Religious School Fires Theologian For "Open Theism"

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 troubling—some [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.

"...there are many people in the world that are not Christians. These same people successfully pray and are happy. They too have similar high moral standards. "

I think in general Christians are happier than non-Christians and involved Christians are happier than marginal Christians. But it is by no means an absolute.

There are also atheists who have high moral standards and are genuinely happy. Living according to a high moral code and doing good things brings joy regardless of the motivation. Being still and meditating brings a sense of peace not unlike being still and praying. Some of the false religions use that effect to their advantage: "Just pray about it and see if you don't feel peace".

I maintain that the most joyful are those that have entered into a relationship with their creator and are following His commandments. And I use Joyful instead of happiness, because God sometimes asks His followers to do really difficult things. Paul sat in prison for years. But through that and because of that Paul wrote the letters which make up much of the New Testament. The world has been blessed greatly because of Paul's suffering.

I also maintain that the standard in the Bible is the "highest" moral code. That the Bible calls for a more active love than many other religions.

A few years back my wife and I were shocked to learn that her aunt's inlaws were not Christian. They are some of the sweetest people I have ever known. We never said anything to the, but my wife and I began praying for them and prayed sporatically for 4-5 years, before they accepted Jesus. At 70 years you don't expect people to suddenly accept Jesus, when they've been happy for that long without Him. Just another one of those answered prayers.

Conversely, one of the most miserable creatures is the Christian who is not living according to God's will. It tears them up inside. They are much more miserable than someone who does not believe or know God's will.

And there is one really big difference between Christianity and other religions. Christianity says you can't save yourself, that only God can save you. The other religions say you can save yourself through good works. The motivation for the Christian to do good is not to earn salvation for that was given to him. The Christian's motivation is love for God. Once that love kicks in, it's a makes a powerful difference.

Raycpa: "But do thay have a belief that we are basically evil and need God to redeem us in order to be able to love our neighbor ?"

PFC: "If believing that helps you love your neighbor, I would not want to change your beliefs."

Your uninformed personal opinion is at odds with Scripture, the Framers of our Constitution, and the Rule of Law that undergirds it. The Founders of this country did NOT view man as being "basically good" - quite the opposite. Here - this ought to get you up to speed (Second "up-to-speed post coming up):

The Framers of our Constitution --- who also believed what Jesus said about man:

"Jesus did not commit himself to them because he knew all ALL men ... he knew what was in man..."John 2:24

A HREF="http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/1999/November/ernovember.29/11_29_99hamilton.html">Emory Report November 29, 1999 Volume 52, No. 13

"...Marci Hamilton ... [is] a nationally recognized expert on constitutional and copyright law. ....

Her forthcoming book, Copyright and the Constitution, examines the historical and philosophical underpinnings of copyright law and asserts that the American "copyright regime" is grounded in Calvinism, resulting in a philosophy that favors the product over the producer.

Calvinism? Hamilton's interest in the intersection of Calvinist theology and political philosophy emerged early in her career when she began reading the work of leading constitutional law scholars. She was puzzled by their "theme of a system of self-rule." "They talked about it as if it were in existence," she said. "My gut reaction was that direct democracy and self-rule are a myth that doesn't really exist."

What Hamilton found was that a "deep and abiding distrust of human motives that permeates Calvinist theology also permeates the Constitution." Her investigation of that issue has led to another forthcoming book, tentatively titled The Reformed Constitution: What the Framers Meant by Representation.

That our country's form of government is a republic instead of a pure democracy is no accident, according to Hamilton. The constitutional framers "expressly rejected direct democracy. Instead, the Constitution constructs a representative system of government that places all ruling power in the hands of elected officials."

And the people? Their power is limited to the voting booth and communication with their elected representatives, she said.

"The Constitution is not built on faith in the people, but rather on distrust of all social entities, including the people." ...

..Two of the most important framers, James Wilson and James Madison, were steeped in Presbyterian precepts.

It is Calvinism, Hamilton argued, that "more than any other Protestant theology, brings together the seeming paradox that man's will is corrupt by nature but also capable of doing good." In other words, Calvinism holds that "we can hope for the best but expect the worst from each other and from the social institutions humans devise."

