This question, “What is a Scholar?” is worth examining in light of the article that follows this one about the “Christian” “Scholars” Conference. According to the third definition of Webster’s 2nd International Dictionary, a scholar is:
one who by long-continued systematic study, especially in a university, has gained a competent mastery of one or more of the highly organized academic studies; more narrowly, one who has engaged in advanced study and acquired the minutiae of knowledge in some special field, along with accuracy and skill in investigation and powers of critical analysis in interpretation of such knowledge.
Several of the definitions found in dictionaries of the word scholar contain only a few words and leave an inadequate portrayal, but this one is comprehensive and states some of the concepts that many of us think of when the word is used. These characteristics deserve to be highlighted and amplified.
1. By long-continued, systematic study is meant that the student has spent a considerable amount of time and effort in trying to grasp the subject matter. In other words, as it pertains to the Bible, he did not just recently read through a few epistles and decide that he had a thorough understanding of what the writer was communicating. Continued study is far superior to casual reading. Also, a systematic study is helpful because otherwise someone can misunderstand the material—if he does not have the proper framework into which all the parts fit. Therefore, one must understand the basics of Christianity—that is, what the Bible is about and how each book contributes to the whole. That is not to say that one cannot read verses here and there and understand them; he can, but for deeper study one must understand major themes and doctrines.
2. Having a competent mastery of the subject allows a person to see even less-intensive points with more clarity. The more one studies the Bible, the more he will notice how some of the same truths are made in other ways and under other circumstances. Applications become easier to follow, also.
3. Skill in investigation is a must. Too many Bible “students” are looking for a verse to confirm a teaching rather than looking to see what the text actually says. An example of this attitude is seen in the use of the “thief on the cross” to try to minimize or negate entirely the command to be baptized. The thief lived under a different covenant than we do—the Law of Moses. He was not one of the conversions of Acts where the gospel is preached. He shows signs of repentance on the cross. No one can prove he had never been baptized by John. The person who argues that the thief’s salvation did not involve baptism must ignore the entire book of Acts. And worst of all, the only helpful thing he succeeds in by bringing up the thief is to make the Bible look like it contradicts itself, which only serves to help the cause of Satan.
4. Accuracy and skill in investigation is another important characteristic of a true scholar. Anyone can cite what someone wrote, but did he quote him accurately? Did he even understand which side of the issue he was on? Paul was misquoted by some as saying, “Let us do evil that good may come” (Rom. 3:8). A genuine scholar would not knowingly misrepresent someone and would correct it if he did.
5. His critical analysis in interpretation of the Word must be sound. Any thesis that denies plain teachings found in the Bible, no matter how many sources are cited, is clearly erroneous and not scholarly. The following article highlights just how unscholarly some can be, and brother Jackson offers an excellent analysis of what has been done.
LIPSCOMB UNIVERSITY AND THE CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS CONFERENCE
Wayne Jackson
The Christian Scholars Conference (CSC) convened in June, 2008 on the campus of Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tennessee (formerly known as David Lipscomb University). With support from several sister schools, e.g., Pepperdine University, Abilene Christian University, Oklahoma Christian University, and Harding University, it was the twenty-eighth annual gathering of some of the most radically liberal, self-designated “scholars” on the planet. There were dozens of presentations (all of which were characterized as “high quality” productions), delivered by both men and women, representing sixty-eight colleges and universities, along with twenty-four additional institutions.
The conference was a heterogeneous blend of sectarian personalities (all of whom were identified as “Christian”), combined with a conglomerate of digressives who have surrendered virtually every vestige of interest in the restoration of New Testament religion. “Restorationism” is not merely ignored, it is repudiated emphatically.
The CSC platform affirms that it “is dedicated to the virtue of diversity which expands world-views, fosters collegiality, demonstrates the highest quality of scholarship, and provides opportunity for all Christian scholars.”
