The fourth part of Peter Enns' series of invited posts from Christian scholars from a conservative background whose detailed study of the Bible convinced them that the old fundamentalist way of reading the Bible was untenable comes from Michael Pahl, a pastor of a Mennonite church in Canada who was an associate professor at Cedarville University before leaving under less than positive circumstances. More on that later.
Like many people from a Christian environment, Pahl experienced crises of faith, to which his response was to turn avidly to the Bible, and read it. His faith remained, but his fundamentalist view of the Bible did not survive the honest scrutiny of its pages:
I was hungry for meaning, and this hunger became so intense I did the only thing I could think to do: I read the Bible.
I skipped my university English classes to binge-read the Bible, devouring it not in single sword-drill verses but in large chunks: all of Isaiah in one sitting, all of Paul’s letters in another, then all of Genesis, then all of Luke, and so on.
This Bible binging was just what I needed—I found the meaning for life I was craving—but it was also the beginning of the end for the view of the Bible I had grown up with.
For the first time I saw the Obadiahs and John 3:16s of the Bible as pieces of a much larger narrative, a narrative centered on Jesus and encompassing the entire creation.
I realized God wasn’t concerned so much with personal salvation but with cosmic restoration.
I discovered that this world really mattered, that our bodies really mattered, that this life with all its joys and sorrows really mattered, that God created all things good and longed to return all things to that original goodness—or even better.
For the first time I also read the pieces of the Bible alongside each other: two creation stories in Genesis, two renditions of the Ten Commandments, two accounts of Israel’s kingdoms, four Gospel stories of Jesus.
This raised all sorts of questions for me that I wasn’t yet prepared to answer, but there was no doubt in my mind that these parallel pieces were different from each other.
It wasn’t until later, when I began to explore historical setting and source criticism and literary genre that these questions began to be answered—but in a way that made it impossible for me to hold on to the view of Bible I had inherited.
“I was always taught the Bible says X but now I just don’t see it.”
That there are discrepancies between parallel accounts in the Bible is well-known. This does not necessarily mean that the underlying historical events that inspired them never occurred. As I noted in my previous post, in a pre-textual, primarily oral society, divergence in the details of multiple coexisting oral texts was a fact, and it was not seen as a problem by that society. However, for the fundamentalist who fails to recognise this fact, and reads them with the implicit assumption of modern historiographical ideals, problems will exist that will require ever and ever more elaborate and ad-hoc harmonisations. Some fundamentalists believe they can insulate themselves from the contradictions, whereas too many are not able to maintain cognitive dissonance, crack, and lose faith. This is the ultimate tragedy of fundamentalism - it destroys faith in God in order to preserve human dogma.
Pahl remains a devout Christian. His reasons for remaining a believer?
I think the answer to that comes down to two things.
First, early on in my journey I came to the realization that Jesus, not the Bible, is the foundation and center and standard and goal of genuine Christian faith and life.
During those early days of reading the Bible in large swaths, I found Jesus, and that makes all the difference: paradoxically, the Bible matters less even as it matters all the more.
And second, along the way, even in the strictest of conservative environments, I always found people who gave me space to ask hard questions and avoid simplistic answers—because they themselves were in that space. It’s a dangerous place, that risky grace of a humble search for truth.
I’m grateful to those who have created those “dangerous places” for me in my life, even at great risk to themselves—and I’m committed to providing that same space of grace for others.
The reference to the 'dangerous places' that others create in which Pahl had the freedom to explore doubt and the hard questions related to faith without being judged has a bitter edge given the treatment Pahl endured at the hands of Cedarville University:
Less than a year after Cedarville University hired theologian Michael Pahl, administrators relieved the associate professor of his teaching duties.
The issue at stake? A historical Adam and Eve, a debate that dates back to Augustine and has recently cropped up at evangelical schools such as Calvin College and Reformed Theological Seminary. But what appears new in Cedarville's situation is the trustees' requirement that faculty hold particular beliefs for particular reasons.
Pahl affirms the Ohio school's doctrinal statement (recently augmented by trustees via theological white papers) regarding human origins, but his beliefs are based on a literary reading of Genesis 1 and 2.
"I hold to a historical Adam and Eve, though not on exegetical grounds," Pahl wrote in his defense to trustees, which CT obtained. "My reasons are more theological in nature…."
Later, when explaining his take on Paul's use of Adam and Genesis, Pahl stated, "Once again we are in an area of academic freedom as the doctrinal statement does not mandate specific exegesis of specific biblical passages."
Yet Cedarville administrators concluded that the theologian "is unable to concur fully with each and every position" of its doctrinal stance, according to an official statement they released with Pahl.
"It doesn't make sense," said Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga. "It does damage to a college atmosphere to pretend there's no sensible diversity of opinion among Christians."
Planginga, who is hardly a flaming liberal, was dead on the money. It simply made no sense to deny that diversity of opinion did not exist among Christians. Theologian Michael Bird - again no liberal - was even more scathing:
I was sad to hear that my good friend and one time co-editor, Dr. Michael Pahl, has been dismissed from Cedarville University. Pahl is a top scholar, a brilliant communicator, a decent Christian man, and is another casualty in the theological tribalism and conservative myopia that seems endemic in American Christian institutions.
In an official statement, Cedarville said:
Dr. Pahl’s orthodoxy and commitment to the gospel are not in question, nor is his commitment to Scripture’s inspiration, authority and infallibility. He is a promising scholar and a dedicated teacher, and will be missed by his colleagues and students. Nevertheless, the University has determined this decision to be in the best interests of its constituency at this time.Now, if Pahl is safely orthodox and a committed evangelical, then what prey-tell is the flipping problem? It seems to me that it is a narrowness defined by institutional power and a quest for absolute conformity on everything.
You can read Michael Pahl’s account of events on his blog. James McGrath also has a good round-up on posts. Christianity Today even features on article on Michael’s dismissal in Crisis of Faith Statements.
The conservative American penchant to demonstrate their doctrinal righteousness by crucifying their young continues to baffle me and should be a cause of grave concern.
The message such fundamentalists are sending to the next generation is clear: 'our faith is so fragile that it cannot withstand open scrutiny, and those who do have the honesty to voice their doubts will be purged'. I can think of no better way of destroying Christianity in a generation than to privilege fundamentalist dogma, and purge those who point out its flaws.
It is a lesson that out community ignores at its peril.
