The Real Work Begins After The Doctorate

Every person who is going through the process of obtaining a Ph. D. and has a serious intention of serving the Church on the other side of the journey will inevitably realize that there is a significant disconnect between the academy and the Church. Scholarship that is praised by members of the academy is often not received well by the masses of the Church. Any Ph. D. programs associated with confessional institutions will do well to 1) recognize this reality and 2) supply the tools to tackle the dynamics that their graduates will undoubtedly face.

I am currently of the opinion that this disconnect arises not so much from ideas, theories, and conclusions that are truly heretical. Rather, the disconnect largely arises from a lack of communication from the part of the Ph. D. and understanding from the members of the Church. And I would go a step further and say that the pendulum of responsibility swings to the Ph. D., particularly since we have chosen to develop our God given abilities and passions for a life of deep study and reflection. I remember being called in to my professor's office after submitting a paper. The conversation essentially boiled down to, "You have good ideas, but you cannot communicate them. Dave, you can have the greatest ideas in the world, but if you cannot communicate them, they are worthless." This lesson resonates with me to this day. One's inability to properly communicate ideas precludes proper understanding.

So what is to be done in the case of the disconnect between the Church and the academy? On the surface, the remedy seems easy enough, doesn't it? With all the education that these Ph. D.s have experienced, you would think that they would be able to communicate things on a level that appeals to the masses, right? Unfortunately, something weird happens when you spend a decade neck-deep in research. You become consumed with "talking the talk," which inevitably leads to tendencies an habits of discussing issues in certain ways. And don't try to resist this, because as the Borg said, "Resistance is futile. You will assimilate."


But let's not quickly move to castigate biblical scholars. All types of specialists will inevitably be consumed with the lingo of their field. Engineers do it. Scientists do it. Financial consultants do it.

Nevertheless, I believe that the key to effectively to bridging the disconnect between the academy and the Church is for the scholar to develop a good method of communication and presentation. Again, I do not believe that the issue centers on the conclusions of biblical scholarship, per se. Rather, it is communicating those conclusions. Quite simply, how does the biblical scholar communicate complex issues that naturally gravitate to a select group of people in a way that ensures wide spread understanding? This is something that Ph. Ds must deal with on the back side of their degree.

The following points are really an initial foray. I am going through this transition as I write and so these ideas are rather fluid, not to mention woefully underdeveloped. Indeed, they may sound simplistic, and even comical to scholars who are more seasoned than I.

First, we must bring everything back to the text of the Bible, explaining clearly how any given conclusion illuminates the message of Scripture. I am a Protestant, and so a large portion of my theological paradigm considers what Scripture has to say on topic, X, Y, or Z. This is not to say that tradition, reason, or experience plays no role. Only that Scripture holds a priority. Moreover, this first task can be teased out a bit.

1. Is the conclusion a diachronic or a synchronic one? If it is diachronic, then its synchronic appeal must be explained. Scripture as you see it is a result of a lengthy and complicated process of composition and development. The realities that lead up to the final form of text--the form of Scripture that people see today--are called "diachronic"  realities. "Synchronic" realities is just a fancy term that corresponds to "diachronic" and essentially refers to the final form of Scripture. In other words, I am saying that conclusions of biblical studies that deal with the historical processes that produced Scripture must be explained in a way that clearly divulges how it impacts one's understanding of the final form of Scripture. For example, how does understanding the development of Judges illuminate the theological points of emphasis created by the final form of the text? Admittedly, this entire idea is hard for someone who has been rooted in the academy for a decade...but it is absolutely essential. Furthermore, its difficulty is increased by the potential spiritual implications. The scholar must know his or her audience and be able to determine if discussions of such complex realities of Scripture will do more harm than good. If it is the former, scholars must be restrained. Just don't go there. Sometimes a scholar's interest in how the historical progression of Judges testifies to Israel's progression of religious consciousness is just not shared with members in our congregations.
2. Is this a "behind the text" reality? If so, you must explain how it illuminates the text. The idea of something being "behind the text" is a weird way of referring to those realities that indirectly affect the text's message or illuminate the nuances of the text's message. They often deal with background issues. Examples include, history, archaeology, sociology, anthropology, etc. Scholars must remember that the ultimate payoff does not reside with these conclusions...however fascinating they may  be. 

Second, we must be able to articulate the theological relevance of our conclusion(s). As I see it, this goal can be obtained most efficiently either through developing principles that can be commonly held and applied, or demonstrating the relevance by an appeal to experience via testimony. What's more, I am inclined to say that this is the crux of the entire situation. If one cannot explain any real-world relevance for any conclusion, then that conclusion essentially will remain in the realm of theory or abstractness, destined to be perceived as unusable by the Church as a whole.

I am describing a journey...a cognitive journey through which every scholar who is seriously interested in serving the Church must go. Yet it is a difficult journey,which is evinced by the dearth of good biblical scholars that can also effectively resonate with the masses. On the one hand, a decade of intense study has unlocked riches that will not and cannot be forgotten by the scholar. On the other hand, we have to remember and re-learn certain things about the Church. What appeals? What resonates? I can honestly say that it is after my getting my degree that my real work has only begun.