Bart Ehrman: A wolf in sheep's clothing?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
I live in the same part of the same state as Dr. Bart Ehrman, though I've never met him. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, about 10 miles from where I live. He's also one of the nation's most prominent and well-known New Testament scholars, and his books sell like hotcakes.
In the newest issue of The Christian Century, I noticed that Dr. Ehrman has been invited to serve as the "theologian-in-residence" for Ecumenical Christian Ministries (or ECM), a consortium of student ministries at Kansas University and churches in the Lawrence, KS, area. As a part of his duties, Dr. Ehrman will travel to Lawrence to deliver a series of lectures this coming April.
Now in some ways, Dr. Ehrman's selection makes sense. As I mentioned, he is the author of numerous books on the New Testament, and he is a widely sought-after speaker. He has received teaching awards during his time as a professor at UNC. He is also well-known for his published courses through The Teaching Company. And, while as a biblical scholar Ehrman is not technically a "theologian," I'm sure ECM uses its "theologian-in-residence" label generously.
But in another way, Dr. Ehrman's selection makes no sense at all.
Why? Because he's an avowed agnostic who regularly proclaims that he does not believe in the God revealed in Jesus Christ.
Case in point: Dr. Ehrman is Terry Gross' most recent guest on NPR's Fresh Air. He appeared to be interviewed about his newest book, God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question - Why We Suffer. On Fresh Air's website, an excerpt from Dr. Ehrman's book is printed along with a promo about the interview, wherein he admits his agnosticism and says that, if there is a God, he does not believe it is the God proclaimed in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
This raises a question. I assume that the purpose of having a "theologian-in-residence" for your church-related organization is to invite someone in to speak who will, in some way, help to form your members in the Christian faith. If that is so, then why would you bring in a self-described agnostic who does not believe that Jesus is who he claims to be in the New Testament? I understand the desire to be edgy and provocative, but isn't it counterproductive to go in that direction if you end up encouraging agnosticism in those who are affected by his teaching?
A look at ECM's website triggered the knee-jerk reaction to just chalk it up to the character of the organization - ECM's mission statement says that it represents "a stream of the Christian faith tradition that tries to be intellectually honest, liberating, and sensitive to how we know mystery in our lives." Such nebulous statements are typical of Christian churches and organizations that are so wedded to the Protestant liberal narrative that they don't even realize they are in a state of slow suicide. But I don't really know anything about ECM, and it's not fair of me to jump to those conclusions.
So if this ministry cares about both the present spiritual well-being and the eternal salvation of its members, why would it invite a wolf in sheep's clothing into its midst? And as one with the authority of a teacher of Scripture, no less?
posted by Andrew C. Thompson at 8:40 PM
20 Comments:
Thanks, Andrew. I greatly enjoy Dr. Ehrman's Teaching Company courses, but you're dead on--inviting him to be a "theologian in residence" with a Christian organization is absurd. I mean "absurd" in the descriptive sense, not the pejorative. "Scholar in residence" sure, but not "theologian" To be a theologian presupposes a constructive relationship with the "Theos," which Ehrman--and I thank him being honest about his commitments--lacks as an agnostic. We can certainly learn much by critically engaging his scholarship, as with any scholar, but making him a "theologian in residence" presents him as something of a teacher of the Church, which he by his own testimony is not and does not aspire to.
I think it is important to remember that theologians-in-residence are tasked with working with HOW you think, HOW you process world events, and HOW you reconcile those with yourself. I don't think it is a prerequisite for a "pastor-in-residence" or a "bishop-in-residence" to be expected to get everyone to find the same spiritual formation they have...they are there to offer spiritual guidance through presence, coping, and processing world or personal events. Again, they are focused on how you process, not what the end result is.
In my opinion, criticizing a TIR that challenges the conventional conclusions of Christianity utterly ignores that it is the process of thought-building a TIR is focused on, not the end results.
