Quote:
Originally Posted by rmdmphilosopher  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? |
Perhaps legal scholarship is a bit different (and probably has more room for conservatism than other fields), but citing the Bible in law review articles is common enough that the Bible has a special format in the Bluebook. Most of the articles probably cite the scriptures as a cultural artifact (I should research this issue), but I have seen at least one mainstream law review article that cites the Bible as an authority -- David A. Skeel, Jr. and William J. Stuntz,
Christianity and the (Modest) Rule of Law, 8 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 809 (2006).
I suppose one could write an article that assumes, for example, total depravity without explaining or defending this belief. I think this would probably either confuse or alienate readers. But then, I think academics are too prone to hide the ball about their personal positions even when their writing assumes, implies, and subtly argues for them at every turn. Using Christian presuppositions to defend one tiny corner of the truth without placing that truth in the context of the whole gospel seems very odd to me.