Wednesday, February 04, 2004

Up a creed without a paddle

I thought about applying for this position... until I read more about the institution.

Among their Faculty Membership Requirements, one finds such gems as the following:

1. [X] College faculty members are required to subscribe to three historic Reformed “forms of unity”—the Beligic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordtrecht—and pledge to teach, speak, and write in harmony with the confessions....

2. [X] College faculty members are required to be active members in good standing of a congregation in the Christian Reformed Church or a denomination in “ecclesiastical fellowship” with the CRC as defined by the CRC Synod....

3. [X] College faculty members are expected to support and promote Christian education at all levels and are normally required to provide their children with Christian schooling for grades K-12. Schools affiliated with the Christian Schools International (an association of parent-run schools with traditional ties to the CRC community) are expected to be the primary schools of choice, though exceptions are usually granted for home schooling or enrollment in non-CSI Christian schools....


A search of old issues of the Chronicle of Higher Education brought forth even more entertaining bits. To wit:

Howard J. Van Till, a now-retired physics professor at [X] College, had an even more grueling experience when he published The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens Are Telling Us About Creation (Eerdmans, 1986). The administration had no problem with his writings, but angry members of the denomination objected to his support of evolutionary theory and his suggestion that biblical texts had been strongly influenced by the cultures in which they were written.

Under pressure, the college's Board of Trustees formed an investigative committee. The situation soon turned Kafkaesque. For three and a half years, Mr. Van Till met with the group monthly to explain his theological views. "As the years of questioning and interrogating continued, the arena of concern just got larger and larger," he recalls, "until it became a test of the entirety of my theological position."


This, Pablo, is why I'm wary of "creedal" churches and other institutions that demand unthinking obedience to sets of bylaws concocted by earthly religious authorities. They never content themselves with merely reiterating basic religious principles; oh no, they must dictate everything, up to and including dictating what schools people are "allowed" to send their children to and what results a researcher is allowed to find. ("What Would Galileo Do?")

I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't fit in there for the same reason that I'd make a lousy Catholic, Mormon, or fundamentalist of any stripe. I'm just not very good at that whole mindless-obedience, marching-in-lockstep thing. It's rather sad that these people are so determined to raise their children as intellectual cripples who have never seriously confronted a single foreign idea.

1 comment:

Felix said...

Carlos Zamora @ 11:33AM | 2004-02-04| permalink

I admire the college for erecting those dikes against the flood of secularism. There are plenty of fine nonsectarian schools in the U.S. for those who don't want a robustly Christian education.

Thesis: There aren't any noncreedal institutions, just institutions whose creeds are unacknowledged and unwritten. Try practicing paedobaptism in a Baptist congregation.

email | website



Carlos @ 8:29PM | 2004-02-04| permalink

Although I don't know that doctrinal purity is as important in a librarian as in a member of the teaching faculty.

email | website



Felix @ 10:35PM | 2004-02-04| permalink

Most Baptists I know would just tell you that paedobaptism didn't work and the kid would eventually have to make his own decision in any case.

I'm pretty sure you don't really think that colleges, even religiously sponsored ones, should be dictating to parents which schools their children may attend, or that you really believe that rigidly-enforced doctrinal uniformity, up to and including denial of observable scientific principles, makes for a stronger education. Is that your definition of "robust Christianity"? It's not what I recall from your essay on "Freedom and the Christian university".

email | website



Trebor @ 8:57AM | 2004-02-05| permalink

You'd like my Sunday School class. I suggested we print t-shirts emblazoned with "The Heretics." They thought that might be a good idea. We're studying the Jesus Seminar and a lot of related material. Imagine a Sunday School class working its way through material teaching us how to critically evaluate the attributed sayings of Jesus… Yes, I've found a home (until they run out the associate pastor leading the class). I'll e-mail you our class materials once he's completed his latest revision… ~Trebor

email | website



Carlos Zamora @ 11:27AM | 2004-02-05| permalink

Seems to me that what counts as a "good education" is relative to creed. Since Darwinism is part of the secular creed, no one who denies it is considered well educated. Apparently creationism is part of the CRC creed, so the Dutch Reformed who support Calvin College would not regard any student who believed in Darwinism as well-educated.

I knew a lot of Calvin grads at ND and they were a sharp, thoughtful bunch. I'm pretty sure they were "seriously confronted with foreign ideas," but under the tutelage of professors who were committed to presenting the best Christian response to those ideas.

Where is Pablo, anyway?

email | website



Felix @ 3:12PM | 2004-02-05| permalink

I'd argue that in order to be "well-educated", a person must have knowledge of both evolution and Creationism. Belief in either is purely optional.

Trebor, it sounds like you might enjoy The Door magazine. Have you heard of it?



email | website



Pablo @ 3:50PM | 2004-02-05| permalink

I've been sick for the last few days. (I even had to sit in an exam with a box of tissues last evening since there are no retakes in grad school.)

I'm just about to leave a newly formed bible study due to the intolerance of some of the "acreedal" participants. (And by far the worst is a Baptist!) From what I can tell, an acreedal church is a church where its members calls its creeds "statements of faith".

At least these far right Calvinists are intellectually honest enough to admit that they have standards that they believe everyone else should endorse because they believe that they are true. This college did say in its ad "The candidate must embrace the Reformed tradition of the Christian faith..." and then asked the reader to first review the faculty requirements.

So, again Felix, we've been talking this thing in circles for over ten years now. You have never demonstrated that acreedal churches inherently and automatically avoid these pitfalls of intolerance. Nor have you ever explained why adherents of a faith-based religion should not have controls over defining membership based on declarations of faith.

You wouldn't get a PhD if you kept saying things that your doctoral committee didn't want to hear. Why should you still be able to get a D Div?

email | website



Carlos @ 4:11PM | 2004-02-05| permalink

Was there an implication that the Calvin prof was fired for teaching about evolution?

email | website



Felix @ 9:11PM | 2004-02-09| permalink

Pablo, what do you mean by "intolerance" in this context? Have they threatened your job or your life? Or ordered you to leave?

As I said, every religious "creed" I've ever read goes beyond the basic principles expounded in the Bible in order to justify its human authors' pet prejudices. Quite frankly, I think that's why most of them are written. In the matter of Christian creeds: if it's in the Bible, it's redundant, and if it isn't, it has no claim to special status. Unless, of course, its human authors play the trump card of claiming special personal revelation that supercedes Christ's teachings, in which case we're no longer talking about Christianity anyway.

No, I haven't "proved that acreedal churches inherently and automatically avoid these pitfalls of intolerance," because I haven't tried to. That's not the point. Any church can have such flaws. The point is that creeds written by human beings are either redundant or presumptuous, and the presumptuous ones are usually abused for political purposes. Nor have I sought to "prove" that institutions don't have the right to make rules regarding membership -- only that it's the height of arrogance for Popes or anyone else to proclaim that *they*, and not God, have ultimate authority over a person's status in God's eyes. And the presumption of human-written creeds, and the arrogance of claiming institutional authority over people's souls, usually spill over into other areas, such as dictating that parents MUST send their children to a particular private school, forbidding discussion of non-orthodox concepts, etc.

To the extent that any church fails to follow the example of Christ, it fails to be His church, no matter how many "creeds" it self-importantly waves around. That's the real criterion.

email | website