In a 2010 book, New Testament scholar Michael Licona said that the zombie apocalypse of Matthew 27:52, where many of the dead came back to life after Jesus died, didn’t literally happen. To many of us that’s an unsurprising observation, but this caused quite a controversy within the scholarly evangelical community.
According to Christianity Today:
[Norman] Geisler accused Licona of denying the full inerrancy of Scripture. He also called for Licona to recant his interpretation, labeling it “unorthodox, non-evangelical, and a dangerous precedent for the rest of evangelicalism.”
“Recant”? Is this the Inquisition? Was Licona, like Galileo, shown the instruments of torture and encouraged to choose the correct path?
To be clear, the only objectionable item in Licona’s entire 700-page book was the reinterpretation of this one incident in Matthew, and yet he was pressured out of his job last month as professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and his position as apologetics coordinator for the North American Mission Board was eliminated. A single question about biblical inerrancy was, for some, intolerable.
We can try to see this from the standpoint of SES. They have a purpose statement, which says in part that the institution assumes “the infallibility and inerrancy of the Scriptures.” Licona was likely asked to commit to this statement, and his book could be seen as a breach of this commitment.
These kinds of statements of faith are common, and I found them for Bob Jones University, Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, and others. I attended the International Academy of Apologetics this summer (admittedly an odd place for an atheist to be for two weeks, but that’s another story), and their statement of faith, binding on the faculty, said that the Academy “accepts the Holy Scriptures as the revealed and inerrant word of God.”
Let’s grant that a university can dismiss a professor for breaching a contract, even one so odd as this. What’s rarely discussed is the consequence of these mandatory statements: they mean that Christian scholars at evangelical institutions are unable to be objective. With their job on the line, their hands are tied. They can’t always follow the facts where they lead. The public pillorying of Licona shows the consequences of intellectual honesty.
This incident has opened my eyes. Whenever I see or hear claims by Christian scholars, I will now wonder if a statement of faith applies. The next time I read an article by William Lane Craig, for example, I will read it with the caveat that he’s bound by Biola University’s doctrinal statement that says, in part, “The Scriptures … are without error or defect of any kind.” When he argues that the Bible is accurate, I won’t know if that’s really his honest conclusion or if that’s just his institution talking.
This even affects Norm Geisler, Licona’s chief accuser. Geisler is a professor at Veritas Evangelical Seminary, whose statement of faith says, “We believe the Bible … is verbally inerrant in the original text.”
How can we take seriously anything said about Christianity by Craig, Geisler, or indeed any scholar who is intellectually constrained in this way?
Photo credit: Vectorportal
- Bobby Ross, Jr. “Interpretation Sparks a Grave Theology Debate,” Christianity Today, November 2011.
- Jeffrey Jay Lowder, “Christian NT Scholar and Apologist Michael Licona Loses Job After Questioning Matthew 27,” The Secular Outpost blog, 11/8/11.
- Chris Hallquist, “The Mike Licona kerfluffle, and what it tells us about Evangelicals and inerrancy,” Uncredible Hallq blog, 11/15/11.
- “Michael R. Licona,” Wikipedia.
You want to sell books, any press is good press. Makes me wonder why he’d just stop at chipping away at just that verse. If he were really smart he might have claimed that Jesus was a transvestite. That might have gotten him a gig on the morning show circuits.
Sacrificing your job and maybe your career to get PR to sell your book? Are you seriously suggesting that that was the route he wanted to take?
Well Mr. Bob, just look at the gamble you’re taking being an Atheist and all. You should be the wiser for watching this guy play his odds. More than a book deal might go up in smokes.
That doesn’t address my question. Anyway, while he can choose or not to publish his book, I can’t choose to not be an atheist.
Guess I’m just that kind of a political animal; you know, always answer a different question than the one asked. I’ve seen leopards change their spots before, and they are no where as clever as you. Those odds look pretty good to me. Oh, about the links; think nothing of it, I’m still searching for that other one, if I find it I’ll be sure to insist that you feature it.
It floors me that people who are competent enough to get dressed in the morning can look at the bible and declare it inerrant.
Greetings Mr. rasputin42
I’m not quite dressed yet, but just out of curiosity is or are there any particular error/errors that you have in mind when you say that? I’m thinking things which might seem as errors may be simply things that are misunderstood?
Great line! I gotta remember that one.