"Neither Calvin nor the framers stop at distrust, however," Hamilton said. "They also embrace an extraordinary theology of hope. The framers, like Calvin, were reformers." -Elaine Justice

The 55 Framers (from North to South):

John Langdon, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Nicholas Gilman, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Elbridge Gerry, Episcoplian (Calvinist)
Rufus King, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Caleb Strong, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Nathaniel Gorham, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Roger Sherman, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
William Samuel Johnson, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Oliver Ellsworth, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Alexander Hamilton, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
John Lansing, Dutch Reformed (Calvinist)
Robert Yates, Dutch Reformed (Calvinist)
William Patterson, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
William Livingston, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Jonathan Dayton, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
David Brearly, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Churchill Houston, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Benjamin Franklin, Christian in his youth, Deist in later years, then back
to his Puritan background in his old age (his June 28, 1787 prayer at the
Constitutional Convention was from no "Deist")
Robert Morris, Episcopalian, (Calvinist)
James Wilson, probably a Deist
Gouverneur Morris, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Thomas Mifflin, Lutheran (Calvinist-lite)
George Clymer, Quaker turned Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Thomas FitzSimmons, Roman Catholic
Jared Ingersoll, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
John Dickinson, Quaker turned Episcopalian (Calvinist)
George Read, Episcopalian, (Calvinist)
Richard Bassett, Methodist
Gunning Bedford, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Jacob Broom, Lutheran
Luther Martin, Episcopalian, (Calvinist)
Daniel Carroll, Roman Catholic
John Francis Mercer, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
James McHenry, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Daniel of St Thomas Jennifer, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
George Washington, Episcopalian (Calvinist; no, he was not a deist)
James Madison, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
George Mason, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Edmund Jennings Randolph, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
James Blair, Jr., Episcopalian (Calvinist)
James McClung, ?
George Wythe, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Richardson Davie, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Hugh Williamson, Presbyterian, possibly later became a Deist
William Blount, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Alexander Martin, Presbyterian/Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Jr., Episcopalian (Calvinist)
John Rutledge, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, III, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Abraham Baldwin, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
William Leigh Pierce, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Houstoun, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Few, Methodist

Even some "four score"-odd years later, the supposedly "non-christian"
Abraham Lincoln offered the positively Biblical and very Reformed
covenantal view of the Sovereign of the Nations and Ruler of history:

"It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to own their dependence upon
the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in
humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to
mercy and pardon. And to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy
Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose
God is the Lord." (Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation,
October 3, 1863.

The founders of the United States of America believed that all men were
created with equal authority. Thus they declared the following principle as
the foundation of their political union. They said:

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The founders also believed that this concept of equal authority was taught
in the Bible. They used Sir Walter Blackstone’s Commentary on Law to
explain and illustrate this Biblical concept. The following is from
Blackstone's "Commentary on Law" concerning the equality of mankind at
creation:

"If man were to live in a state of nature, unconnected with other
individuals, there would be no occasion for any other laws, than the law of
nature, and the law of God. Neither could any other law possibly exist; for
a law always supposes some superior who is to make it; and in a state of
nature we are all equal, without any other superior but him who is also the
author of our being."

This phrase "law of nature" was explained by Blackstone a little earlier in
his "Commentary on Law" in the following manner:

"This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself,
is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all
the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any
validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all
their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this
original."

The founders identified the 13 colonies of their union as "Free
Protestant". As Protestants, their Declaration in 1776 that "all men are
created equal (in authority) " was consistent with the doctrine of their
founder, the man who first openly protested the hierarchy of men (the pope
and priests in the Roman Chatholic Church) over Christians. His name was
Martin Luther. He was a Roman Catholic priest from Germany who began the
"Protestant Reformation". He stated the following:

"I say, then, neither pope, nor bishop, nor any man whatever has the right
of making one syllable binding on a Christian man, unless it be done with
his own consent. Whatever is done otherwise is done in the spirit of
tyranny...I cry aloud on behalf of liberty and conscience, and I proclaim
with confidence that no kind of law can with any justice be imposed on
Christians, except so far as they themselves will; for we are free from all."

As Protestant Christians, the founders believed that all Christians were in
a covenant relationship with God the Father made possible through Jesus
Christ. Because of that covenant, they felt that every Christian was
obligated to follow at least the minimum of God 's Revealed Will (THE TEN
COMMANDMENTS) found in His Holy printed Word. This belief was to be the
foundation for order in all communities in America. This belief that God
revealed his will directly to all believers regardless of sex was later
known by the Free Protestants who came to America in 1620 as the
"Priesthood of the Believer".

By accepting God's precepts as the standard for their consciences, they
believed that God alone gave them liberty. Because dictionaries did not
exist at the time of the Declaration of Independence, the only way one
could determine how Liberty in America was defined both religiously and
politically was to look at the only religious source that was to be
accepted by all free Protestants. Once that source was determined and an
examination of the political documents that had been written at that time
had been made, it was a very simple task to determine how the founders
applied their religious liberty politically. The only religious book at
that time was the "The King James Version" of the Bible.

Let us see how Liberty is defined in this version of the Holy Scriptures.
It is found in Psalms 119:45 :

"And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts."

