|
|
By Walter Wink
Auburn Theological Seminary
February 2004
The otherwise even flow of my life as a scholar-for-the-church has so far hit
two snags. Both have irreversibly changed my course.
I was hooked by the first snag in 1962. Having completed work on my Ph.D. except
for the dissertation, I was at last established as pastor of a church in
southeast Texas, trying to write my thesis with one hand and taking care of
pastoral duties with the other. The church was generous in allowing me time to
study--and I needed that time for my psychic health because I had walked into a
congregation in shambles. It was no little relief to be able to retreat into the
first century and thus escape the conflict and pain of the parish. The worse the
storm outside, the more I fled to my study inside. Within nine months, I had the
writing finished.
Five years passed. I was preaching two different sermons every Sunday at first,
then, mercifully, only one. Over those five years, I must have preached upwards
of 350 sermons. I was appalled at how little help I was getting from my bulging
library, scholarly journals, and commentaries. The scholars who were writing
ostensibly for us clergy were making little or no connection to our sermonic
needs. They seemed rather to be answering questions raised by other scholars,
almost all of them of a historical character. At first, I blamed myself. Now it
is characteristic of most of us that when we uncover such anomalies as these, we
dismiss them as aberrations of our own personal experience. That was where I was
inclined to leave it. After all, I could scarcely blame my teachers for the
problem. They were all deeply committed to the truth claims of the Scriptures.
So I dismissed my snag as the peculiar problem of an escapist parson.
Then, in 1967, Union Theological Seminary invited me back to teach New
Testament. In this more exposed setting, dealing with students embroiled in war
resistance, black economic development, curriculum reform, and the "Columbia
Bust" of 1968, the question of the Bible's relevance for modern life was
stridently and insistently posed. At the same time, I was meeting more and more
pastors to whom I would put the question, at first very tentatively, almost as
if to make conversation: What role does historical criticism really play in your
preaching, your personal Bible study, your leadership in congregational study?
The answers varied widely but enough were sufficiently disturbing that my sense
of the anomaly grew. I was not off the snag. I was impaled on it, and so were
they. I would never be rid of it till I plunged into the water and dug out its
roots.
The fruit of that effort was published in 1973 under the title The Bible in
Human Transformation: Toward a New Paradigm for Biblical Study (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1973). I had at last located what was for me at the base of the
anomaly, thanks to the help of others who had pointed the way. Simply but quite
precisely put, the historical-critical approach to biblical study had become
bankrupt, not dead. The critical tools had a potential usefulness if they could
only be brought under new management. But on the whole, the American scholarly
scene was one of frenetic decadence with the publication of vast numbers of
articles and books that fewer and fewer people read. Most scholars no longer
addressed the lived experience of actual people in the churches or society.
Instead, they addressed the current questions of their peers in the professional
scholarly guild.
The net result was a gathering malaise, a crisis of morale, and
a dawning recognition that what was once a vital contribution to the
emancipation of people from the constrictions of dogmatism had become a new
constriction in its own right. My once private snag had now gathered quite a
company. Hooked were hundreds of scholars, whose original intention in entering
biblical studies has long since been compromised, squeezed out or suppressed.
Most of us had originally found ourselves drawn to the Bible. It chose us, as it
were, or something in it chose us: something speaks in it. We were attracted to
it--not out of curiosity or mere historical interest, but because we believed it
could evoke human transformation. Biblical scholarship would be our ministry,
our self-offering to the Kingdom of God.
Then, ineluctably we found ourselves jettisoning the very questions and
interests that led us to begin. We were caught in the web of intellectual
objectivism with its pretense to detachment, disembodied observation, and
uninvolvement as the ideal stance of the researcher. Bultmann had already
exposed the false consciousness of objectivism, yet it continued to flourish in
biblical circles. I can only guess that a key reason is the history of
denominational pluralism in America and the understandable reluctance of
universities and colleges to permit the teaching of religion in a way that
smacked of sectarianism. Hence, objectivism with a vengeance: the more religion
could be taught as an exact science, the less offense it would cause. Moreover,
this occurred at a time when the physical sciences were beginning to repudiate
objectivism!
It had become clear to me in the parish that most biblical scholarship was
irrelevant to the lived concerns of everyday people. The vast majority of
scholars seemed to be interested only in answering questions other scholars were
asking. The community of accountability among biblical scholars had ceased to be
the church and had become the academic guild of professional scholars. Now, back
in an academia under siege, I sensed all the more powerfully the impotence of
the detached, objective approach to Scripture for dealing with the real issues
of life.
|Page
2|Page 3|
Look
for academic tools and books for biblical studies at Dove
Books.
Return to Home Page
Return to Articles and Commentary
|