An Erskine student [name withheld by editor] attended a forum held by the Moderator’s Erskine Commission for members of the Erskine community on March 10^th; an English professor arrived late and sat next to the student in question. Immediately after the student asked commission members to respond to complaints that the commission wanted students to be indoctrinated, the English professor leaned over and called the student a “liar for Jesus.” He further told the student to “Enjoy Hell!” and that “the day of [the student’s] graduation was not soon enough.” These comments were received as derogatory, insulting, and intolerant, but the student also perceived this attempt of intimidation as harmful to his academic freedom because he was at the forum to learn about the events of the March 2010 Synod meeting and to form his own opinion about the matter. This professor’s unprofessional behavior violated the student’s rights to “learn and to expect an environment conducive to learning” which is granted to all Erskine students under the Erskine College Bill of Rights.

After these events, the student sought to address the issue with the then-Interim Academic Dean. The dean responded to the initial complaint by commenting, “I’ve had quite a few conversations with [the professor] since I’ve been Dean, and almost all of them have been something like this… I’ve cautioned him time after time… He has had a history, starting two or three years ago…where in class he would just go too far… I have noticed it over the years.” Even though this professor has a history of being “verbally hostile” and “verbally brutal,” the dean’s only response was that he would put this incident in the professor’s file, which—in the dean’s own assessment—would have little practical value.

The dean’s failure to address the complaint to the student’s satisfaction is disheartening, but even more disturbing is the fact that the dean “both defamed [the student’s] character and discouraged the resolution of [the student’s] grievance as well as the future expression of grievance by other students who will likely experience the same mistreatment.” The dean labeled the student as “dishonorable” for wishing more to be required of the professor than a simple apology, and also treated the student as if he had been at fault in this matter. More distressing than this is that the dean questioned the sincerity of the student’s faith in Christ, which the student saw as an attempt to shame and control him. After enduring this sort of treatment, the student did not wish to meet with either the English professor or the acting dean without a third party present. One of the last remarks from the dean was, “I’ve been involved in quite a few arbitrations in my time, and I can always tell when someone truly wants to resolve an issue and when they do not.  It is my view that you are not trying to reach a reasonable resolution; you are enjoying playing and dramatizing the role of victim.”

Following this treatment by the dean, an appeal was made to the president of the college for the actions of both the English professor and dean of the college. After two hours of listening to the student as he clarified his complaints, the president responded that both the English professor and dean had acted inappropriately and that actions of the professor would be dealt with first. The student appreciated both the president’s willingness to listen and the order in which the appeals would be handled.

Several weeks later, the president met with the student and presented a letter addressing the grievance with the professor, which stated the professor had apologized and promised never to behave thus in the future. If this had been the professor’s first offense, then it would have been an amicable resolution. However, in light of the professor’s long record, the student found this proposal unsatisfying. When the student asked what would be done should the professor repeat this kind of behavior in the future, the reply was that the president would be upset. Sometime after this meeting, the professor sent an email to the college faculty calling the culture of intimidation a lie. To date, the president has not contacted the student regarding the actions of the then-interim academic dean.

In appealing to the president, the student had exhausted the institution’s appeal process. The only other appeal process available that the student was aware of was an appeal to SACS. The student forwarded his appeal to SACS to the Erskine Board of Trustees for their consideration at their May meeting. The issue was never taken up during the meeting and no action was taken regarding the student’s grievance.

The professor’s rejection of the existence of a culture of intimidation at Erskine is unconvincing in the face of so much recent evidence to the contrary. Students should expect better treatment at an institution of higher learning, especially when that institution’s stated mission is to “equip students to flourish by providing an excellent liberal arts education in a Christ-centered environment.”

There are persistent, systemic problems at Erskine. The first is a lack of missional fidelity, including the culture of intimidation. The second problem, which enables and extends the first, is an institutional failure to address these problems facing Erskine. As long as these problems go unaddressed, students’ academic freedom and their right to a healthy, safe, and secure environment will be in jeopardy.

For further explanation of the ARP position on the Christian liberal arts that is supposed to be normative at Erskine, cf. the ARP Philosophy of Christian Higher Education. Also worth reading is our re-posting of former Erskine Professor of Philosophy Dr. John Wingard’s 2007 convocation address on the Christian liberal arts.

For some clarifications of issues that have been the focus of much recent discussion online, cf. the following series on the Christian liberal arts, SAFE, and the petition by William Hunter, Class of 2008: Part I (Integration of faith and learning, with a test case in science), Part II (Facing the challenges of the world), Part III (the Christian liberal arts and evangelism), and Part IV (What about Christian unity and Matthew 18?). Brandon Oberle, Class of 2012, addresses several misconceptions about SAFE in an article here. Finally, Ashley Waldmeyer, Class of 2009, clarifies her comments on Admissions and her rejection of a closed admissions policy here.

For some outside perspectives, a good place to begin is Joel Belz’s article in World magazine entitled “Looking for a miracle” (see our note on this article here). A website presenting perspectives on Erskine that are (in many cases) in opposition to those presented on this website may be found here; with the contributors to that website and with others who disagree with us, we love Erskine, although (as William Hunter points out) “many of us disagree on what it should look like.” Many of the concerns raised by those who disagree with the petition and with some of the positions presented by the SAFE contributors are dealt with in our FAQ pages as well as in the articles by William Hunter and Brandon Oberle.

Finally, for blog coverage of Synod, cf. ARP pastor Tim Phillips’ coverage of Synod in the following posts: ARP Synod as Reported by the Christian Observer, ARP in National Spotlight, Synod Update, Part I, Synod Update, Part II, and Synod Update, Part III. ARP pastor Brian Howard presents a slightly different perspective than Rev. Phillips in his posts here (although Rev. Howard did vote for the commission in the end). Lastly, for blog coverage of the petition and SAFE before Synod, see former PCA moderator J. Ligon Duncan’s blog post here.

