For my write-up today on Ari Goldman's The Search for God at Harvard,
my focus will be on the role of the Bible in theology, or the authority
of the Bible, or bringing the Bible into academic theological
discussions. Something along those lines.
I'll start this post
with a story that Goldman tells on pages 175-176. Goldman is talking
about a Christian Scientist named Fran who attended Harvard Divinity
School the same time that he did. Fran came to the Div School because
she thought that it was a tolerant, friendly place when she visited as a
Brandeis student doing research. But, as Goldman narrates, in a class
called "Contemporary Theology", "she found that there was little
tolerance for one way of thinking" (page 175). There was a debate in
the class about whether or not there is life after death. Fran said,
"There is proof from John, Chapter 11, where Jesus raises Lazarus from
the dead." There were snickers in the class in response to her comment,
and the discussion proceeded as if Fran's point had not even been
made. On page 176, Goldman says that "In certain academic circles,
especially at Harvard Divinity School, the Bible can be picked apart,
examined, debated and condemned but never, never accepted at face value
as historic fact."
One might be tempted to think that the
reaction to Fran's comment stemmed from a village atheist notion that we
cannot appeal to the Bible as an authority on such issues as life after
death, for there is no proof that the Bible is true. And maybe some of the students who snickered at her comment did so out of that kind of sentiment. But,
in my experience, it's not exactly the case that, in places such as
Harvard Divinity School, the Bible is considered to be completely off
the table in discussions of such issues as life after death, ethics,
politics, or other issues. It's just that Fran appealed to the Bible in
the wrong way (in the eyes of many of her classmates), in a
proof-texting, fundamentalist sort of manner.
If we were
to dismiss a source that has no proof for its authority (such as the
Bible) from a discussion about whether or not there is life after death,
what would be an acceptable source that could guide people in such a
discussion? I mean, as far as I know, there is not exactly any solid
evidence that there is life after death. I wonder this when it comes to
the academic study of theology in general: what is the evidence for
theological scenarios or claims about God? If we can't appeal to the
Bible because there's no proof for it, then how can we claim anything
about God, since there's no solid proof that God even exists, let alone
that God is a certain way or has specific intentions?
I
can speculate about what would have been acceptable comments in that
classroom discussion on life after death: sophisticated analyses of the
mind-body problem (i.e., do we have a soul that can exist apart from the
body, or do our thoughts and consciousness stem solely from our
physical brains?), and looking at how world religions handle life after
death. I can picture people nodding contemplatively as a soft-spoken
lady talks about Native American belief in life after death. I can also
envision people nodding as a student discusses Elisabeth Kubler-Ross' experiences with the beyond, even though they'd probably snicker if someone mentioned the cable TV documentaries on ghosts!
As
far as the Bible is concerned, perhaps it could be mentioned in a
Harvard Divinity School classroom without being snickered at, but one
would have to manifest consciousness of the Bible's diversity and
interaction with the historical times in which its writings were
composed. Could the Bible have authority, even in a Harvard Divinity
School classroom? I think so, but it wouldn't be the same sort of
authority that fundamentalists believe in: the Bible is true because God
spoke or inspired all of it. Rather, the authority would be rooted in
community acceptance of and grappling with the biblical writings or the
ideas within them, or personal experience of the transcendent, or the
Bible containing thought-provoking ideas. On pages 134-135, Goldman
talks about how his Jewish professor, Louis Jacobs, was observant even
though he accepted scholarly constructions that dismissed the divine
revelation of the Torah on Mount Sinai. According to Goldman,
Jacobs rooted the authority of Jewish law, not in Sinai, but in "'the
historical experiences of the Jewish people,' which in itself, he
writes, is a type of revelation." Jacobs wrote that "There has to be a
different concept of revelation from that which obtained before the rise
of critical scholarship".
Would an HDS
discussion on life after death actually go anywhere in terms of
answering questions? I doubt that it would in the same way that such
would occur in a discussion in a small group fundamentalist Bible study:
a person cites a proof-text, and everyone is satisfied (though, in
conservative Christian Bible study groups where there are seminarians,
you'd probably get more nuance and more issues getting unresolved by the
end of the study). But, in an HDS discussion, you'd hear a variety of
opinions, and you'd probably walk out with a broad perspective about how
people have addressed the topic of life after death.
I
have to say, though, that I rarely heard any discussions about life
after death when I was at Harvard Divinity School, but I am speculating,
based on my impression of how the Bible and theology were treated by
students and professors when I was there.