For a case study, consider that Fourth Presbyterian Church of Chicago, in June 2006, welcomed Walter Brueggemann as their theologian-in-residence. The pastor welcomed him with these words:
"The church, therefore, is always something of a small theological seminary—in its worship and preaching, its teaching and serving, presenting an alternative way to think. So for me, inviting a distinguished Christian scholar to teach and preach and live with us for a while is a great gift and a wonderful affirmation of who we aspire to be as a Presbyterian church."
Finally, from looking at this ECMs history of TIRs, there is a strong emphasis on alternative ways of thinking without hysteria over their conclusions. Marcus Borg in 2001, fresh off of the Jesus Seminar? JD Crossan a few years later?
Here's the best one: Theologian in Residence 2003 Amy-Jill Levine, a Jewish scholar, overseeing a buncha christian organizations?
Clearly, the value is in the process of thinking, no matter what the individuals' conclusions are.
Theologians are meant to make you think differently and consider new modes of thinking you haven't done before. I see no wolf in sheeps' clothing, just another sheep encouraging the flock to think differently, even if they still follow the shepherd in the end.
i've heard borg and levine before, i quite like them. they are challenging, which i would hope a theologian would be. when i have heard ehrman before i thought he was kinda arrogant, which is no fun or challenging, just annoying.
as a theologian i would hope to have someone who opens doors of insight that were not there before. looking the list of prior people is ehrman anymore of a stretch? honestly, it's easy to claim an agnosticism. i'm more impressed with those who do all this critical study and still find faith. but that is the analytic in me
hi, cross and flame,
I believe I hear the point you are making, but I would insist that even those you've mentioned would qualify as theologians-in-residence given their self-description as persons of faith (even though perhaps belonging to a liberal expression of Christian faith). Even Amy-Jill Levine, though a Jewish theologian, is still clearly a theologian and, though not a teacher within the Christian Church, could be quite a constructive conversationalist with Christians and thus a valuable theologian-in-residence with such a group. But Ehrman, a fine scholar, defines himself as not only outside of orthodoxy, evangelicalism, or even quite liberal expressions of Christianity, but as an agnostic who has ruled out the God of the Christian Scriptures! Simply because we can learn much by engaging him does not make him a "theologian" in residence.
Besides, if theology is "faith seeking understanding," wouldn't that mean that a theologian would at minimum need to be someone who was seeking to understand how to have faith or be faithful?
In my recent post (seized by truth 5) on Joel Green's book Seized by Truth: Reading the Bible as Christian Scripture, assertion #2 about the authority of Scripture gets at this point well, I think. Ehrman is a fine scholar of textual criticism and historical study, but discerns no claim of the Christian Story upon his life. Therefore, he lacks an essential quality of a theologian, no matter their persuation: personal stake in the significance of Scripture and a listening ear to the invitation of Scripture.
The real point isn't Ehrman, though. He's just honestly being who he is. The absurdity (again, description, not pejorative) is in the campus organization's having embraced a modern religious narrative in which "agnostic scholar" and "theologian" are not recognized as more than merely dissonant notes in the score.
Just a comment on your imagery: Ehrman has always seemed to me to be more of a "sheep in wolf's clothing" - taking well-known information from the world of Biblical scholarship & repackaging it as something new and daring and explosive.
Instead of calling your book "Textual Varients in the NT" call it "Misquoting Jesus" put a blurb on the dustjacket about how new & daring the book is. It sells a lot more books. (Never mind it's not especailly about "Misquoting Jesus" at all.)
Maybe he's doing the world a favor in the long run: making information about the NT and the world of the early church more widely known and discussed. Maybe. He just seems like the master of shameless self-promotion to me.
I think Andrew's point is valid. Certainly the organization has every right to bring in who they want as their representative, but I grow more and more tired with organizations and churches that want to RADICALLY redefine "conventional Christianity." If "conventional Christianity" refers to belief in a loving triune God revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then I guess I'm just conventional. I'm all for creative thought that tests the boundaries but that assumes boundaries. And those are bad...why? FYI: Walter Brueggamann is NOT comparable to Ehrman. Brueggaman is someone who thinks creatively from WITHIN the Christian faith, not as one outside throwing stones at we poor misguided idiots.