Because the founders were "free Protestant" concerning their view of the
Gospel and how it was to be spread in the world, they adopted a form of
political union for their colonies that was taken from the Old World. It
was not inconsistent with their religious views concerning associations.
The type of political Union that was adopted by the first colonies in
America was the "Confederation". This type of union allowed them to unite
as a single union FOR SECURITY but allowed them to retain their right of
sovereignty as Christians and their right of sovereignty to exist as 'free
Protestant" colonies.

The first Confederation was formed in 1643. As we examine a portion of
their Charter , we can gain a clear view of how they viewed their religious
liberty politically. Again because there were no dictionaries at that time,
this is the only source to see how liberty was view in America. It proves
beyond the shadow of a doubt that they continued the belief of the pilgrims
identifying God not man as the author and giver of their liberties. The
following portion in that Charter clearly reflects the purpose of the
American Confederation and souce of their Liberties. This, by the way is
the same Confederation that fought the Revolutionary War:

Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end
and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to
enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace;

For our founders, one man’s liberty did not rest upon another man’s
conscience. Each citizen had the right to program his conscience according
to the standards he felt were true and to live his life as his conscience
dictated in his pursuit for happiness. Again Blackstone speaks on the
subject of pursuing happiness.

"For he (God) has so intimately connected, so inseparably inter-woven the
laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual that the
latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former
be punctually obeyed, it cannnot but induce the latter."

They believed that God gave life to all men and with that life the
opportunity to follow him. As believers, they believed that they had a
responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of their fellow Americans
against all tyranny and that each citizen should have the right as a priest
to pursue happiness according to the dictates of his own conscience.

"League of Friendship" identified the religious and political principles
that were in their Confederation as colonies. Those same principles are
identified when they again refer to their Confederation of free States as
a"League of Friendship" (see Articles of the Confederation). As Christians,
they defined the obligation of their sacred friendship in the following
manner. In John 15:13 of the New Testament, Jesus made this statement to
his followers:

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his
friends."

Those founders considered the cost of belonging to the Union that they had
created and determined that the treasure for their children was well worth
the price. Thus they asked God for the following condition as they pledged
their support to one another to protect the Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit
of Happiness of their fellow Americans. They asked God to keep them honest
by holding them accountable for what they were about to pledge. They then
pledged the following:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in
General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world
for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority
of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare:

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and
Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the
British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State
of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and
Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace,
contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things
which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our
Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Rights of Conscience is the foundation of American Politics. Many
Christians in America were worried at the time when the U.S. Constitution
was passed and feared that their right to let God govern their conscience
might be replaced by the authority given to Congress as the U.S.
Constitution was ratified. Thomas Jefferson was aware of their concerns and
wrote the following:

"No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which
protects the rights of conscience against the power of its public
functionaries..."

(Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church at New
London, Connecticut, Feb. 4, 1809).

In America, one man’s liberty is not dependent upon another man’s conscience!

INTRODUCTION TO THE LIBERTY PRINCIPLES IN AMERICAN POLITICS
by Stephen L. Corrigan - http://w3.one.net/~stephenc/fun.html

I do not understand what you are saying.
You say that like it's a bad thing ... I never let not understanding what I'm saying stop ME ..... ;)

Okay, I think this is very confused. PART of the confusion is about what you mean by "absolute". In my systematic theology reading that usually has to do with something which, so to speak, stands on its own. And your statement about you and oxygen seems to me to be unverifiable and based on a premise that one human body is very like another and so on. That's not absolute and not knowable. Even if you DID die the first time we deprived you of oxygen we wouldn't know if maybe the phase of the moon or something was invovled and if only we'd deprieved you of oxygen 10 mintues later, the outcome might ahve been entirely different.

Then you say something like,"That doesn't make sense!" And I say,"Where is it written that it's supposed to make sense? What does 'make sense' mean anyway?"

Then there's the question of truth. What is THAT? What do YOU mean by "truth"? What do you mean when you say question unverifiable propositions but then suggest that maybe it's true that you don't believe this or that?"

I can say, and I believe, that IHS XT is The Way, the Truth, and the Life", but don't we have to spend some time figuring out what that could mean?

And I was suggesting that the kinship of the English word "truth" with the now archaic word "troth" suggested that truth is somehow related to commitment, to fidelity, to keeping one's word, things of that kind. And then I made a glancing suggestion that Pascal's wager might tie into our relationship with truth. I mean, the smart money is betting that if we take away your oxygen, you'll croak. So is truth a matter of where the smart money is betting?

And my overriding purpose in this blether is to honor the integrity of your quest and to challenge you to turn around and question closely and persistently concepts like "truth" and "absolute". My hunch is that you will enjoy the ride and end up in a place quite different from what you expected.

After all, from my point of view, the Truth is hunting for you and He means to catch you.

NO time to check spelling gotta go to the airport.

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.