NOTE: Put quotations around your keyword search to find your exact phrase together.
|
|
Thoughts on Erskine College and Seminary by Mackay Smith
Erskine College, Class of 2006
March 4, 2010
Though I often rant about the narcissism and pride of those who publish unsolicited opinions, the torrent of negative reaction to the recent decisions of the ARP church regarding Erskine has left me compelled to at least post a few thoughts in hopes that they will give those who stand appalled at recent events pause to consider their attitudes and their arguments. Though the entire ARP Synod and EC Board of Trustees is to be applauded for civil, loving discussion of this matter, outside of the Synod meeting (as is often the case in events such as these), stereotyping has occurred (on both “sides”), anger has superseded discourse, and the unfortunate omnipresence of the “Post a Comment” link have given worldwide voice to people like me who feel their insignificant thoughts are worthy of a large audience.
I stand in favor of the actions of the General Synod. Their solution was not perfect, but after decades of Erskine drifting along with every wind of doctrine, the ARP church has delivered a strong message that it is committed to its school becoming a bastion of Christian faith.
(1) Erskine is a wing of the church.
Erskine College and Seminary stands as the educational wing of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian church. Lest denominational bias preclude proper consideration at this point, I will say that Erskine is more importantly a wing of the church of Jesus Christ. The school is not a “church-affiliated” body, nor is it simply an academic institution that is to be infused with Christian values due to its historical ties to the church. It is part of the church. As such, the school has one ultimate mission: the glory and enjoyment of God and the dissemination of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Everything the school does should ultimately be directed to this end. Every administrator, professor, and janitor is an employee of the church, and thus their mission falls along the same lines. The Scripture is clear that those who dare shoulder themselves with this mission will, ultimately, be judged to a higher standard, thus Erskine (and the rest of the church) should be motivated not just by the personal desire to be what they present themselves to be, but by the sure and mighty justice of a loving God. No matter your agreement or disagreement with Christianity, surely an institution cannot be faulted for wishing to better align itself with its stated purpose. One does not enter a bank and wonder why all its employees are so concerned with money.
(2) “Academic freedom” is a straw man.
One ever-present objection to the crystallization of Erskine’s Christian mission has been that in taking on a more thorough Christian worldview (i.e., “Christianity is right, nothing else is.”), Erskine is rejecting a glorious neutrality to which all academic institutions should aspire. The idea seems to be that the duty of a school is not to impress any overarching worldview upon its students, but rather to allow its students, indeed to empower them, to determine for themselves what they feel is right, and allow them to leave the institution living out their chosen belief system. While this desire for neutrality certainly comports with every message the mainstream American culture seeks to deliver, its goal is an utter impossibility. One of the recent articles written about Erskine (available here: http://tiny.cc/LAiio)
provoked an insightful comment from an administrator at a large state institution. His comment can be summarized as follows: Erskine ought to maintain a reformed Christian worldview, one benefit of which is providing an alternative to the postmodernism that has overtaken most academic institutions. [end summary] This administrator realizes correctly the fact of the matter: there is no such thing as academic neutrality. Every academic institution presents to its students an overarching worldview they have decided is the correct one. While an institution may easily say “We ought not impose any belief system on our students,” it is hopefully quite clear that that statement itself presupposes countless beliefs which thus comprise a belief system! The issue, then, is not whether or not a school will present a worldview to its students, it is which worldview a school will present. If the argument is then given that the most “inclusive” worldview is the best, the burden of proof immediately shifts to the one making this claim. On what basis is “inclusivity” better than “exclusivity”? “Inclusivity” itself automatically rejects those whose worldview proposes a competing “inclusivity” of what is true, right, etc., and thus secular “inclusivity” fails its own test. “Academic freedom” is not in any sense a kinder, gentler worldview that allows everyone to join hands and sing koombaya, it is equally as exclusive and biased as any other worldview, and thus does not accomplish what its proponents imply.
Christianity makes universal claims. There is no “Christianity-light” that can pick and choose some elements of the faith, and at the same time allow worldviews totally contradictory to its own. This is no Christianity at all. While this may irk the proponent of "equality" in the classroom, what has been said above has hopefully pointed out that any other worldview has equally stringent requirements for what it allows. The Christian classroom will espouse the truth of Creation at the expense of the truth of naturalistic evolution. At the same time, an "academically free" classroom will theoretically teach the truth of neither, thus sacrificing the truth of Creation (or evolution). So, any worldview is exclusive; determining standards and sticking to them. This is not a negative thing, it is simply the proper nature of worldview.
