Worldview Everlasting

However, the intention may or may not be meant to attack a Christian world-view. Some traditional Christians use this kind of scholarship to support their claims and theological bents. Roman Catholic theologians will often use this kind of biblical criticism to support the need for a papacy. Orthodox theologians will use it to bolster the idea that we need to lean on tradition. The logic goes like this: Look at what modern scholarship has uncovered; the Bible is just an unreliable source for information. Our best bet is to trust in a magisterium, tradition or other such authorities. The reason I mention this is that before addressing a claim made by a professor, it is good to know the bias of your teacher. You may dismiss someone who is otherwise a friend in the defense of traditional Christian views in the university.

However, you have now been introduced to religious education in a public university setting. The temptation for the protestant in general and the Lutheran in particular is to despair of our rule and norm for the faith. Don’t despair. Scripture has been under scrutiny by critics for so long that almost every rock has been turned over by someone. Yet, there are still well-educated Christians who hold to historic, biblical Christianity. There are even entire institutions who operate with the assumption that Scripture can be a norm for theology, and herein lies the key to surviving in this kind of environment: look for the assumptions.

There is an inherent fallacy in the thinking of the scholars being quoted by the professor. There isn’t any actual, primary source, proof of these kinds of claims. They are all theories. Theories, no matter how well argued and supported, are in the end, theories. There are scholars who make a living building entire pseudo-historical scenarios (creating theories) that are based on assumptions. They publish a paper on the theory, and then get quoted by a professor or a textbook. That doesn’t make the theory true. For every theory of biblical criticism, there is a counter theory, and if you find one without a counter theory, then hang on to it just in case you want to pursue a graduate education in theology. You have just found your thesis.

An honest professor in a university setting would present all of these theories as theories. Maybe your’s is. Nevertheless, my advice for you is this: Don’t attack the professor. What’s your major? If this is not your major, try to get a good grade, and chalk it up to experience.

If you want some help, get the Zondervan book, “An Introduction to the New Testament.” This book will provide a good overview of each book of the Bible, including most of the popular critical theories, but often balanced by traditional views. It is good to know the options. When you write a paper for your class, if you take a traditional view, cite your views using this book and the work of the scholars mentioned in the bibliography of this book. You should not get a bad grade for a viewpoint that is supported by scholarship. Also, grab the Matthew commentary from CPH. You can use it as a source for any paper that you may have to write. If you cannot afford it, don’t forget that your university library can get it through inter-library loan.

If you are majoring in Religion, you’re going to have to work harder than others in order to support a traditional view. The university setting is geared toward dismissing a traditional Christian viewpoint as an unfair bias. Of course, this is in itself an unfair bias, but if you’re going to survive, you’re job will be to unveil this unfair bias in an intelligent way. Attack the assumptions.

Do we have any real proof of these warring churches? It’s not like we have articles of incorporation, sample statements of faith, and other such evidence. Do we have proof of a disagreement between Paul and the representatives of the so-called disciples of Matthew, or is this assumption based on the actual disagreements between Peter and Paul or Paul and the Judaizers? Is someone trying to link this alleged group with the Judaizers? If so, then why would they present a Jesus who suggests that the Jewish law is no longer normative in the way it was in the past? Why would they focus so clearly on the Gentiles? Have we superimposed our modern denominational scene onto Paul and this supposed group of Christians? These are just a few suggestions, but I think you can get the idea.