Update: Please refer to series, The Misery of the End
Jay Brantner (Erskine ’09), Facebook group:
I'd like to see a student body in which Christians from various denominations are in a significant majority, so as to be a good influence on the non-Christians.
I'd like to see a faculty that is both academically excellent, eager to engage with students, and committed to orthodox Christianity. All three factors should shine through their lives. The Synod's list of qualifications for orthodoxy seems fairly standard. That affirmation can be made by Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, etc. Because the school is tied to the ARP church, perhaps the choice of professors in the Bible department could be restricted to those more specifically in line with the ARP, but this is not strictly necessary. When I was at Erskine, the Bible department included one ARP, one in the PCA, and one Baptist, which seemed to work out well enough. I will say that the President should come from a tradition closer to the ARP than is necessary for the general faculty.
I don't want to see any restrictions on faculty beyond the commitment to general orthodoxy, but I do want the faculty to avoid compartmentalizing the truth they discover. Evolution seems to be the hot-button debate, so I'll use that as an example. Those who teach evolution should be able to explain its compatibility with the Bible (because, for instance, it fits in with a literary framework interpretation of Genesis, or a day-age theory, or what have you). Not having all the answers is okay (and expected), but at the very least, they should be able to see apparent contradictions between beliefs in different areas and seek to reconcile them. Someone who teaches evolution and believes six-day creation has to recognize the contradiction and admit that either their science or their biblical interpretation is wrong (even if they cannot yet determine which).
I want professors who challenge the basic beliefs of their students but also help the students meet the challenge. Either side by itself is lacking something. When a student's faith is the belief in question, the former without the latter amounts to leading them astray, while the latter without the former amounts to naive indoctrination.
I feel like the seminary folk interact pretty well with the college, so that's not a particular issue of concern for me. I would like to see the chaplaincy be more invested in the student body as a whole. I get the impression that it does great with one ministry but lacks other ministries.
I can't think of anything more to say off the top of my head, but I will leave off with a non-exhaustive list of current Erskine faculty who I think exemplify the things we should strive for: Drs. Elsner, Sniteman, Woodiwiss, Schelp, Kuykendall, and Parker.
I, Temperance, legitimately think this is a good vision for Erskine. If these words were the words of Synod we all, both those on the Alumni site and the Supporters of Synod site, would stand up and cheer.
[Weasel Words corner: I do not agree with everything Brantner wrote.]
He did a fair job of laying out a good vision for Erskine: a Christian college with professors from multiple denominations connected by general Orthodoxy and integrating their faith into their actions both within and out of the classroom. Jay has a wonderful vision of a Christian liberal-arts educational institution – one that already exists.
I think Erskine is like this today. Science professors tell students how the reconcile their views of science with the Bible. Bible professors tell how they interpret the Bible and navigate tricky spots, and how their faith is not challenged. Professors care for their students, challenge their beliefs, share their own beliefs, and foster learning. Each professor is different – some are more argumentative than others, some are more reserved and less open about their faith. This makes Erskine diverse. I like it.
The Commission paints a terrible picture of Erskine. I think they were wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment