Tagline: “… but I’d rather integrate Faith and learning.”
Paul Helm (whoever he is) apparently wrote:
Certain truths are obvious; any denial of them would be unjustifiable; or alternatively certain truths are reasonable, and any contradicition of these claims unreasonable. …
It is reasonable to conclude that if the ball is orange then it is coloured, that if X is smaller than Y then Y is larger than X, and that if all men are mortal then some men are mortal. Each of these pairs of propositions is such that the second of each pair is logically implied by the first. That is, one cannot consistently accept the first without accepting the second...
I believe this statement is patently false, or at best meaningless. My opinion probably sounds ludicrous, and it rightly should. Logicians might present an example to prove their point: my senses can tell that the table is brown. My eyesight is perfect, the quality of light in the room is good, and no colored filters are between me and the table; therefore the table is brown. To contradict this statement would be unreasonable – and so it would be. If X is smaller than Y, Y is larger than X. Now we just need to measure X.
But life is not a brown table or an orange ball; the “truths” mentioned in our quote are often not “obvious".” I am hardly the first to suggest such a thing, but our opinions define how we see everything. Put simply, no two people can observe a situation the same way because they have different experiences, different opinions, perhaps a different religion – each of these leads one observation to multiple conclusions.
In a perfectly logical world, we would each see one event and reach the same conclusion because there is one “right” answer. Of course our world does not work that way. Pick your favorite political issue – there are just as many people just as logical as you who think differently. Of course you think you are right – and in fact you very well might be. But they believe they are right too, and maybe they are. Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle.
I am not suggesting that political or moral ambiguity actually exists – quite the contrary. I happen to believe in one set of principles, one set of observations, and one religion. Moreover, I am convinced that my interpretation is absolutely correct and logical – to hold any other position, as a good portion of the world does, would be illogical and seemingly stupid. But I am pragmatic enough to realize that my confidence arises from my experiences, my position in life, and above all, my religion. While there absolutely is absolute truth, and I am convinced I have found it in the Bible and, as far as fallen man can reach it, in my interpretation of the Bible, I know absolutely that nobody else in the world will have reached the exact same conclusions as I have. Sadly, each man on earth has found “truth,” and probably all of them are wrong. This is why logic fails to convince anyone in politics, religion, or in running a College.
Helm’s quote is at best meaningless when dealing with non-abstractions because it fails to take into account our starting preconceptions. How do we measure the size of a ball? In two dimensions? In three? Four? This is a problem of definition and is easily solved.
Now consider Erskine, a school encompassing dozens of teachers, dozens of administrators, and hundreds of students. SAFE, the Commission, and apparently Synod believe the school has not lived up to its calling as a Christian liberal arts institution. Given this definition, then, it seems perfectly logical (a “logical conclusion”) for Synod to take over the school.
We are not running on logic – far from it. We are running on feelings, opinions, and interpretations of distinct and disparate events. One case of “intimidation” by a man who no longer works for the college. One or two or half a dozen professors who don’t like inerrancy. A history professor who uses “common era” dates. A Methodist English professor who speaks ill of the ARP church for intolerance and questions authority. A Biology department that teaches evolution as true and worships God. An administrator that chooses a new slogan for Erskine. Chalk comments that are erased by Maintenance. Misappropriation of funds before the current board was elected.
Are these all problems? Yes, maybe they are. It really depends on your point of view. But there is no evidence here of an Erskine run by non-Christians. There is no evidence of ongoing intimidation to silence students voicing their opinion, though we hear a lot of hearsay. Nobody claims to know the opinions of every professor, nor the state of their Christian walk – yet we judge the entire school from the bad (or good) beliefs of two or three faculty and two or three administrators?
SAFE/Chuck Wilson/The Commission all believe Erskine is in dire need of correction because of “doctrinal drift.” Meanwhile, a great many people believe that Erskine is in no such need of reform. This divide is understandable if people have different opinions on where Erskine should be; no, what is surprising is that people have so many opinions on where Erskine is now.
We have here a problem of definition.
As a Commissioner says, “Explaining what the integration of faith and learning is not is easier than explaining what it is.” The wording is convoluted but essentially he says this: We can say what integration is not, but we cannot easily say what it is. Or in the words of the Supreme Court justice: “You know it when you see it.”
That isn’t good enough. Ask a Commissioner says explicitly that integration of faith and learning is absolutely not about praying before class, teaching Bible facts, or teaching Creationism. It is not about what you do; it is about who you are. In their minds, then, you cannot integrate faith and learning without being a doctrinal ARP inerrancist. (I have a problem with that opinion – see my next post in a few days).
This is why the two sides will never reconcile. They know what they want to see and they do not see it (or at least they have convinced themselves it isn’t there, which leads to the same conclusion). The other side believes it is there – that Erskine provides a great Christian liberal arts education. So really we both want the same thing.
We just have a problem of definition. Logic cannot help us. The “logical conclusion” may be to restructure Erskine, says one side, or return to normalcy, says the other side, but logic will not solve our problems. Appeals to logic, then, merely frustrate because we are both being completely logical. Only what works before logic begins actually matters here.
What does 2+2 equal, O’Brien?
No comments:
Post a Comment