While I was intrigued, I also had a hunch—somehow, somewhere in her short life this girl was disappointed with God.  The NYT reporter writes: “Jessica said she had stopped believing in God when she was in elementary school and her mother fell ill for a time. ‘I had always been told that if you pray, God will always be there when you need him,’ she said. ‘And it didn’t happen for me, and I doubted it had happened for anybody else. So yeah, I think that was just like the last step, and after that I just really didn’t believe any of it.’”

Unfortunately Jessica joins a myriad of others who prove that it is easier to lower one’s view of God then to raise one’s faith to trust God even when life is disappointing. (See the whole article here.)

Witherington reminds those on the path of scholarship that they need to be:

Readers: “If you read good modern English literature and absorb it, will help you become a more articulate person and a better writer. We could use some better writers among biblical teachers and scholars. Too much of what passes for lesson plans for classes and Bible, and textbooks for those classes, is dull as dishwater and twice as murky” (60).

Teachable: “The Bible is not just intended for information and education. It’s not intended to be just a great piece of literature that merely intrigues or mildly inspires. It’s intended for human transformation, and a teacher who cannot help an audience with the latter is handicapped. Indeed, the teacher who has not personally been transformed by the text cannot properly embody it, embrace it, model it, call for emulation of it, and the like. The Jewish or Christian teacher who is constantly coming to grips with the text will be closely challenged to live it” (125).

Humble: “Another aspect of Christian character that is needed to be a good and godly Bible teacher and a scholar is a willingness to give the text the benefit of the doubt before leaping to the conclusion that the text is: (1) riddled with contradictions, (2) is unclear, or (3) is hopelessly antiquarian and thus obsolete and irrelevant. One of the things that has often surprised me about some Bible scholars is that they will not give the Bible the same benefit of the doubt they will give their colleagues theories even if the theory is wild and wooly” (129).

I liked his definition of a critical scholar: “A critical scholar is one who is capable of being self-critical and self-corrective, as well as being able to cast a discerning eye on the biblical text. The critical scholar is one who is honest about the text and about what they do and don’t understand about the text” (131).  He observes on an earlier page that some scholars mistake skepticism for critical thinking.

For those in PhD studies or those wanting to be, it is worth the read.

Ben Witherington III, Is There a Doctor in the House?: An Insider’s Story and Advice on Becoming a Bible Scholar, is a profitable little book.  If you are a PhD student below are two gems of advice that Witherington offers:

“Beware of displacement activities instead of concentrating hard on researching and writing the dissertation. Beware of working on a PhD in procrastination” (italics original. Is There a Doctor in the House?: An Insider’s Story and Advice on Becoming a Bible Scholar, 31).

“Research by Christian is never done just for its own sake, or even just to advance knowledge in a given field. It is done in service to the Lord and to his church. I must confess I’m sometimes baffled by some Christian NT scholars who are perfectly content to just talk to small circles of like-minded experts without any sense of responsibility to share their knowledge with a broader audience—indeed with the church” (ibid., 84).

I am also reading Fair Game by Valerie Plame Wilson and The Company We Keep: A Husband and Wife True Life Spy Story by Robert and Dayna Baer.  Both are true stories that chronicle the lives of CIA operatives.  Not much here to blog about for OT studies or PhD students…but I’ll keep looking .

What I find troubling about the article is not their characterization of fundamentalism, presidential candidates, or their misrepresentation of what the Bibles states about gay marriage.  What I find troubling is their presupposition.  Based on their reasoning if a fellow Christian believes that the Bible does not support evolution and that the Bible has not stuttered on the issue of homosexuality (as well as a host of other equally abhorrent sins), that fellow Christian has somehow lost rationale thought.

To choose to accept a literal interpretation of Genesis does not prove that a Christian is anti-intellectual anymore than accepting certain scientific theories uncritically makes one intellectual. What these positions do demonstrate is the presupposition that undergird such choices.

It is clear that Giberson and Stephens have chosen to let scientific observation trump a literal reading of the Bible.  I, on the other hand, have chosen to let a literal reading of the scripture trump scientific theory.

To say that such a literal reading of the Bible is “to embrace discredited, ridiculous and even dangerous ideas” is to expose one’s presupposition.  In addition such name-calling does not foster dialogue within evangelicalism nor does it demonstrate humility which the authors seem to value.

If I understand their argument correctly:  Christians are anti-intellectual if they reject certain scientific theories.  But it is not anti-intellectual if a Christian rejects certain literal readings of an ancient, theological/historical document, the Bible.

It seems according to the authors that to be intellectual you must on the one hand embrace without reservation or qualification Darwinism evolution, homosexuality, gay marriage, study under a prof from a major research university and vote Democratic.  On the other hand to be intellectual you must reject simplistic theology, a literal reading of the Bible, creationism, young earth, spanking, traditional gender roles and the Republican Party.

This article does not expose anti-intellectualism in evangelicalism.  It does, however, expose presuppositions.

But he did offer some insight concerning the benefits of poetry.  While he is speaking about the use of poetry in settling the mind (107), his insights into the “mechanics” of poetry are helpful for those who study OT poetry.

Foster offers three benefits of reading poetry:

“Poetry startles us with its economy of words and beauty of language…. Words, carefully chosen…have a way of slowing us down and focusing our attention on essential matters” (107).  If one wants to understand the poetry of the OT it must be read slowly and thoughtfully.  Not much is gained by racing through a psalm.

“If you are anything like me, you simply do not understand what the poet is saying on the first read. This forces us to stop and go back and read the words again. And again” (Ibid.).  Should probably read this statement again. J

“The mind is often captured by the metaphor of a poem” (Ibid.). When a poet employs a metaphor the reader is forced to understand how two very different “things” are in someway in the poet’s mind similar.   This necessitates a slow, deliberate rereading and a pondering of this relationship. For instance see Ps 73: 22

So while I have been stymied in his practice of meditative prayer, I will meditate on his insights on poetry.

And did I mention that once you scroll over a text and click you will be provided with an English translation as well?  You can test your Hebrew reading—without vowels!

Currently, some of the scrolls will be on display at the Discovery Times Square in NYC beginning October 28, 2011.  See the website here. The exhibit features, ” the famed Dead Sea Scrolls, a stone from the Western Wall from the Second Temple in Jerusalem and more than 500 never-before-seen artifacts from biblical times.”  The exhibit will be in Philadelphia in May at the Franklin Institute.

One of the campaign ideas was to put scripture verses on billboards throughout the Greater Manchester area.  The billboards would not showcase the generic John 3:16 but something “unexpected.”

An early concept was to put Song of Solomon 4:5—Your two breasts are life fawns, twins of the gazelles…” on billboards with the tag line: “The Bible: Unexpected Saucy.” The Society hoped that the provocative ads would get the public thinking about the word of God.

While the verse would certainly grab the public’s attention, the Society deemed the use of the Song “too risky and imprudent.” Instead they settled for ads that had the theme of “Riddles of Life.” The ad campaign offered a £ 7,000 award to go to a charity of the winner’s choice.

The contest was won by a Christian. The Society conceded that their campaign was not a success. It seems that money did not motivate the public to recognize the Bible’s relevance. Maybe they should have used the Song .