Who's Online
We have 3 guests online
|
Home
Bradley G. Green
|
|
|
My New Book, The Gospel and the Mind |
|
|
|
|
Written by Brad Green
|
|
Tuesday, 13 July 2010 18:32 |
|

At the risk of being self-aggrandizing, I am happy to share that my new book, The Gospel and the Mind: Recovering and Shaping the Intellectual Life, will be published this November with Crossway. It is currently available for pre-order at Crossway's web page, and at Amazon. The book is centered in an observation and a question. The observation: wherever the gospel goes the academy follows. That is, there appears to be an inextricable link between the Christian gospel and the flowering of learning. The question: why? When the gospel takes hold in a culture, it inevitably leads to intellectual inquiry, the quest for truth, and a robust intellectual life. If this is true, we should expect that when the gospel loses sway in a culture there is an increased confusion about the possibility of knowledge, and about the importance or even possibility of a viable intellectual life.
|
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 18 July 2010 13:07 )
|
|
Lone Starr: The Eyes of More Than Texas Are on Baylor's New President |
|
|
|
|
Written by Brad Green
|
|
Monday, 12 July 2010 19:08 |
|
 As a Baylor graduate, I was intrigued that Baylor's Board of Regents chose Ken Starr to be its next President (he started June 1, 2010). I have written an essay for Touchstone magazine (July/August 2010), "Lone Starr: The Eyes of More Than Texas Are on Baylor's New President," in which I offer some thoughts on Baylor. The article is not (yet) posted online, but the links above go to the Touchstone web page. I will post the essay online next month. To those who have not read Touchstone, I would recommend it highly.
|
|
Last Updated ( Saturday, 04 September 2010 12:27 )
|
|
Sharing the Gospel at the Society of Biblical Literature |
|
|
|
|
Written by Brad Green
|
|
Tuesday, 22 June 2010 16:23 |
|
An interesting twist on the situation with Ronald Hendel and the Society of Biblical Literature (see my earlier post at bradleyggreen.com). The SBL leadership decided to respond to Ronald Hendel’s essay,“Farewell to SBL: Faith and Reason in Biblical Studies” (in the July/August 2010 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review). In Hendel’s article he claims that the SBL has removed the term “critical” from its moniker/motto, supposedly because the SBL is trying to curry favor with evangelicals and fundamentalists, and hence boost membership.
Another of Hendel’s claims is that at some SBL meetings some members have tried to share the gospel with other persons. Well, the SBL will have none of that. The “claim” and “clarification” below, from a letter sent to SBL members (yes, I am a member), makes clear that the SBL is a very sensitive and tolerant organization and by all means will not tolerate any lack of “tolerance.” Read: there shall be no attempt to “proselytize” anybody at an officially sanctioned SBL event.
So, be on the watch at the next SBL meeting, because “proselytizing activity is neither welcome nor permitted in SBL-sponsored events and publications and is inconsistent with the SBL’s core values . . .” Make sure and quickly contact your nearest SBL staff member if you see anyone trying to share the word of life, the precious gospel, with any other person.
Here is the language from the SBL’s e-mail to SBL members:
'Claim: The current SBL environment, which includes instances of proselytizing activity as well as veiled theological denunciations of certain individuals or groups, is hostile to a critical approach to biblical studies.
Clarification: Although SBL invites vigorous discussion of all relevant topics, proselytizing activity is neither welcome nor permitted in SBL-sponsored events and publications and is inconsistent with the SBL’s core values: accountability, inclusiveness, collaboration, leadership in biblical scholarship, collegiality, productivity, commitment, responsiveness to change, communication, scholarly integrity, efficiency, and tolerance. Consequently, any instances of proselytizing activity should be reported to SBL staff. Further, we are unaware of any RBL reviews that even “hint” that anyone is “going to hell.” If any SBL member can point us to such a review, we will immediately remove the review and disavow its sentiments.'