-The Editors

While many Erskine alumni, students, and ARP pastors found the website helpful in providing some substantive reasons for the broad concerns expressed by the petition, since the Synod responded to the concerns expressed by the petition letter in going forward we think it is appropriate for most of the specific concerns about Erskine to be communicated to the commission. As former PCA Moderator J. Ligon Duncan noted, our publishing the website and publicizing the petition was in the context of appealing to “the appropriate ecclesiastical authority to act.” (Westminster Theological Seminary West Professor Dr. R. Scott Clark linked to Rev. Dr. Duncan’s post here.) Since that authority has taken action, we consider the ultimate purpose of this website to have been accomplished.

However, since Synod many questions and rumors have arisen concerning the content, goals, and purpose of this website and of the petition effort. Given the public nature of this endeavor, we thought it would be helpful to provide resources that may bring some clarification to those who are interested. For the sake of ease in navigation, the links to these updates may be found here.

*As noted in one of the FAQs, the World article contains one factual inaccuracy: the petition letter was signed by 144 students and alumni, and not 144 current students.

-The Editors

———————————————————–

“The whole idea of a stereotype is to simplify. Instead of going through the problem of all this great diversity – that it’s this or maybe that – you have just one large statement; it is this.”
-Chinua Achebe (Novelist, Poet, Professor)

“We can rarely see things from the point of view of another person because we look at the facts through the screen of an impression or an interest which distorts our view; and then there are accusations, quarrels and misunderstandings.”
-Barry Long (Philosopher, Teacher)

“We fight amongst ourselves,
We obliterate ourselves, yeah, yeah.”
-Pennywise (Melodic Skate Punk Band)

Dear Erskine Community and Affiliates,

As a rising Sophomore at Erskine College, it has come to my attention that several false accusations concerning the intent of Students Aligned for a Faithful Erskine (SAFE) have arisen in lieu of the decision by the ARP Synod to create a formal Commission to investigate the commitment of Erskine’s faculty and administration to Jesus Christ, and if a proper implementation of the “ARP Philosophy of Higher Christian Education” exists. Along with these false accusations are many misconceptions about the various individuals who agree with SAFE. What are these false accusations and misconceptions I speak of? They accuse SAFE of not wanting non-Christian students at Erskine College. They characterize the supporters/editors of SAFE as naïve students who are being maliciously directed behind the scenes by ARP ministers and non-Erskine students. They seem to have the erroneous impression that SAFE desires a Bob Jonsian culture of strict rules and regulations. Lastly, there are those who view SAFE of being nothing more than “silly/misguided/cultish students” and legalists confined to a specific cultural niche. This information has come to me by way of YouTube, personal conversations, letters on the “In Defense of Erskine College” blogger page, and a Facebook group called Alumni For Erskine-A Christian Liberal Arts College. For the sake of clarity, the majority individuals in the Facebook group or on the “In Defense of Erskine College” blogger page have not accused SAFE of anything that I have mentioned; I would cautiously venture to say that many of the members simply joined the Facebook group because of its name without actually researching what the group promotes. Having said these things, I proudly claim Erskine College as my own and vigorously support the efforts of SAFE.

Before I go on, some proper introductions are in order. My name is Brandon Kai Oberle’ or simply “Oberle“, as most call me. I agree with the concerns of SAFE, support the Synod’s decision to investigate Erskine, and truly desire academic excellence. I served as Freshman Class President for the class of 2012, participated in the Midnight chalking protest, played in the Sinfonia, was accepted into the Euphemian Literary Society, and will serve as the Dead Philosophers Society President for my Sophomore year. What else is there? Should I talk about how I legalistically view any non-Christian who’s unfortunate enough to cross my path? Or perhaps my unrequited love for the ideals and practices of Bob Jones University? I know! I’ll let you in on how my super neat Christian friends and I poke fun at other so-called Christian students who don’t live their lives exactly like we do!!! Well, the only problem is that I’m the complete opposite of that, and none of my friends fit this stereotyped Christian caricature I just portrayed. It’s funny how people who want their college professors to uphold inerrancy of Scripture in the classroom are labeled as fanatical legalists. Anyway, let me tell you a bit more about myself. I’m part Hawaiian/Japanese, throw a little German/English/Scotch-Irish in there for good measure; and I enjoy attending concerts ranging from Punk artists to Classical composers. (Let’s not forget about those occasional Metal shows either!) I plan on doing an independent J-Term class (the specific topic/purpose has not been determined yet) by journeying to the 2010 Sundance Film Festival with a friend of mine who worked on a short film, “Civil”, that will be premiering there. I am neither a legalistic nor misguided youth. I am not in a “group of silly students” as Gregory F. Guzauskas accuses SAFE of being on the “In Defense of Erskine” blogger site. I also regularly attend services at a Reformed church. Several students at Erskine and past high school administrators mistakenly assumed that I was a extreme liberal or a social deviant of some type. I suppose this is due to my style of clothing or personal interests/political stances. Lastly and most importantly, I am a Reformed Evangelical Christian, saved only by the precious Grace of God, who cherishes the revealed fact that God is Sovereign over His entire creation.

——————————————————————————

Transcript:

“One recent change that Erskine College has made is the motto,* from “Christian Commitment and Excellence in Learning” to “Forever Connected.” The Administration has said that the reason for this change is to appeal more to high school juniors and seniors, but my question is, “What’s wrong with the motto that we already had for years that appealed to Christian students?” This new motto seems to be more secular, open to a broader pool of students, who may be non-Christians as well, which would completely change the Christian environment on Erskine’s campus if more and more non-Christian students, are interested and accepted to Erskine.

This worries me because I see it as Erskine standing not really on a basis of faith in God and trust that if they remain a Christ-centered institution seeking Christ-centered students that God will provide for them and take care of them. Rather, they are standing on a basis of fear of worldly circumstances that are temporal and, we as students can only do so much, so that’s why we are appealing to you for some help. We hope that you will be willing to step up and help us.”

