Michael Bird posts on a blog called Euangelion.
This recent post arises from two recent situation where Old Testament scholars of some reputation have been dismissed from reformed seminaries for holding positions on the historicity of the early chapters of the Bible that are, to say the least, controversial. Others could characterise them as being utterly wrong to the degree that they undermine the overall credibility of the scholarly standing of these men as Bible scholars of a reformed standing.
Now professional biblical scholars have to find new things to say. Really, they have to justify their tenure, Phd theses and all the new books that get published.
One perspective on Bird’s complaints could be that professional Bible scholars are best placed to judge the orthodoxy of the output of other professional Bible scholars.
What I’ve missed from Bird’s comments, and his defence of biblical scholarship, is that the blogoshpere is not the place for these matters to be settled. Neither is it really in the academy or the press.
It is in the church.
If a teaching of the church is deemed to be defective in his doctrine a charge ought to be laid against him, and he should have the right to defend his position or see concede he is in error.
It is the church, through its court or representative body of leadership who should determine this.
This should be all the more so in reformed theology which holds to a system of mutual accountability between its leaders and churches.
These administrative means bring about certain outcomes, but they do not result in the church having a clearer mind about what it believes. I don’t think that is helpful to the harmony of the church.
mgpcpastor's blog 