Hector Avalos is an interesting fellow, as an article in the Iowa State Daily demonstrates. Avalos is professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Iowa State, a former child evangelist and a Harvard graduate. He's also the bete noir of many who find it hard to believe that you can be involved in fields like biblical studies without being a committed church member. Such a view was recently expressed by Jim West on his influential blog while commenting on something written by an obscure, minor figure in the Reformed tradition whose name escapes me.
The idea that (to quote Jim) "only those who have faith can explain faith" is one I first encountered a couple of years ago in a course at Otago University. It seemed a peculiar stance at the time, flying in the face of both reason and reality. I believe I countered that some of the best current biblical scholars came from Jewish backgrounds (Geza Vermes, Amy-Jill Levine and Mark Nanos spring immediately to mind), but it was lost in the Presbyterian fog.
My own Christian narrative has always been as an outsider to the mainstream, whether as a Lutheran in a country where Anglo Reformed churches dominate, as a misguided sectarian biblicist Christian, or as a post-Enlightenment progressive Christian. From where I sit Barth's insistence that only Christians can handle theological questions adequately seems like towering arrogance. The outsiders - and that certainly includes Jews and agnostics - may have a far clearer view than those who are closer to the torpid centre. Could it be that we can actually learn from people like Hector Avalos (which doesn't mean we always have to agree with him of course), if only we peel away the clinging apologetic goo that so easily binds us.
As much as I respect Mr. West, I disagree with him on this. I personally have learned a great deal from the clarity and lack of compromise non-Christian theologians bring to the table. Without a horse in the race, so to speak, there's much less danger of lapsing into apologetic arguments.
ReplyDeleteI'd agree that applying it to, say, how church functions is another matter altogether. But if Balaam's ass can speak wisdom, why not a non-Christian?
"From where I sit Barth's insistence that only Christians can handle theological questions adequately seems like towering arrogance. The outsiders - and that certainly includes Jews and agnostics - may have a far clearer view than those who are closer to the torpid centre."
ReplyDeleteWould you also include other major world religions in that, Gavin? Or do you view the deities of those religions as different gods, or even false gods?
(I agree with your statement, BTW, I'm just curious as to how far you're willing to go with the inclusiveness.)
"only those who have faith can explain faith"
ReplyDeleteAnd there's a sucker born every minute too. True, whether P.T. Barnum said it or not.
Avalos believes, if we are to believe his End of Biblical Studies:
ReplyDelete1. The Bible was written during a time that has zero cultural significance today. The overwhelmingly superstitious nature of the times and the difficulty of simply surviving bears no relevance to our scientific world.
2. Virtually everything that can be learned about the Bible has been learned - yet we still don't have (and won't ever have) a secure handle on events that happened over 2,000 to 4,000 years ago.
3. Scholars in academic institutions studying the Bible are incurably infected with religious bias. Even the secular ones give the Bible an undeserved pass when it comes to putting it on an even playing field with other books of that era.
4. Everything in the Bible has been subjected to such scrutiny, biblical scholars end up with little new to study. They maintain their relevance only amongst themselves - rediscussing the same old issues with only the illusion of significance in today's world.
5. Therefore, biblical studies should be placed where they truly belong - in the garbage dump of the obsolete.
Five conclusions one might expect from an atheist earning his living from biblical studies.
Check out Avalos's argument on youtube- Resurrection of Jesus: Fact or Fiction? with William Lane Craig.
ReplyDeleteAvalos' voice sounds like film actor Andy Devine, combined with the eloquence of George W. Bush.
Gavin said...
ReplyDelete>He(Avolos)is also the bete noire of many who find it hard to believe that you can be involved in fields like biblical studies without being a committed church member.<
Avalos may be disliked or detested by many nominal Christians, who are motivated by zeal rather than knowledge, but the bible teaches that one cannot understand "The Faith," for which true Christians are enjoined to contend(Jude 3), without the gift of the Holy Spirit(1 Cor.2:12-14).
Moreover, the bible is a private document! The OT was written exclusively to and for the children of Israel, and the NT gospels and epistles were written and sent to ministers presiding over local churches, who were required to read them to church members(Cols.4:16). No doubt, after each epistle's initial reading, copies were made and distributed to members, not to the public!
Today, because the bible has been translated into every recognised language, many people are of the misguided opinion that they are qualified to comment on every aspect of it, including whether is author exists.
What did I miss? When did Tom get let out of the dustbin to preach Armstrongism again?
ReplyDelete(I recommend a snap-trap. Quick, clean, kill, for anything that threatens to spread plague. Why, yes, I do consider Armstrongism a plague. Why do you ask?)
Wow, thanks for the link. West's post is old tripe.
ReplyDeleteOnly a Buddhist can understand Buddhism, Only a Republican can insightfully explore Republicanism, only a former Armstrongian can understand Armstrongianism.
Only an atheist can really understand atheism. Only a Patriot can understand America. Love it or leave it!
Yeah, right.
Sabio's comment cracked me up, since I was once told, "YOU SHOULD MOVE TO RUSSIA!", because I expressed criticism of the policies of a former president of the USA.
ReplyDeleteAnyhoo, there are psychological places to which I cannot in good conscience go. I cannot make the leap of faith into those places, although I do believe I can understand, to my satisfaction, the conversion process.
And, I do believe I am capable of understanding the how and why(to choose a Christian example popular in the USA) of people rolling around on the floor and twitching in a seizure-like state while spouting gibberish.
Of course, many Christians would tell me that I'd understand what those "holy rollers" are spouting if only I had the Holy Ghost like they do.
However, I disagree.