Mackay Smith, an Erskine College grad (Class of 2006) has posted some interesting thoughts about the current situation at Erskine. In it, there are some clear examples of critical thinking skills in responding to some of the objections from those who disagree with Synod’s actions (you can read the entire response here):
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.
“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.
Love of the world is a 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 make 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.
The article concludes with these encouraging (and sobering) words:
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.
HT: Mickey McLean (at World Magazine)
Leave a Reply