Based on (1), Erskine’s worldview must be that of Scripture. Though, again, it may seem at first that this restricts “academic freedom,” in fact, any true academic freedom requires the sure foundation of an a se God who has revealed himself to creation. When a science teacher declares the gravitational constant, or a math teacher exclaims “2+2=4,” these cannot be brute facts. They presuppose a complex web of metaphysical and epistemological facts that, without the surety of a necessary God, cannot but be lost in a tempest of limited human intellect. Within a Christian framework any idea can properly be taught in the classroom because the professor has a sure foundation to which he can return. This opens the possibility of “critical thinking.” Without a final foundation, critical thinking is not thinking at all, it is contradictory, irrational, baseless mental exercise that smuggles in all the metaphysical surety it claims to avoid. [For a fascinating take from a secular mind regarding the impossibility of ethical claims without “religious” information, see a recent New York Times article available here: http://nyti.ms/bDmBQD.
What then of competitors to Christianity? Are they to be locked in the stocks and left to rot as academic bishops brainwash their helpless students? Quite the contrary; it is only Christianity that contains within it the reason to consider other viewpoints. The doctrine of common grace and the command of Christ to love your enemies allow the Christian to lovingly consider other worldviews and take from them considerable nuggets of true knowledge. In a worldview not governed by a gracious God there is no reason to accept "outsiders." One's personal convictions stand as perfect truth, and any assault by others can properly be met with pride, insult, or even violence and oppression. Christians are kept eternally humble at the foot of the cross, grateful for the spiritual awakening to real truth, and cannot but love and seek to witness to non-Christians. While sinful Christians have failed in this task countless times, it remains their duty.
(3) Love of the world is rejection of God.
My final point takes into account those who object that a concerted effort to make Erskine a more thoroughly Christian institution diminishes Erskine’s reputation among the elite secular institutions of the day. My comments here will be brief, and may be summarized as follows: amen, and amen.
As Erskine is a wing of the church, God will work constantly to make her more like her Great High Priest, Jesus Christ. Christ did not live a life toasted by his opponents. He was ridiculed, ignored, and generally thought to be an unfortunate lunatic who had good ethical advice perhaps, but was severely misled. The Bible makes it quite clear that the Christian is to expect nothing less. In fact, when a Christian finds himself indistinguishable from the culture that surrounds him, he must pause and consider if he is truly what he purports to be. This is the core of the Erskine problem: a school committed in word to the foolishness of the cross, but committed in action to acceptance and regard among her peers. Every time a comment is posted expressing disgust at the fundamentalists’ overthrow of Erskine, or appalled at the mean-spirited “coup” which will no doubt reduce the reputation of the school, let every Christian thank God that Erskine no longer is indistinguishable from the darkness around her. A light is not to be hidden under a bushel, it is to be set out so that the whole room may bathe in its light. I might here echo a comment given at the recent Synod meeting to those who are worried that Erskine will become “another Bob Jones.” Bob Jones is incorrect Biblically, theologically, socially, and is downright wacky. However, any Christian who would rather have Erskine be a secular institution hostile to the universal claims of Christianity than an institution that (though wacky) at least unquestionably affirms Christ as Lord must soberly examine his priorities.
Christians are aliens on earth. Their hope does not lie in the perishable, but in the imperishable: the saving work of Christ, the hope of Heaven, and God’s eternal physical kingdom composed of the New Heavens and the New Earth. Erskine College and Seminary must, therefore, reflect this sojourner status and expect and embrace the rejection of the world. She must be committed to Christ and his church not because she feels it is the best option among many, not because it opens her up to a market of religious folks, not even because the ARP church tells her to be so. She must be committed to Christianity because it is true. Erskine can be a glorious part of God’s kingdom on earth, witnessing to the lost, and equipping Christians to be critical thinkers by exposing them to every opposing worldview on the planet while at the same time embracing them in loving arms and guiding their fallen minds to the necessary truths of God’s revealed Word. >>Mackay's article site<<
by Mackay Smith
Erskine College, Class of 2006
March 4, 2010
Included with permission from Mackay Smith. 3.6.2010
|
