In public conversations such as The Huffington Post, it's common to see people deriding "liberal" biblical scholars, as if the world is just full of people whose dearest wish is to undermine the Bible and turn Jesus into nothing but a symbol for a bizarre mushroom cult.
(And by the way, that Jesus-mushroom thing? It was actually proposed.)
Biblical scholarship is an academic discipline, taught and studied at universities, colleges and divinity schools all around the world. So it should be no surprise that biblical scholars run in all shapes, sizes, colors and denominations. What would surprise many people, though, is that a very large number of us love Jesus and the church, and we spend hours upon hours communicating the love and wonder we experience with the Bible. Indeed, some of our secular colleagues justifiably complain there are too many of us in the field. More surprising might be this one fact: many of us have our roots in fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity. The best way for conservative churches to produce "liberal" biblical scholars is to keep encouraging young people to read the Bible.
That's how it worked for me. I didn't grow up in church, but I found Jesus and was baptized in an Alabama Baptist church just before my 15th birthday. Our pastor and youth director encouraged me to read the Bible, so I did: I got an affordable new Bible and read the Gospel of John. And I loved it! I felt that I knew Jesus more intimately and understood my faith better.
Not long after reading John, I found a little brochure that contained a schedule for reading the Bible all the way through in one year. So I took the challenge, from Genesis through Revelation, about three or four chapters a day -- and more when I missed a day. At some point I started highlighting meaningful passages. And within a year, not only had I read the entire Bible, some sections now appeared in lime green, neon yellow and turquoise blue. I suspect that most of the verses in Romans and John are highlighted. Probably less so for Obadiah.
I read the Bible all the way through twice as a young person, not to mention the daily devotionals, Bible studies, Sunday School lessons and youth group meanings that structure a Southern Baptist teenager's life. And along the way, a few things happened that prepared the way for my journey into biblical scholarship.
The first thing seemed little, but it proved to be important later on. Reading through Matthew, then Mark, and then Luke, a young person can get bored: Didn't I see this story before? I get it already: How many people did Jesus heal? But something else happens, too. You begin to notice little inconsistencies. Did Jesus say that whoever is not with him is against him (Matthew 12:30; Luke 11:23), or did he say that whoever is not against him is for him (Mark 9:40)? Who was there to visit Jesus' tomb? How did Judas die (Matthew 27:1-10; Acts 1:18-19)?
An innocent Bible reader assumes there must be satisfactory resolutions to such problems. But no such explanations exist. Different biblical books simply tell stories differently. Some offer conflicting answers to important questions. In my case this became clear when I sat in on a religious studies class during a college visit. With a colorful chart, the instructor was explaining how the Gospels were composed -- that Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke relied upon copies of Mark. As soon as I saw that chart, I instantly knew where we were headed! There was no way the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses who simply remembered things differently. At that moment I had no idea I'd wind up devoting a career to biblical studies. Ironic, I suppose.
My second memory involves the one thing that most bothers pious high schoolers: sex. Our church leaders warned us not only to abstain sexual intercourse but also to avoid those heavy makeout sessions that lead to removing sweaters, exploring panty lines and so forth. And depending on what the meaning of is, is, I pretty much succeeded. But I was also reading my Bible. And nowhere did I find all this stuff about saving sex for marriage. (That's because the Bible doesn't include that message, certainly not consistently.)
Naturally, I asked one of our adult leaders, who in turn grew quite frustrated by my impertinence. A few days later a card came in the mail, signed by this adult with a simple Bible reference, Proverbs 3:5-6. I'm sure my quotation isn't exactly accurate, but I knew it in the King James Version: "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." (OK, I checked. I only substituted a comma for a semi-colon.) This person who was responsible for my spiritual development had effectively patted me on the head and told me to submit to what the church was teaching. My own reading of the Bible didn't amount to much, after all.
One more memory, and I've reflected on this in another blog post. A few years ago I looked back through that old Bible, with all its highlighted marks. And I wondered how a 16-year-old Southern Baptist would have made sense out of Ephesians 5:21-6:9, a passage that tells wives to submit to their husbands, children to obey their parents and slaves to obey their masters. To this 16-year-old boy, wives obeying husbands sounded like a good deal. Being pious, I even highlighted the part about children and parents. But having grown up in Alabama, with the coals still hot from Birmingham and Selma, I simply could not highlight slaves' obedience as an expression of God's will. I'd already learned an important lesson: the Bible requires responsible interpretation.
Mark Twain is supposed to have said, "The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible." If he did say that, his wisdom didn't take in my case. Though I understand it differently, I love the Bible as much as I ever have. I'm just as passionate for Jesus and for the gospel as I ever have been, though I understand them differently too. But I can say this: Reading the Bible is a terrific cure for fundamentalism. That's exactly how many of us so-called liberal Bible scholars got our start.
Follow Greg Carey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GregC666
Rochelle Schieck: Reclaiming the Divine Feminine
Paul Brandeis Raushenbush: Pussy Riot's Punk Prayer: What Would Jesus Do?
Rev. Chuck Currie: Will You Marry Me? The Bible and Marriage Equality
Craig S. Keener: Gender and Bible-Believers: What Some Evangelicals Are Missing
Matthew 16:6-12
(6) "Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. (7) And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. (8) Which when Jesus perceived, He said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? (9) Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? (10) Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? (11) How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?"
(12) "Then understood they how that He bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."
Jesus taught with authority which separates Him from those who attempt to reconcile their unbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture.
Matthew 7:29
"For He taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes."
