ESSENTIAL
A CHRISTIAN
CRITICAL, PHILOSOPHICAL, AND
PERSONAL REFLECTIONS
By Dr. Thane Hutcherson Ury
"Christian education is the chief business of the hour
for every earnest Christian!" Machen
Dum in dubio est animus, paulo momento
huc illuc impellitur. Terence
ABSTRACT
One of the saddest and well-attested facts in the history ofacademia is that formerly Christ-centered institutions have forfeited
their birthright. In the beginning they were on course to become
mighty oaks, but ended up lifeless stumps. Though the reasons are
manifest, there are some common causes which can be surmaised
for this Gadarene plunge into institutional apostasy. Perhaps the
dominant factor came when these schools slowly accommodated to
the secular criteria for what constituted academic excellence. Then
it was only a matter oftime before they lost their godly identity. This
essay suggest some lessons which Bethel can learn to avoid repeating
the errors of history, and truly keep Christ at the helm.
INTRODUCTION
r. Bridges, we started our tenure at Bethel together fifteen
years ago, and now you and I are both exiting stage left. One of us
has left an indelible stamp; the other was along merely for the ride.
What a rich privilege to have experienced wire-to-wire the institutional renaissance under your leadership. When I was first invited
to consider coming to
I was asked to tender a statement
on my personal philosophy of Christian higher education. The
following essay, despite a few subsequent tweaks, is essentially
the statement I submitted back in 1989. I recall vividly the reservations that you shared with me concerning the tone in which
I framed things, and how some colleagues might sense a hint of
"finger-wagging" in my words. Some of this can be forgiven due
to youthful indiscretion. However, as I reassess this meager offering of yesteryear, I find myself still in substantial agreement,
my convictions stronger if anything in many areas. So then, with
modest apologies for the redundancy, allow me then, to reaffirm
the following convictions.
WHAT IS
CHRISTIAN LIBERAL ARTS
EDUCATION?
The liberal arts educator is many things: a mentor, encourager,
hero, judge, priest, counselor, friend, sparring partner, nemesis,
student, and guardian, to name a few. The impulse for the liberal
arts philosophy can be found in Plato's Republic when he highlights
the education of guardians. The trivium and quadrivium, further
developed by Cicero and Quintilian, were seen as catalysts to liberate us from the cave of shadowy ignorance; to ground us in the
grammar of critical thinking. The Christian artes liberales institution, however, goes much further. The Latin word liber, found in
words like liberty and liberation, refers to a free person-and as
paradoxical as it may sound to the world, true freedom comes only
as we live in submission to the incarnate and written Words. What
strong irony to find that Liber was the name given to the Roman god
of chaos-a trait truly reflective of secular academia. Liber must
be all the more delighted over the pluralism increasingly evident
in accommodationist theological institutions. In these days where
relativism is the non-negotiable shibboleth in higher education, my
desire is to be part of a school that is courageous enough to teach
that we can know the Truth, and it shall liberate us. Truth is not
whatever the most thunderous voices claim it to be, but neither is it
an effeminate tap on the shoulder. Despite the encroachment of an
unbridled spirit oftolerance and political correctness, all beliefs are
not created equal. Teaching in a context such as Bethel, therefore,
should be seen as a God-given privilege, and not laced with any
sense of entitlement. With this in mind, it is my conviction that a
Christian liberal arts education should be ...
GENUINELY CHRISTIAN
What could be more pedantic than to claim that Christian
education should be Christian? However, in an age increasingly
comfortable with double speak, it is lamentable that Christian
higher education can no longer be safely assumed to be unabashedly Christian. Though words and titles used to mean something,
in today's postmodern context, an institution's fidelity to its founding charter can no longer be assumed merely by its name. In general, any transparently Christian institution of higher education
should have an unflinching conviction that all its activities and
doctrinal tributaries flow from the consensual fundamentals of
paleo-orthodoxy, paying close attention to the Vincentian canon:
"The very greatest care must be taken that that be held which has
been believed everywhere, always and by everybody." (Vincent of
Lerins, Commonitorium, ca. 434).
Yet, one ofthe saddest and most well attested facts in the West
is that formerly Christ-centered institutions have absorbed the
spirit of modernity, and subtly allowed an anti-supernaturalistic
dogma to infect their view of Scripture, statements of faith, and
curricular trajectories. A brief perusal of the founding creeds of
our nation's oldest, most prestigious citadels demonstrates their
one-time brazen Christocentricity. They originally trained students
in God's Word, for the expressed purpose of winning the world for
Christ; a view which succinctly distills exactly what a Christian
liberal arts education should be today. Yet these prodigal institutions now exhibit a very different persona, begging three important
questions: What can Bethel learn from such institutional apostasy?