Clarification by Ashley Waldmeyer:

While it is true that I expressed my concerns for a potential increase in population of non-Christian students on Erskine campus, my intention in doing so was not to call for Erskine to deny all non-Christian students admission to the institution.  And I certainly do not want Erskine to become “Bob Jones II.” That would involve changing the entire Erskine environment–the same one which contributed heavily to my wonderful Erskine experience.  I believe that a Christ-centered Erskine can and should demonstrate the love of Christ and model the Gospel to non-Christian students!

My concern was and is that Erskine seems to be acting in fear by adopting a more secular approach to Admissions in order to simply bring in larger numbers of students in general in order to make it through these difficult financial times, rather than relying on God and giving Him the control by marketing Erskine in accordance with its mission.  If Erskine is truly a Christ-centered institution, it should be demonstrating that by putting its trust in God first.

Ashley Waldmeyer
Erskine College Class of 2009

*Editor’s Note: As noted in a response to an FAQ, the College’s official motto is “Knowledge joined with morals.” (For an FAQ page dealing with the terminology surrounding discussion of “Forever Connected”, see “SAFE’s goals and positions.”) “Christian commitment and Excellence in Learning” is derived from the 1991 Overarching Mission Statement for EC/ETS and has been the advertising slogan used by Admissions most recently until now, as one of the student letters noted. It is important to point out that when the new Admissions slogan was first unveiled it did not occur with the full line – “Forever Connected – Christ, Learning, and Life” – that the Vice-President for Enrollment Management suggested would be used at the Student Forum. That, combined with the generally fuzzy understanding of the Christian liberal arts presented by Admissions, caused the level of concern among some students that came out in certain letters and in Ms. Waldmeyer’s comments.

Editor’s Note: The following is the text of a talk given by Dr. John C. Wingard, Jr., then Professor of Philosophy at Erskine College, at convocation in the spring of 2007. Dr. Wingard did not post this text to the SAFE website. We are posting it here because of its clear explanation of the integration of Christian faith and learning that ought to occur in a Christian liberal arts education.

———————————————————————

Learning to Read Two Books:

Some Reflections on the Nature and Value of Christian Liberal Arts Education

John C. Wingard, Jr.

I want to thank the Convocation Committee for inviting me to speak with you today about something that I’m quite passionate about – the project of integrating Christian faith and learning. What a privilege to be engaged in such a project and to get to speak to you about it. In the brief time we have together this morning, I’d like to set forth in broad outline a vision for scholarship and education that is faithful both to Christ and to the traditional idea of liberal arts education – a vision that, where realized, has real promise of bearing significant fruit of the sort that traditional liberal arts education is all about.

The Secularistic Mainstream Academic Model

To get into our topic, let’s begin by noting a significant feature of the prevailing educational perspective today. The default setting in educational philosophy in our culture is one, inherited from modernism, that recognizes a fairly rigid dichotomy between the sacred and the secular. On this view, the secular is supposed to be public and the domain of reason rather than “faith” (divine revelation). The sacred, on the other hand, is personal and private, and the domain of “faith” (divine revelation) rather than reason. Now, according to the mainstream academic model, scholarship and education are supposed to be on the secular side of the divide and somehow neutral or non-committal with respect to religious perspective or worldview.

Consequently, there is in the mainstream academy the expectation that in doing our scholarly work within our disciplines, we will keep our own particular worldviews and religious commitments on a shelf – like children’s shoes at a McDonald’s Play Place or your baggage when you board an airplane. What that means for those of us who are Christians is that we are to do our scholarship and teaching as if there is no God and no interaction between God and the world. In other words, in our work we are ordinarily expected to adopt naturalism – at least methodological naturalism, if not metaphysical or worldview naturalism. Naturalism is the view that the natural world is all there is. There’s no God, no reality that transcends the natural, material world. As the astronomer Carl Sagan, one of the high priests of naturalism, used to say, “the cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” (Of course, Sagan is now dead; and I seriously doubt that he’s still a naturalist. Ironically that’s something about which Christians and naturalists will agree! But I digress.) What I’ve just described is worldview naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a commitment essentially to pursue our work as if naturalism is true – to accept naturalism as a foundational commitment for the sake of our scholarship and teaching. In other words, I can be a Christian theist on my own time, but not while on the job.

Now, this is part of the prevailing philosophy of scholarship and education within the academy at large in the West. But for Christians this is obviously quite problematic, isn’t it?! Let’s consider just four problems:

(a) First, the secularistic model assumes mistakenly that we can engage in scholarly inquiry in a way that is neutral with respect to worldviews or religious perspectives and commitments.

That assumption, inherited from modernism and the whole Enlightenment project, is simply naïve and has been decisively debunked.

Note in particular here that an insistence that we employ methodological naturalism in the academy is certainly not worldview neutral. No. It privileges worldview naturalism over other worldviews in that context, and it does so without adequate justification. In other words, to make methodological naturalism the norm in the academic enterprise is to institutionalize a bias against non-naturalistic worldviews such as Christian theism.

That such would be found problematic to the serious and thoughtful Christian should not be surprising. Quite the contrary. That Christians would be willing uncritically to play this game – that’s what’s surprising!

(b) Secondly, the secularistic model of scholarship and education implies that there are areas of thought and life that are not adversely affected by sin, thus in need of the sort of critical, redemptive discernment that Christianity affords—and this is an implication that the thoughtful Christian will recognize to be naïve at best and intellectually irresponsible at worst.

(c) Thirdly, the secular model implies that God’s revelation to us in Scripture either is incapable of helping us in our search for truth altogether or whatever contributions it might make are insignificant or at best second-rate – not worthy of the label “scholarship.” Again, the thinking Christian will find this unacceptable – not only foolish, but arrogant as well. From an evangelical Christian standpoint, such an implication is obviously outrageous.

(d) But even more problematic than the aforementioned implications, the prevailing secularist view of education and scholarship implies that there are areas of thought and life that are not under the Lordship of King Jesus! I don’t think the essential Christian position on Jesus’ authority has ever been put more clearly than Abraham Kuyper did when he asserted that “there is not a square inch of the universe over which King Jesus does not claim, ‘Mine!’”

