Andy Asks:
"For the sake of discussion (perhaps on another thread), the views of conservative Christianity have been presented in this discussion and often times the conservative view is also accused of legalism. How are conservative Christianity and legalism different? Also, are scholars who take the liberal view on this issue poorly educated?"
Robert's Answer
This is a difficult question to answer, because it depends on what one means by "conservative" and "liberal." Few liberals and conservatives will label themselves as such and thus it is impossible to blanketly generalize that all liberals are poorly educated and all conservatives as automatically right (which is not even accurate).
As I researched several definitions of "liberal" and "conservative", there were a plethora of possible ones to choose. I find these terms basically impossible to be used in any sort of academic discussion for the very reason that there is no crystal clear definition. What I would say in response to your first question, "How are conservative Christianity and legalism different?", is to define legalism--the adherence to an unnecessarily strict or binding interpretation of a written set of statutes (whether that be Mosaic law or US law or what have you). The word "conservative" has become too political in the sense the word means too many things. While many people (and sometimes myself included) would brand me a "conservative," I don't think of myself as conservative for the sake of the term--rather I think things ought to be believed that are reasonable to be believed (this is not to say that those who are not "conservative" do not believe things that are reasonable--that is not meant to be an implication of what I just wrote). And on the particular issue you were reading about, women pastors, I was relating what I thought made the most rational sense and thus was the most reasonable. If I ever refer to a position as "liberal" I mean that I find the position being put forth to be untenable usually because it is the opposite of legalism--an unnecessarily loose and open interpretation of a written set of statutes (or whatever is being discussed). Such positions usually are attempts to avoid the responsibility of God or Scripture through a very open and unbinding interpretation of Scripture.
Your second question was: "Also, are scholars who take the liberal view on this issue poorly educated?" My answer is no (according to my personal definition of liberal above). Many scholars who put forth "liberal" positions are nonetheless quite academically educated. This does not make their views correct, but just because a "liberal position" is put forth by a scholar does not make that scholar unschooled--usually it is the opposite: the scholar has been schooled in what they are arguing. Also, it must be remembered that terms like "liberal" and "conservative" refer to a person's general worldview and not just his/her views on one particular issue. Many people (including myself) are "conservative" on some issues and "liberal" on others. For example, Dr. William Lane Craig (PhD, ThD) adheres to a belief in evolution and a very old earth (views which are many times referred to as "liberal" by Christians), but at the same time believes that homosexuality and abortion are unbiblical (which many times are referred to as "conservative" views).
Thus, I don't believe that "liberal" scholars are uneducated (that would be a self-contradiction)--usually I just find their views to be unnecessarily lax and therefore unreasonable. The "liberal" probably would argue the same thing against me and thus most issues in my opinion ought to be debated out on the grounds of reasonableness (logic + adequate amount of the emotional) in order for the truth to be discovered.
Thanks for your question!
God bless,
Robert A. Rowlett