What common factors precipitated the decline? And why would
schools hesitate to periodically engage in rigorous self-reflection,
or fail to craft non-ambiguous safeguards to ensure that they
continue to reflect their founders' vision?
In pondering the rationale for the statue of John Wesley and
seven others surrounding USC's then new Bovard Building, J.M.
Dixon stated: "A university is an institution with a world outlook
and an international welcome, yet it is meant first and last to
send forth graduates having a certain type of personality; good
citizens, defenders of righteousness and godliness. .. our University must be true to the ideals of its founders." (USC Alumni
Magazine, April 1921, pp. 4, 5). Today USC is more synonymous
with football and partying than for training in godliness. I long
to be part of a school known for training in godliness, not one
which has taken the Gadarene plunge and lets culture and bigger
schools set the agenda for what constitutes academic excellence.
R.C. Sproul puts it this way:
We have seen countless examples ofuniversities,
colleges, and seminaries chartered with a strong
commitment to orthodox Christianity, only to erode
first into liberalism and ultimately to secularism.
did this happen? There are multiple, complex
reasons for the
of such institutions, but
one key factor is the desire of professors to be
intellectually recognized in the academic world. A
slavish genuflection to the latest trends in academia
seduces our leaders into conformity. One apologist
once described this pattern as the 'treason of the
intellectuals.' Ifthe secular establishment ridicules
such tenets as the inspiration of the Bible, then
insecure Christian professors, desperate to be accepted by their peers, quickly flee from orthodoxy,
dragging the colleges, seminaries, and ultimately
the churches with them. It is a weighty price to
pay for academic recognition. (Sproul, "Evangelical
Lap Dogs," Tabletalh, Nov. 2002, p. 6.)
Losses of institutional fidelity stem directly from a denigration of the Bible-rarely an overnight process. Through a variety
of subtle and serial accommodations-post-Enlightenment rationalism, higher criticism, Darwinism, existentialism, a secular
metaphysic, feminism and now open theism and annihilationism-successive levels of humanism were reached in reason's
quest for autonomy. When biblical infallibility and the grammaticohistorico hermeneutic fell, a fragmented WeltCinschauung became
inevitable, scholastic schizophrenia unavoidable and Christian
amnesia virtually guaranteed. The vacillation of wastrel schools
can always be traced back to a drift from their founding ethos;
ones which were thoroughly ...
BIBLIOCENTRIC
Again, it is embarrassingly redundant to belabor this point, but
this is also no longer a given. How many confessional institutions
can we name which are bold enough to actually let the Bible be their
controlling nucleus? Here I mean really letting it be central, notjust
hollow rhetoric in a handbook to that effect. The Christian college
explicitly owes its existence to Biblical revelation. A full exposition
is beyond the purview ofthis essay. Suffice it to say that fidelity to
Revelation at each stage in the school's history-vision, construction,
fortification, expansion, and preservation through precise hiring
and tenure-granting-is the surest bulwark against extinguishing
the Christian mind. Whatever course content, pedagogical methods,
and peripheral elements are compatible with Scripture-conducive
to the stoking of "strangely warmed hearts" and the forging of a
Christocentric mindset-these should be the non-negotiable order
ofthe day. Those which are antithetical to God's Word, and stultifying to Christlikeness ought to be yoked to the handiest millstone
and pitched. But apart from the Scripture's and the Holy Spirit's
guidance, how can a school decide which is which?
The pressure to accommodate to modernity is intense, and the
capitulation rate staggering. Whether craving the approval ofscholars, desiring to bump up enrollment, appeasing an accreditation
team, downplaying doctrinal distinctives in order to receive that
huge grant, or in some other manner adulterating any embarrassing vestiges of their fundamentalistic beginnings, some institutions have made peace with the oxymoron of "limited infallibility."
But the only theologically, philosophically and pedagogically sure
foundation for a genuinely Christian college to remain biblical, is
to (1) be thoroughly and attentively committed to the doctrine of
inerrancy, (2) insist that its covenant community rightly divide the
Word, and (3) hold them accountable for applying it. Wesley was
known as homo unius libri, a man of one book. We need schools
that are self-evidently and joyously universitas unius libri.
