Professor Hendel publicly announced his lapse in fees here, citing the SBL’s warming up to religious scholars. You should Jim West‘s, Stephen Carslon‘s, Mike Bird’s, Jim Davila‘s, John Hobbin‘s, Carl Sweatman‘s and Dr. Cargill‘s, Joseph Kelly, Chris Brady, as well as Suzanne’s.

Now, the Society of Biblical Literature has responded here, answering various claims, such as,

Claim: The SBL has diluted its standards of critical scholarship, as evidenced in the 2004 change to the Society mission statement.

Clarification: The Society’s mission has been changed a number of times, but in no case did such a revision reflect a decreased commitment to the standards of academic excellence, nor did the changes dilute the standards of critical scholarship. One iteration of the Society mission, quoted in Hans Dieter Betz’s 1997 presidential address, seems worthy of consideration here. The SBL’s purpose includes “stimulat[ing] the critical investigation of biblical literature … [and] widen[ing] the conversation partners of all interested in biblical literature” (JBL 117 [1998]: 4). Throughout its history, the SBL has seen no inherent contradiction between “critical investigation” and including in the conversation “all interested in biblical literature,” a perspective that is consistent with the SBL’s current mission statement: “to foster biblical scholarship.” In short, “critical inquiry—that is to say, reason” has not been “deliberately deleted” from the SBL mission. SBL has never “removed the phrase ‘critical investigation’” from any initiative.

(read Dr. Cargill’s response to this as well as well as Dr. McGrath‘s)

For my part, having religious, believing, scholars as a vital part of the SBL provides that sympathetic ear which we have recently heard about. I do not think, however, that critical scholarship, whether ultimately I disagree with it or it challenges my faith, should be abandoned as a vital course of study. Critical scholarship could help in ending the fundamentalism which leads to reactionary violence against groups, science, and progress. Again, I don’t have to agree with it, to consider it a valid exercise.

Of course, a little fundamental sympathy in reading the texts doesn’t hurt critical scholars either. Considering that these are texts still lived and breathed and believed by people today, sympathy should play a part in examining these texts, shouldn’t it?