Dr. Clark,

I appreciate your interaction. I do not in any way wish to lock horns with you or disrespect you, as I have neither your scholastic, nor your ecclesiastic, pedigree. That being said, I still have some thoughts. So feel free to interact with them, and if you are too busy, no big deal.

You said:

I do not think that your inference that I am supporting "anti-intellectualism" is valid. In an ideal world I think rigorous academic preparation should accompany preparation for the ministry. In fact, practically, I think it is a shame that every ordained elder is not familiar with Greek, Hebrew, Latin, as well as being intimately acquainted with church history, to the point that he could engage in learned discourse with Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic clergy.

I simply question whether Doctoral work at an unbelieving university is necessary to achieving that goal. Actually, I question whether it is even the best of the available options towards meeting that goal. That's all. I don't see how putting men in a hostile environment, separated from their local church, possibly in cities with no good, Reformed churches, is helpful, especially when their professional career and the maintenance and care of their families depends on them, more often than not, actually finishing their doctorate. How many times have people had to compromise, I wonder, or bite their tongue, or avoid certain topics, or use language they weren't quite comfortable with, just to pander to the unbelieving faculty?

Regardless, that isn't my main point. I guess I would like your thoughts on this more than anything else: Why is Yale, or Harvard, or Tubingen, necessarily viewed as a good education? That might sound simplistic and trite, but I am rather sincere.

At what point does the "intellectual credibility" of an institution begin to be evaluated by their teaching in the light of facts? All of mankind actually descended from the eight people who exited the ark. God really did judge Egypt with ten devastating plagues. The resurrection actually and historically took place. The Scriptures are the revealed, inerrant, unbreakable word of God. Those things are most certainly not simple matters of dogma. They are matters of settled fact, and settled history.

So when an institution manages to outright deny all of those dogmas and facts, why are they viewed as any more intelligent or reputable? I can't help but seeing an analogous situation in my mind: I liken the leading universities of the world to the world's best lawyer. He has a silver tongue: The tongue of Loki and of Satan. His rhetoric, and the ability to twist his words and bedazzle minds, the depth of his vocabulary, his polished skill in presentation, all the pomp and circumstance that he represents, is unbearably impressive. On the other side of the courtroom stands an ill-favored man, by worldly standards, who, perhaps, stutters when he speaks and lacks some of the je ne sais quois that seems to fuel the Faustian lawyer.

Yet there is one small difference. The stuttering lawyer has actually received the facts of the case. And though he cannot present them in a captivating fashion, he nonetheless is in the right, and people who want to learn the truth should associate with him. People who want to learn how to impress others, and seduce others, and twist anything into becoming " truth " should hang out and associate with the big time lawyer.

That's at least how I see it. Let me use an example. Take Tubingen and everything that came out of the German universities. I realize that reality and history are more complicated than this simple retelling, but surely they were instrumental and foundational in laying the foundation of much of modern scholarship. Just the whole movement of criticism in Germany.

I remember reading things from that school about how some of the Gospels and Scriptures weren't around until the late 2nd century, how Christ never performed miracles, etc. To throw another name in due to the related issues, think of Wellhausen and the JEDP, and all of that. They were demonstrably wrong (we know now) on the claims regarding Scripture. As Christians, we know they were wrong about the miracles. And the JEDP thing, at least in that form, has been largely abandoned.

And yet, in their hey-day, they were the "real scholars." I just can't help but to think that there is some bifurcation in the Christian mind wherein fundamentally mistaken and misguided people in these universities who are writing errors, lies, and mistakes, are somehow seen to be the "real scholars" from whom evangelicals could learn, and one's academic credentials are somewhat lacking if one is not favored with one of their doctorates.

Do we actually think there is neutrality there? We know what happens in some universities when a scientist questions Darwinism. What happens if, perhaps, a few years from now, those who believe in the resurrection, or the exclusivity of Christ, are denied entrance to doctoral programs on an a priori basis, because they are by nature "unfit for the rigorous demands of the academy"? Would that still be a "real education"?

Point being, everything that contradicts Scripture is a lie, and an error. So, when everything about these faculties and schools are a walking contradiction of Scripture, I can't help but to think that the church and seminaries convey a message to prospective teachers that, ultimately, unbelief and a lack of faith in Scripture is a "real" education. That message is sent implicitly, if not explicitly.

And IMO, that's part of the problem.

Sidenotes:

Did orthodox bishops as a matter or rule send clergy to study at the Academy in Athens or to schools in Alexandria? Justin, Clement, Origen, etc., certainly seem to be the exception, and not the rule, when it comes to a near complete marriage of Jerusalem and Athens. Once the reformation was established, did they go to the older, well-resourced Catholic universities of Europe, or did they send them to Geneva? Later, did Protestant scholars send their impressionable young men off to Bellarmine? Clearly he had a fierce and and impressive capacity for rhetoric and reading. How are those situations any different than that of today? How are we not sending people to learn from Plato, Arius, and Bellarmine?

Also, you said that the challenges of the academy were almost necessary (i.e. something that should be done) for the prospective seminary teacher. I don't see why interaction with liberal scholarship would be any more necessary than interaction with, say, Mormon teaching, or Islamic doctrine, etc. It's simply apologetics. To put liberalism in one class, and say that we have to learn from them, and put all the other errors in a different class as something we need to do apologetics against, is still to implicitly bow the head to liberalism, it seems, as a vessel of truth.

When secular institutions by and large, teach that there is no design in the universe, that right and wrong simply don't exist, that men can marry men and babies can be slaughtered in the womb, that the Bible is unreliable, the the miracles of Scripture are lies, that Derrida is king and language means nothing, etc., etc., it just baffles me to think that this is a "real education." It reminds me of what C.S. Lewis said about the Unman in Perelandra. The Unman gives grandiose speeches and flowery rhetoric that seduce the Lady from the simplicity of her trust in Maleldil. He goes on for chapters, convincing arguments, but something always not quite right about it. Later Ransom says something to the effect that, from memory, the unman used reason like a tool for its own dark purposes. When it suited him, he'd pick it up and use it. When it stopped suiting him, he'd put it down.

That's how I see modern academia. They are brilliant at twisting and using reason, but when they don't need it, they set it down. I fail to see how some doctoral programs are not more of a doctorate in rhetoric and oratory as opposed to a doctorate in truth and facts.

Anyhow. As I said, I'm not attacking seminaries. I'm just questioning that Tubingen and it's children represent a "real education." I think most of the stuff that needs to be learned in the ministry can be learned by knowing Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and a thorough acquaintance with the primary sources. None of which must necessarily be associated with doctoral work in Gottingen.

Blessings Dr. Clark!

__________________
Joshua Wiseman
Riverview PCA
Charleston, WV

"Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings."
- Psalm 17:8