Good insights. Waltke was always an ev scholar hero, and apocryphal (perhaps) stories of his linguistic prowess still abound at DTS. But he’s just one of many white male ev scholars whose books I’ve sold off the last few years, and for reasons you discuss. Alas…
If you are right about both Christian patriarchy and feminist critical theorists essentially expecting the same things of the text (gender conflict), there are some interesting parallels with the way Young Earth Creationists and New Atheists similarly approach the biblical texts and find "the conflict thesis" (science is at war with faith). I've been thinking about the parallels between Complementarianism and Creationism for about ten years now, not in terms of some pre-exisiting conflict narrative that gets imposed (though that's an interesting angle), but more in terms of the Fundamentalist's presumed model of human communication (code model). The code model is foundational to their views on verbal plenary inspiration and inerrancy, which are in turn foundational to the "plain readings" they insist on. But it's interesting to me how often the more Marxist-leaning idealogical opponents *need* people to presume those same "plain readings" in order for their assertions about the negative ways the texts are used to perpetuate power dynamics in society to hold up. Both camps are most focused on how the texts are *used* to construct and defend idealogies, and not so much on what the texts *mean* (authorial intent) in their ancient cultural context. So its interesting that you bring up that you would reject critical approaches based on your views on inspiration, though, I'd bet you have a different mental model of inspiration and communication than the Creationists and the Partriarchalists. "Views on inspiration" are usually fundamentally views on texts and hermeneutics; what are texts for, what do they do, what do we do with them, and ultimately, how do we construct meaning with them. Critical theory definitely affected the fairly recent shift from modern to post-colonial approaches to texts and translation, but post-colonialist readings seem to me to be much more concerned about "welcoming" the text, its authors, and original hearers on their own terms than the critical readings of the last century were. Anyway, I'm excited to read all the other chapters in the book Marissa is editing.
That’s a really interesting parallel! Young Earth Creationism is not an area of fundamentalism that I have done much work on, but I could easily believe the same dynamics are in play. And I have seen a weird meeting of minds with the new generation of non-religious conservatives and Christian fundamentalists, over things like (White) pronatalism and the alleged “dying of the west.” Yes, my view of inspiration is almost certainly different than most complementarians, or most critical theorists. I’m actually benefiting from some of the feminist critical theory work on Proverbs myself. The more recent stuff is definitely more even-handed. It’s just not an approach I myself would take to the text because my baseline assumption is that even though there is a diversity of human authors there is a single, over-arching “plot.”
Its not just the same dynamics at play, its the same players. YEC is baked into the Chicago Statement (in Article XIX and Article XXII) and the signatories include a bunch of prominent CBMW supporters. (Grudem, Carson, MacArthur, Ortlund, Moreland, Sproul to highlight a few: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1_typed.pdf)
That tracks. One thing that really annoys me about evangelical culture as a whole is that the thought leaders try to be experts on everything. But I guess that's kind of an inevitable outworking of their approach to Scripture. It's almost like they *have* to dump on experts and specialists to prove their loyalty to (theoretically) the Bible.
An amazing post that highlights my struggling to wrap my brain and heart around Romans 14, which is about food and festivals, but yet so much more ... "God's kingdom, you see, isn't about food and drink, but about justice (dare I say, women as imago dei), peace (how to live with each other) and joy (could use a little of that now) in the holy spirit." And Romans 15 "Each of us should please our neighbor for his or her good, to build them up." How do we do this in our world today without joining in the polarizing culture wars. Or letting today's heresies define me by what I am not. So the gospel of Messiah Jesus is my center. Jesus help me!
Very thought provoking! Two extremes keeping us distracted from the truth that is in the middle.
I agree with you, Jerri. This is one of the most provocative articles I’ve read in a long time.
Good insights. Waltke was always an ev scholar hero, and apocryphal (perhaps) stories of his linguistic prowess still abound at DTS. But he’s just one of many white male ev scholars whose books I’ve sold off the last few years, and for reasons you discuss. Alas…
If you are right about both Christian patriarchy and feminist critical theorists essentially expecting the same things of the text (gender conflict), there are some interesting parallels with the way Young Earth Creationists and New Atheists similarly approach the biblical texts and find "the conflict thesis" (science is at war with faith). I've been thinking about the parallels between Complementarianism and Creationism for about ten years now, not in terms of some pre-exisiting conflict narrative that gets imposed (though that's an interesting angle), but more in terms of the Fundamentalist's presumed model of human communication (code model). The code model is foundational to their views on verbal plenary inspiration and inerrancy, which are in turn foundational to the "plain readings" they insist on. But it's interesting to me how often the more Marxist-leaning idealogical opponents *need* people to presume those same "plain readings" in order for their assertions about the negative ways the texts are used to perpetuate power dynamics in society to hold up. Both camps are most focused on how the texts are *used* to construct and defend idealogies, and not so much on what the texts *mean* (authorial intent) in their ancient cultural context. So its interesting that you bring up that you would reject critical approaches based on your views on inspiration, though, I'd bet you have a different mental model of inspiration and communication than the Creationists and the Partriarchalists. "Views on inspiration" are usually fundamentally views on texts and hermeneutics; what are texts for, what do they do, what do we do with them, and ultimately, how do we construct meaning with them. Critical theory definitely affected the fairly recent shift from modern to post-colonial approaches to texts and translation, but post-colonialist readings seem to me to be much more concerned about "welcoming" the text, its authors, and original hearers on their own terms than the critical readings of the last century were. Anyway, I'm excited to read all the other chapters in the book Marissa is editing.
That’s a really interesting parallel! Young Earth Creationism is not an area of fundamentalism that I have done much work on, but I could easily believe the same dynamics are in play. And I have seen a weird meeting of minds with the new generation of non-religious conservatives and Christian fundamentalists, over things like (White) pronatalism and the alleged “dying of the west.” Yes, my view of inspiration is almost certainly different than most complementarians, or most critical theorists. I’m actually benefiting from some of the feminist critical theory work on Proverbs myself. The more recent stuff is definitely more even-handed. It’s just not an approach I myself would take to the text because my baseline assumption is that even though there is a diversity of human authors there is a single, over-arching “plot.”
Its not just the same dynamics at play, its the same players. YEC is baked into the Chicago Statement (in Article XIX and Article XXII) and the signatories include a bunch of prominent CBMW supporters. (Grudem, Carson, MacArthur, Ortlund, Moreland, Sproul to highlight a few: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1_typed.pdf)
That tracks. One thing that really annoys me about evangelical culture as a whole is that the thought leaders try to be experts on everything. But I guess that's kind of an inevitable outworking of their approach to Scripture. It's almost like they *have* to dump on experts and specialists to prove their loyalty to (theoretically) the Bible.
This is next-level analysis. Right here.
Thanks John!
An amazing post that highlights my struggling to wrap my brain and heart around Romans 14, which is about food and festivals, but yet so much more ... "God's kingdom, you see, isn't about food and drink, but about justice (dare I say, women as imago dei), peace (how to live with each other) and joy (could use a little of that now) in the holy spirit." And Romans 15 "Each of us should please our neighbor for his or her good, to build them up." How do we do this in our world today without joining in the polarizing culture wars. Or letting today's heresies define me by what I am not. So the gospel of Messiah Jesus is my center. Jesus help me!