say you contradicted the statement of faith - what secular court wants to get involved in interpreting statements of faith, and deciding whether some opinion is compatible with one or not? Most courts shy away from getting involved in theological disputes - I know in the US, courts nowadays consider the 1st Amendment to prohibit them to rule on those issues at all - in other countries (e.g. UK, Australia), courts aren't subject to as strong a prohibition as they are in the US, but they still try to avoid it. So your lawsuit will likely be dismissed as requiring the court to answer questions it can't possibly answer.

[headheart]

Bump!

Here's a well rounded article "Courting Sin (1 Corinthians 6:1-11)
Study By: Keith Krell" @ Bible.org, which might shed a little light on this issue. (read / listen)

Our national motto seems to have changed from “In God we trust” to “See you in court!”

Why?

Happy 2nd New Year.

Eric

[Seasanctuary]

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" -- Upton Sinclair

[headheart]

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" -- Upton Sinclair

Perhaps the devil's hold extends deeper on down that votex, than we will ever know?

'You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.' (Jesus)

[Seasanctuary]

Yeah, at this point I have no idea what you're trying to claim or want discussed here, headheart.