Question Regarding the Use of Scripture in Scholarly Papers

[rmdmphilosopher]

I wasn't entirely sure where to put this question, but the exegetical forum seemed like the best place [moderators please relocate me if this is an improper question for this forum].

I'm currently hammering out some issues for a paper I'm writing for my college intellectual journal (Dordt Crossings). The paper is about "The Role of Scripture in Christian Scholarship", and I'm writing it for those of my peers who are training to be scholars in fields other than theology. A distressing misuse of Scripture in many of the papers that I've encountered among them demonstrates a strong desire to address the implications of their worldview for their particular area of study, but an equally strong ignorance of the proper way to do so. I've been formulating my ideas to give them a bit of direction. So far my essay will move along the following lines:

1. The high view of scripture which entails its relevance to every area of study.
2. The role of scripture in determining correct ideas.
3. The Christian scholar's duty toward scripture as God's word.
4. The duty of a Christian scholar to study scripture.
5. The duty of a Christian scholar to correctly employ scripture.
6. The duty of a Christian scholar to fully acknowledge the influence of scripture upon his own views.

But while developing these ideas, I was informed that "in most areas of scholarship, it is bad form to directly cite the way in which scripture has formed one's ideas, and we need Christian scholars to present their worldview implicitly rather than by explicitly noting its sources so their scholarship will not be written off."

Now this idea offends me. It almost makes me angry. How should I counter the view that non-theological scholarship is demeaned by direct association with Scripture? Why do Christian scholars I respect have this view? I'm annoyed and confused, and I want to mount a rebellion to the notion, but I need to know its sources... The source of the quote above assumes that approach as some sort of standard scholarly procedure, even among Christian scholars. How in the world can that be? Is he right, and I'm just out of the loop to expect a Christian scholar to boldly affirm the religious roots of his paradigm even for an apparently 'disconnected' subject--an affirmation which, it seems to me, does much to bear witness to the life-encompassing influence of true faith?

Thanks in advance--

 

[py3ak]

[I moved your thread to the general forum, since it is about the exegesis of a given passage or passages.]

 

[Ivan]

This is taken from the webpage of your college in the philosophy department. Note especially the bold-faced portion. Appears your professor hasn't read it.

As a philosophy major you will become acquainted with the thinking of philosophers through the ages as well as with contemporary philosophical thought. You will also be introduced to a Reformed, Christian philosophy, with an emphasis on a biblical worldview and its relationship to Christian theorizing. Philosophy is an important part of a Christian college education, because only when we see things in the light of God’s Word can we see the world as it really is: his handiwork, subject to his will, distorted by sin, and called to obedience and healing in Christ Jesus.

 

[Casey]

I don't know where exactly the idea originates. Perhaps the skepticism of the Enlightenment? But it seems to me the two-kingdom view -- which posits the civil kingdom as governed solely by natural law (and not the Scriptures) -- will surely perpetuate this idea. How this is not entirely contrary to Vantillian apologetics is beyond me (of course I don't mean to equate ones vocation with apologetics).

 

[rmdmphilosopher]

This is taken from the webpage of your college in the philosophy department. Note especially the bold-faced portion. Appears your professor hasn't read it.

Oh, no fear of that--it wasn't one of my professors. Most of them are ardently and explicitly Van Tillian. It was actually an alumnus who also works in a scholarly field.

 

[JohnGill]

I wasn't entirely sure where to put this question, but the exegetical forum seemed like the best place [moderators please relocate me if this is an improper question for this forum].

I'm currently hammering out some issues for a paper I'm writing for my college intellectual journal (Dordt Crossings). The paper is about "The Role of Scripture in Christian Scholarship", and I'm writing it for those of my peers who are training to be scholars in fields other than theology. A distressing misuse of Scripture in many of the papers that I've encountered among them demonstrates a strong desire to address the implications of their worldview for their particular area of study, but an equally strong ignorance of the proper way to do so. I've been formulating my ideas to give them a bit of direction. So far my essay will move along the following lines:

1. The high view of scripture which entails its relevance to every area of study.
2. The role of scripture in determining correct ideas.
3. The Christian scholar's duty toward scripture as God's word.
4. The duty of a Christian scholar to study scripture.
5. The duty of a Christian scholar to correctly employ scripture.
6. The duty of a Christian scholar to fully acknowledge the influence of scripture upon his own views.

But while developing these ideas, I was informed that "in most areas of scholarship, it is bad form to directly cite the way in which scripture has formed one's ideas, and we need Christian scholars to present their worldview implicitly rather than by explicitly noting its sources so their scholarship will not be written off."

Now this idea offends me. It almost makes me angry. How should I counter the view that non-theological scholarship is demeaned by direct association with Scripture? Why do Christian scholars I respect have this view? I'm annoyed and confused, and I want to mount a rebellion to the notion, but I need to know its sources... The source of the quote above assumes that approach as some sort of standard scholarly procedure, even among Christian scholars. How in the world can that be? Is he right, and I'm just out of the loop to expect a Christian scholar to boldly affirm the religious roots of his paradigm even for an apparently 'disconnected' subject--an affirmation which, it seems to me, does much to bear witness to the life-encompassing influence of true faith?

Thanks in advance--

I assume this is a Christian college. If it was not for the part of your quote that I bolded, I would have thought they were just assuming the person would engage in reasoning from scripture to the truth and therefore did not need to quote scripture.

