Jay Brantner’s Vision is the Vision of Many

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.

Give Synod the Benefit of the Doubt

Never lose sight of what started this fiasco: Synod selectively fired fourteen Trustees from the Board. But please, give Synod the benefit of the doubt. There is a 0.00000069% chance they sacked the Fourteen trustees randomly to shrink the Board. Maybe God stacked the dice to remove the "Culture of Intimidation?" Why else were these 14 chosen?

Starting tomorrow soon: we'll figure out why the 14 were chosen.

Update: Things are happening now at a rapid pace. Old news will have to wait.

Reverse McCarthyism

What a bizarre world we live in. Whereas McCarthy vented about so-and-so many card-carrying communists in the State department, our own Commission Committee failed at telling us how many people at Erskine believe… in anything bad. Those of us attempting to make heads-or-tails of the debate over Erskine’s future should be forgiven for not having a clue how bad Erskine’s professors are because the Commission never told us.

Inerrancy of Scripture
How many professors at Erskine disbelieve an inerrant reading of the Bible? Has this been determined, or do we just know it is “a lot?” Yes, we know of Drs. Crenshaw and Burnett. Our side (Commission) has made very sure that we know very well what their beliefs are on the matter. But what about everybody else? We have no idea; the Commission did not compile a list, make any claims, or imply whatsoever on how extensive the “problem” is. In this bizarre case of anti-McCarthyism, how many card-carrying anti-Inerrancists are there at Erskine, Commission? Or is the presence of one or two or three enough to damn the Board?

Integration of Faith and Learning
No SAFE student has taken a class from every professor. No SAFE student can know everything each professor has said. Even the SAFE group as a whole has probably not listened to every professor in class. The Commission, which interviewed SAFE students plus a handful of other students for a total of one hour during January, can know still less about Erskine’s professors.

Better yet, how do we quantify “integration of faith and learning?” Ask a Commissioner says you cannot – it must be a holistic approach. How can a 15 or 30 minute interview flesh this out? Even if you could, not every professor was interviewed. How then do SAFE and the Commission know that integration of faith and learning is not occurring? Which classes do integrate faith and learning? Which do not? Why was no list made – or are we to assume that all classes are bereft of faith? How many non-integrators are there at Erskine? We have no idea - the Commission never told us.

Culture of Intimidation
How widespread is the “culture of intimidation?” One incident three years ago by an administrator that no longer works for the school? Students feeling uncomfortable when their acceptance of ARP doctrine is challenged by one professor? Two professors? Dr. Crenshaw “intimidated” me every day of class, if by intimidation you mean challenging my opinions (his right), and asking me if I could be sure of what I was saying (his professorial duty). I was never forced to speak my mind. He never pressed me unduly. But if I gave my opinion, or challenged what he said, didn’t he have a right to challenge me? Is this intimidation? Or is it rather a SAFE-student fear of being intimidated? Maybe some people easily feel intimidated?
The Committee gave no examples of intimidation. Why? How many card-carrying Intimidators are there at Erskine? The Commission never told us.

Conclusion
Of course we know that Erskine is a terrible place undergoing “doctrinal drift.” But why did the Commission not prove this to a questioning public? They had the chance – and blew it. Instead we got vague statements like “irreconcilable opinions” amongst the Board members and talk of fiscal irresponsibility that occurred before any of the present Board members were appointed. Bizarre.

Come on Commission – let’s see some McCarthyism. Burn these witches!

Dr. Evans in Bed with Chuck Wilson

No, not literally, but I wanted to make the point that the only place to find Dr. Evan’s rebuttal to Dr. Burnett’s email is on ARP Talk. Clearly Dr. Evans feels no need to censure, rebuke, or ignore this paragon of wisdom.

That Chuck Wilson has a large, and influential, audience and dedicated following is further confirmed. As I have mentioned previously on this Blog, Chuck’s views apparently holds sway over a large portion of the powerful interests in Synod. I do not mean to sound conspiratorial here. I simply mean that the views espoused on ARP Talk are not “fringe” or “kook” but instead apparently held by some of the most powerful people in the ARP Church today. That these views are driving Synod leadership is blatant.

… of course we should all listen to this modern-day Siren.

 

My personal favorites in Chuck’s newest issue:

Introduction, written by the editor: “Dr. Burnett is a humble friend of the ARP Church who attempts to help the poor, benighted ministers and lay people of the ARP Church understand the theological failure of the doctrine of inerrancy. He is concerned that we are hopeless anti-intellectuals who have lost our way in the land of theological conservatism.” (emphasis added).

We call this sarcasm. Not a big deal, because Dr. Burnett’s piece is pure satire.

Now, Rebuttal to Dr. Burnett’s piece, written by Dr. Evans: “He has written a satirical piece…  Once one sifts through the sarcasm… The subtitle of Burnett’s sarcastic essay.” Three different comments on the sarcastic/satirical nature of Burnett’s work in three different paragraphs. Indeed, one might be forgiven for assuming Evans is criticizing Burnett (“Once one shifts through the sarcasm…”). Indeed, Evans is doing just that.

Surprise conclusion: Chuck makes fun of Burnett by using sarcasm, and Evans condemns Burnett for using sarcasm. Since Burnett is Public Enemy #1, this apparent hypocrisy is warranted.

Chuck Can Count…

But he chose not to. His latest ARP Talk document criticizes Dr. Burnett’s recent document for – of all things – length. And I predicted it would be lambasted for grammar (I guess he couldn’t find any errors). This may be the first time anybody theological has been criticized for writing too much.