Keeping an institution's nose to the tail of the prevailing
Zeitgeist is to insure a diluted Bible. As stated above, the scholastic
battlefield is waist deep in carcasses offormer God fearing colleges
and seminaries who would have once considered it unthinkable to
stand injudgment over God's Word, or approach any discipline in isolation from His Word. But history's verdict is deafeningly clear! Once
revelation is allowed to be hyphenated and deprecated, institutions
weaken the mortar around the foundation (Ps 11:3). Now easier to
be pried loose, this sets up the toppling ofother fundamental pillars,
though the implosion may take a few generations. This methodical
annulment of a school's raison d'etre is usually characterized by
an initial period of philosophical sleight of hand and incremental
fudging. Who is not familiar with the timeless illustration of the
'''With Christ at the Helm' is more than just a conventional
motto. It is bedrock to our institutional purpose. We are a Christian college. We offer a value-based education. We subscribe to a
Christian world view."
-"From the President's Desk," Bethel Magazine,
vol. 1, no. 3 1990
of water? What at first seems
cmnfc)rt:3.ble, llltllnatelyleads to demise. A sudden removal
the
from a school would
from the
constituency.
the heat on the biblical auth()rrty E310'wl:v o'ver
a generation or two and you have the secret
for cOJffi]:lromi,se.
Taken in
the threat of
accommodations are not
readily apparent, but when lined up side
the
shifts
are as conspicuous as
are alfHTni11g.
Another factor is that an institution's denomination and its
faithful members are quite often lulled to sleep with semantics,
coupled with the dismissive assurance that certain changes are
unavoidable if we are to have academic excellence and credibility.
But recall Solomon's demise. He let the surrounding Canaanite
culture set the ground rules for the nature of greatness, and a split
kingdom is his legacy. While the nomenclature of a denomination's
founders is still employed, all too often these become nothing more
than mere weasel words-catch phrases which suffer the death of
a thousand semantic and exegetical qualifications. While orthodox
and hallowed terms continue to be employed by modern wordsmiths,
they are emasculated of their original meaning and re-nuanced to
placate the New Hermeneutic and its postmodernhalf~cousins.This
deceptive pattern has plagued the Church ever since Col 2:8, and
is increasingly evident in many contemporary Wesleyan circles.
The words sin, gTace, justification, holiness, entire sanctification,
creation, hell, and marriage have undergone varying recalibrations
to reflect a kinder, gentler Evangelicalism.
Modern academia does not consider man educated until he
absolutely believes there are no absolutes. Thus, in a desperate
hunger to appear relevant, or gain scholarly plaudits, some schools
have bartered away their Evangelical birthright. Yet the Christian
school, by definition, traffics in absolutes. But if the absolutes are
not judiciously and energetically defended, any school can become
an Oberlin, USC, or Harvard. Over time articles offaith become no
more than sentimental ornamentations in institutional mailings;
statements of faith, if any, are signed tongue in cheek; doctrinal
distinctives become mere mile markers of our pre-scientific past;
and the college becomes a vehicle for social engineers to pigeonhole
the latest potpourri of first-person theology, or neo-orthodox aberrations, versus those which are ...
Schools with a distinctly pietist heritage, like Bethel, ought
to be on the cutting edge academically, spiritually and doctrinally.
In response to the popular notion that this would not be a liberal
education, we must recall that the word "education" comes from the
Latin, ex ducere, which means "to lead out." Now, if the scholastic
process is a leading out, it must be asked: What are we being led
out of, and to what are we being led? Analogous to Plato's cave allegory, where one escapes from the shadowy world into the realm
ofthe sun, Christian education should have a "leading out" and a
"leading to" element as well. The "to what" half of the equation is
what separates the truly Christian school from others. The Wesleyan ex ducere offers the most enticing end product; a sanctified
heart and an intellect set on fire. While Wesley's thoughts should
not be canonized, nonetheless I believe that his take on matters is
the best post-Reformation guide out ofthe cave and back into the
apostolic light. Anyone who knows Wesley's Ordo Balutis knows
it to be as intensely doctrinal as it is pastoral.
Given infallibility, the corresponding litmus test for any self-proclaiming Wesleyan institution would be its stance on sanctification.
Has it bought into an insipid definition, or is it keeping the irons hot
that God's plan has always been to take broken people and make
them holy? Students, parents, pastors, and donors in the holiness
tradition deserve to have their schools headed by professors who are
conversant with the irreducible components of scriptural holiness,
and able to breathe life into them in the classroom. Students need
to see holy living and holy dying practiced by profs who preach it.
