Posted on 01/03/2005 8:18:33 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
Open or Closed Case? Controversial theologian John Sanders on way out at Huntington. By Stan Guthrie | posted 12/22/2004
While John Sanders and the Board of Trustees at Huntington College in Indiana disagree on whether God exhaustively knows the future, they agree that his days as a theology professor at the evangelical school are running out. The issue, according to both Sanders and G. Blair Dowden, the college's president, is not Sanders' belief in open theology, but his notoriety in advocating the doctrine. Both acknowledged that others on the faculty hold the same open theology views.
"You can be an open theist," Sanders told CT. "You just can't be a well-known one. That makes this a very interesting case."
After an executive session of the board was held in October, Dowden told members of the faculty that there "was very little support for John's continued employment at Huntington." Neither Sanders nor Dowden expect him back for the 2005-2006 academic year, which begins next fall. Dowden told ct that while the controversy is "directly related" to open theism, there is no requirement for professors on the issue.
"Not at all," Dowden said. "We have some other faculty who are open theists, but they're not teaching theology or Bible. It's not a litmus test."
Sanders, who has taught at the school of about 1,000 students for seven years, has been a focus of controversy over open theism for the past four years, he said. In November 2003, Sanders narrowly avoided being expelled from the Evangelical Theological Society over his beliefs. Some society members believe open theology violates the society's commitment to scriptural inerrancy.
Huntington removed Sanders from the tenure track over the controversy, but school officials attempted to give him some financial security by signing him to three-year rolling contracts, automatically renewable annually, unless the administration or board says No. In the event Sanders were to be dismissed, he would receive payment for the balance of the contract.
Sanders told ct he expects to be relieved of his position shortly, and that Dowden has "made it clear that my contract will not be renewed after the 2004-5 academic year." Sanders said that he is looking into other teaching positions and research grants, but that he has no other options waiting in the wings right now.
Earlier reports in ct and the Chronicle of Higher Education that Sanders had been "fired" were inaccurate. Dowden, who called Sanders a "brilliant scholar" and "excellent teacher," has been a defender of Sanders.
"John has done everything we have asked of him," Dowden said. But Dowden said that the United Brethren in Christ, which sponsors the school, "finds open theism troublingsome [leaders find it] very troubling."
Dowden added that academic freedom, while important, is not absolute. "For all Christian colleges, academic freedom is bounded in some way."
Sanders said the school is not following its own guidelines. "I do believe that the right to publish and academic freedom statements that the professors actually are working under are being violated," Sanders said. "They are being trodden upon."
Some students at the school are upset. Joni Michaud, a senior history major who is a leader in a student group supporting Sanders, said the controversy is "a case study in academic freedom." The group meets weekly to discuss strategy, has sent letters supporting Sanders to the board, and is seeking to raise awareness among other students. Michaud said the treatment of Sanders violates the school's statements lauding the "benefits of controversy" in an academic setting.
"If Dr. Sanders is indeed fired, I will graduate with a much lowered opinion of the institution," said Michaud, a pre-law major. "I will probably not make any financial contribution, and I will discourage people from attending."
Such talk is no doubt troubling to administrators, who have announced a freeze in tuition rates for the 2005-2006 academic year. Huntington College, to be renamed Huntington University in mid-2005, says the annual U.S.News & World Report survey of colleges consistently ranks it as one of the top comprehensive colleges in the Midwest.
Dowden said the board will next meet January 19-23, and the fate of Sanders could be formally decided then.
[Stan Guthrie is senior associate news editor for Christianity Today]
Funny, but as I study more and get older (not in that order) I've come to need less choices and less adjectives and less argument to support what I consider to be the Biblical truth of God's total, complete, profound, black-and-white, unerring Predestinating hand in all His creation.
Every healthy baby born is by His specific will. Every battered body that washes ashore in Sumatra is by His will. Every punchline applauded is by His will. Every period at the end of every sentence is by His will. Because if I've been saved by God's grace through faith in the atoning work of Jesus Christ alone, which is the greatest event in all eternity, then how numbered everything else must be.
Indeed. Great analysis! Thank you so much for bringing me into the loop!
You are quoting Scripture without attempting to read orthodox interpretations of it, other versions, the original language etc.
That is laziness, and laziness leads to heresy.
Depending on how "open" your open theism is, several parts of the Bible seem to support it. For example, Jacob wrestling with God, or Moses convincing God not to destroy the Isrealites.
