Originally Posted by rmdmphilosopher

I wasn't entirely sure where to put this question, but the exegetical forum seemed like the best place [moderators please relocate me if this is an improper question for this forum].

I'm currently hammering out some issues for a paper I'm writing for my college intellectual journal (Dordt Crossings). The paper is about "The Role of Scripture in Christian Scholarship", and I'm writing it for those of my peers who are training to be scholars in fields other than theology. A distressing misuse of Scripture in many of the papers that I've encountered among them demonstrates a strong desire to address the implications of their worldview for their particular area of study, but an equally strong ignorance of the proper way to do so. I've been formulating my ideas to give them a bit of direction. So far my essay will move along the following lines:

1. The high view of scripture which entails its relevance to every area of study.
2. The role of scripture in determining correct ideas.
3. The Christian scholar's duty toward scripture as God's word.
4. The duty of a Christian scholar to study scripture.
5. The duty of a Christian scholar to correctly employ scripture.
6. The duty of a Christian scholar to fully acknowledge the influence of scripture upon his own views.

But while developing these ideas, I was informed that "in most areas of scholarship, it is bad form to directly cite the way in which scripture has formed one's ideas, and we need Christian scholars to present their worldview implicitly rather than by explicitly noting its sources so their scholarship will not be written off."

Now this idea offends me. It almost makes me angry. How should I counter the view that non-theological scholarship is demeaned by direct association with Scripture? Why do Christian scholars I respect have this view? I'm annoyed and confused, and I want to mount a rebellion to the notion, but I need to know its sources... The source of the quote above assumes that approach as some sort of standard scholarly procedure, even among Christian scholars. How in the world can that be? Is he right, and I'm just out of the loop to expect a Christian scholar to boldly affirm the religious roots of his paradigm even for an apparently 'disconnected' subject--an affirmation which, it seems to me, does much to bear witness to the life-encompassing influence of true faith?

Thanks in advance--