No one advocates imposing holiness on students, but I submit that
it would be very healthy if they were to graduate knowing exactly
what it means and what it does not mean to be Spirit-filled. Some
colleges think it is good enough just to be merely Arminian. But I
would register strong dissent since this would be parallel to settling for justification, and not pushing on for sanctification. Among
the rich theological contributions which a Wesleyan education has
to offer, perhaps foremost would be the hermeneutic of holiness
and heart purity; two rubrics "which do not stem naturally from
the Reformed tradition." I believe hermeneutic has the greatest
explanatory power over the entire corpus of the canonical data. It
offers a balanced and exegetically sound hermeneutic ofthe Spirit's
infilling; one which challenges a potentially sterile Calvinistic pneumatological vacuum on the one hand, and an unbridled emotionalism
and cheap grace so often manifested in charismatic circles, on the
other. The Wesleyan understanding of sin, the atonement's extent,
purity of heart, the Spirit's witness, imparted righteousness, and
conditional security, are safeguards against latent and blatant,
present day antinomianism.
Frequently an institution, administrator, professor, or studentfor fear of being labeled too dogmatic-might feel uncomfortable
with strict biblical interpretations. But is dogmatism really the
Even the most tolerant and
correct institution in
the world has some
of
or tenets
which
This
cannot be denied without
in self-referential
incoherence. It does not seem to be a
ofwhether an institution or person is dogmatic or not dogmatic, but
a question
of which dogma, is the best dogma, with which to be dog1natized.
Paul's exhortation to be pure in doctrine is trivialized, if at appropriate junctures we are not able to proudly stand and persuasively
disambiguate what we believe and why. Bottom line, these are exciting days in which to be training young people within a holiness
framework which is ...
The menacing mantra of"academic freedom" has been another
contributor to the fuzzification ofwhat distinguishes truly evangelical
schools from their more progressive sister institutions. While those
in Jerusalem may appreciate all that Athens has to offer, we should
not be so quick to apply for dual citizenship. A needless wedge is
often driven between the Tabernacle and the Parthenon, of course,
but just as surely an unchecked adoption of dual revelation opens
the door to spiritual disaster. Dual revelationists are those who take
man's interpretation ofthe fallen natural realm and elevate it to the
Bethel President Norman Bridges meets with students during a
Dean's List Reception in the Weaver Rotunda in February, 2001.
same canonical status as Scripture itself. It should be clear where
God fearers want their roots to run deep. This is not cloistered
indoctrination; this is real reality. The Decalogue, the Sermon on
the Mount, and the varied exhortations in the New Testament
to be morally and doctrinally pure, are not exactly paragons of
tolerance and free thought. True, the Christian should thirst for
true truth, regardless of the source, but all extra-biblical claims
must submit to the final authority of God's "written" Word (Acts
17:11). Facts rarely speak for themselves. "Facts" must be quarried, sifted, authenticated, systematized, woven into a seamless
tapestry, and given a passionate voice by mentors who are excited
to model a pursuit of Truth.
In capturing and cultivating minds for Christ, Christian higher
education should be purged of easy believism, with students being
challenged to press past the "luxury of ignorance" to a bold new
level of rational engagement, characterized by spirited dialogical
interaction with faculty and peers. For teacher and pupil alike it
might be tempting to skirt knotty questions. This is bad enough, but
it would even be more detrimental to merely dabble superficially
in the essentials of the faith and then assume that they have been
encountered. Stated boldly, the absence (or slipshod presentation)
of a vibrant, coherent, consistent and intellectually sound apologetic in a Christian school is unconscionable. It can be potentially
worse, in the long run, than four years exposure to all the militant
"isms," sophistry and chronic dogmacide which permeate the secular academy. Ifthere is no institutional effort to promote the sweet
reasonableness of a faith which holds up under fire, students are
lulled into a state ofpseudo security. Believing that it is sufficient to
only know what they believe, at the exclusion of why, they may lapse
into lukewarmness at best, or even unbeliefin later years due to the
daily barrage ofnon-theistic propaganda which they will encounter
outside the academic bubble. Dorothy Sayers once lamented over
the plague of graduates who are impotent apologists, stating that
they are about as well-equipped to do battle on the fundamentals
against humanists as a boy with a peashooter facing a fan fire of
machine guns. A Christian liberal arts education which does not
equip its students with a framework for encountering tough questions is not educating them. Christian professors should be Socratic
catalysts, providing an arena where first-person answers to tough
questions can be crafted (I Pet 3:15). Signs might be hung up: "No
spoon feeding allowed." Every heresy within the Body has some
ancient precursor; there are no new departures, simply old errors
with new packaging. If so, then in the appropriate forum students
and prof alike should be pressed to cultivate a discernment for
recognizing false teaching; being history conscious, well schooled
in the basic methods of
research and introductory logic,
and emulating effective apologetic responses from the past. If so
they will in principle be able to intelligently engage most questions
and challenges directed their way.