The sacred Scriptures enjoin unity; the emerging anti-restorationists applaud diversity. The lineup demonstrated how very far from New Testament teaching this aggregation of “elitists” has strayed.
One of the most startling participants was former Abilene Christian University student, Jared Cramer. Cramer is currently affiliated with the Anglican (Episcopal) movement (working toward priesthood). On his blog the “Reverend Cramer” (as he likes to designate himself) emphatically declares he has abandoned the ideal of “restorationism.”
I don’t believe in Restorationism or Primitivism. I just don’t. It’s not Biblical, there’s no call to it. I don’t care two bits if today’s church looks like the first century church, and I don’t think God does (Becoming Quicksand).
The most stunning thing, however, was the topic for which Mr. Cramer contended, with the obvious tolerance of the CSC screening committee and/or those affiliated with this program. According to an abstract that appeared on the Lipscomb University website, the author’s presentation was titled “One New Humanity: Reconsidering Homosexuality in Light of the Ecclesiology of Ephesians.” The abstract states:
Paul’s letter to the Ephesians presents an ecclesiology founded on unity in Christ rooted in the fullness of God. Ephesians builds on the fundamental truth that in Christ, God has broken down the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles and is creating one new humanity in place of the two. After examining the ecclesiology of Ephesians, this paper engages in a case study on the place of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered (GLBT) Christians in the Episcopal Church. Perhaps a deeper understanding of Paul’s message in Ephesians can lead to a renewed perspective on the issues facing Christians today.
This may represent an all-time historical low as an approach to Paul’s Ephesian letter.
The material submitted to the CSC (with only a slight alteration to accommodate a transition to the newer CSC format) is a regurgitation of Cramer’s previously published views. His position was set forth in an article titled Homosexuality: But Why?
It was submitted in a more extensive format as a thesis written while at Abilene Christian University and presented to Dr. James W. Thompson, November 28, 2006 (see the thesis here). The CSC submission (June 27, 2008) is virtually a carbon copy of his ACU thesis. It can hardly be claimed, therefore, that his position caught CSC officials by surprise.
Cramer contends that his defense of homosexuality is a response to an increasing number of questions he has received regarding his position on this subject. Incredibly, the author asserts that any discussion of homosexuality “is shallow until a person actually engages in an actual relationship with a person of a different sexual orientation.”
The main proposition the author attempts to argue is that there is nothing “wrong about a faithful, loving, monogamous same-sex relationship.” He says, “I fail to see what it is about homosexuality that declares it as inherently evil” (“Homosexuality: But Why?”). He contends that Paul’s “oneness ecclesiology” in the Ephesian epistle applies to gays and straights just as it did to Jews and Gentiles!
If this is so, the apostle contradicted his earlier instruction in both 1 Corinthians (6:9), Romans (1:26-27), and his later letter to Timothy (1 Timothy 1:10).
This brief review is not designed as a comprehensive rebuttal of the author’s superficial treatment of the Scripture texts that condemn homosexual conduct. He dismisses the biblical data with a cavalier wave of the hand and his personal assertion that some of the scriptural condemnations are “conditioned by time and culture”; thus they are not relevant to today’s gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgendered phenomenon. Other texts, he maintains, address “abuses” rather than loving homosexual liaisons.
The following questions are appropriate:
How does a “scholar” determine it is “wrong” if: (a) a homosexual relationship is breached by “unfaithfulness”; (b) is flawed when lacking “love” and is solely a matter of lust; or, (c) is unwarranted if it is polygamous instead of monogamous? How does one deduce that fidelity, lovingness, and monogamy are to be preferred over their opposites?
Might someone not contend that Bible teaching about faithfulness, love, and monogamy likewise are culturally flexible, and thus promiscuity, lust, and multiple sex-partners are permissible? These sexually inclusive attitudes and actions are common in numerous “cultures” within certain segments of the modern world.
