Do Christians Believe a Bunch of Nonsense?

Examining the Relationship Between Faith and Biblical Studies

Photo by James Hunt on Unsplash

“Whatever you do, don’t listen to scholars who think the Bible is a bunch of nonsense.”

This warning, recently issued by a popular Christian apologist, was their primary advice to someone looking to learn more about the Bible.

It is indicative of a pervasive — and defensive — belief that “secular” scholars are motivated by an anti-Bible agenda.

By labeling scholarship as “nonsense,” the apologist sets up one of my least favorite dichotomies: the “Believing Scholar” versus the “Skeptic.”

In this binary model, the skeptic is someone who willfully ignores “obvious” evidence because of a hardened heart. Meanwhile, the only “true” believing scholar is someone who remains within a very specific, narrow tradition.

The result? A surefire way to ignore experts who actually know what they’re talking about in favor of people who simply tell us what we want to hear.

The Problem with the Apologetic Shield

Many Christian apologists have knowledge in a related field to Biblical studies and stay away from graduate courses or scholarly meetings in which their presuppositions about the Bible will be challenged.

These presuppositions as well as what one normally learns at church are so fundamentally anti-intellectual that they often lead others to conclude that Christians believe a bunch of nonsense.

If Christians don’t believe a bunch of nonsense, is there a way that faith can be balanced out by a knowledge of Biblical studies? It is possible, but there are a few ways in which it can be challenging.

If used correctly, Biblical studies can help to inform people about the dogmatic assumptions that they may hold that it is perhaps time to reconsider. It may also force some challenging assessment of long held beliefs.

Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash

The Bible as an Object of Study

Recent developments have seen the Bible placed within the humanities as an object of study, as opposed to former times when the Bible was studied only within the lens of adherence to faith or doctrine.

This has seen the advent of the standard method that is used in Biblical studies, also known as the historical-critical method. This method is not just one thing and does not necessarily have a standard definition.

But those who refer to the method normally speak about the importance of situating a Biblical text within its historical and especially cultural context as well as paying attention to the context of the Bible.

The historical part of the name refers to situating a text within its proper context. The criticism part should perhaps be changed because it makes people think that you are being critical of the Bible just to mess with it.

Instead, it refers more to the idea that this method conforms more closely to critical methodologies as a subject within the humanities and not to any theological ideas or confessional presuppositions.

The aim of the historical critical method is to try and do one’s best to approach the original meaning of a text. It tries to get as close as possible while simultaneously acknowledging that it is impossible to know what the original author meant.

This is supposed to be a way of creating a method in which theological neutrality is able to be reached. It is perhaps an open question whether anyone can be truly theologically neutral, but this is what the method is for.

Can this method be balanced with faith? That is what my next section is about.

Photo by Christophe Hautier on Unsplash

Can You Balance Critical Study With Faith?

It certainly seems that you can. It may surprise readers to find out that the historical-critical method not only developed within seminaries and theological schools but also is the primary method of interpretation taught in those places.

Most scholars in Biblical studies come from a religious perspective, which is to say that they choose to study the Bible because it is the text of their particular religious affiliation in one way or another.

These scholars can use the historical critical methods, but cannot help to be biased because they have opinions about the text or how it should ideally be framed within the tradition to which they belong.

What the text means, on both an individual and a collective level, cannot help but permeate one’s understanding. It is not possible to approach the text neutrally, although some are better at trying than others.

There are some scholars who will insist that they can keep their own religious convictions to themselves and it will not affect the quality of the work that they do. This is an open question in the field as well.

In my opinion, scholars should be more open about who they are and where they are coming from when they study the humanities. Pretending that they can be objective is not helpful at all.

It leads to what can often be termed as “historical” work, in which people often pretend that this kind of work can see through the type of bias that pervades perspectives born out of people’s identities.

I don’t think much of such work and would rather that people talk about themselves and where they are coming from, as well as why they find such work to be significant enough to be spending time doing.

Photo by taro ohtani on Unsplash

The Complicated Reality of the Field

The field is still quite complicated because many of the people in the field teach at seminaries and divinity schools in which they are expected to make inferences about the ways in which the past connects to the present.

The present religious expression of the believer who attends these scholars is not insignificant, as the purpose of these institutions is ultimately to train people for readiness in the context of a local ministry setting (if they don’t already serve as a pastor).

Further complicating things is that these institutions also are affiliated with denominations and often seek to provide explanations and interpretations of these texts in keeping with the interests of these denominations.

These affiliations are sometimes still present at universities and colleges (especially those that are private), which is not insignificant in the way that interpretation within the institutions tends to be set up.

In recent decades, we have seen departments of religion, which once existed for the perpetuation of “Christian values” through instruction in a particular tradition, become religious studies departments.

Those departments operate within the humanities department and tend to use the tools of the social sciences to study the traditions of many different religions instead of just the Christian scriptures and tradition.

In the United States, this began the separation between religious studies and theology, a separation which many conservative Christians continue to bemoan because they think it will lead to a type of religious plurality.

In Europe, this separation is a bit more complicated as the Bible is studied in departments of theology, which can often still be very tied to a particular Christian tradition. Sometimes, even the titles Catholic or Protestant make it into the name of the institution.

Yet, from an American perspective, some of the scholarship that comes out of Europe would be considered more liberal than mainstream scholarship here in the states. To sum it up in a phrase, it’s pretty complicated.

Photo by Francisco De Legarreta C. on Unsplash

So, is It All Nonsense?

No, it’s not.

I think sometimes it is a wonderful mess and other times I think that the whole enterprise is doomed to fail. To view it as a purveyor of objective truth would be a mistake as would dismissing it as nonsense.

There are scholars who do great work, writing books that are incredibly clear and can skillfully break down some of the most complex issues in the field and bring up thoughtful questions for any Christian.

There are also scholars who will write a book that is pretty good that has a few chapters that can only be described as completely apologetic in nature. It takes a close and careful reading to ensure that this isn’t the case in some books.

This is true in any field, however. There are some scholars who you can just tell are writing to prove their conclusions and it can be exhausting to read them. On the other hand, it can be important to read so that one doesn’t mimic the same approach in one’s own work.

A funny saying about the career arc of a scholar is that a scholar spends three years writing a dissertation and then the next forty proving that it is true and never wavering from it.

I will close by saying that one of the interesting things that separating theology from Biblical studies often does is to encourage pastors to leave the historical critical method in seminary after they start their career in the pulpit.

In this case, it would be better to encourage those pastors to be thinking about theological works or authors who they can read because they are still much better than the alternative, which can often be nothing academic.

As it turns out, they get in the habit of turning to more apologetic works, which doesn’t help out anyone.

Conclusion: A Faith That Can Withstand Scrutiny

The relationship between faith and Biblical studies is complicated. That does not imply that Biblical studies can “debunk” faith or that it renders it moot. It does mean that it could challenge certain ways of looking at the Bible.

The key to making sure that you don’t believe a bunch of nonsense is to avoid self-identified apologists or those who are more than willing to start with their conclusions. This will result in a belief system that is built by doubling down on dogmas.

Instead, be willing to remain a lifelong student. Read widely, ask questions, remain curious and always be ready to ask “how do you know that?” I find that will help to insulate you from anti-intellectual traditions.

Remember that scholars in Biblical studies are not writing to try and cause you to give up your faith. Instead, they are trying to stretch understanding and challenge the things that so many of us take for granted.

Perhaps many who read my articles will think that I go too far towards the idea of scholarship as opposed to faith. At the same time, I also think that a faith or a theology that collapses upon scrutiny is one that might need to be bolstered.