What should we conclude then about the Secularist Academic Model? Bottom line, the secularistic model of education and scholarship is essentially non-Christian – or better, anti-Christian.

Is there a better way?

The Two Books Model of Scholarship and Education

Is there a better, more faithful, model of scholarship and education? I believe so. I believe that a much better model, especially for the Christian who wishes to think consistently and be faithful to his or her core commitments, is what we might call a “Two Books Model.”

A Two Books Model recognizes that God is ultimately the source of all Truth and Knowledge, and that He has given us two “texts” to study in order to flourish as human beings: the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture. Recognizing as we do that Nature and Scripture share the same transcendent Author, and that the two books reveal much significant Truth and complement one another, the Christian can then approach the academic enterprise by way of an integrated study of both Books. On this model, scholarship is a matter, then, of reading the two books carefully and in an integrated way, and education is a matter of learning how to read the two Books in this fashion.

Notice that such an approach is clearly and self-consciously Christian from the get-go. There’s no pretense to worldview neutrality. There’s nothing underhanded or sly about it. Scholar-teachers are “up front” about their worldview commitments. There’s real intellectual honesty.

Notice, too, that this is not a recipe for a Bible college or for some sort of professional education. Rather, what’s envisioned here is a robust, full-orbed, integrative education in the liberal arts and sciences.

There are numerous advantages of this model over the prevailing secularistic alternative. I’ll just mention three very quickly here – three points that help to make it clear that the Two Books Model is completely consistent with, and in fact, an expression of, the traditional ideal of liberal arts education.

Scholarship and education done on the Two Books Model (call it “TBM” for short) can and should produce a better view of reality than is possible for scholarship done according to secularistic norms.

(a) First, TBM yields a more accurate view of reality. We have a huge advantage in having and employing the corrective lenses of Scripture in our study of the world – lenses that correct for sin and for our natural limitations as creatures.

(b) Second, TBM yields a much richer, more comprehensive view of reality than is possible for the more truncated, reductionary approach of the secularistic mainstream. For example, relationships that go unnoticed in the mainstream secularist academy can be fruitfully discovered and explored using the Two Books Model.

(c) Third, TBM yields a more unified and coherent view of reality. Greater richness does not compromise the unity and coherence of the whole! The sort of education envisioned in the Two Books Model enables us to see how the various parts of reality fit together.

Think about the academic enterprise as trying to put a very large, very complex, jigsaw puzzle together. Secularistic scholarship has some of the pieces. Some of the pieces it thinks it has don’t belong to the puzzle at all. But others do belong, and Christians should embrace and celebrate this! However, secularistic scholarship puts them in the wrong places; or it finds itself confused, not knowing where the pieces fit within the context of the whole, thus leaving the puzzle fragmented – largely unsolved.

Scholarship done according to Two Books Model, on the other hand, has more of the actual pieces and it has more of them in the right places on the board. The result is that the picture is more accurate, unified, and complete. And that’s precisely what we want!

Now, all of these things are important for education and scholarship that will enable us to flourish as human beings. In short, the Two Books Model makes the traditional liberal arts ideal a real possibility!

But that’s not all. The Two Books Model yields education and scholarship that glorifies God! There are many points to make here, as well; but again, I’ll mention just three or four.

(a) First, the Two Books Model recognizes the absolute authority of Jesus over every area of life, including the life of the mind. That’s a non-negotiable for Christians!

(b) Second, scholarship and education done on the Two Books Model accord with the way things really are in our world, working from a sound, transcendent reference point (i.e. God) to come to some significant knowledge and understanding of the whole of reality. Real knowledge that begins with God (which is what academic work according to TBM recognizes) glorifies God.

(c) Third, and less abstractly, the Two Books Model gives us a sound foundation for responsible thinking and living. There’s a sound, transcendent, normative reference point by which to critically discern truth from error, goodness from evil, and so forth.

Let’s briefly take a side road and consider a likely objection. Some might be concerned that the Two Books Model that I’m promoting leaves students unequipped to deal with the world we live in today – that it encourages people to keep their heads in the sand and yields a naïve and narrow-minded way of thinking. What’s really needed in education is wide exposure to the many perspectives and other kinds of diversity found in our world.

Here’s my brief reply:

(1) First, I would deny that the Two Books proposal is narrow-minded. I think Gene Veith has put it very well.

“I would argue that it is the secularists who have narrow-minded ideologies that inhibit education in its fullness, that Christianity is so comprehensive, so complex and nuanced and so much bigger than humanly-devised ideologies that it can serve as an educational framework for the whole range of learning.”[1]

But what about the point about sheltering students from diversity?

(2) There’s nothing about the Two Books Model that prohibits or discourages exposure to diversity of all kinds, including diversity of religious and worldview perspectives. In fact, exposure to various alternative perspectives is quite important, and welcome in the TBM.

(3) But mere exposure to diverse viewpoints, lifestyles, etc., without critical assessment and engagement, is irresponsible. It’s irresponsible in at least two ways. (a) Mere uncritical exposure to a plurality of views leads to confusion, shallowness, and personal fragmentation or disintegration. That’s precisely what we see to be the result of much higher education today – a result that’s totally inconsistent with the traditional liberal arts vision. (b) Provision of uncritical exposure to a wide range of diverse ideas and values would be bad enough were all such diversity innocuous. But not all diversity is legitimate or good, worthy of acceptance and celebration. Some differences are grounded in falsehood and/or sin. Consequently, mere exposure isn’t acceptable.

What an education in reading the Two Books can and should do is give students a foundation and methods to critically assess various viewpoints, lifestyles, etc. In other words, a Two Books Model of education can give students tools for robust critical and redemptive engagement of culture – tools that will enable them to navigate successfully through the foggy maze of our very complex world and to help clear away that fog for others, too.

