A Talk with Dr. Eta Linnemann
Vol. VI, No. 2, March 1993
In 1977 Dr. Eta Linnemann met Jesus as her personal Lord and Savior. Her encounter with the risen Christ was no less life changing than was that of Paul. Prior to her conversion, Linnemann studied under Rudolf Bultmann. Trained in historical-critical methodology with anti-supernatural presuppositions, and skeptical about the Bible's reliability, this respected German scholar preached from critical analysis and historical skepticism among colleagues and students alike. Then she was regenerated by the grace of God and began to question the claims of historical/critical methodology.
Today, Eta Linnemann teaches on the mission field in Batu, Indonesia, and also travels the university and seminary circuit, lecturing on the pitfalls of historical/critical methodology. Linnemann writes and lectures as one abused by a methodology that obscures our Lord, thus making many of her conclusions most provocative.
Q. What advice would you give the first year theology student?
A: First of all, he should master the ancient languages so that he is not just slipping through the exams. He should also have a proper historical background in ancient history and synchronistic chronology, and he should read the books of creationism. Then, he should know the Word of God is true.
Q: Of what should he be cautious?
A: Theology students may sometimes hear God's Word is not 100 percent true; this doesn't mean the Word of God is wrong but that our brains are a bit too little. Concerning historical/critical (H/C) methodology, he should know there is nothing to be gained. Also, grammatical analysis and the research of history is not the sole property of H/C theologians.
Q: Why is there an emphasis on H/C in theological studies?
A: The higher critics say that we must be aware of the historical distance between us and the biblical text. They say, "We don't critique the Bible, but we must be critically aware about the differences between us and the first hearers and speakers. We must take this into account – this secular/historical difference.
Q. Do you ever regret what you taught as a higher critic?
A: Of course I regret it. After my conversion to Christ I took all my old historical/critical works and threw them into the trash.
Q: How long were you teaching before you were converted?
A: I started teaching in 1961 in a seminary for teachers of religion in Berlin, and I was saved on the fifth of November 1977
.
Q: Have you had much contact with your former students?
A: Not with many, but one of my students came to me and said he wanted to be saved. Four weeks later he brought his wife to me; now, the whole family is saved.
Q: Did your intellectual community abandon you when you trusted Jesus?
A: My former colleagues had no contact with me. Once I tried to contact them: I sent them a small booklet entitled “Foreign Fires on the Altars of God.” It was about the H/C theology and philosophy. I wrote on the first page they should take it as a personal letter, because I would sign every word in it. I think I got four letters back, and three were from the most conservative of my colleagues. They said, "Yes, there is something to this, but one cannot be so extreme." And one said, "Oh, we had wondered where you were. Now we know you are a fundamentalist."
Q: The word fundamentalist has taken on a pejorative connotation. In spite of that fact, would you describe yourself as a fundamentalist?
A: Yes! Why not? It means founded on the prophets and apostles, where Jesus is the cornerstone. Isn't this beautiful?
Q: B. B. Warfield is often credited for the rise of fundamentalism in America, and his definition of inerrancy refers to the autographa [the original manuscripts of the Scriptures]. How do you reconcile the Bible we have today and the autographa with your definition of inerrancy?
A: All the differences among the different manuscripts don't matter so very much. As far as I remember, the manuscript differences touch no major doctrine.
Q: What do you mean by inerrancy?
A: I have no problem saying the original manuscripts are inerrant; but maybe it goes even further. The Scripture, as we have it, is inerrant. We mustn't say every translation is inerrant; there are some translations which are errant because they are influenced by H/C theology, especially when it comes to II Timothy 3:16-18. The Indonesian Bible says that any Scripture given by the Holy Spirit is indeed useful. By this the H/C translators mean there is a difference between the entire Bible and certain scriptures which are not given by the Holy Spirit, but what we have in the original Greek is really quite different [that is, different from what the H/C translators put in the Indonesian Bible]. So I told my students, "You're an Indonesian; you are obliged to learn Greek. Otherwise you will get this kind of errant translation of the Scripture." There are many errors in the newer Indonesian Bible, because it was translated under a H/C influence.