This hasn't changed in 2,000 years, i.e. today we have scribes, pharisees, sadducees and lawyers questioning what He said in order to discredit His plain and simple teachings.
But -- and isn't there always a "but" right about here? -- in your first sentence you refer to "liberal theologians," and Carey is talking about "liberal bible scholars." These are two different professions.
When someone sets himself up as a theologian, it implies the belief in scripture you refer to. And yes, both liberal and conservative theologians begin their work with that belief -- where the work takes them, though, is often two different places. Some go left, some go right, as you say.
But a Bible scholar is not necessarily a theologian. I don't believe scholars like Elaine Pagels or Geza Vermes -- or Carey -- would presume the title "theologian."
Bible scholars, and their readers and students, aren't necessarily true believers in the supernatural. There are more reasons to study the Bible than reinforcing one's faith. I don't have a religious bone in my body. But I avidly read the work of Bible scholars because Judeo-Christian religion is a major building block of Western civilization, and I'm keen to know how the world I live in got to be the way it is.
Theology, though it can be enlightening to the secular reader, is different. I see it mostly as "inside baseball" squabbling among the faithful.
Weelll, when two people love each other...very, very much...pay attention Greg...and put that bible down while we are discussing science.
The same people who would ridicule a college student majoring in "Harry Potter" has no problem with someone getting a degree in the Bible.
The "Biblical Scholar" may be more employable--otherwise exactly what is the difference?
I invite you to read my just published book on Kindle: The King James Bible for Atheists. I address the points that you have brought up in your article. There are free book excerpts on my website http://www.adrianangel.com Among other things, I pose the idea that the god of the OT and the god of the NT (Jesus' father) are two separate gods. -Adrian Wallen
Careful interpretation means not adding more than is there and realize the some things are a mystery.
Is there a seminary in the world liberal enough to "biblical scholars" to warn people, as I do at my http://WhatKindofGod.org site not to believe a good deal of what the bible teaches about God, because that god is unfit for human consumption?
Do any of them take seriously the whole catalogue of biblical inconsistencies that I expose at http://liberalslikechrist.org/inerrancy.html and reach the conclusion that any preachers who claim that the bible is "inerrant" should have their licenses pulled?
Are there any seminaries or bible schools liberal enough to point out - as I do at http://liberalslikechrist.org/Paulvsall.html - that following the teaching of "St. Paul" makes people something very different from "Christians". Conservatives shouldn't be called "Christians" for having used the teaching of Paul for thousands of years to support their desire to feel morally superior to Jews, the poor, women, homosexuals, and the like. Why can't they be honest and call themselves something that better describes what they are, i.e. "Paulists" or "Paulians"?
Rev. Ray Dubuque, founder of "Liberals like Christ".
This just goes to show and further proves how God's word is living and it is not understandable without being a child of God. I was baptised at 13 and was reading the Bible WAY before that and I was able to understand. Certain concepts and ideas were hard to grasp at that age, but as I grew, I found the Bible grew with me. It revealed more and more and even the words and ideas I once had as a child have become much fuller as I reread them and gain more understanding.
Jesus did preach on a plain. And on a mountain, etc. Jesus had 3 years in the birth of his faith.
Although similar to many other lists of such inconsistences, I've boiled mine down to about 100 of the most difficult to explain away, not becuase I hate God, but because I hate irrationality, even if it is being used with the best of intentions.
Even the bible says "always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." I Peter 3:15
Like what? And are we just talking things that are hard to explain because it might be hard to comprehend for you (like I know there have been a few that if I tried to understand it on my own, I would never get it.) Or are we talking things that are hard to explain because it false outside the realm of normal human understanding?
In any event, I'll try posting the link to my lengthy web page on this topic http://liberalslikechrist.org/inerrancy.html and hope that it doesn't cause the deletion of this entire post of mine.
This is a perfectly logical sequence of events...Judas hung himself, the rope breaks, he falls headlong and because of the stage of death his body bursts open. People try so hard to disbelieve the scripture that they can't look at the breadth of an event and see it for what it is.
- Too often, "liberal" to a conservative is someone who is disturbingly to the left, and "conservative" is a polite word for "fundamentalist" (but only to liberals). As this post implicitly highlights, labels are often not helpful.
- The surest way to make an atheist is not merely to have someone read the Bible, but to have them read the Bible with the help of a brittle fundamentalist community, which tells questioning teenagers "sit down and shut up", not "let's see where these beliefs have come from." Too often this reaction occurs not because the teen is a smart*ss, but because the adult doesn't know the answers and doesn't feel qualified to find out. This seems where Bart Ehrman came from, and where Dr Carey came from as well, though they arrived ultimately at different points.
- "The Bible requires responsible interpretation"; this can't be emphasized enough. Can a boy at his plow understand enough for salvation? Sure. Can a 21st century secularized Westerner understand the sociocultural context behind slavery in the New Testament? Almost never, unless they've gone out of their way to interact with differing viewpoints on the topic and have a context for conclusions. You won't get any of this from the Skeptics Annotated Bible, and you won't get it from Answers in Genesis (or, frankly, from reading articles on the Bible on HuffPo!).
In short, there are going to be those who are following God's word and those who won't and it matters not what affiliations they have outside of that.
Liberal bible scholars should be accepted by every democrat because they are one in the same.
The English Bibles are translations from other sources. Most of those labeling seem to lack the appreciation of how difficult it is to translate from one language to another.
Like reading and understanding the bible, not just what other people said it was.