Quick! Defend Synod against “Attack Blogs!”

The lawsuit against Synod was wholly without merit and “unbiblical,” as we have claimed for weeks. Paul clearly banned lawsuits of Christian against Christian and we were all a bit shaken when Christian men broke their pledges to uphold Synod’s mandates and broke God’s law. There are eternal consequences at stake here. In the words of one ARP minister during this fiasco, “Secular courts should not be relied on to handle church matters.” Thankfully, Erskine dropped its lawsuit to strengthen the peace and purity of the church.

Now as it happened, other parties undertook their own suit against Synod and, as of this point, a temporary injunction is still in effect. The judge ruled Synod's actions were of sufficiently nebulous legality as to warrant a full trial. The judge’s decision may be wise or foolish; this remains to be determined.

Clearly our side (Commission) disagrees with this decision because we now find out that Synod leadership is appealing the lawsuit and motioning to suspend or modify the injunction, or to dismiss it. This might appear to the uneducated to be a tremendous about-face, and young Christians might need help understanding the difference between Synod’s actions and the Plaintiffs’ actions. I hope opponents of the original lawsuit will explain here or on Facebook why they support the new lawsuit against Christians.

It would be silly to throw out Paul's vigorously defended restriction on Christian lawsuits over definitions. We all know Synod’s justification does not rest on the legal definition of "appeal," "lawsuit," and "motion," a distinction Paul never discussed. I would point out that only one of the legal actions taken by Synod is an appeal as such, while the other two legal actions are motions and constitute, in effect, separately heard lawsuits. I would further remind the reader that the original legal action undertaken by the Plaintiff and so strenuously opposed by many supporters of Synod's actions was, and I quote, a "Motion for Temporary Restraining Order." If motions were unbiblical before, why are they not so now? We should clear up this paradox quickly!

Of course our argument is also not "they started it," for obvious reasons. Naturally the Plaintiffs’ might have remarked that “[Synod] started it” as they walked to court with Pink Slips in their hands signed by our Emergency Session of Synod. I’m sure our argument is much more nuanced – and less vindictive – than “they started it.” I hope one more powerful in language than myself can explain why this motion is legitimate whereas the previous motion was not.

These are my thoughts,

Temperance

Dr. Burnett Converts to Inerrancy (I think), Makes Jokes About Barth

A Critical Review of: “A Teacher’s Theological Guide to Inerrancy In The Original Manuscripts: A Non-Barthian Approach,” by Dr. Richard Burnett.

 

We Convinced Dr. Burnett to change his mind!!!!

YAY!!!!!

(please keep reading to find out all about it)

As you all know, Dr. Burnett is a professor at Erskine Seminary who as far as I know does a great job teaching his students. He does have one dark mark against him, though, and that is his refusal to sign acceptance to the Synod’s 2008 document on the inerrancy of scripture.

I have never talked to the man myself nor met him, unfortunately. In fact, everything I know about him is from ARP Talk, perhaps the most reputable source of knowledge around save for the original autographa. I hear that Dr. Burnett posted something or other on his Seminary site about how others have mischaracterized and misquoted him, but of course I haven’t read it.* Why should I? He’s obviously biased.

Dr. Burnett wrote a document entitled, “A Teacher’s Theological Guide to Inerrancy In The Original Manuscripts: A Non-Barthian Approach.” If you enjoy this blog you are sure to enjoy Dr. Burnett’s musings on inerrancy (I certainly do). What a bunch of silly things he says! How funny he is! We must be sure to keep such silliness amongst ourselves; thankfully as The Others are busy reading Barth (who does that?), there is little danger of them reading it. Actually, we should probably keep it on the Down Low among our own friends too. Why on earth did he write this monster?

I applaud Dr. Burnett for carefully reconsidering his position on inerrancy. I wonder, what convinced him? Whatever it was, it proves the power of positive thinking. Focus on what we say long enough and eventually you’ll not be able to consider anything else. It’s that 2+2 thing again, O’Brien.

Next time though, try not to take down the house of cards when you defect.

[This post was inspired by a contributor].

 

*Actually I have read his statement; it was powerfully written and convincing. I still have not yet read Barth, however, preferring instead to read him quoted elsewhere under the “masterful” use of the ellipsis (point 53 in Teacher’s Guide)

Integration of Faith and Learning

Daniel Wells asked over at the Talk about Erskine Facebook group what we thought about evolution and how philosophy should be taught at Erskine:

First, in my time at Erskine and since graduating I have not heard anyone (pastor, elder, administrator, faculty, Synod executive) ever promote young earth creationism or the "six-day" view of Genesis 1 as the sole view needing to be taught at Erskine in either Bible or science classes. The same can go for Intelligent Design, Old Earth Creationism, the Framework Hypothesis, Gap Theory, Progressive Creation, Theistic Evolution (and its various models), etc. I find this to be a positive notion.