(d) Back to the main road: I want to mention one more way in which the Two Books Model is glorifying to God, and this is my favorite (but also the most convicting to me personally). With the Two Books Model, the study of nature is free to lead to the sorts of worship and gratitude that it should, according to Scripture. (Remember, for example, Romans 1:18 ff.) In fact, it will encourage such!

John Calvin, in the opening of his commentary on Genesis, has this to say about studying the Book of Nature:

Men are commonly subject to these two extremes; namely, that some, forgetful of God, apply the whole force of their mind to the consideration of nature; and others, overlooking the works of God, aspire with a foolish and insane curiosity to inquire into his Essence. Both labor in vain. To be so occupied in the investigation of the secrets of nature, as never to turn the eyes to its Author, is a most perverted study; and to enjoy everything in nature without acknowledging the Author of the benefit, is the basest ingratitude.[2]

Calvin, himself a great champion of the liberal arts, was right. We tend to fall off the horse one direction or the other – we either restrict our study of nature in such a way as to seal it off from the most significant parts of the story, or we fail to pay due attention to nature in our thinking about the most important things.

If we’re doing good work in the humanities and sciences, rightly using our minds/reason, the result should be more constant and passionate adoration of the Creator and Lord over all and an ever-growing sense of gratitude to Him for His many good gifts to us. Chemistry and biology are never just dealing with the natural. History and philosophy are never just dealing with the natural. Psychology and sociology are never just dealing with the natural. We’re always growing in our knowledge of the world and God, and of God and the world in relation to one another. And the natural result will be praise and thanksgiving. After all, we’re not merely homo sapiens (thinkers), but even more fundamentally, we are homo adorans (worshippers, adorers). All of us are, at the core of our beings, religious. So for our academic efforts to express and issue in worship is precisely as it ought to be.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, wouldn’t it be wonderful to be a scholarly community in which doxology – worship of the living God, rather than worship of the creature – is a frequent and normal response and consequence of learning?! Know what? That is really possible when genuine Christian liberal arts education is taking place! That’s really possible where a Two Books Model of education is practiced – where there is self-conscious effort to integrate what we know from Scripture with what we learn from other sources – i.e. from the Book of Nature.

Faith-Learning Integration

What I’ve been talking about in very general terms is the integration of faith and learning. What exactly is integration? Dr. Duane Litfin, president of Wheaton College, defines it as a “process of apprehension and correlation.”[3] I like that. Faith-learning integration is

· a process – an on-going process engaged in by faithful professors and students

· a process of

o apprehension – discovery of truths, rational justification for theories, etc., from our reading of the Two Books

o correlation – seeing how truths and ideas discovered in our reading of the Two Books fit together

Of course, our unifying center of gravity for our work will be the Christian worldview – i.e. the worldview that emerges from the pages of Scripture.

What’s the aim of this process? The aim is an accurate and unified view of the whole of reality that will enable us to flourish as human beings – to be, not just all that we can be, but all that we ought to be, all that God intends for us to be.

Now, there’s an awful lot more to talk about concerning the Two Books Academic Model and faith-learning integration. I think probably the best we can do here today is make two or three general points about the sorts of things involved in getting this enterprise going in earnest.

Where do we begin?

The place to begin, I think, is to check our attitudes about scholarship and teaching:

Am I ready and willing to love God with and through my academic work?

Am I committed to serving Christ by His grace, and no matter what, in my scholarship and teaching or learning?

If we are so committed to Christ, then naturally we’ll begin to seriously consider another question:

What does the fact that Jesus is Lord have to do with work in my discipline?

Once we start seriously wrestling with this core issue, we realize that we have to critically consider the foundational assumptions and methods that govern work in our particular disciplines.

And then there are other basic sorts of questions:

What does God say in Scripture that is pertinent to my area of inquiry?

How do certain theories in my discipline comport with what God has revealed in Scripture?

What do certain particular findings in my discipline contribute to the development of a more accurate and complete Christian worldview?

Asking such questions as these, and others as well, would constitute a start, at least, in the direction of carrying out the academic enterprise in terms of the Two Books Model.

Bottom line, the Christian academic is called to labor for the redemption of thought in his or her discipline, gratefully embracing and using what’s good and true from even the non-Christian’s work, critically revising or reconstructing those aspects of the discipline that are not sound, and building from there.

It’s hard work – time-consuming and messy[4] – but richly rewarding if done faithfully and well. It will involve critical engagement both within particular disciplines and across the disciplines. Every Christian academic must be something of a theologian. Every Christian academic must be in critical dialog with a wide array of fellow truth-seekers. And there’s much more beside. So it involves a lot of work.

Is it worth it? Absolutely! Do we who are Christians have an option really? No, not if we’re to be faithful! The question we have to answer is this: Which are we more concerned with?

• Arriving at Truth and Knowledge? Or playing a certain very popular kind of game?
• Faithfulness to Christ in our academic vocation? Or faithfulness to a set of rules made by those whose thinking is essentially non-Christian?

I suggest that the Two Books Model provides a much more promising approach than the mainstream Secularistic Academic Model if we’re really serious about our academic calling.

Conclusion: Called to Be Faithful

In conclusion, I want to say something about the fact that what I’m promoting here is clearly different from the philosophy of scholarship and education embodied in the mainstream academy. It’s true: this approach is profoundly counter-cultural. But Christians need to be careful here. As Nicholas Wolterstorff has aptly put it, “One’s goal as a Christian scholar is not to be different, but to be faithful.”[5] That’s an important point. That’s been the motivating issue for me throughout this talk. We’re called to be faithful, first and foremost. Now, sometimes that will mean being different – going against the currents of mainstream secularistic scholarship. That in turn could well mean being ignored, or snubbed, or even laughed at by our secularist counterparts. But being different is not the aim. Being faithful to Christ is the aim, and if that entails being different, so be it.

May our great Creator and Redeemer give all of us at Erskine College the grace and courage to be faithful in our calling as students of both of His great Books – no matter what the cost to us – for His glory and for our greater joy in Him!

© 2007 by John C. Wingard, Jr., Erskine College

Editor’s Note: This represents a continuation of Part III of Mr. Hunter’s article.

————————————————-

Objection 3: These students should not be going to the ARP Synod about this. They should be going personally to those they disagree with to dialogue. What about Matthew 18 and Christian unity?

I certainly agree that students should be in dialogue with other students, faculty, and administration about these issues. All of us probably need to do more of that. I also would like to say that I do not necessarily agree with all that is said on SAFE or the manner in which it is said. However, I would like to point out that this is not primarily about personal issues—a small group of students discontented about how they were personally treated at Erskine—these are institutional issues. These are deep and urgent concerns about the direction Erskine as an institution is heading. As the petition letter points out, Erskine has mandates from the ARP church in its “A.R.P Philosophy of Christian Higher Education” and “Institutional Mission and Commitment” that many students believe Erskine is not being faithful to. It is appropriate that these students appeal to the leaders of the ARP church for help in seeing Erskine be faithful to the mandates given by the denomination that funds and supports the college. I understand that many will disagree with my vision for Erskine and Christian liberal arts. That is perfectly fine, but the primarily issue is not what kind of Erskine you, me, or anyone else personally wants to see. The issue is what kind of institution is Erskine College commissioned to be?

I also believe with all my heart that if Erskine was truly faithful to its mission as institution there would be Christian unity on campus like has never been seen before. There would be love for non-Christians like has never been seen before. If in everything Christ had the supremacy, if Scripture was taken seriously, Christ would be gloriously present on campus, transforming hearts, minds, and relationships for His glory. May He be praised!

Will Hunter
Class of 2008

Editor’s Note: This represents a continuation of Part II of Mr. Hunter’s article.

————————————————-

Objection 2: What about accepting students of different faiths and beliefs? What about carrying out the Great Commission?

A true Christian liberal arts education as presented above does not mean the exclusion or intolerance of students who are non-Christians! Nor does it mean the discouragement of debate and discussion between students with differing views or perspectives. All students, Christian or non-Christian, should be treated with love and respect by faculty, administrators, and (hopefully) other students), and all should be encouraged to contribute and to participate in the academic endeavor. This is not the issue. The issue is, what worldview are the faculty and administration operating with? An evangelical Christian liberal arts institution should have faculty and administration that hold to Scripture as God’s Word and to Christ’s supremacy in everything, which means that every class should seek to integrate faith and learning. As shown above, all professors teach from a particular perspective: a Christian perspective need not inhibit engagement of differing viewpoints or debate and discussion; in fact I think it would encourage it. Ironically at Erskine, it seems that in at least a few cases it has been evangelical Christians who have been treated unfairly.

Many keep saying that these students want to turn Erskine into a Bible College. These objections spring from a misunderstanding about what a Christian liberal arts education truly is. The concerns being raised are not about legislating morality, legalistic rules in the dorms, or preaching more sermons. It is about a Biblical worldview as the foundation of Erskine’s education. Please don’t make this mistake in identity.

The Great Commission

“And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age’” (Matthew 28:18-20).

Some have objected that the students who raised concerns about Erskine display no Christian spirit or desire to see the Great Commission fulfilled. I would argue that the very reason that a petition was formed and concerns were raised to the ARP General Synod is because Erskine as an institution is not effectively doing its part in carrying out the Great Commission. Before giving that commission, the risen Lord Jesus proclaims himself to have authority over all things. Christ’s rule is over all things! A Christian institution should strive to submit all things to Christ’s rule. First Jesus commands his disciples (and us) to “go and make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Erskine College should be an institution that longs to see unbelievers to become disciples and be baptized into the church, not by coercing or marginalizing unbelievers or by having Bible studies in biology class, but by having an institution committed to the truth of Scripture and to Christ’s lordship in all areas of education and of life. Christ also commands us to “teach them to observe all that I have commanded you.” A Christian institution should long for its Christian students to receive an education that encourages them to know and follow Christ’s commands. As we have seen before, in some instances students are not being evangelized, but de-evangelized.

Furthermore, Erskine College should be a place that prepares its Christian students to carry out the Great Commission. My question would be this: if a student is taught in such a way that faith and learning are not integrated into his/her education, how can that student possibly hope to integrate his faith into his particular job or field of study? The student will be encouraged to think that Christianity only affects his personal spiritual life and moral values, not his job or field of study. This would seem to me quite a hindrance to openly sharing the gospel in word and deed with non-Christians in the world.

I could be wrong, but I think that this particular objection has been raised partly because of comments about Erskine’s admissions process. The way I understand the concerns is that some of Erskine’s admissions strategies may reveal the desired direction for Erskine as an institution. If Admissions begins to shy away from emphasizing Christian commitment, does that reveal that Erskine as an institution seeks to do the same? The desire is certainly not to repel unbelievers and thus have Erskine become more “sheltered.” The desire is simply to not shy away from Christian commitment in the admissions process. The desire then also would be for Erskine to truly implement Christian commitment and excellence in learning so that such a presentation of Christian commitment to prospective students would indeed be an honest one.

Click here for Part IV…

]]> http://www.studentsforerskine.com/archives/278/feed 0 http://www.studentsforerskine.com/archives/274 http://www.studentsforerskine.com/archives/274#comments Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:57:47 +0000 admin http://www.studentsforerskine.com/?p=274

Editor’s Note: This represents a continuation of Part I of Mr. Hunter’s article.

————————————————-

Facing the Challenges of the World

Many students and alumni have argued that the challenges to their Christian faith they have faced at Erskine have actually strengthened their faith. I have no doubt that this is the case, as I would include myself in that category. Challenges to faith indeed often motivate our minds to think, send us to search the Scriptures, and drive us to prayer, and we are refreshed and reassured of God’s promises in Christ. However, I would like to point out that this has clearly not been the case with everyone! In fact, some have not been strengthened in faith, but rather weakened, or even encouraged to fall away. What about students who may be seeking or considering Christ? Are they being encouraged to look to Christ or away from him? The fact is, is that students are being de-evangelized! Surely no Christian would want this to happen at a Christian school.