It's a fine line talking between ad hominem attacks and legitimate evaluation of character (ethos) in relation to what one says (logos). When you're an opportunistic former-Christian, I think you have little right in shaping Christian faith. In this case, character is essential to evaluation of the message.
I have read one of Bart's text books before, I believe it was his intro to the NT. I found it to be almost subversive. He starts off almost Christian, and then you end up agnostic if not almost altheist.
Grant it, a lot of scholars come off as arrogant, i.e. BW3. So I don't think that should be held against him. BE's style is engaging and conversational, and easy for the layman to read.
For me, the issue with Ehrman is that he is advertised as a renown Christian NT scholar, which he obviously is not. Further, his critics seem to be able to very easily shoot holes is his theories and assumptions.
Yes, he might well be more bark than bite, or as a previous comment said the "sheep in wolf's clothing".
Please don't misunderstand my intentions: I don't feel like I'm defending Ehrman so much as asserting that an agnostic is an acceptable theologian-in-residence (TIR). I'm certainly not comparing him to Brueggemann (as Casey Taylor posits), but rather showing the thought and interpretative processes behind choosing a TIR.
Initially, we may have to disagree on the definition of theology.
- guymwilliams asserts it is "faith seeking understanding": this would exclude agnostics.
- David Brooks in Oxford's Theology, asserts it is "thinking about questions raised by and about the religions": this would include agnostics as they can engage the questions without faith.
- Gustavo Gutierrez in Theology of Liberation asserts it is "critical reflection on praxis...human action as the point of departure for all reflection": this would include agnostics as they can engage questions arising from human action.
Thus, given the variety of understandings of theology, I would assert that a person who has studied, lived, breathed, and rejected faith is a valuable conversation partner for a campus ministry.
For a silly example, say Michael Jordan came out and said he hated basketball and thought the entire culture of basketball was awful. Would you turn down a chance to play a game with him and have him coach you? It is the skills of processing that an expert brings to the table, not the conclusions. From all the comments on his conclusions, I'm not seeing anyone criticizing his skills at writing, speaking, and nuancing the Christian faith. And those are exactly the qualities needed for a TIR.
crossandflame - if I misunderstood the comparison between Brueggemann and Ehrman, my apologies.
I get the difference between "the skills of processing" and "the conclusions." Yet I press the question: must we not rethink the so-called theologian's methods if his conclusions are so drastically off base?
I also saw the ad in The Christian Century, and having just heard his interview on NPR, I was very skeptical.
Even worse was an event in 2007 at High Point University, where Ehrman had been the Keller Visiting Scholar in Religion. Ehrman was invited to speak at an event for United Methodist clergy from the WNCC on how to interpret Scripture. I was incensed, and I called and complained. He was a bad choice for someone to be lecturing United Methodist clergy on how to interpret Scripture.
(Interestingly, Will Willimon had been the Keller Visiting Scholar of Religion the previous year at High Point.)
Can anyone imagine Democrats hiring Karl Rove as a political strategist, just because he has considerable knowledge and skills in the area of political strategy?
Thanks to all for what has been a very interesting discussion. Let me add a few follow-up thoughts:
Cross+Flame says that he is not so much defending Ehrman personally as defending the notion of having an agnostic as a theologian-in-residence for a church or Christian organization. I disagree there. I don't think it can just be a matter of discussing the skills of processing, disconnected from the conclusions at which one arrives. The process seems intimately and necessarily connected to the conclusions, as does the person who is doing the processing. And the basketball analogy here doesn't work, because the ends of the sport of basketball and the ends of the Christian faith are qualitatively different. A rejection of basketball reflects an individual preference for a particular sport; a rejection of the Christian faith entails a rejection of one's creator and redeemer.
I assume that the very notion of brining a theologian into a faith community is for the purpose of engaging in a practice, and that practice must be something related to spiritual formation, discipleship formation, communal reading of Scripture, etc. If you want to teach the discipuli, it seems obvious that you would want a magister who not only knows the material intellectually but has been virtuously formed by the reality to which the material points. And Ehrman's case represents an abysmal failure at formation. Not only has he rejected the faith; he cavalierly trots around teaching Christians as if the Bible is just a musty old text that we can best learn about through historical-critical exegesis. That, friends, seems to be the epitome of Matthew 7:15-20.