The anti-intellectual bent of some believers in past decades
has encouraged the stereotype that Christianity is a blind faith;
merely one among many equally fideistic options. Believers are often
placed on the same credibility level as flat-earthers, and caricatured
much like the residents of Hillsboro in the heavily revisionist and
propagandistic film, Inherit the Wind. But neither a Masada mentality nor casual Christianity will ever win the world to Christ. And
while we should insist on exposure to the dissenting views of our
chief rivals, care should be taken to delineate between exposure
and promotion. The crooked line is never so readily exposed as
when plumbed against one that is straight. Herein lays the beauty
of a bona fide Christian liberal arts education. If this is done by a
competent faculty which desires to be held personally accountable,
a pupil's complete trust in God's propositional revelation will be
augmented, his or her experience given meaning, and his or her
witness credibility. They will gain a broadening, deepening, and a
systematization of God's truth, starting with Scripture's first verse,
because the Christian worldview needs ...
A SURE STARTING FOUNDATION
David asked: "If the foundations are being destroyed, what
can the righteous do?" (Ps 11:3). It used to be safe in the past to
assume that Christian instructors would reflect an unapologetic
biblical worldview in the sciences and teach students to recognize
and critique the gratuitous philosophical postulates ofmere empirical-sounding affirmations. The prestige j argon ofscience, however,
has well camoflaged the trojenhorse ofmethodological naturalism.
How rare it is nowdays to find an entire science department that
uniformly keeps a rigorous line of demarcation between what is
truly proved, versus strong convictions which are based on nothing more than mere assumptions. Far more common is it to find
teachers who have allowed evolutionism to take deep root in their
thinking. Since my graduate days I have been alarmed to find many
fine schools top-heavy with academics who have made peace with
some brand of Darwinism; who exhibit no discernable qualms in
recalibrating Genesis to fit with whatever secular model oforigins
is currently in vogue. In the last four decades the de-literalizing
of Genesis in the Christian academy has been stupefying. With a
wave ofthe hand it is often touted that the Bible is not a scientific
textbook. But this straw man is never substantiated by the name
of anyone who actually makes the claim.
Nonetheless, there are some like J.P. Moreland, who suggest
the viability of a distinctly theistic approach to the sciences. This
is not to say that we dissect our fetal pigs with one hand, while
clutching our KJV in the other. But only to emphasize that since a
bias-free approach to science is impossible, pupils should see modeled for them an approach that allows the Bible to have first dibs
on their thinking, while having the freedom to reject an uncritical
adoption of only those naturalistic presuppositions which receive
the imprimatur of the secular intelligentsia. In our day scientism
has become essentially messianic, resulting in both an unhealthy
worship oflogical positivism reincarnated, and a near-lemming-like
capitulation to anything prefaced by the motet, "science has proven."
The phrase "thus saith the Lord" is very helpful for matters offaith,
we are told, but such subjectivism simply cannot be tolerated in
the objective search for truth. We are assured that in considering
the magisteria of theology and science (magister being the Latin
word for teacher), we need to keep these two reality-seeking modes
distinct. Sadly, many Christians have adopted this artificial bifurcation, operating under the guise of what Stephen Gould coined the
NOMA principle, referring to non-overlapping magisteria (Gould,
Roc!? of Ages, 5-6). But could any miracle pass this test? How do
NOMA devotees in the Church handle the empty tomb? Last time
I checked, the magisterium of science was not quite open to either
Peter or an axe-head walking on water; nor is science open to the
revivification of Lazarus, or the resurrection of Christ. So if Christian instructors are willing to subject the truth ofcreation and flood
accounts to the magisterium "ofmethododological naturalilsm," one
can only wonder where the process would stop. Why arbitrarily stop
at Gen 1-11? It is not very polite after-dinner protocol, but it must
be asked in what explicit sense is this Christian scholarship?
------_ ...
... _------
"This is the season of the Christ child. His star blazes not in
the Bethlehem sky, but in our homes and hearts. Our gifts cannot
aid Him, for He is both the gift and the giver of all that is good.
But He welcomes us to participate in His nature inasmuch as we
learn to be giving and caring to those about us."
-"From the President's Desk," Bethel Magazine,
v.9, no.3, Winter 1998, p.2
Im"pres,SlOn that a vibrant testimony of salvation
tends to
any reservations regarding that
same
subjection of Genesis to the altar of evolutionism.
Professor Juggidy's
fictitious person) affirmation that he loves
Jesus, often overshadows the ugly but telling fact that for all the
pretense, he does not seem to be overly concerned with imitating
His Lord's hermeneutic. Martin Luther once claimed: "If I profess
with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the
Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and
the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ,
however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages
there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the
battle front besides, is mere Hight and disgrace ifhe Hinches at that
point" (Luther's Works, Weimar Edition, vol. 3, pp. 81f.).
