Below is the eighth and final of several posts continuing the exchange between Bruce Waltke and me, posted earlier on this site, that first appeared in the Westminster Theological Journal. Click here to read Waltke’s follow-up to that exchange (PDF), which has already appeared in the latest issue of WTJ (and is also posted here with permission.)

This completes my responses to the Introduction of Waltke’s critique. All eight parts are now published  as one document in PDF form under the I&I tab on this site (or download directly here).

Read Part One of my response here.

Read Part Two of my response here.

Read Part Three of my response here

Read Part Four of my response here

Read Parts Five & Six of my response here

Read Part Seven of my response here

Here is part eight of my response to Waltke’s follow-up piece:

My Model Destabilizes Students’ Faith

I reject the blanket criticism that an incarnational model, however assertively it is offered, destabilizes faith. It certainly can do so, but in those cases we would do well to consider how those very students might have been set up for a fall by being ill-prepared to deal with the data. (For example, someone’s faith will indeed be shaken if they encounter the synoptic problem after being told that God’s word must be historically accurate in every detail lest it no longer be the word of God.)

What of those whose faith is not shaken but affirmed and strengthened because of an incarnational model? Do they count for nothing? Or is their newly strengthened faith on the basis of this faulty theological model simply more evidence of how far lost they are and in need of correction?

I also do not believe that there is a great unwashed mass of ignorant people out there who are so easily swayed by me, Waltke, or anyone else. I have found that students and readers are pretty clever, if also a bit resilient. They do not live in isolation from the world, are not immune to its challenges, and they are certainly not looking to the scholarly world to do their thinking for them.

I have had this same conversation many times before, once with Waltke himself about five years ago (and I do not presume that he should remember). It is true that exposure to developments in modern scholarship can shake people’s faith, but that does not mean they should be shielded from them. Rather what needs to happen is that scholars like Waltke should be offering students alternate theological paradigms that are equipped to address the data. People lose their faith for all sorts of reasons. One of those reasons, easily documented but not often discussed, is the inflexibile and outmoded answers given to real and difficult problems.

As I have said in other contexts and to Waltke several years ago, I understand people’s faith can be shaken by what I am advocating (as they can by things Waltke advocates about Isaiah, evolution, etc.). But I am as concerned about people whose faith has already been shaken because of bad answers they have gotten to good and necessary questions.

I have a folder (electronic and paper) of people who used to be Christians but are now atheists, or were evangelical and now don’t know what they are, not because of people like me, but because the only options open to them when they encountered the world of modern biblical scholarship was “you either believe the Bible or you believe the critics.” This is an absurd dichotomy. To those knowledgeable about the very real and difficult challenges presented by biblical scholarship, and who are presented with these two options, there is no contest: the critics win. The question is whether these are the only two options available.

Both Waltke and I would agree that there are other options open to us that move beyond this dichotomy. We disagree on the best path to take. My main point in all of this is that the challenges we face in the present moment—and have been facing for generations—will not be settled without rethinking how persuasive past approaches have been.

It is regularly observed that the kinds of issues being raised by me and others are issues that have “already been settled” in evangelical scholarship, and so need no reexamination. Rather, what is required is to get in line. Yet, the same issues keep coming up regularly among evangelicals on both the popular and academic levels. The question is why. I realize that will be answered differently by different people, but the question is valid, even urgent. Neither “side” is going away, and unless the matter is addressed constructively, divisions will be exacerbated. For those of us who recognize the value of true dialogue, this would be a sad development.

Tags: Uncategorized // Comments Off