Odd though – there’s not much difference between Evans’ and Burnett’s documents in length! Consider:

A Layman's Historical Guide to the Inerrancy Debate,
by Dr. Evans:
5074 words (not including "further reading" section)
Rebuttal to Dr. Burnett's article: 1682 words

A Teacher’s Theological Guide to Inerrancy In The Original Manuscripts, by Dr. Burnett

10543 words

Difference between Dr. Evans and Dr. Burnett: 3787 words

So Burnett’s "interminably long" paper is 3787 words longer than Dr. Evan’s combined statements on inerrancy? I always pictured “interminably” as, like, “endless.” New definition: a couple of newspaper editorials. Or, part of an ARP Talk issue.

We Be Smart: Distracting with Inerrancy

Tagline: “The Bible, and our strategy, are inerrant.”

The Bible is inerrant. Make no mistake about it, we are absolutely correct on that point. The wonderful thing is that everybody else agrees with us – most ARP ministers and church members, most pastors in our friend denominations and their parishioners, our dedicated network of Christian friends across the nation, and probably a fair number of faculty at Erskine and in the seminary. Heck, even World Magazine praises our move against “doctrinal drift” at Erskine. Our articles on the Supporters of Synod Facebook group are preaching to the choir (even more so considering we have explicitly told the “Others” to stay away!).

We have made Inerrancy the core issue at Synod; this is a perfect bait-and-switch. We plead with the Christian world: side with Us, defenders of the scriptures, and not with Them, those who reject the inerrant word of God and seek to undermine the faith of the Elect! What a gloriously powerful statement – and how misleading! Why?

We really don’t care about inerrancy at all.
No really, we don’t. Of course we support inerrancy and believe the idea is right. And in fact inerrancy is quite important. But inerrancy is absolutely not what we are concerned with at Erskine.

I’ll prove it. Each professor at Erskine will sign a statement swearing that he/she will affirm inerrancy. Actually, such a requirement is already in place at Erskine for new professors. Some tenured professors will not sign the document due to principle, but let’s assume that most do. OK, they agree with the inerrancy of scripture.
What now?

They believe the same basic tenants that they always have.

They teach the same way they have always taught.

They question authority the same way they always have.

They are just as intimidating to our rock-solid Christians as always.

Am I missing something here? As Dr. Evans himself points out in his essay on inerrancy, people have different opinions of scripture no matter how perfectly they regard transmission of words through the ages:

The doctrine of inerrancy does not close off interpretive discussion.  Some people reject the doctrine of inerrancy because they think it restricts us to particular disputed interpretations of Scripture, such as a literal interpretation of the days of creation in Genesis 1 or a particular view of God's sovereignty.  But it is quite possible for people with equally high views of the inspiration and authority of the Bible to disagree on the interpretation of individual texts.  … We must make a practical distinction between the authority of the Bible and the interpretation of the Bible.  The fact that the Bible itself is without error does not mean that our interpretations are inerrant.

Well? Dr. Evans himself (and correct me if I am wrong) does not believe in a literal 6-day Creation event as outlined in Genesis 1, a belief that is foreign to me but one in which I can accept (however wrong he might be). I understand that Dr. Crenshaw believes Genesis 1 is figurative language too. If Crenshaw converts to inerrancy, what have we gained? Dr. Evans accepts inerrancy – what good does that do us?

Let’s be intellectually honest. What does Synod want? Synod wants professors who agree with Synod on doctrinal issues, and doctrine is only tangentially related to inerrancy. Yes, your belief in an infallible and inerrant Word of God will shape your interpretation, but it will not force your interpretation. In other words, good Christians who agree with inerrancy will disagree about many other things.
So forcing “inerrancy” on professors is less than half the battle. Inerrancy requires some doctrinal changes, but not all of them. No two inerrancists will hold to all the same doctrinal issues – and this divergence will be even more pronounced at a school where Christians of many different denominations teach.

So you see, forcing inerrancy is a moot point because we will have all the same problems of before: differing opinions on doctrine. Dr. Crenshaw does not agree with everything Synod agrees with. Neither does Dr. Burnett. Neither does Dr. Agnew. Neither does Dr. Cheney. Neither does the Biology department. & Etc. Whether they agree on inerrancy is beside the point: Synod is actually concerned with their interpretation of scripture and their application of this interpretation in class.

Inerrancy is thus two degrees removed from the real issue:

1. Inerrancy of scripture
2. Interpretation that Creation is true, Big Bang false, Predestination, & etc
3. Application to teaching (Creationism taught, & etc)

This is why Synod is so disingenuous to focus on inerrancy. One may agree with Point 1 and still disagree with Synod's interpretation of Point 2 and 3. The “doctrinal drift” at Erskine is not over inerrancy – it is over many Christians with differing views on doctrine. Ascribing to inerrancy will not solve that. Dr. Evans will still disagree with literal 6-day Creation. Dr. Crenshaw will still believe evolution is true, as will the biology department. No view of inerrancy will change any of their minds.

But by all means, keep up the fight for “inerrancy!” We have no better rallying cry, no matter how disingenuous the cry may be.

What a wonderful distraction inerrancy be.

And They Were Missing

Dr. Evans and Rev. Paul Patrick were missing from Dr. Ruble’s Appreciation Dinner as he retires from college president.

Surely they were in the bathroom as I searched for them?

Surely they would not miss a dinner in honor of their college president?

Surely they would not have missed a dinner for, say, John Carson?

… Or do they appreciate the good work – and balanced budget – of their president so little? Is it money? If I had known these men were short on money I would have personally bought each a ticket. Or was it something else?

Thank goodness these supporters of Synod are supporters of Erskine!

I will be sure to attend each of their retirement dinners.