One of the more mischievous attempts to undermine the creation account in recent days has been the ploy of genre critics, who
promote a literary genre approach in an attempt to defend a nonliteral reading ofthe opening chapters of Genesis. They do not label
these chapters as myth, allegory or suprahistory, and in this they
are far more cunning than the Neo-orthodox school. But the result
is essentially the same. They stress that Moses was writing from
a "theological perspective"-the emphasis being that the author's
primary intent was not to crassly record history, claiming further
that the creation account is not even written in the genre of history.
But none of these critics ever specify which objective standards led
to these conclusions nor offer exegetical evidence which suggests
such an approach is derived from the text itself. Like many halftruths, this genre approach is appealing since it absolves one from
having to take a stand on historical or chronological components
which may be deemed too embarrassing to contend for under the
interrogation lamp of evolutionism.
The intelligent lay person will see through the ruse, knowing
that theological perspectives are most often rooted in the genre of
history. Take Calvary as an analogy. Would any Christian want to
look only at the history surrounding the crucifixion? Surely theological truths take precedence over mere historicizing. But what
becomes of the atonement if Christ did not actually die in real
space and time? In the same manner, the false dichotomy between
the historical and theological components of the early chapters
of Genesis is a red herring. And just what does it mean anyway
for something to be theologically, but not physically, true? Jesus
and the New Testament authors never abstracted theology from
history. Never! In fact they did just the opposite by rooting their
message in history; a stark contrast from the mystery religions.
As demonstrated in the Book ofActs, they took factual events and
theologically interpreted them. Evangelicals thus would do well to
take inventory that in the creation and flood accounts much more
than historical events are happening; but certainly not less.
Reliable history does not begin only at Genesis 12, as is often
inferred. The last thirty-nine chapters of Genesis are written in
the same style of Hebrew as the previous chapters. Jesus rebuked
the authorities as follows: "If you believed Moses, you would have
believed me, for he wrote of me. But if do not believe his words, how
will you believe mine?" (John 5:46-47; cf. 3:12). He draws no dividing
line as ifsome portions ofthe law are more historical than others. In
the Gospels He alludes to the opening seven chapters of Scripture
as real history. As a matter of fact, every New Testament writer,
in a total of over 100 references sprinkled throughout 18 books,
treats Genesis 1-11 as historical. Sixty-three of these references
connect back to Genesis 1-3, while 14 refer to the flood. Genesis III includes numerous references to cultural and historical entities,
64 geographical terms, 88 specific names, and nearly 50 generic
ones. What modern evangelical will we trust to disambiguate the
historical from the poetic? I once heard this rhetorical query: Do we
really wish to place our confidence in fallible scientists who were
not around at creation, and whose theories are constantly changing
(Job 38:4)? Or go with an infallible Authority who was there, and
who provided a propositional account highlighting the essentials
for us? Is this naIve bigotry? Perhaps. But once when accused of
being a bigot, Wesley did not demure, but calmly affirmed he was
a "Bible bigot" (The Works of John Wesley, 3rd ed. [Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1984],3:249).
Consider further, the often heated topic of whether creation occurred in a literal week or over unspecified eons. At first blush the
contextual qualifiers surroUllding the word day (yom) in Genesis 1-2,
strongly suggest that the creative days were literal. And this initial
impression is more than warranted, since James Barr, former Regius
Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, once averred that he knew of:
... no professor ofHebrew or Old Testament at any
world-class university who does not believe that
the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to
their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place
in a series of six days which were the same as the
days of24 hours we now experience; (b) the figures
contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by
simple addition a chronology from the beginning
ofthe world up to later stages in the biblical story;
(c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide
and
all human and animal life
for those in the ark.
to put it
arguments which suppose the
of creation to be
long eras of time, the
of years not to be
chronological, and the flood to be a n"",'"hr
Mesopotamian flood, are not taken
any
such professors, as far as I know.
to David
C. C. Watson, correspondence elated 4/23/84)
Barr himself most definitely does not believe Genesis 1-11
depicts real history. However it is instructive that he affirms the
scholarly consensus that there is no question these chapters were
intended to be understood as referring to real history, and meant
to be taken literally. Objections to this simply are not ones which
stem from a first read of the Creation narrative. Conservatives do
not deny that the structure and style of Genesis 1 is unique, but
they do not see how this automatically translates into non-literalism. The Hebrew language has very distinct, if no unmistakable
devices for conveying the poetic-but such are absent in the main
from Genesis 1-11. Where are the tropes and symbolic language?
Where is parallelism ofjuxtaposed couplets, or the metrical balance
so characteristic of Hebrew poetry? Instead we find meticulously
composed prose.
