The enlightenment was so blatantly anti-Christian, still hundreds of years later we still jump to the defense when someone tries to bring some generally secular discipline into the theology discussion. This includes history, contemporary psychology, and most of the sciences. And we have plenty of good reason to be skeptical of the value that a non-God fearing individual may contribute to our understanding of say, the Trinity, original sin, or even ecclesiology.
I find it ironic though that while fundamentalism battens down the fortress against any Bible studies that smell like literary criticism, through the side-door we’re importing as many indie rock bands and crowd control gimmicks we can get our hands on.
Much of N.T. Wright’s work has been in the historical background to the New Testament. That is, if we can understand what things were really like back then – politics, demographics, language, geography, education, and even things like cooking, we’ll have a clearer picture of what the gospel writers and Paul were REALLY saying. We won’t twist the words of Jesus and the apostles by projecting our reformation-era conflicts or 20th century American ideals onto them. Apparently he’s met with some skepticism in some circles or he wouldn’t have written the following:
There are still plenty of people who insist that the only proper task for the New Testament scholar is ‘neutral’ historical description. ‘History’ is regarded as the public task, out in the open. Anyone can engage in it, and indeed anyone might wish to, since…early Christianity was part of a vital period in world history, and to understand it might well contribute to greater mutual understanding within our own worldwide community.
Theology, meanwhile, is often seen as a private Christian game, played on a safe pitch away from serious opposition. Many Christians have in fact encouraged this conception of the task and have acted accordingly. Many will only regard historical study as ‘legitimate’ if its contemporary relevance is immediately obvious and accessible (‘but what does that mean for us today?’ said in the tone of voice which implies that failure to give a quick and easy answer will indicate that a mistake has been made somewhere).
-N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p.13
OK. So you have a long essay with 200 footnotes about the influence the Essene sect possibly had on some of the disciples. What, you’re telling me you can’t reduce it to a few good bullet points? Not interested.
I think this resistance shows up in a lot of other places too. Top notch Christian psychologists like Larry Crabb have a tough sell in a lot of circles because their discipline has been so often dominated by hedonists and perverts.
I, for the life of me can’t figure out why more Christian’s haven’t read philosopher/anthropologist Rene Girard. He sheds TONS of light on the Bible and some of the deep mysterious things in man’s nature – with, I think, plenty of practical application if you work on it a bit. I think it must have something to do with this sort of resistance…