It would be well worth anyone's time to listen to the debate between Bart Ehrman and Richard Hays on the Da Vinci Code (available on a Duke podcast). In it, Ehrman continually refers to his education at Moody Bible Institute. Hays finally calls him on that, and suggests that he needs to move on. It was a good-natured ha-ha moment, but it also revealed a deeper truth: Bart Ehrman is still living in adolescent rebellion against his fundamentalist childhood. When you listen to him today, it is obvious that he is still reacting to fundamentalism. The tragedy is that he seems unaware that agnosticism and fundamentalism are not the only two options.
yeah, i want to look at this issue from another perspective. in that photo of ehrman, is he standing in front of duke divinity school? it certainly looks like it. hey bart, you picked non-gothic unc so live with it buddy! sorry, it's late, and i had to make fun of something.
The situation with Ehrman is different, because he once was a pastor and a real believer, even learning many foreign languages so he could study the Bible in its original Aramaic and Greek; it just so happens that he came upon an issue (suffering) which he felt Christianity had an inconsistent answer for, and it led him to not believe.
Rather than saying that Ehrman has no place as a theologian in residence, why don't you all get to work on solving the problem that led him to becoming agnostic, the idea that God is either omnipotent and can change things and doesn't want to, or the idea that God is not omnipotent yet would like to change things (in which case he's not the God we read about in the Old Testament)? I'm sure many other people struggle with this issue every day, and in fact I bought his book because it is something I have often thought about and have found no answer for.
"one outside throwing stones at we poor misguided idiots."
I bought Ehrman's latest book and in fact, he does not view Christians that way. He said at times he wishes he still believed. His wife is an English professor at Duke who still is a Christian. He has great empathy for Christians. He counseled them for many years as a pastor. You never lose that.
"When you're an opportunistic former-Christian, I think you have little right in shaping Christian faith. In this case, character is essential to evaluation of the message."
I am a Christian myself, but I don't actually think that "character" has anything to do with whether one believes in God or not. Some people have issues that they struggle to deal with that have made them not believe (a close relative's death, to name one example). I don't think they should be dismissed out of hand as someone lacking "character." Some of the agnostics I know have quite sadly come to that conclusion and are upset about it, and they're some of the sweetest people I know.
I don't find Ehrman "opportunistic," either. He made the decision a long time ago to learn more about the Bible than many of us could dream of, write about it academically, learn the languages, and do this all at a university while teaching students. He's not suddenly going to say that he's not going to be a professor of religion anymore just because he doesn't believe in a certain one. He studied for many years to get to where he is. He could always start believing again, as well. Elaine Pagels of Princeton has said that she stopped believing after her husband and, I believe, son both died within a year in the '80s. Now she has come back around to believing again. That doesn't mean she should have quit her job at Princeton during that time in the '80s. She still was one of the best scholars on the Bible.
Gloria, thanks for your comment. I was unaware that Ehrman was formerly a pastor. I thought he had gone straight through and gotten his Ph.D in biblical studies. Can anyone confirm that he is either ordained and/or has served a pastoral appointment?
I think the comment about character being central to the presentation of a message refers to the relationship between the person giving the message and the content of the message itself (not whether or not character reflects the reality of belief or not). That is, an audience's reception of a message will always be tied in some sense to the character of the person presenting it. You might think of a preacher delivering a sermon here. If he is preaching on the virtue of simple living as an aspect of discipleship, while the whole congregation knows him to be a greedy, covetous wretch, then the nature of the message is changed by the character of the person delivering it. The pastor in that situation is inherently untrustworthy.
Likewise, if a man like Ehrman - an apostate former Christian with a grudge against God - is lecturing on Jesus, his content is inherently untrustworthy. And that is extremely important when you have a group of eager young disciples gathered. What if he tells them not to believe in the bodily resurrection? What if he denies the Trinity? These are core doctrines of the faith, and they may be compromised in his young audience simply because the audience regards him as "an authority" (a status reinforced by the fact that the campus ministry has invited him in as a "theologian").