An exhaustive exegetical analysis ofthe grammatical constructs
and patterns used in Genesis 12-50 to convey historical events is very
telling when compared to the gTammatical constructs ofGenesis I-II.
I would even argue that Genesis 1-11 is actually written in a more
emphatic historical style than even the rest of the book! Consider
just one telling example. The waw-consecutive-plus-imperfect is
the primary gTammatical construct in Hebrew for conveying real,
sequential history, and rarely occurs in Hebrew poetry. Yet the waw
is found more than 50 times in the first chapter of Genesis alone!
Genesis 1-11 has been the source ofmore post-enlightenment sneers
than any other passage. The informed skeptic realizes (often more so
than believers) how pivotal these chapters are to Christian dogma.
Douglas Wilson makes the following powerful point:
The more we care about honoring God, the less
we will care about receiving honors from men. The
more we care about being approved as a faithful
workman of God, the less we will care whether
others condemn or oppose us on their own puny
authority (2 Tim. 2:15). Modern Christians are
constantly exhorted to care. This is legitimate;
indeed it is inescapable. But the problem is that
we are told regularly to care about all the wrong
things. Itis said among us, 'Ifwe continue to maintain
that God created the world in six days, we will not be
granted academic respectability.' To which we must
reply, well, who cares? Why should we care that the
guardians of the academy believe we are not intellectually respectable? They believe that the moose,
the sperm whale and the meadowlark are all blood
relatives. Why do we want their seal ofapproval? It is
like asking Fidel Castro to comment on the economic
viability of Microsoft." (Wilson, "Sanctified Apathy,"
Tabletalh, Nov. 2002, pp. 60-61).
Dismiss the creation account, toy with the time-space historicity of Adam and Even, or in other respects court philosophical
naturalism, and the result is not just a weakened protology, but
also a destabilized Christology, soteriology, hermeneutic, and view
of biblical authority. The foundational nature of Genesis 1-11 can
hardly be overstated. Just about every major doctrine can trace
its genesis to those eleven chapters, either explicitly or implicitly.
Calvary, for example, is meaningless without a literal fall.
All disciplines run the risk of myopia if not exposed to the
friendly critiques of each other. Ideally, the sociology, philosophy,
history, psychology, science, and theology departments should
work in concert to present a multifaceted apologetic for the divine
origin ofthe cosmos and the subsidiary implications. In essential
matters, allegiance is mandated; in non-essentials latitude is allowed; in alleged gray areas, proceed with extreme caution; and in
all things outdo one another in a robust spirit of charity. This will
demand that, whether behind the lectern, pulpit, or in the faculty
lounge, we be ...
MINDED
In an effort to wed head and heart, the manner in which material is presented is nearly as important as the content. This is where
discipleship is the most efficacious link between the classroom and
the student's spiritual development. They need to have modeled for
them the marriage ofa warm piety and acute minds. Students need
teachers who can creatively contextualize and communicate beyond
pre-digested pap, platitudes and cliches; who understand the mentor nexus in and out ofclass; who can model a Christian disposition
that bolsters their apologetic and community ethos; who are allies
of objective, propositional truth; and who are conversant with the
rules of verification. In short
need teachers who have tethered
the sometimes
Siamese twins of faith and reason; who can
keep a straight face while
where
and
who have the courage when asked about some
to
say they don't know when
while
following this
up with a hearty, "Let's find out!"
As rational beings, students instinctively hunger for a worldview
which places a high premium on consistency. As image-bearers of
the One who commanded us to reason together (Isa 1:18), our hearts
do not typically delight in what the mind does not understand.
Christian teachers should thus winsomely commend a biblically
unified field of knowledge and discourse-where students are challenged (1) to appropriate the mind ofChrist in all relevant areas, (2)
to periodically subject themselves to extended periods of rigorous
self examination, and (3) to sharpen their ability to recognize bad
arguments while increasing their appreciation for good ones. Then
their whole lives will be blessed with intellectual growth. 'I'his is
a major plumb line of a Christian liberal arts education; helping
students to acquire an addiction to truth, and grounding them in the
sufficient tools and channels conducive to its discovery, amplification, and appropriation. If properly discipled, it will be possible for
students to continue to educate themselves, and persist in a lifetime
of sharpening the mind. The most instrumental gift a professor can
Norman and Janice Bridges greet well-wishers during D,:
Bridges' inauguration as Bethel College president in 1989.
bestow is the distinctively philosophical gift of"ideas," coupled with
modeling a contagious voracity to wrestle with "the best that has
been thought and said." Education is a covenant enterprise which
functions best when the student is required to participate. And
such is all the more enjoyable when teachers listen, respond and
model the very teachability that they aspire for their students.