Second, the main issue with the teaching the sciences (and every discipline, for that matter), the Synod and other voices calling for missional fidelity seem most concerned with "methodological naturalism" since such a hermeneutic is at odds with the ARP Church's "Philosophy of Christian Higher Education."

Third, if professors at a Christian liberal arts college which is the ministry arm of an orthodox, evangelical church must adhere to a faith statement and commitment to the Christian liberal arts tradition, this does not necessarily produce indoctrination. Rather, the Christian liberal arts truly "liberates" the professor to be an instructor on both Books from God (Nature and Scripture).

Fourth, many students in both science departments and other departments did not receive much teaching regarding issues in the Philosophy of Science. A couple of J-term courses have been taught (Wingard, Schelp, and Schmelzenbach I think) over the last ten years, but not much else. As a Philosophy and Religion double major, I observed many discussion between various science majors with other disciplines. Rarely did issues of presuppositions, structural paradigms, plausibility structures, sociology of knowledge, or philosophy of science get raised. Even science majors among themselves debated the evolution question from a purely evidential/verification/positivistic point of view without dealing with the underlying questions of hermeneutic and method. This is probably where the debate is lost with students, administrators, and faculty on campus due to a lack of nuance and sufficient knowledge of these issues.

Note two things: first, his use of language. Rhetoric is supposed to persuade and convince the audience. Wells’ audience is hardly uneducated, but he uses terms here that require precise definition and careful attention to detail when reading. Moreover, these terms are probably not used often by those uninterested in philosophy. More to the point: his post is long on verbiage and is difficult to parse; this is not a good persuasive technique.

Regardless, I quote the following reply (since deleted):

As a science major who sat through a majority of the science classes offered at Erskine, I feel like I should be able to contribute a lot to this conversation... but I cannot! I am at a complete loss for words.

Should I give examples? The biology department taught evolution as fact. Yet they were also “liberated” as you say to discuss other concerns too – how they reconciled evolution with their Christian faith, how they felt Intelligent Design fit into science, and questioned students as to our beliefs on the issue. We did not all agree with the professor – nor were we condemned for it. We were asked to keep an open mind and learn – indeed, can we ask more of them? The same occurred in the Physics department, as indeed the same occurred in each department I sat under at Erskine.

Yet Ask a Commissioner and the Commission report say that integration of faith and learning is not ONE or TWO things you do in class but a holistic approach, in which case my few examples above and LITERALLY every other example I can think of from four years of education are STILL not enough prove that the science department (or any other) integrates faith and learning. I am powerless in that I literally have no idea what is expected (since examples of integration of faith and learning are NOT what is expected), or how to prove (or disprove) each professors’ diligence to it.

Scarier still - should I even name names? Call me paranoid, but I would never have presumed that Synod would fire fourteen Trustees. What will Synod do to THESE men and women? If I tell the world what they said in class, will Synod take offense and - dare I say it - seek to fire them? I certainly could not bear to be the catalyst for that. I feel intimidated into silence out of fear, and it is a terrible feeling.

Perhaps the science professors are not interested in philosophy? Not everybody is. Maybe they should be fired for this – or maybe not. Maybe they are trying their best to teach science and don't have time – or maybe they should make time. Maybe they just simply don't know anything about the philosophy of science. I have no idea what "methodological naturalism" is; I certainly won't speak for my professors, but maybe they don't know either, or maybe they don't care.

So I cannot help this discussion: firstly because I am afraid to give examples because of the "culture of intimidation" of potential firings in the future, secondly because examples of the integration of faith and learning have been explicitly condemned by the Commission report, and thirdly because I am not sure that science professors are interested in, knowledgeable of, and competent to teach philosophy of science and "structural paradigms, plausibility structures, sociology of knowledge." These are philosophical concepts that should certainly be discussed in philosophy class, preferentially with a Christian world view alongside. But in Biology 102?

I do know one thing: they did a pretty good job teaching science and integrating their faith both in, and out of, the classroom. This seems pretty good to me.

Haha! What a fool! He doesn’t even know what “structural paradigms” are!

Woe to the Un-Christlike Attitude of the Others!

Our view of events is colored significantly by whether we agree with, or denigrate, the opinion. Even if some radical quote is uttered I might look past its stupidity because I agree with what he is saying.

Consider what our own Reiggin Hilderbrand wrote:

In reading over the opposition's Facebook group, it seems that there are plenty of problems (hard to pinpoint the greatest... but I'm leaning towards a purely un-Christ-like attitude) but one that jumps out at me over and over again are the fallacies.

Appeals to emotion, ad hominem attacks, misleading vividness, guilt by association (the latest attack perpetuated against Mr. Wingate), bare assertions, false dichotomies, and of course a ton of red herrings.