On your other point, the problem of evil and suffering is a perennial one in theology, but Ehrman's black-and-white presentation of it as either "Omnipotent God who doesn't care" or "Limited God who can't help" is naive and simplistic. I question whether Ehrman actually believes this, or if he presents it in this way because he knows it will find a ready lay audience. He ignores huge swaths of the tradition that speak directly to theodicy, not least of which are the problem of sin (and what it has done to both human nature and the creation) and soteriology (which is a process of redemption that is even now ongoing).
If Ehrman really believes God should just step in and hit the "reset" button Nintendo-style as soon as he stamps his foot, then he is showing a deep ignorance of the Christian theological tradition. If he is familiar with the tradition and chooses to ignore it in favor of presenting a false dichotomy to his lay readers, then he is being both obtuse about the tradition's reasoning and intellectually dishonest about his presentation of the Christian witness.
Ehrman seems to demonstrate the worst combination of a naive fundamentalism (now deconstructed) and a slavish devotion to the historical-critical method. (Neither of which, of course, is going to give you satisfying answers to theodicy). I frankly don't buy it, but I don't know why else he would couch the options in the way that he does.
He was a pastor at Princeton Baptist Church for years. That would mean he must be ordained.
Not to offend, but since you didn't know he was a former pastor, it seems that you don't really know that much about him. Perhaps it would be best to read one of his books before discussing him negatively. :)
From what I can tell of Ehrman, he does not try to tell people not to believe and does not say negative things about Jesus or the Trinity or other aspects of faith like that (unless telling about their historical origins and the way they were phrased in the original language). I have not read everything he's ever written, though, so I'm not an expert to talk about that. I guess I'm a "naive and simplistic" "lay reader" who "ignores huge swaths of the tradition" (but then again, so are 99.9% of Christians and potential Christians in this world, who are most likely the people you're going to have to be dealing with as a pastor).
As I said, I'm not the only wondering Christian who has debated these issues, and I haven't gotten a fully satisfactory answer. It's not an issue that should just be dismissed as something that's explained by "the tradition." The tradition doesn't always help a mother whose child dies, or a girl who's lost her boyfriend, and these are some of the people you're definitely going to be counseling as a pastor.
Actually, the "black-and-white presentation" was MY summary, not the way Ehrman says it. He wrote an entire book on it, so he obviously goes into many more gray areas and many more details than I did in my quick phrasing. He does go into everything the Bible says regarding suffering (sin and everything else) in later chapters which I have not yet gotten to.
I really think you should actually take a look at what Ehrman says and writes before writing so negatively about him (and actually mischaracterizing him in a few ways). I'm sure I do the same thing you're doing at times, but Jesus wouldn't, and we all want to be more like him, don't we? Sometimes we can get caught up in the details of the Bible and forget the main themes-- being kind and generous with others and loving everyone as we love ourselves. :)
My general point is that as a Christian, I have found what Ehrman says to be interesting and enlightening in some ways. I have also found discussions with atheist or agnostic friends to strengthen my own faith, and if you can't discuss religion with these types of people, you probably don't have a strong religion in the first place. Whether he's called a "theologian" or not is a small issue. According to Wikipedia, theology "has been defined as reasoned discourse about God or the gods, or more generally about religion or spirituality. Theologians use various forms of analysis and argument (philosophical, ethnographic, historical) to help understand, explain, test, critique, defend or promote any of a myriad of religious topics."
Keywords: "god or gods... analysis and argument.. understand, explain, test, critique, defend or promote" By this definition, the Dalai Lama is a theologian, although he's not a Christian-- as is Ehrman certainly. I have actually learned a lot from the Dalai Lama about love and empathy. You can learn things from people who are not Christian that make you a better Christian.
The main idea is that he would be an interesting person for Christians to talk with and it would be an interesting way to spend the time for these students.
Gloria, thanks for the clarification on Ehrman's pastoral background. I checked Ehrman's background statements on his UNC Religious Studies homepage, the Teaching Company professors' bio page, his Oxford University Press bio page, his Wikipedia entry, and his up-to-date (as of Sept 2007) C.V. on www.bartdehrman.com (which I assume is his own homepage). Not one of those sources mention any professional or pastoral position prior to his teaching work as a graduate student. Does he, perhaps, mention it an introductory portion to one of his books? I honestly don't know.