No doubt God in his grace can work through them, but is a lack of a strong Biblical foundation or in some cases assaults on Christian faith how Christians really how we are supposed to mature? Yes, Christians will face intense challenges from the “real world” their entire lives. The whole point of a Christian liberal arts education is to help equip and prepare them for those challenges, not to assault them with those challenges and leave them to fend for themselves. The Apostle Paul, longing for the maturity of young believers in the early church in the face of persecution and false teaching, prayed that “Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith,” being “rooted and established in love” and “may have power together, with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ” (Ephesians 3:17-18), so that “you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God” (Colossians 1:9-10). If a school is commissioned to be a Christian liberal arts institution, shouldn’t every effort be made for Christian students to grow in knowledge and richness of Christ’s love? And for non-Christian students to come to faith and know and experience this same love? Should it not be a legitimate concern that while some students are growing in love for Christ, others are being shaken or encouraged to look away from Christ because of what is being taught in some of the classrooms?

I know some will probably object by saying that Erskine has a spiritual side but is an academic institution. Spiritual growth and maturity should take place in the churches, campus ministries, and Bible studies, and real scholarship should take place in the classroom. What then would make Erskine distinct from a secular institution? All colleges have campus ministries and Bible study groups. Furthermore, as we have said before, such a dichotomizing is not only impossible for any institution because all have faith commitments, but also has disastrous results for the Christian. To bear the name Christian is not simply a matter of personal faith that is merely one facet of life—Christ should be the center that affects every facet of life. He has the supremacy. This includes the classroom and the academic pursuit. Again, I hope that I have shown above that this does not mean sermons in every classroom, Erskine becoming a separatist Bible college, or trying to coerce Christian beliefs on non-Christian students. I firmly believe that if Erskine College truly fulfills its mission, non-Christian students too can still come receive an excellent education and greatly enjoy their time at Erskine. Rather, it means teaching every class in a way that affirms Christ’s lordship over everything. Are Erskine’s classes being taught in this way?

I know some will object by saying that education should not teach people what to think but how to think. Many have expressed appreciation for professors who taught them to think for themselves. I hope I have shown that a Christian liberal arts education, if truly implemented, does not encourage students to turn their brains off, but rather to thoroughly explore and rigorously study all areas of life. It is not about spoon-feeding students. It is not about preaching to them. But all education has to be taught from a particular perspective. All professors, including the ones so praised for teaching students how to think, have an underlying perspective that affects how and what they teach.

I suspect that oftentimes many students in these classes are actually not thinking for themselves. If a professor says in class that Scripture is not God’s Word or that faith has no effect on the world of science, are students really thinking through it themselves or do they just taking his word for it? Professors with a Christian way of viewing the world can just as much as other professors do, and they can even better encourage students to think through issues themselves while also teaching from an evangelical Christian perspective. Doubtlessly there are great secular schools out there that hold to different perspectives. I strongly considered a couple for my own college education. But if Erskine is called to be an evangelical Christian liberal arts school, then it should teach from that perspective—one that holds Scripture to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God and one that longs in everything for Christ to have the supremacy. The point is what kind of school has Erskine been commissioned to be?

So what kind of education best equips Christians to face the challenges and assaults to their faith from the “real world?” One that could potentially undermine their faith before they even get to the real world? Or an education that will foster maturity and prepare Christian students to face these challenges with confidence in God’s Word and in Christ?

Click here to continue to Part III…

I have tried to honestly represent those who hold to these particular objections, but please contact me if you believe I have been unfair. I also realize that some may share certain objections or parts of objections and not others.

Objection 1: We do not want Erskine students to be sheltered. The real world is a place that constantly challenges the Christian faith and Erskine students need to be prepared.

I wholeheartedly agree! I also do not want Erskine students to be sheltered. Indeed, we do live in a world that constantly challenges, in fact, constantly attacks Christianity, and Christians absolutely need to be prepared. But what do we mean by “sheltered?” And how are students best prepared? My response to this objection will be in two parts: first, I will attempt to positively set forth what a true Christian liberal arts education might look like at Erskine, and second, I will attempt to show what kind of education truly prepares Christians to face the challenges of the world.

A Christian Liberal Arts Education

Many fear that if there is more integration of faith and learning, Erskine College will become a fundamentalist, separatist school that completely shelters its students from the outside world. Quite the contrary! Integrating faith and learning does not mean separating from the world. Rather, an evangelical Christian liberal arts institution will encourage students to explore, study, and interact as much as they possibly can in all subjects. Integration means that everything that is explored and studied is done so in light of God’s general revelation (His creation) and special revelation (His Word).

All education is done from a particular perspective. All professors have particular faith commitments and their teaching will be done from that particular perspective, whether Christian, secular, or otherwise. However, the goal of an evangelical Christian liberal arts institution naturally would be to teach everything from an evangelical Christian perspective. Colossians 1:18 proclaims of the risen Christ, “He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might have the supremacy.” The goal of a Christian liberal arts education should be that in everything Christ should have the first place—not just in Bible classes, in particular campus ministries, in ethics—but in everything! And this means teaching all subjects from a Biblical perspective, desiring to submit all learning to Christ’s lordship.

So does this mean putting away our biology or English textbooks to have theological discussions? Of course not. At this point, I would humbly like to submit what Christian commitment and excellence in learning might look like in various subjects. I will start with science, since for many this is where the integration of faith and learning seems to be most impossible. After all, science is concerned with studying the natural, physical world according to the scientific method. And faith is concerned only with spiritual things. Therefore, they have no practical relationship to each other. You can have faith, but it has no bearing on science. Right?

