J Dub's responses

I'm not going to copy our patrist's (another coinage) email, but I will summarize the suggestions.

1) Elizabeth Clark, Mary McClintock Fulkerson, and David Aers on literary or critical theory. As a recent reader of George Steiner's Real Presences, and a skeptic of most things french (though remaining a francophile), and I'm sure many of you have heard me talk about my Milton class with Aers, so of J Dub's suggestions, I am most sympathetic to this one. This is Clark's Book

2) Dean Jones and Brodhead (and some other perspective, possibly the former president or the unnamed woman who wrote that book) on charactor formation and higher education.

3) Paul DeHart et al on Postlibs.

One further comment. The balance between knowledge of topic and attendance level is a trecherous one, but I think having a geniune conversation between unlikely conversants is the summum bonum. And this is a very academically aware campus whom I feal, especially with Smitty's first two suggestions, could get a large response.

But these are only a few options, and we have plenty of time. Come on. Nuance and suggest a little in the comments.

Nickalicious' response to Dwuhlizzle

Derek's assessment of Habermas is accurate as far as his "fundamental modernism" is concerned. I will say this; Habermas will be the first to admit that apologetics and debate do not change lives or "convert" souls. In fact he doesn't debate anymore; but would be open for lecturing, discussing, or participating in open dialogue. Much of Dr. Habermas' focus of late has been on what the resurrection means for practical faith. I refer you to a recent book of his, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope. Dr. Habermas does focus a great deal on "preaching the hope of the resurrection". One last thing on Habermas, he encouraged me a great deal in my decision to attend Duke. His top reason for choosing Duke was Dr. Hays. Enough with my ongoing Liberty apologetics. I do not believe that bringing in scholars who differ in opinion from that of the faculty at Duke would nor should cause any dissension within the divinity school. If Mel White and Bart Erhman (I believe their views are in opposition with the ?line?) can be brought in for open discussion, then why not an Evans or Habermas. I would understand the riff Pat Robertson or Falwell would cause, but not respected and well read academians. I don?t believe that by bringing certain figures ( ie (?left?) Eugene Rogers or (?right?) Gary Habermas) would come off as disrespectfully opposing the ?line?. I feel that these scholars would respect the teachings of the div. school and offer their own convictions without discord in their intentions. I specifically mention these two scholars because they?re within two hours of Duke. We shouldn't limit the horizon of the socratics. I know the the members of our churches won't limit what they will read. I anticipate questions in my church on Erhman, Rogers, Evans, and
Habemas just as much as questions on the Dan Brown.

Would Dr. Smith like to commit and offer his opinion as a faculty member?


God Bless,

Nick

Dwuhlizzle's response

I agree with Dr Hays. It's not a good move politically for the Socratic Round Table to (even indirectly) stage events in opposition to the going line among our faculty. Especially when the going line is a pretty great line, and certainly well within orthodoxy. I'm especially disinclined to go the route of these suggestions, given I find that line to be problematic on a number of points. Though I enjoy and benefit from Witherington a great deal, Evans and Habermas are more toward the fundamentalist end of the spectrum. By that, I do not mean "more conservative than Duke/myself" - though that is true. What I mean is the technical/historical sense of  fundamentalist. That is to say those who maintain an adversarial (antagonistic) relationship with historical-critical biblical scholarship.

But - unlike Hays, Davis, Childs, etc., they do so in a valence that accepts modernism &hbc's presuppositions. That is to say they develop their position with an assumption that if HBC turns out to be true, then the faith and the bible are bunk. Our profs rather object to HBC and modernism's presuppositions that historical study can be undertaken in the objective and utterly empirical manner it suggests. Heck, even Ehrman admits this is a fallacy and illusion. 

Now Nick went to Liberty, and may have a contrasting/better read on Habermas. But it seems to me that anybody who engages in an adjudicated debate Anthony Flew in order to prove/defend the bodily resurrection on strict empirical-historical and logical-philosophical grounds. This is a fundamentally modernist project (mixed-metaphor intended), one that the Yale school, postliberal, neo/radical orthodoxy strain (in which we are immersed here at Duke) rejects as wrong-headed.

Remember, JW Smith told us that he told his examination board that he could not preach "certainty" of the resurrection, but that he could preach the "hope" of the resurrection. The former is an empirical and philosophical claim; the latter is a biblical and theological one.


Anyone else want to weigh in here?

DWL

Getting Closer

It is less than a hundred days til the next Fight Club. If you actually check this site I know you can't wait.

Herald Sun Article

Steve pointed out to me this Herald Sun Article about the Hays/Ehrman event

Just thought I'd pass it on.
Tom