Q: One area [where] conservatives are apparently at fault is in making inerrancy a matter of fellowship. Is one's view of Scripture a crucial criterion for fellowship?
A: You have your Bible; open it to I John 2:22-23 and to 4:1-3, then you'll see everyone who has not the Son has not the Father. For H/C theologians one thing is true: They don't have the Son because they don't agree that Jesus Christ came in the flesh as God. They say, "Yes, he is a human person," and "Of course he has something to do with our relationship to God," but they don't really accept that He is the Son of God. Conservatives should study the New Testament concerning our relationship to heretics. We shouldn't invite heretics into our house. We shouldn't give them our hand. There are many words in this direction in the New Testament, so how can we have fellowship with them if we want to be faithful? If we want to obey the Word of God, how can we have fellowship with those who think they believe in Jesus, but they don't believe He is the Son of God? You cannot combine truth and lies.
Q: Are you saying we should not tolerate this kind of theologian on our SBC campuses and say to them, "I'm sorry, but for the integrity of the Gospel's sake, we must dismiss you?"
A: Yes! How can we tolerate them? They might become a danger for all students. As long as you have them, higher critics will always give students the impression that if they want to be great scholars, they must become higher critics themselves; otherwise, they would only be fundamentalists and never be scientific. Students come to an evangelical college or seminary for evangelical teaching. They should then get evangelical teaching, but they get H/C theology instead. How can you cover this with your school's name?
Q: What biblical basis is there for this view you have of these theologians?
A: Galatians 1:8 gives us a real guideline – we are not allowed to give anybody the freedom to teach another Gospel, and I can tell you that this is what the H/C theologians do – they teach another gospel.
Q: If I were practicing medicine unsafely at Duke University, I would lose my license and be asked to leave. I could not cry "academic freedom." But some theologians seem to undermine the Scriptures under the guise of academic freedom. What has been your experience concerning theological academic freedom?
A: Academic freedom is never for evangelicals. The liberals will never allow us to say what we want to say. We have all these theological faculties in Germany. Do you think they would accept even a single evangelical? They will never do it.
Q: Do you mean they really don't want a balance?
A: That's right. I think of Gerhard Meier who made his habilitation thesis, showing he was capable of teaching in a seminary. He tried several times to get this habilitation in Tubingen, and he never got it. I know some students who were denied their doctorate; it's not that the students were not clever and hadn't done a good work but that they did not agree with the H/C theologians of the school. It happened even that a theological student passed the exam – she had known everything which she was asked, she knew what Bultmann said, what Kettelmann and other theologians said – but they said, "Yes, you know everything, but we know you are not agreeing with it, so we cannot give you your diploma."
Q: Do you believe there is a shortage of scholarly conservative writings and why?
A: Yes, of course there is, because we are always sticking to their questions and trying to answer them – to give, if possible, evangelical answers to H/C questions. Conservatives are largely unaware of the questions we have to ask and answer.
Q: What do you think is the proper role for women?
A: The proper role for a woman is described in the Holy Scriptures, so we should try to find out what is in the Holy Scriptures concerning the role of a woman. A woman can have a beautiful role being a mother, caring for the children, having an impact on their souls for good – that is a beautiful thing. Of course, a woman can be led another way by the Lord. This is especially a question of guidance – to find out what is the will of the Lord. A lot of women have become missionaries, even pioneer missionaries. We must remember this: When the "Barachs" of today are cowardly, the Lord can call "Deborahs."
Q: Of all the things you would like to communicate, what would you want to say to those in theological education in the United States?
A: We should take our stand on the inerrancy of Scripture, and we should no longer hold the idea that there is one theology with different degrees – the right wing, the left wing, and so on. We should finally take a stand on our own theological research, not always looking at what the higher critics are doing and trying to cope with them. We should have our own self-standing evangelical theology.
Q: Now that conservative evangelicals lead Southeastern, what remarks would you have concerning its future?
A: The future of Southeastern Seminary is in the very best hands.
Eta Linnemann has written two books dealing with historical/critical methodology. Baker Books has published: Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology?, and Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels.
[This interview is condensed from the Southeastern Seminary Outlook, Winter 1992.]