Reactions to Synod’s Actions

After reflecting on the actions at last week’s special called meeting of General Synod, along with some of the reactions to that meeting that have been posted on the Internet, I have decided to provide some comments about some of the misunderstandings surrounding the results of the meeing. First, I shall respond to some of the things said in this article (if you would like a more balanced account, I would point you here, or to the ARP blog itself, found here).

First, there is the headline itself: “ARP fires 14 trustees on Erskine College board.” I have already commented here about the sensationalist nature of that statement:

For starters, the board is for trustees of Erskine College and Seminary (not just the college). Second, there was no “firing” that took place. These were not employees under contract and drawing a salary who were dismissed; they are essentially volunteers who are appointed to the board and serve the General Synod. As trustees, they are “entrusted” with the care of the college and seminary. But no one was “fired,” and to use that loaded term in the headline of the article is not accurate. On the other hand, the gist of the first portion of the article is accurate. However, it is disappointing that the only persons interviewed in the article were from only one perspective. Furthermore, only one person interviewed (Dr. Randy Ruble) was even at the meeting of General Synod, to the best of my knowledge. Why not interview more of the presbyters who were actually there?

My nitpicking of the term “to fire” has been criticized elsewhere. But consider the connotation of that term. When one hears the term “fired,” the mental image is someone being forced out of a job and into an unemployment line (at least for me). That is obviously not what happened here. One online dictionary defines the verb “fire” as “to dismiss from a job.” In a sense, that is what happened here, but only if a particular definition of “job” is taken. That same source defines a job as “a piece of work, esp. a specific task done as part of the routine of one’s occupation or for an agreed price” and “a post of employment; full-time or part-time position.” The members of the board are not “employed” in any sense of the word. They serve in a voluntary position, as servants of the denomination. Yes, they were dismissed, but that is not a “firing” in any commonly understood meaning of the word.

Next, there is this statement, made by a professor at Erskine College (who was not in attendance at the meeting of Synod), quoted in the article: “It looks like they’re trying to take over the college and imprint the college with their own kind of narrow Christianity.” The professor is mistaken on a number of accounts. He seems to be wholly unfamiliar with ARP’s “Statement of the Philosophy of Christian Higher Education.” The lack of knowledge of such a document might be unremarkable, except for the fact that this statement was adopted by the Synod in 1977 (and amended in 1978). I believe the professor in question was employed by the college when the document was enacted, and has been employed for the 30+ years since. So this is nothing new on the part of the Synod; it is simply the enforcement of policy already in place for more than three decades.

Next, is the Synod “trying to take over the college”? Well, that hardly seems accurate since the college and seminary technically belong to the ARP church. That same Statement of the Philosophy of Christian Higher Education says the following:

Inasmuch as Erskine College is a church-owned Christian institution, the Church has ultimate responsibility for the administrative, academic and moral life of the College. … In order for the goals and purposes of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church in Christian higher education to be realized, Erskine College, through its Board of Trustees, administration and faculty, must be in harmony with the principles and goals of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.

The ARP Church “owns” Erskine College and Seminary, the ARP Church has the “ultimate responsibility” over the institutions, and these must be “in harmony” with the ARP Church. The presbyters of General Synod, functioning as representatives of the churches of the ARP, were simply exercising oversight in light of policy that has been on the books for 30+ years. Once again, that is nothing new. Furthermore, there is no “take over,” since the College belongs to the ARP Church. The professor is simply mistaken. He might not like the policy, and that is his perogative, but he is mistaken.

Here are some other statements gleaned from the Statement of the Philosophy of Christian Higher Education (remember, these policies have been in place for more than three decades):

• …[O]ur institutions of Christian higher education have a responsibility to stress Christian doctrine as well as Christian ethics … .
• The Board of Trustees, through the Administration, should seek faculty members having professional competence, moral sensitivity and genuine Christian commitment. … Freedom of inquiry should prevail; however, faculty members should be chosen who are sympathetic to the goals of the College and who are concerned with the quality of the day-to-day life of the campus.
• The Curriculum for Erskine College at the undergraduate level should be broadly based, with the Christian perspective as the positive integrating factor for all of the disciplines.
• The purpose of Erskine College should be to provide sound training in a campus environment where Christian influence is pervasive.
• A primary task of the College should be to guide the student into the development of a mature faith, within a Christian system of values which defines contemporary pressures in their true light and which is staunchly resistant to the impersonality and relativism of our time. Erskine’s ultimate objective for every student must be the gaining of an understanding of the truth that “man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.”

The quote in the last statement, of course, comes from the Westminster Shorter Catechism. The Westminster Standards are the governing confessional documents of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. They have been in existence since the mid-17th century. A 19th century historian once described the Westminster Confession of Faith as “the most perfect statement of Systematic Theology ever framed by the Christian Church” (William Maxwell Hetherington, History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, p. 345). In a volume co-edited by a former President of Erskine (Dr. John L. Carson), Jay Adams points out the influence of the Westminster Standards “extends far beyond Presbyterians, to churches whose doctrinal positions are in many ways incompatible with the reformed faith” (“The Influence of Westminster” in To Glorify and Enjoy God, p. 251). These two books, incidentally, are in the Erskine library, where they can be borrowed and read by the professor. This is not a “narrow Christianity,” but one historically rooted in the English (and Scottish) Reformation. The documents have been around for more that 350 years. They helped shape the founding and settling of this country. Far from being “narrow,” they are more pervasive and have had more historical influence from anything originating from the classroom of someone who is neither employed nor qualified to teach matters of theology. They may not fit with the professor’s own narrow version of Christianity, but they are the Standards of the denomination which employs the professor at its college.

The ARP has also (for more than 30 years) defined what it means by “evangelical Christian.” I am not sure if the professor likewise considers this to be a narrow definition of Christianity, but it has been around since 1976 (the first statement was amended in 2008 at General Synod):

“The word ‘evangelical’ comes from a Greek root meaning ‘good news’ and it refers to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In a broad sense, evangelicals are people who believe that the Bible is God’s inspired Word and that an individual can become a Christian only by accepting Jesus Christ as his personal Savior.

Evangelicals believe:

1. The Bible alone, being God-breathed, is the Word of God, infallible in all that it teaches, and inerrant in the original manuscripts.

2. That there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

3. In the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, in His Virgin Birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through the shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

4. That for the salvation of lost and sinful man, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.

5. In the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.

6. In the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; that they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

7. In the spiritual unity of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

The professor goes to say later in the article, “I try to teach critical thinking” (technically, I believe he teaches English). I would say that a failure to know adequate information leading to invalid logical conclusions is not sound critical thinking. Since I have taught at both the high school and college level in the area of mathematics (I have also taught a course in logic, albeit not at those levels), I believe I am somewhat qualified to reach that conclusion. Let the reader utilize his own critical thinking skills and reach a conclusion for himself to see whether the comments of the professor are accurate.