I'm Chris Zeichmann, and Chris Weimer invited me to contribute to this blog, so I'd like to thank him for that opportunity. I suppose this would be the time to provide a theological autobiography. I apologize if this is obnoxiously long.
I was born and raised ELCA Lutheran, attending church 3 or 4 weeks out of the month from late elementary school through high school. The ELCA, for those who don't know, is more-or-less the liberal strain of Lutheranism in the USA. That said, my parents were not particularly religious beyond attending church. Religion was not often discussed and we did not own a Bible until I got one for my 17th birthday. With liberal parents like this, it becomes difficult to rebel when in high school, so I did so the only way I knew how: I became conservative. Though my knowledge of the Bible was limited almost exclusively to readings from church, I was certain that creationism was right and that only foolish Christians would believe in evolution. If creationism were wrong, someone surely would have proved this to me long before then. It managed to get my parents' goat, which was all that I wanted at the time. To be clear, this anti-intellectualism was self-imposed and I suspect that I may have been the only person in my church to believe these things. During this time, I had numerous and moderately-frequent religious experiences that cemented these beliefs.
When I started attending undergrad, I was a pre-optometry major, which required an advanced introduction to biology course (quite the oxymoron, no?). Naturally, I was forced to confront my beliefs and ended up shedding the most conservative views by the end of my freshman year. In that time, though, I realized that I had no interest in being an optometrist and was set to transfer to another school for a pre-seminary track. But before leaving that school, a friend gave me his copy of "The Case for Christ," which I read eagerly over the summer. For one unfamiliar with academic approaches to the study of religion, it opened up a lot of interesting historical questions, and I accepted most of the book at face value. But knowing that I was at an intellectual deficit for being a pre-seminary and theology major, I started reading some popular works on the New Testament, such as the Jesus Seminar's "The Five Gospels," in hopes that I might catch up. I was fairly certain that Strobel & co.'s criticisms of the Jesus Seminar were valid, so I more or less maintained the inerrancy of the New Testament through this time.
Once I arrived at my new school, I was scheduled to take the intro to Greek course, the intro to the Bible course, and an introduction to Christian history. The second of these courses again forced me to confront my assumptions about inerrancy and related beliefs. It was also around this time that I first started attending message boards run by Peter Kirby and Chris Weimer, as well as the iidb with some frequency. After that first semester ended, I was fairly certain that I was not called into pastoral ministry, but felt that my vocation was in the academic study of the Bible (which I believed was later confirmed in a dream). Up until this time, my interest in the Bible and most things was largely in a quest for capital-T "Truth," which I believed was manifested itself all over: movies, apocryphal gospels, philosophy, world religions, etc. Each of these had the potential to offer insight into the divine. After this point, though, my interests were more historical and secular than confessional. My growth was assisted immensely by the year I spent in an intentional community, known as the "Fellowship House." Roughly 30 of us (half male and half female) were liberal Christians who lived together and gathered often to discuss the academic study of religion. If it were not for this year of my life, I can assure you that I would be an unrecognizable person to those who know me now. Aside from meeting many of the closest friends I've ever had, this was a time for each of us to discuss our own struggles with faith and the academy with others who were experiencing the same. In my final year of undergrad, I became especially aware of the role of bias and ideology in biblical studies, which influenced me to consistently put the Bible in opposition to my own beliefs (e.g., New Perspective on Paul vs. Lutheran soteriology; apocalyptic Jesus vs. my own non-eschatological liberal Christianity).
I ended up getting a double major: an theology degree that was intensified to 40 credits and a second major in Classics - Greek. This paved the way for my entrance to the Claremont School of Theology, where I am presently attempting to get my MA with a focus on Biblical Studies. I don't want to get too in-depth on my present views, since those will come out clearly in the future. After I complete my time here at CST, I hope to either get a second MA or get a PhD in the field of the New Testament.
I look forward to the conversations with those I know and those whom I have yet to talk.
4 comments:
Chris, enjoyed your intro. The following statement interested me: "this anti-intellectualism was self-imposed". This is said with respect to your one-time belief in creationism over evolution.
I infer from this phrase that you really knew down deep that evolution was correct, but you felt you must support creationism because you were fundamentalist. Is this a correct inference?
If so, I hope that you do not feel that all Christians do so. The arguments for and against evolution are very complex, and I cannot really fault, as "anti-intellectual", non-scientist laypersons for believing the arguments they find most convincing.
Even as a fundamentalist, evangelical, Southern Baptist, I lean toward evolution as a theory of the way things change over time, but I can't say absolutely that it completely accounts for the generation of humanbeings.
It is difficult for me, even with an engineering background, to understand all the arguments that allow us to reasonably assume macro evolution. In other words, I have no problem seeing that evolution works on a small scale because it is scientifically observable, and one can assume that it must also therefore work at a macro scale. But does it? And does it really account for the generation of humans (i.e. such that we started as one-celled organisms)? It is incredibly hard to say for sure because it is not observable by humans at that scale, we can only assume based on potentially faulty interpretations of our finite data.
I guess I would also be curious how your seminary study of the Bible led you to the conclusion that there are multiple "truths" outside the Bible, since I'm sure you are aware that there are many intelligent and honest people who make it through seminary with with beliefs intact.
What made the difference for you as opposed to them?
(My apologies if these comments come across poorly...I really am interested in what you think makes the difference for you as opposed to those who do not see reason or see very little reason for alteration of their beliefs.)
Also, being highly interested in the field of textual criticism, myself, I can understand your aversion to advocating the "inerrancy of scripture", but I wonder if you are aware that the more familiar wording for this by seminary scholars today is "inspired inerrancy of the originals". I have lots of opinions on this phrase as well, but I have sympathies with the view and still believe that the most vital doctrines of Christianity are left intact.
Bryan, I apologize for not responding sooner.
To start, I would never suggest that anti-intellectualism is a necessary part of any religion, including fundamentalist Christianity. I would characterize my form of creationism at that time as "disingenuous" and built more out of a desire to irritate my parents than out of any honest inquiry about the origins of the cosmos. I hope I've matured since then.
Regarding your second question, despite being known for its NT and OT programs, Claremont School of Theology is not well known for its advocacy of the "truth" of the bible as a whole. Though the professors are obviously teaching for seminarians (discussing the preachability of the text, for example), questions of historical reliability and divine intervention in history are consistently eschewed. One of my biggest difficulties as of late is the question of the relevance of this series of documents that were obviously not intended for a caucasian, middle-class male in the 21st USA. I have not been too big on "doctrines" in the recent past, especially as it seems a great deal of academics take some of them (e.g., the Trinity, substitutionary atonement) on an existentialist truth-is-arbitrary level. Such being the case, I hope that I can be forgiven by such individuals for not taking all of these doctrines. However, it seems that any religious institution whose services are edifying have an emphasis on doctrine that I hesitate to squirm around (contrast my experiences with the Unitarian Universalist Church). I appreciate your comments and again apologize for taking forever to respond. I'm still trying to figure blogger out.
Chris, no problem in the delay. Thanks for your response. I am always curious to know more about the "nuts and bolts" behind others' thinking.
Post a Comment