This past week, I encountered a story concerning Michael Licona, the former apologetics coordinator for the North American Mission Board. He became the “former” coordinator because he broke free from the intellectual prison of his religious tradition and raised a question concerning the historical accuracy of a biblical passage, namely Matthew 27:52-53. From what I can tell, his research led him to propose an apocalyptic reading of the passage best suited the text. Apparently, this caused a number of people to question Licona’s allegiance to biblical inerrancy. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary said the following (a complete post can be found here):
Licona’s book in question, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, is both massive and important. Furthermore, it is virtually unprecedented in terms of evangelical scholarship. The 700-page volume is nothing less than a masterful defense of the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Licona is a gifted scholar who has done what other evangelical scholars have not yet done – he has gone right into the arena of modern historiographical research to do comprehensive battle with those who reject the historical nature of Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
And Licona does so with remarkable skill and great erudition. He also writes with a commendable and quite transparent intellectual honesty. This is a very serious scholar making a very serious case for the fact that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead – and that this event is historically documented and accessible to the modern historian.
…
But, even as Licona dissects arguments against the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact, he then makes a shocking and disastrous argument of his own. Writing about Matthew 27:51-54, Licona suggests that he finds material that is not to be understood as historical fact.
I find it interesting that Mohler would argue for a literalist interpretation of every single verse of the Bible (at least those he thinks are literal). I doubt he believes in transubstantiation, but that’s OK; he leaves that to the Catholics and Anglicans who choose to. What I find even more interesting are his demands that every Christian interpret every verse the same way he does. Ultimately this leads to the development of an Evangelical magisterium. Such behaviour demonstrates a desire for power and the need to function as the authority on theological issues. As I think about this situation, I find it appalling that the president of an academic institution would come against an academic—not for denying the doctrine of inerrancy, but—for interpreting a passage as an apocalyptic one. Such an attack makes me question not only Mohler, but the academic integrity of his institution to allow for free thought. I might not always agree with a brother or sister on how he or she interprets a passage, but that does not mean that I should make an attempt to ruin their career.
As a Ph.D. student, I was disturbed to hear “a good number of evangelical seminary professors… have privately expressed support for Mike Licona but cannot do so publicly for fear of punitive measures.” This makes me raise questions about teaching in a Christian environment. I am completely on board with the idea of upholding doctrine, but does that mean I can’t apply critical thinking skills when I analyze the biblical text? God help me as a Pentecostal scholar! Actually, God help every Christian scholar!