A Test Case: Christianity and Science

First of all, I would like to point out that this dichotomizing of faith and science to different spheres is in fact impossible. All scientists have faith commitments and worldviews that affect the way they do science. Everyone brings their presuppositions to the table. A scientist who is an atheist brings with him the faith commitment that God does not exist. A scientist who is a Christian brings with him the faith commitment that God in facet does exist and has created all things. Because of the beautiful design of God’s creation and because of his grace, scientists with varying underlying presuppositions can and do discover truth about His creation.

However, presuppositions cannot help but affect the process. For instance, one scientist who is an evolutionist and another who is not can observe the same piece of evidence and interpret it in a different way to give strength to their opposing theories. This process is part of all areas of science. The scientific community holds the theory of evolution (here referring to descent from a common ancestor) in light of all the evidence to be accepted knowledge. Many scientists interpreting the same evidence disagree, but they are dismissed for supposedly letting their faith affect their science. Such a dismissal is uncalled for. Everyone has faith commitments, Christian, secular, or otherwise, that affect their science. The same is true for all subjects—history, languages, psychology, religion, etc.

Can Christianity simply be reduced to a matter of personal faith dealing with spiritual things and not with the natural, physical world? Can the Christian faith really be separated from science? To look again at Colossians 1, verse 16 says about Christ, “by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.” Christ is the Creator of all things, both physical and spiritual. When studying the physical world, how then can Christ not be involved? He created it! Furthermore, “in him all things hold together” (Col 1:17). Without Christ holding every single part of the entire universe perfectly in place, it would disintegrate. We wouldn’t be here, and there wouldn’t be any science.

Christianity is based on God’s acting in this physical world. The beautiful story of God’s redemption is not one of merely saving souls, but of redeeming his people body and soul and redeeming all of creation!

“For the creation was subjected to futility; not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God…and not only the creation but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Rom 8:22-23).

How is this beautiful redemption, God’s salvation, accomplished? God himself, Jesus Christ became a physical human being. He lived a perfect life here on this earth. He physically died on the cross in our place for our sin, sin with consequences of physical, spiritual, and eternal death. And he physically rose again from the dead so that we can live forever with God, body and soul in the new, restored creation! 1 Corinthians 15:17 says “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” The Christian faith depends on God’s interaction with the physical world. Otherwise, it is useless. Christianity cannot be reduced to merely personal faith in the spiritual realm; if it is so reduced, then it is not Christianity.

If one wishes to have a Christian liberal arts college, then there must be integration, not separation, of faith and science. So what does this look like in the classroom? Science is done with an open appreciation and awe for God’s glory reflected in the majestic beauty and mind-blowing complexity of his creation, from galaxies to cells. God has created his world to operate in an orderly way to make our scientific efforts fruitful. An acknowledgment of God’s beauty and design in no way takes away from the rigors of employing the scientific method or soaking in complicated concepts. On the contrary, such an approach encourages rigorous investigation, enriches one’s science, and gives it true meaning and purpose.

With regards to evolution, an evangelical Christian liberal arts college does not mean simply ignoring evolution and cutting out lectures and labs to study Genesis 1. Evolution should indeed be presented as thoroughly and excellently as possible. Scientists from both sides of this debate often misunderstand each others’ views and raise arguments and objections that are not effective or even legitimate critiques. However, it does mean that the theory of evolution should be thoroughly examined in light of what God reveals not only in His creation, but in His Word. Science should not be conducted in such a way that says (only in passing) that God created the universe, but then functionally proceeds as if He didn’t, attributing scientific phenomenon to principles of random chance.

Although I disagree with theistic evolution, I certainly understand that many Christians, including faculty and students at Erskine, do hold to the theory of evolution and say that evolution is God’s sovereign way of creating and sustaining the universe. However, even this is not coming across in Erskine classes. Rather, it seems that belief in God is affirmed, but followed by functionally proceeding with naturalistic presuppositions. If one believes that evolution is indeed God’s design of natural processes, why proceed with science as if it were the natural processes in control? Why shy away from giving God the glory? Furthermore, if a professor were to legitimately hold to theistic evolution at an evangelical Christian liberal arts institution, it would have to be held from a perspective that takes Scripture seriously as God’s inspired and inerrant (without error) Word. As an institution, Erskine is commissioned to hold to this high view of Scripture. God’s Word is authoritative for all of life, including science.

Integrating Faith and Other Disciplines

What about history? Of course it does mean that we forsake all other areas of history to focus only on history recorded in the Bible. However, it does mean that when the Biblical historical accounts are interacted with, they are treated not critically (in a skeptical sense), but as real history because they are from God’s Word. It means seeing all of history as the design and plan of sovereign God. All of world history is God’s grand story of redemption that will come to a great and glorious end when Christ Jesus returns and all of creation is restored! And we are part of that history! Seeing that history has a direction and a purpose gives true meaning and purpose to its study. Acknowledging this grand movement and design motivates one to dig deeper into the complexities and interrelationships of people and events through all time in every area of history, intellectual or social, Ancient Near Eastern or modern European.

What about psychology and sociology classes? All theories should be presented, explored, and rigorously studied, but they should also be examined in light of the truth of Scripture, to recognize legitimate insights and to critique deficiencies. Music? We of course do not mean playing or singing only sacred Christian literature, nor do we mean simply making sure we have a couple of sacred songs in the repertoire. Rather, we mean that all music studied, sacred and otherwise, should be studied in light of Scripture, wrestling with the underlying philosophies and worldviews of the notes and lyrics, and making sure that in all of our performances, no matter what is being played or sung, the audience has no doubt of commitment to Christ. Business? Not merely telling students to be honest in their dealings, but showing them how Christ affects the very way we do business.

I could go on, but I trust that the point is made. No doubt, integration looks very different and takes different forms across the various disciplines. I understand that integration takes great wisdom and skill, and I do not pretend to have all the answers. But we must have the proper underlying philosophy. As an evangelical Christian liberal arts institution, all disciplines should be approached this in the light of God’s revelation in creation and Scripture, so that in everything Christ may have the supremacy.

And yes, all should be done with excellence!

Click here to continue to Part II…