No, accepting orthodox interpretations over taking Scripture at face value leads to heresy. Why force Scripture to fit the traditions and ideas of fallen man? Why? The Lord Jesus Christ took so many to task for this...don't you know?
"Every healthy baby born is by His specific will. Every battered body that washes ashore in Sumatra is by His will."
Not really. Here's God's will:
Genesis 2
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
God said the world He made was "good." He only required obedience in this one area. And, He EXPECTED it. He HOPED for it. He DESIRED it. God did not wish for Adam to fall, nor did He cause Adam to fall by some form of "mysterious" predestination. God wanted Adam to OBEY. Calvinistic doctrine assumes that God planned--and even desired!--failure, but was not/is not responsible for it.
Do you know what deism is? I think you are confused and possibly suffering from liberal indoctrination you are unaware of. This deist junk concerning the Founders is propaganda...
To quote from your link: "I believe in one God, creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence."
Deists believe there is some higher being unknown that set everything in motion and then checked out -as in no eternal life, no reason to observe 'good' vs. 'evil', no providence, etcetera...
Suggest you deprogram and reevaluate with fresh data...
You do know that the Scripture you are reading is a translation of the original, correct?
And that some words have different flavors of meanings 400 years ago than what they mean today?
I am a Biblical literalist, but your position that just read the Bible without any further study is quite frankly, ignorant.
Personally I prefer pantheism: God knows everything because God is everything. I suppose that's pretty dangerous too? Oh, well. Whatever the case, I am certain God knows a heck of a lot more than me.
God is not the lint behind your sofa cushions, although He created the sofa, the cushions and the lint.
To say God equals His creation elevates the creature to the status of the Creator.
The first no-no. "Ye shall be as gods."
God never regrets His decisions. He only regrets the decisions of man. Since He knows what those decisions will be there is no "new course of action".
Again, the scriptures says God is not like man. To think He changes His mind is to abscribe man-like traits to God.
The people already knew of their faith from Micah in the days of Hezekiah. I think it's safe to assume Jeremiah knew it as well. God doesn't go around saying things He doesn't mean. Your interpretation is flawed. I can't help it if you can't read the text.
"Academic freedom" also means the freedom of the academy to fulfill its missions, and to teach the doctrines it was set up to impart. The largest and most conservative protestant denomination in the US, the Northern Presbyterian Church, was hijacked by the perveyors of an alien faith because they were too dainty to defend themselves, to hold heresy trials.
There are Deists who believe in a Creator but not an active God, but anyone who reads Thomas Jefferson's writing or Ben Franklin's writing did believe God checked out. And neither do I.
A search will show the word "repented" in verse 35 is better translated as "grieved" which is far different then the Lord "changing His mind". I have found this to be the case in just about all the places where it says "the Lord repented".
However, this is not the case in 1 Samuel 15 or Numbers 23:19 where it means "changing one's mind". The problem you have in these verses is that they are in the negative. It tells what God is NOT. God does not lie. God does not change His mind. God is not like man.
I disagree.
:>) with regards. X.
Is that true?
Why do I have to do the other side's work for them? I would suggest reading Whitehead if you're interested. My personal view of Whitehead's work and process theology is that it is a logical tour de force that has nothing to do with reality or my religion.
Omniscient means "knowing everything" or "knowing all", right ? Presumably that means knowing all that can be known. I think (it's been a long time) Whitehead and the rest of them would argue that the future cannot be known because it doesn't exist, it doesn't have the same kind of "being" that the present and the past have -- heck, it doesn't "have being" at all. Anyway, Whitehead would (I think) say that in his view God is omniscient. The notion is not an observation about God's limits, it's a theory about what time and being are.
It's sorta, kinda, a little analogous to saying God is omnipotent. God can do anything that can be done. But can He make a rock so big that he can't lift it?
(I'm always tempted to answer that one with something like, "Yeah He can: He made a cross and the cross, under which He fell three times, lifted Him.)
But you'd rather bet on general empirical principles being a good way to place your bets. So would I, on matters of that kind.
When I'm thinking about "truth", I like to consider the words relationship with "troth", which beautiful word I will debase by saying something you "pledge your troth" to is kinda like something you'd bet on. And among things to bet on there are those worthy of your bet, and those unworthy.
But in general, the "Absolute" that you need oxygen requires some assumptions, and provides some joy about things entirely different from the "Absolute" that God loves you and wants you to be happy and good. The former merely requires that I stick around oxygen-rich environments. The latter suggests that I try things I never dreamed of, commit myself to things that make heroes go pale, and hope for things beyond my imagining. I find that exhilarating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.