Abstract
The Bible AND the University? Connecting the Bible to the university today is somewhat like connecting baroque music to hip-hop. Both share a common medium—text is central to both the Bible and the university, as music notes are shared between the baroque and hip-hop styles—but otherwise they do not seem to mix. The Scripture and Hermeneutics Series (Vol. 8), released in paperback in 2015, attempts to “explore the sorts of steps” toward reconnecting the Bible to higher learning institutions. Twelve contributors bring historical, theological, and empirical data together around the theme of the tumultuous relationship the Bible has had with universities over the centuries. The authors do not offer a blueprint for reintegrating biblical study with academia, but they raise a number of impediments to Biblical wisdom in our hallowed halls that should give us pause for self-reflection and re-evaluation of our Christian witness.
I will present my review as a response to five questions that came to mind as I read this book. First, has the Bible been taught in a way that impedes its influence on the university? Olsen underscores two opposite approaches to Biblical interpretation, neither of which makes the Bible come alive for skeptics and seekers alike. A literalist tradition is married to the words, whereas the allegory camp negates the historical validity of the text. Clearly, the secular mind will be repulsed by dogmatic literalism and therefore refuse to take the Bible seriously unless the literalness breathes in some ambiguity. A similar dismissive attitude follows the Bible-as-myth view unless the typology can be grounded in the text as history and theology together. Christian universities need to lead the way in developing reading habits of Scripture within vibrant learning communities. If Christian institutions merely emulate the secular university’s tendency to analyze, critique, and perpetuate a consumerist approach to learning, the readers will not see themselves in the stories. The religious imperialism only mirrors the hubris of suspicion and hostility within secularist bastions. The Bible read as a set of bombastic truths will not lead to the “life of the mind and the good of the world” (p. 236).
Second, is the relevance of the Bible not most aptly conveyed in the Bible believer’s approach to relationships and study? Hahn comments on Pope Benedict’s work by showing the link between biblical learning and the communal history of the church, including shared worship. One must not detach theology from lived faith, or scientific empiricism will rule and hollow out the text as a living document. Wolters points out that theologians need to be clear about their own biased interpretations of the Bible. His call to interdisciplinary work has the twofold benefit of providing opportunity for mutual correction and a more unified voice among scholars generally. Willard places knowledge at the forefront of learning, but not as infallible, arrogant, or detached from life. The scholar as knowledge translator must show how knowing the truth integrates curriculum, but with good character, filled with goodness, honesty, and humility.
Third, can Biblical literacy be expected in the universities if not first nurtured in the church? Jeffrey notes that 85 percent of congregants in Protestant churches do not espouse the biblical worldview of their pastors. Have church-goers not succumbed to reading the meaning of the Bible merely as each one sees fit or even as optional? No wonder teaching art history and English literature can be severely hampered if students have no grasp of the Bible stories and no longer value the authority of the Bible as vital to their own sense of personal meaning. Unless the church fosters a coherence of shared beliefs and a bold exposition of the full counsel of God, the universities will continue to sink into the morass of Biblical ignorance.
Fourth, can the Bible’s message speak cogently to the study of psychology, law, or education in today’s universities? Roberts alludes to the psychological insight within the Bible’s description of the human heart. On this basis, a biblically informed psychology could answer the situationist’s view that humans often yield to the pressures of unethical situations (the Milgram obedience studies and the Kitty Genovese case, for example, p. 142). The Bible can explain why in terms of the human heart, but it also reveals the power to resist unethical group pressure. Situationism and the Bible agree: autonomy is a myth. The difference is that Biblical virtue makes courageous moral behavior possible.
In terms of the study of law, Cochran shows that if law schools continue to embrace liberalism, economic efficiency, and power at the expense of their biblical roots of justice and mercy, the legal system will increasingly perpetrate inhumane treatment of citizens. Smith takes the Garden of Eden metaphor and applies it to education—not as fanciful imagery, but as a way of learning and relating that pushes schooling out of the maelstrom of technical, individualistic learning and toward relational communities of pedagogy, ethical care, and ecological responsibility.
My last question calls for a serious response from all of us who contribute to higher learning as teachers and researchers: has our current assimilation of individualistic liberalism not taken our sense of academic freedom outside the bounds of biblical wisdom? Academic freedom today has become an end in itself, and highly individualistic, to the point that no coherence of shared beliefs may exist even in Christian universities. In this sense, freedom is tantamount to the atomization of individual opinions—my freedom gives me the right to defend my view whether it takes into account common beliefs or not. The devolution toward strident individual academic freedom began when, as indicated by Lundin, the reaction to orthodox interpretations of the Bible in the nineteenth century led to studying the Bible as narrative only, extricated from its inherent claim to spiritual or moral authority. Minus Biblical authority, biblically literate scholars may choose to justify any position they wish based on their own private interpretation of Scripture.
If there is hope for “recovering the Bible for the university” (p. xiii), ought we not repent of our part in intellectual pride and cozying up to the lures of academic freedom without communal responsibility? Let us submit ourselves to the Spirit of Truth, who convicts, heals, and empowers to begin afresh with a renewed commitment to the Bible as the living Word. I conclude with Jeffrey’s words: “We need for ourselves, if we are not to ring hollow to our students and the world, an intellectual centering in our common story which is generous, capacious enough to permit a diverse body to have conversation around the prior Word” (p. 300).