My familiarity with Ehrman's work comes through having read & used his New Testament historical introduction and his anthology of NT and apocryphal texts (both published by Oxford). I have also listened to both his Early Xianty to Constantine and his Apostolic Fathers Teaching Company lecture series. And I've heard him on interviews such as the one with NPR's Fresh Air. So while my comments do not come with a full familiarity with his corpus of work, neither do they come from ignorance of his approach or methods.
I think you may be confusing the problems I have with Ehrman's methodology with problems more personal in nature. I have no doubt he is a kind and sensitive person, and I have always heard good things about his teaching ability. But I didn't write, after all, that I think he's a wolf in a wolf's clothing. I said I thought he was a wolf in sheep's clothing. Coming out and preaching loudly against the Trinity or the full divinity of Christ would be easy to counter. What is more insidious is the smooth-talking manner of a formerly-Christian Religious Studies professor who presents the historical-critical method as the most reliable guide to knowledge of God or Christ. What would seem quite reasonable to an un-educated layperson is, according to the teaching of the church, out-and-out heresy. Ehrman's problem is not that he isn't nice; it's that he has no concept of pneumatology, and without that, one can have no sense of how the Scriptures can communicate a truth that is not answered with reference to textual variations, the arbitrary privileging of certain methodologies, and an obsession with such long-standing quandries as the Synoptic Problem that lead to conclusions almost always opposite that of the catholic tradition. (As an example, note the almost pathological obsession that Ehrman, in particular, has with claiming that none of the books of the NT save for a few of the Pauline epistles, could possibly have been written by the people that either the texts or the tradition claim that they have.)
I am glad you've learned a lot from Ehrman, and I do not suggest that other mature, knowledgeable Christians cannot do the same. But it is a great foundationalist error to think that we all hatch out of eggs ready to make judgments about right and wrong, truth and error. We must be formed, and doing that responsibly before opening someone up to heretical options is important (hence my point about having Ehrman come to talk to college students).
As a point of clarification, I am not studying to be a pastor. I am a pastor currently, and I am back in school working on a doctorate. I have served pastoral appointments both in campus ministry and the local church. I know firsthand how important it is to have college students formed in the right environment. And I have, indeed, sat with those grieving mothers and fathers as they try to make sense of the deaths of their children. It is exactly the tradition that allowed me to know how to pastor in those situations - not because I quoted Augustine or John Wesley to them, but because the truth of the triune God taught to me through the tradition gave me what I needed to know to minister in a compassionate way.
I only write at this length to try and continue to explain what I meant in the earlier post and subsequent comments. Gloria, again thank you for the conversation.
It seems to me that an accomplished scholar who happens to be an agnostic is a fine choice for the position if the quest is for the truth.
It's only when the quest is confined to what is already presumed to be the truth that it becomes dangerous to invite a non-believer to lead the discussion.
Resorting to name-calling highlights the bias. Professor Ehrman is not a wolf in sheep's clothing - his beliefs are well publicized. Characterizing him as such also implies that the people with whom he interacts have no intellect of their own and have simply been indoctrinated into Christian beliefs and must be protected from "subversive" outside influences.
Texas Freethinker, your comments about the quest for truth beg questions of epistemology that are not at all obvious. How does one go about searching for and finding the truth? What is truth?
The received teaching of the church is that truth is Jesus Christ, which is why the passage in John 18 where Pontius Pilate asks his famous question is so telling. When one stands in the presence of the Truth, one either affirms or denies that it is so. The kind of Enlightenment rationalist form of truth-searching to which you are alluding is not the epistemological ground on which the church bases its affirmations about the Son of God.
As to your final paragraph, please refer to the long train of comments preceding your own. I suggested that Ehrman is a wolf in sheep's clothing for some specific reasons, none of which had to do with a need either to resort to petty name-calling or to suggest that he conceals his own beliefs.
Post a Comment
<< Home