The most effective mentors/teachers will always best be gauged
by, (1) the number of disciples/students who surpass them, and (2)
having a life worth emulating, because it is decidedly ...
Arguably this should have been point one, but once understood
that Christocentricity is the unspoken premise to every previous
point, the objection dissipates. It is Christ who makes an institution
genuinely Christian, not merely dropping His name here and
there in lectures, and correspondence to constituents and alumni.
Bibliocentricity is useless if Christ is not the interpretive grid
which informs every Christian doctrine; He is the hermeneutical
Key which allows the entire canonical corpus to be melded into a
meaningful whole (Luke 24:27,44). If adhered to, we protect ourselves from "the tyranny of unexamined assumptions, scholarly
sloth, and almost willful blindness" which J.A.T. Robinson said
characterized higher criticism, and which I believe characterizes
all false teaching. Doctrinal soundness is simply another way
of stating that our approach, interpretation, and application of
Scripture are merely our best attempts to follow Christ and apprehend His mind. When Biblical veracity is denied, one ipso facto
falls into a Christological error as well. The academy is reaping
the bitter fruit of exegetes and teachers who have attempted to
engage in their scholarly function(s) independent ofChrist. Having
a sure starting foundation-one which takes Christ's authority
as Creator and Hermeneut seriously-serves as a safeguard against
theistic evolution and progressive creationism. A "non-Christcentered apologetic" is about as effective and dangerous as an
inebriated neurosurgeon wearing boxing gloves. Further the main
thrust behind being mentor-minded is simply an application of
the great commission to the individualized heart and mind.
EXCURSUS
One evangelistic excursus bears mention. Ifthe Christian mind
is a prerequisite to Christian thinking, we would have to say that
Christian thinking is the prerequisite to Christian action, and getting the word out. Having a meticulously fine tuned and galvanized
framework ofbeliefs is utterly worthless unless teacher and student
convert them into righteous conduct. The best apologetic is still the
and compassionate life. Ultimately it is what our students are,
in concert with what they say and do, which will commend the truth
claims of Christ. If the Christian liberal arts college is living up to
the Name at the helm, those four years will be the most valuable
of a person's life; here the foundations are set and the die indelibly
cast. When graduates walk across the stage and receive their diploma, ifthey understand the full impact of Prov 1:7, then we can
truly say then that the whole philosophy of the Christian liberal
arts education is justified, and the harvest will increase.
Too many schools have gone the accommodational route. One
recent chapel speaker, in illustrating the idea ofthose who die spiritually, used the metaphor of a tree stump. She said every stump is
a sad example of something that could have been; an example of
thwarted and wasted potential; a vignette of sterility due to having been cut short. Bethel's identity struggle in the mid-80's is well
known; less known is that there was even some discussion given
to shutting down the store. How precariously close Bethel came to
becoming a stump. In reviewing my theses above, Dr. Bridges, it
becomes clear, that you took a huge risk in inviting me to become part
of the Bethel family. It's the rare administrator who is comfortable
with the scandal of particularity. But you sensed correctly that all
this young man was longing for was to find a covenant community
where he could be himself, where doctrine and truth were taken
seriously, where he would be given freedom to infuse passion into
our evangelical convictions, and be unleashed to disciple hearts
and minds. In allowing me to do this, Norman, I can thus look
back on these as the most pivotal years in my spiritual and professional formation. I am one of many benefactors who would hardly
have gotten this far were it not for the grace upon grace extended
by you. This unmerited favor has been most pronounced in your
pastoral willingness to downplay weaknesses of your employees,
while ampli~ying any strengths; a two-pronged administrative
philosophy which has always personally enthused me, and which
tends to make any professor at any level want to be better still.
Bethel needed a specific brick of a leader to rescue it from becoming
a sterile stump, to safeguard its heritage, and take it to the next
level without selling its birthright. God met that need in Norman
Bridges. Sola de Gloria!
SUGGESTED WORKS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind
D.A. Carson, The Gagging or God
David Hunt, What Love is This?
C.S. Lewis, The Screw tape Letters
Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism
Gerhard Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics
J.P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind
John Oswalt, Crisis in American Theological Education
J.I. Packer, Fundamentalism and the Word of God
Clark Pinnock, Biblical Revelation
R.J.Rushdoony, The Messianic Character of American Education
John Sarfah, Refuting Compromise
Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster
Thane Hutcherson Dry, The Evolving Face of God (forthcoming)
Jonathan Wells, Icons ofEvolution
John Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection
Thane Hutcherson Ury, B.S., M.Div., Ph.D., is assistantprofessor
of Systematic Theology at Bethel College, Mishawaka, Indiana.