In short, the prophets, the apostles, Paul, and Jesus would all be very unwelcome at the world's largest society of academics committed to the study of the Bible. |
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 09 July 2010 21:52 )
|
|
Faith and Reason and Studying the Bible |
|
|
|
|
Written by Brad Green
|
|
Tuesday, 22 June 2010 00:31 |
|
I have just read Ronald Hendel’s piece in Biblical Archaeology Review, "Biblical Views: Farewell to SBL: Faith and Reason in Biblical Studies" (July/August 2010). Hendel laments that the Society of Biblical Literature appears to be pandering or catering to "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" groups.As Hendel sees it, the SBL has dropped the word "critical" from its motto in order to attract more conservative biblical scholars. Traditionally, SBL’s motto included the language, "founded in 1860 to foster critical biblical scholarship." Recently the language which appears is ". . . to foster biblical scholarship"—"critical" has dropped out. This displeases Hendel. The word "critical" should be reinstated—on Hendel’s view—for the SBL should be committed to "reason" not "faith." I do not really have a dog in the hunt over whether to include the word "critical." But Hendel's piece is interesting because it is as sterling an example of modernist and dogmatic enlightenment thought that one is likely to find.
There are many things that could be said about Hendel’s piece, but let us note his use of Blaise Pascal. Hendel quotes Pascal: "The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know.” Hendel comments: "Pascal's Pensées draws a wise distinction between religious faith and intellectual inquiry. The two have different motivations and pertain to different domains of experience. They are like oil and water, things that do not mix and should not be confused. Pascal was a brilliant mathematician, and he did not allow his Catholic beliefs to interfere with his scholarly investigations." He continues: "...facts are facts, and faith has no business dealing in the world of facts. Faith resides in the heart and in one’s way of living in the world."
This is a wonderful example of the mindset of modernist and dogmatic enlightenment thinking. It is, in short, dogmatism parading as free-thinking. It is classic pietism, the type of pietism that sometimes follows a trajectory to an anti-intellectualism and sometimes follows a trajectory to old-school liberalism. For Hendel, faith has to do with what goes on in the human heart while reason or intellectual inquiry has to do with what goes on in the human mind. Classic pietism.
Pascal might be read in this way at points. But a fuller reading of Pascal will likely point us in another direction.
For Pascal, our intellectual inquiry and deliberation is shaped all the way down by the state of our hearts. That is, our intellectual abilities are always thoroughly shaped by our relationship to Jesus himself, and whether we are in submission to him.
Indeed, intellectual error is directly related to our moral character. Pascal would write: “Those who do not love truth excuse themselves on the ground that it is disputed and that very many people deny it. Thus their error is due to the fact that they love neither truth nor charity, so they have no excuse.”[1] Indeed, writes Pascal: “The greatness of wisdom, which is nothing if it does not come from God, is invisible to carnal and intellectual people. They are three orders differing in kind."[2] What is needed, contended Pascal, is to see all things through Jesus Christ. Apart from this, we would have no true knowledge. Hence, Pascal is a true Augustinian when he wrote:
"Not only do we only know God through Jesus Christ, but we only know ourselves through Jesus Christ; we only know life and death through Jesus Christ. Apart from Jesus Christ we cannot know the meaning of our life or our death, of God or of ourselves.
Thus without Scripture, whose only object is Christ, we know nothing, and can see nothing but obscurity and confusion in the nature of God and in nature itself".[3]
Indeed, we know nothing truly if we do not know it in the light of Christ and Scripture.
Friedrich Nietzsche understood Pascal quite well when he summarized Pascal, even though Nietzsche disagreed with Pascal. Nietzsche summarizes Pascal as follows: “Our inability to know the truth is the consequence of our corruption, our moral decay.”[4]
There is much more which could be said of Hendel’s piece. But one thing should be said: Pascal and many like him did not drive a wedge between faith andreason. On the contrary: our intellectual lives are inextricably linked to one’s relationship to Christ, and true knowledge requires that one bows to the risen Jesus.
[1] Blaise Pascal, Pensèes, translated by A.J. Krailsheimer (Harmondsworth:Penguin Books, 1966), 84.
[2] Pascal, Pensèes, 308.
[3] Pascal, Pensèes, 417.
[4] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, translated by Walter Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale (New York:Vintage Books, 1968), I.83.
|
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 09 July 2010 15:07 )
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 2 of 11 |
|
|