One of Cramer’s arguments in defense of homosexual relationships (as he ideally depicts them) is that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered frequently bear “all the fruits of the Spirit” (cf. Galatians 5:22-23), hence such must be evidence of their approval by God. He contends that “the holiness seen in the lives of these Christians has stood in ‘stark contrast with many sinful patterns of sexuality’ (e.g., promiscuity, prostitution, incest, pornography, pedophilia, predatory sexual behavior, etc.)” (“One New Humanity”). The “logic” is unbelievable.
What is to be said regarding the atheist who loves his wife, is joyful in his occupational employment, and is peaceable with his next-door neighbor? Do these qualities demonstrate that he enjoys the approval of the very God he denies?
What possible justification could Lipscomb University and its affiliates have for arranging and/or supporting a program that embraces a defense of this debauched level of moral irresponsibility?
What a disservice to the godly memory of the founder of this school! If this does not awaken a somewhat lethargic brotherhood to the gross level of corruption within a number of our universities, could anything bring us to a state of reality?
[Editor’s note: The last paragraph is well-stated in light of all that precedes it. This article was first published on September 16, 2008 in The Christian Courier. Our guess is that brethren have remained lethargic.
This article may be accessed by going to:
www.christiancourier.com/article/1437.
The portions that are in bold and underlined in this reproduction of the original article are links to the information herein described. This article is reprinted with the permission of the Christian Courier.
Final note: Peter dealt with these same types of “scholars” in the first century, who spoke “great swelling words of emptiness” and drew brethren who had escaped the pollutions of the world back into bondage (2 Peter 2:18-19.]
AMERICA FOLLOWS EUROPE
Gary W. Summers
Faith has become nearly extinct in Europe, and the United States is now headed in that direction. According to a poll published in USA TODAY on March 9, 2009, the “percentage of people who call themselves some type of Christian has dropped more than 11% in a generation” (1A). The article, written by Cathy Lynn Gross-man, goes on to provide the breakdown of religious groups and how many each has lost (6A). Following are just a few suggestions for this trend.
1. The promotion of immorality. Is it coincidence that the rise in faithlessness coincides with the acceptance of homosexuality? The entertainment and news media have shamelessly promoted the practice on television and in the movies. Courts also have found “Constitutional” rights for homosexual marriage, although it is unclear whose Constitution they were reading (probably one from France). The problem with the promotion of homosexuality is that one must reject the Bible in order to accept it because the two are diametrically opposed. Despite inept attempts to justify the ungodly practice by people such as Bishop Spong and the Episcopalians, anyone who reads the Scriptures to learn what they teach can understand the truth.
2. The message of Christianity has become so indistinct that people are no longer willing to consider it. First, there are those religious groups who speak up on behalf of abortion, homosexuality, and every worldly vice imaginable. If they do not specifically endorse sin, neither do they condemn it. Why should anyone be drawn to them? If they are going to approve of the people’s sins, of what value are they? People have been sinning for centuries without the “church’s” approval; why seek it now? Second, many religious groups only teach a social gospel, and while helping others is always good, the message excludes other essentials. Third, many “Christian” groups specialize in a “feel good,” “It’s all about ME” message, which promotes selfishness. Fourth, much of the television programming is about as phony as “wrestling.” People are entertained by the bizarre, but it is hard to take religion seriously when flakes are running the show. If people think worship is what is presented on “gospel” shows, no wonder they are staying away.
3. Christianity is marked by division, which discourages people from involvement with it (John 17:20-21). This is not only true in general, it is also true of the Lord’s church. If ever there was a need for peacemakers (however, not through compromise of Biblical principles), this is it.
4. Christianity may have lost sight of its commitment to evangelize. It is excellent to help brethren in foreign fields, but what are we doing where we are? Our energies must be aimed at our own communities, or we will fail our Savior, as well as those who are lost. We cannot blame the first three factors cited above for failure to perform our evangelistic responsibilities. Let us be certain that our commitment to Jesus is strong.