However, it looks as if the person you quoted is trying to engage in neutrality I'm sure you have already thought of 2 Corinthians 10:4-6 and other such passages as a refutation.

I would look at the following online resources which deal with the Myth of Neutrality:

By This Standard by Greg Bahnsen (Part 1 Section A)

Greg Bahnsen - Lecture on “The Myth of Neutrality” « The Domain for Truth

The above has the Bahnsen video series in which he shatters the Myth of Neutrality.

I hope these help give you ideas to deal with the issue.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I don't know where exactly the idea originates. Perhaps the skepticism of the Enlightenment? But it seems to me the two-kingdom view -- which posits the civil kingdom as governed solely by natural law (and not the Scriptures) -- will surely perpetuate this idea. How this is not entirely contrary to Vantillian apologetics is beyond me (of course I don't mean to equate ones vocation with apologetics).

Excellent points Casey. I cannot figure out for the life of me how people can posit that there are things that are not under the rule of God's Law as if God's Law is only for the "individual" and not the corporate body.

 

[JohnGill]

I don't know where exactly the idea originates. Perhaps the skepticism of the Enlightenment? But it seems to me the two-kingdom view -- which posits the civil kingdom as governed solely by natural law (and not the Scriptures) -- will surely perpetuate this idea. How this is not entirely contrary to Vantillian apologetics is beyond me (of course I don't mean to equate ones vocation with apologetics).

Excellent points Casey. I cannot figure out for the life of me how people can posit that there are things that are not under the rule of God's Law as if God's Law is only for the "individual" and not the corporate body.

I think it comes from the retreating church mentality. In such churches they limit 2 Corinthians 10:4-6 only to our individual thought lives. They are against applying it to the church as a whole and to society at large. The best summation is the old quote, "You don't polish brass on a sinking ship."

With this mentality there is no need to reform society. One only has to wait for the rapture. If I remember correctly, this mentality grew strong after the Scopes Trial.

 

[Ex Nihilo]

But while developing these ideas, I was informed that "in most areas of scholarship, it is bad form to directly cite the way in which scripture has formed one's ideas, and we need Christian scholars to present their worldview implicitly rather than by explicitly noting its sources so their scholarship will not be written off."

Now this idea offends me. It almost makes me angry. How should I counter the view that non-theological scholarship is demeaned by direct association with Scripture? Why do Christian scholars I respect have this view?

Perhaps legal scholarship is a bit different (and probably has more room for conservatism than other fields), but citing the Bible in law review articles is common enough that the Bible has a special format in the Bluebook. Most of the articles probably cite the scriptures as a cultural artifact (I should research this issue), but I have seen at least one mainstream law review article that cites the Bible as an authority -- David A. Skeel, Jr. and William J. Stuntz, Christianity and the (Modest) Rule of Law, 8 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 809 (2006).

I suppose one could write an article that assumes, for example, total depravity without explaining or defending this belief. I think this would probably either confuse or alienate readers. But then, I think academics are too prone to hide the ball about their personal positions even when their writing assumes, implies, and subtly argues for them at every turn. Using Christian presuppositions to defend one tiny corner of the truth without placing that truth in the context of the whole gospel seems very odd to me.

 

[rmdmphilosopher]

Ah, thank you everyone...

Chris, thanks for the advice. The Myth of Neutrality was already the line I was taking dialectically (mostly depending on some cogent arguments from Clauser's book, which is a holy cow in areas influence by my college ;-). But I was not aware of Bahnsen's contributions on the subject. Thank you!

And Casey, I think you're onto something as well. Definitely onto something. I'll research the history of those two ideas.

Finally, Evie--that was some *very* useful information. I'll be getting my hands on a copy of the Bluebook, and using legal history as a strong historical argument (I'd already considered the possibility, from studies I'm also conducting for a paper on Christian influence on the legal conception of the nature of Law, but you've definitely decided me).

I think with these tips I should now be able to adequately answer the error on a historical basis. Thanks so much!

 

[JohnGill]

Ah, thank you everyone...

Chris, thanks for the advice. The Myth of Neutrality was already the line I was taking dialectically (mostly depending on some cogent arguments from Clauser's book, which is a holy cow in areas influence by my college ;-). But I was not aware of Bahnsen's contributions on the subject. Thank you!

And Casey, I think you're onto something as well. Definitely onto something. I'll research the history of those two ideas.

Finally, Evie--that was some *very* useful information. I'll be getting my hands on a copy of the Bluebook, and using legal history as a strong historical argument (I'd already considered the possibility, from studies I'm also conducting for a paper on Christian influence on the legal conception of the nature of Law, but you've definitely decided me).

I think with these tips I should now be able to adequately answer the error on a historical basis. Thanks so much!

What's the title of Clauser's book? It sounds interesting.

 

[rmdmphilosopher]

Chris: It is an interesting book. One of the cornerstones of reformational philosophy. The title is The Myth of Religious Neutrality. The first half, in my opinion, is the best, where Clauser demonstrates the absolute impossibility of any intellectual endeavor being religiously neutral; in the second half he essentially outlines Dooyeweerd's system--a handy reference for those without the time to become acquainted with that system on its own terms, but not nearly as valuable as the first part of the book.