While I fully support those who have spoken up in support of the Commission on the "Alumni for Erskine" group, it seems that the radical contingency has taken control of the group and made it impossible to speak without being attacked. There's a lot of malicious intent and it's frightening.

What he sees is truly is frightening! I am not actually sure what Mr. Hilderbrand is referring to (there was a lot of discussion about “war,” but also a lot about praying for reconciliation and for God’s will to be done). Other views are encouraged, though challenged, and they do not erase contrary wall posts like we do. Silly them!

Now consider this quote taken from a random ARP Talk document (from #24) in reference to Dean Alston’s memo on integrating faith and learning:

Is Coach Alston serious? Is this a joke? Is this memo his idea of the integration of faith and science!? It is ludicrous. This is embarrassing. The Editor does not know whether to laugh or cry. Unfortunately, to the extent that this sort of banal thinking represents the majority of the Erskine College faculty on the integration of faith and science, to that extent they do not have the slightest idea of what integration of faith and science is. Buzz Aldrin’s “moon communion” is a reflection of his piety; this is not a statement regarding the integration of faith and science. Indeed, Coach Alston’s memo is prima facie evidence why a new Academic Dean needs to be secured ASAP!

Chuck – you took the words right out of my mouth. Bravo! But regardless, consider the language he used. "Banal thinking." "New academic Dean needs to be secured ASAP." "Embarrassing." Pretty heavy language. Will Mr. Hilderbrand denounce this as un-Christ-like? Or does he agree with it and therefore sees it as a just thrashing of an ignorant, “banal” man?

My point is not that Wilson is wrong; my point is that we agree with what he says and therefore accept the manner in which he says it. Imagine Mr. Hildebrand’s fright if an alumni wrote that quote above in reference to Paul Patrick! Great balls of fire how the Supporters of Synod group would light up! Fortunately, the heavy hitter is on our side. Go on Chuck – knock those administrators over the head! I mean good grief – Alston is only a Coach!*

So go on, Oberle. Continue unabated, Wells. Say what you will – our friends love what we say and so won’t care how we say it!

Or prove me wrong, friends. Publicly condemn a direct statement made by Oberle, Wells, Chuck Wilson, etc. Give a direct quote and condemn it. Of course such a thing will never happen. I’ll correct this post when I see it.

Update: I wish to publicly state that two commenters on this blog have publicly stated their disagreement with Chuck Wilson’s rhetoric, and good for them! I thank them for it.

*Oh dear. An ad hominem attack. Whatever shall I do? It’s OK – Chuck made fun of him a couple times about that.

Justifications for the Appeal

[Part 4 of a series entitled, "The Perversity and Inconvenience Righteousness and Necessity of Lawsuits against Christians Us Evildoers."]

I’m not privy to super-secret Synod communiqués, so I’m not sure what the “official” word is on our justification for appealing the injunction. I’m pretty sure I have a few ideas though. Pick any one (or multiple ones) of the following:

1. Paul never mentioned appeals in his prohibition against lawsuits against Christians
2. Erskine is not composed of Christians, so the prohibition does not count
3. The initial lawsuit was against God’s law, so we are just righting the wrong
4. What we do in sin now, we do for the greater good and God’s glory
5. Who cares? The End Justifies the Means.

Personally, I think DeWitt & Company will rely most heavily on #3 – that once a lawsuit is in the courts the prohibition stops working. Because, you know, that makes perfect sense. The court has ruled that Synod broke the law, and in this they have wronged us.* We need to continue suing our Christian brothers in civil courts for as long as it takes to get the court to agree with us, even though it means spending the money we would have sent to fund Erskine and tarnishing Erskine’s reputation further in the eyes of the world. But we’ll get the Courts to agree with us yet (or bankrupt Synod trying)!

The implications in this appeal are numerous; I’ll be covering some in the coming days.

 

*This sounds eerily similar to the argument used by the Plaintiffs, namely, “Synod broke the law and wronged us, so we will sue to right the wrong.” We roundly lambasted this foolish argument. Synod was not wrong here! It’s the Courts that are wrong – and that’s why we need to sue! Isn’t it obvious? Lawsuits are fine as long as you are right…

Paul Never Mentioned Appeals

Tagline: “Christians do not sue Christians. Unless…”

As I said, Christians do not sue Christians!*

*Unless, of course, it’s an appeal, because Paul never said anything about an appeal. This is war! This is Holy War to reclaim Erskine; thank goodness our interpretation of the Bible will never hinder us!

(please see my previous post about Christians not suing Christians here.")

Navigating the Supporters of Synod site is like…

… Navigating a minefield after an army has passed through. There are HUGE GAPS in the conversation everywhere. Like on April 6, when Tim Phillips held AN ENTIRE CONVERSATION with himself.