Duke has the reputation in my Wesleyan circles of being liberal. I am more and more convinced that much of this is a confusion of the university religion department with the Divinity School. It is the Divinity School that trains ministers.
But as you look at the faculty in the Divinity School, you won't find liberals--at least not liberals by any sane reckoning (remembering that people from various conservative groups might consider IWU liberal, despite the fact that it doesn't allow dancing and has James Dobson coming to speak at the opening convocation). In fact, Duke and Asbury have increasing exchanges--Gregory Jones from Duke is speaking at Asbury about Wesley in the near future, and Paul Chilcote from Asbury is a visiting scholar this year at Duke.
But if you really have doubts, here are nine theses from the recent Scripture Project, housed primarily at Princeton, but heavily participated in by the likes of Richard Hays and Ellen Davis, star players for the Duke Divinity School faculty:
(1) "Scripture truthfully tells the story of God's action of creating, judging, and saving the world."
(2) "Scripture is rightly understood in light of the church's rule of faith as a coherent dramatic narrative."
(3) "Faithful interpretation . . . requires an engagement with the entire narrative: the New Testament cannot be rightly understood apart from the Old, nor can the Old be rightly understood apart from the New."
(4) "Texts of Scripture do not have a single meaning limited to the intent of the original author. In accord with Jewish and Christian traditions, we affirm that Scripture has multiple complex senses given by God, the author of the whole drama."
(5) "The four canonical Gospels narrate the truth about Jesus."
(6) "Faithful interpretation of Scripture invites and presupposes participation in the community brought into being by God's redemptive action-the church."
(7) "The saints of the church provide guidance in how to interpret and perform Scripture."
(8) "Christians need to read the Bible in dialogue with diverse others outside the church."
(9) "We live in the tension between the 'already' and the 'not yet' of the kingdom of God; consequently, Scripture calls the church to ongoing discernment, to continually fresh rereadings ... in light of the Holy Spirit's ongoing work" (pp. 1-5).
Now that doesn't seem very liberal to me...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Feel free to spread this message around the Wesleyan/Methodist (I throw in my own CCCU denomination) circles. It's time we scrap this whole "liberal/conservative" babble when it comes to Christianity anyway and leave it in politics where it belongs. How about orthodox/unorthodox or ecumenical/unecumenical? Very impressed with Duke, and dare I even say, Princeton lately.
By the way, an admissions person from Duke is coming to IWU in September (for the first time!). If anyone would like to meet with her, she's asked for a list of names to send a pre-contact letter to. If anyone is interested, email me so I can forward your name.
Perhaps (as Sniper has noted) people again confuse politics with theology.
"Now that doesn't seem very liberal to me..."
As a matter of fact, as I read those nine theses it seems to me that these scholars are not only "liberal" but more orthodox than some of the reputable "conservatives". Dare I say that Richard Hays supersedes James Dobson in the orthodoxy department? I hope Dobson can't influence IWU to expel me for such a statement (sorry, that probably only makes sense if you live in the Holland, MI area. Hope College recently "motivated" a religion professor to resign after Dobson criticised the man's "liberal" views on homosexual marriage...). Anyway, as Sniper noted, these "liberal" seminaries are impressing me as well. Perhaps someone can convince our District Boards of this?
Allow me a few thoughts and observations gleaned from attending Duke thus far.
1. R. Hays and E. Davis are people I admire. Ellen Davis frequently weaves orthodox (and gasp! even evangelical) devotional thoughts into her lectures. She is thoughtful, charitable and undoubtedly a master at her craft. My only comment regarding Richard Hays is that during one conversation I mentioned the name Elaine Pagels and he rolled his eyes and shook his head. It caused me no small amount of joy to see his reaction.
2. Honestly the only way to judge whether a school like Duke or Princeton is a good fit is to visit it. Taste the doctrinal stands, eat meals with students to gauge the orthodox temperature, and look at the spiritual formation being done.
3. Let the district boards do what they want, only remain faithful to your call and to the larger church ecumenically. Some district boards can even be encouraging (my DBMD chair loved the fact I was going to Duke) so don't let a few nay-sayers bother you.
Duke may be liberal but since I'm enjoying it so much, I must be too :)
My hunch is that given a few more decades the "evangelicals" and the "mainline" churches will have exchanged places--orthodoxy will vanish from the evanglicals who won't even know it is gone so long as they remain politically conservative.
(PS--any professor who doesn't roll eyes at the mention of Elaine Pagels (PU not PTS) is not worthy of taking a course from.
Duke is a great place to learn
and study. I go there at least
once a year and do my continuing
education there during the Convocation and Pastor's School.
Can't wait to go next month. I've
noticed this change too. I'll
never forget the continuing ed.
seminar I had with Hays a few
years ago. I was thrilled. It
was simply marvelous. I also
love taking courses with Efird.
Post a Comment