Until now, I didn't normally visit James McGrath's Exploring our Matrix. I mean, I'm sure he has valuable things to say, but there are so many blogs out there, so there are many that I don't read. But I doubt he'd lose too much sleep over that. I'd be surprised if he's even heard of my blog! Plus, I'm sure that his technorati rating is higher than mine.
But, today, I stumbled on one of his blog posts, and it provoked a reaction. How did I stumble upon it? Well, I like to visit Philip Sumpter's site, which has a blogroll that features the titles of posts after they've been published. I get a kick out of seeing my name and the title of my blogpost. It's probably a narcissistic thing, but it makes me feel official!
But I also visit Sumpter's site to see what other blogs have, and I read the posts that grab me. And McGrath had a post entitled, Challenge to Anti-Intellectual Christian Fundamentalists. McGrath states the following:
"Here's a challenge to those Christians who denigrate scholarship as causing confusion and inappropriately asking questions and raising issues. Just read the Bible for yourself, without the aid of scholarship."
If the fundamentalists were to do that, McGrath argues, then they couldn't use an English translation, critical edition, or manuscript of the Bible. After all, these things are the products of scholarship, or they somehow relate to scholarly institutions (i.e., a manuscript is in a museum). McGrath then concludes:
"Or, alternatively, just acknowledge that you are entirely dependent on scholars for your access to the Bible throughout the process: study of original manuscripts, collation of readings in critical editions, translations into your native language, and the commentaries and other such helps that hopefully your pastor uses even if you do not."
I guess I didn't like the tone of this. Are fundamentalists totally against biblical scholarship? Or are they against certain ideas of biblical scholars, particularly the ones that challenge biblical inerrancy (and these ideas are not even universally accepted within biblical scholarship)?
Also, I didn't like McGrath's use of the term "entirely dependent." It treats biblical scholars as if they're a priestly class, utterly beyond the scrutiny of peon laypeople. I could be wrong, so please don't sue me for libel! That's just the impression I got.
On the other hand, I can see some of McGrath's point. There are many things about scholarship that make me ask, "Who cares?" I'm not passionate about certain things that motivate my colleagues, such as the nuances of Ugaritic. But I guess it's good that somebody is interested in that, since it's important in how we translate and interpret the Bible.
We are dependent on scholars, on some level. Yet, can laypeople disagree with scholars? In a sense, I put even myself in the category of "laypeople." My field is not Hebrew Bible. Can I disagree with scholars who specialize in that field? Is my opinion as good as theirs?
I can picture scholarly elitists saying, "Well, you don't disagree with your surgeon, do you? You trust him and accept what he's saying, right?" But, for some reason, people don't put religion in that category. In the realm of religion, one person's opinion is just as good as anyone else's, in the minds of many people. Some just have their ideas about God. "I think all you have to do is live a good life, and you'll go to heaven." Well, what's their basis for that thought? There really is none. It's just there.
Some (e.g., charismatics) claim personal inspiration by the Holy Spirit in their reading of Scripture. But this is a thorny issue, especially when the "inspired" interpretations conflict with one another.
And then there is an anti-intellectual current within religious circles, which I'm sure is what McGrath is addressing. "What Ph.D. did Jesus have?" I've heard Christians ask. And there is biblical support for that sort of attitude. The Jewish leaders inquire about Jesus in John 7:15, "How does this man have such learning, when he has never been taught?" (NRSV). Acts 4:13 has, "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and realized that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized them as companions of Jesus."
I guess all sides annoy me, on some level: The scholars, who see themselves as some sort of priesthood. Many charismatics, who believe they have the inside track to God. And then there are the laypeople who learn a little bit of historical-criticism (e.g., JEPD, Q), then act as if they're more enlightened than everyone else! But don't despair (if you are despairing): I can annoy myself on occasion.
I suppose one resolution to my ill-defined dilemma is to say this: laypeople can disagree with scholars (as if they need permission). Scholars who know their stuff will try to present their case to them, and if they're convinced, then they're convinced. If they're not, they're not.
In any case, McGrath has some good stuff on his blog. I was writing about Hick the past couple of weeks, and I saw that Hick has his own web site. Plus, I see that McGrath teaches at Butler, so he's a fellow Hoosier!