The Practicing Progressive

Issue 16
March 27, 2007

I am sure that Richard Mau, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, is a kind and compassionate man. I also understand that he has a reputation as an enlightened evangelical with an ecumenical spirit and oratorical skill. I have no reason to doubt any of this but I believe his theology is intellectually bankrupt.

I come to this conclusion after one late-night listening to Mau’s comments on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” radio call-in show. You can listen to his remarks right now: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9041745 . Perhaps you will come to another conclusion but I found his responses to host Neal Conan’s questions, as well as those of some listeners, revelatory of the strange convoluted exegesis that evangelicals often employ.

“As a Christian who takes the Bible seriously…” Mau prefaces his remarks and then goes on to claim that his view should be honored and not dismissed as the ranting of a homophobe. Yet he sidesteps criticism that his reliance on the Bible for his position is neither coherent nor consistent. Why, one wonders, does he not keep a kosher diet or demand that women remain silent in church or support the continuation of slavery…all of which receive emphasis in the Bible.

I suspect that Mau is justifiably fearful of the slippery slope that exists for those who are willing to consider the voluminous and very credible research available on the formation of the Bible. Once one begins to muse over the possibility that particular scriptural passages might reflect more of the tenor of the times than the actual desires of the divine, one confronts a radically different approach to the Bible. Mau, and others like him, are afraid of the ultimate destination of such thinking. And so they should. Simply by reflecting, as he does on this show, on the pain that his position causes to homosexuals, Mau begins the process of realizing that the compassionate life modeled by Jesus supersedes even scripture. This is a very dangerous position for an evangelical Christian to ponder and so, at least on this show, Mau relies on the biblical bromides that substitute for intellectual insight among conservative Christianity.

As I listened to the show, I grew more and more irritated with Mau’s intellectual dishonesty. His protestations of compassion rang hollow next to his unwillingness to confront the incongruities in his exegesis. One questioner wondered if such faulty thinking should even be given a voice any longer. The caller cited the fact that misogyny and racism were no longer considered worthy positions of public debate. Why, he asked, is homophobia? Although both the host and the guests quickly dismissed the caller’s question, it bears some consideration. Considerable time and energy have been wasted in certain school systems, for instance, on the ludicrous biblical interpretations that seek to pass as science. Is it not time to do the same with this kind of intellectual inconsistency that passes as Christian pastoral care?

I have a hunch that Mr. Mau is very much aware of the tenuous nature of his reasoning but I also suspect that he is concerned where a more consistent pattern of thought might take him. As president of a prestigious evangelical seminary, Mau knows full well the political ramifications of a more honest position. Sadly, it appears, he would rather risk his intellectual reputation than his institutional support. Choosing a fraudulent line of reasoning, Mau has indicated his willingness to choose the clamoring crowd over the compassionate Christ.