ruse  ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r s, rz)n.
|
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 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.
[Stan Guthrie is senior associate news editor for Christianity Today]
Try reading scripture THINKING instead of dancing
I DEFY you to find one post in this thread where I have definitely said that I think that man has free will. Find ONE.
I await your apology.
What is THAT supposed to mean?
In my case that means acknowledging that my power over her chossing is limited. If God has given free will (to humans or angels)(and I know that's vexed) I'm just suggesting that that would seem to imply that He gave up, in some way or another, some of His power.
Even in that sense, though, time helps us understnad it. If I give my kid the responsibility of feeding the sheep, and she skips it, then there is a consequence. The sheep are hungry. But then I go out and feed them and punish my kid. When a deputy misuses his power, he's fired and the Sheriff sets things to rights. But the sheriff does have to fix what the deputy messed up.
You have set up the suggestion that man has some free will to chose God independently .
If as you have posited God has given up some of his power... it would be to what end? Seeing no one has the ability to make choices .
Does man have free will? Does God decide to intentionally not know all the choices men will make?
DOES GOD HAVE FREE WILL?
As far as I'm concerned you are a bully AND you bore false witness about me. I was having a polite and enjoyable (at least to me)discussion with stuartcr, and along came another one of those theological bullies. Life is too short to deal with people who think the way to serve the God of Love is to push people around and who evidently don't know the difference between discussion and debate. God bless.
The first one, at least, depends on what you mean by pain. (A few things are shown by scripture to have "grieved" God.)
And the 2nd one is the center of Christianity. "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried, and that he rose again on the 3rd day and was seen by Peter...."
A trinitarian would have to admit that the 2nd person of the Godhead...fully God (and fully human....died.
The real problem with murdering me, is that I would not like it, and we all have built-in self-defense mechanisms. For me, my family, and our current society, first degree murder is abhorrent...has been in most societies. I think we need to talk of taking a life, as opposed to murder. First degree murder, within one's family, tribe, group, etc, has almost always been considered wrong..taking a life, in the form of wars, abortions, human-sacrifice...has not. This distinction, I think, has to be made. As members of a society, we must and should, obey the laws, but I think our concept of justice only applies to us here on earth. That is why I have said that I don't believe that what we do really is of any consequence to God. After all, I believe He made us knowing exactly what we will do in our lifetime, and since we are alive, by His grace, it must have been part of His plan. Consequently, I don't believe in eternal punishment for something that we may have done here on earth for the few years we are alive.
I'm not familiar with the suppositions about matter and causality that you mention. If, what you say is true, then it would appear that there are no absolutes of any kind.
No, I have not read any of those that you list. Yes, I do agree that, in the final analysis, it really doesn't matter.
It is not, that I will do whatever I want, I believe that I will do whatever I have been designed/destined to do by God. While some have broken out the Ben Gay and Viagra, more have not.
| ruse ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rs, rz) n.
|
I can't say it....LOL!
Just thinking of the "wiles of ____" makes me wanna laugh.
Is there a rip-roaring, side-splitting smiley out there somewhere?
You'll find Kant very good for insomnia. Hume is a good intro and less daunting, at least for me.
I realio trulio hope you will take a look at the first few chapters of Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis. I think you would not be bored.
Your distinction between murder and killing is good and important (and too rarely made).
I think in the final analysis every blink of your eye is noted on High (that would be "reverential periphrasis") and God is able to do that, owing to being infinite and all. But I think that, though infinite, God would, if you were the only human ever made, still come and be born and sweat and ache and die for you because He loves you.
I am nothing if not banal.
Thanks again.
Real question:
How do you run the hypostatic union and the two natures over this? I have heard it said that the divine nature cannot die, while the human can. But then what about the "oneness" of the person?
Father Guido Sarducci, check your voice mail. "Ees a mystery."
(Are you proud of the retired part or the chaplain part -- or both?)
Thanks also. I have one further question though, if you do not mind.
Do you think any man, living or dead, with the exception of Jesus, truly knows the nature of God?
You mean, not counting me? heh heh heh
Nope, not one.
Proud I survived that long. :>)
Jesus truly died. If he hadn't, then there could be no true resurrection.
If this is true, then why do people read these works of men, that write about God? I would think then, that anything that one man says about the nature of God, would be just as good as anothers.
Positive
Part is better than none, though not as good as all.
"For now we see through a glass (or in a mirror made of bronze and therefore not a really good mirror), darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known." (That would be St. Paul)
Negative:
Do you think anybody truly knows the nature of matter?
Just yesterday somewhere or other I was reading a physicist who said NOBODY understands Quantum Theory.
Not really, I've just always wondered about why people believe things that so obviously cannot ever be known, or at least are not known at this time, to anyone. Thanks.
I distinctly remember going through this movie before ....
I think ALL the important stuff can only be believed -- right now, at least.
So Australia is there -- or not; the attraction between masses varies inversely with the square of the distance -- or not. Who cares?
That doesn't address the things that keep us up at night or make our hearts hurt. What we bet our lives on is not the inverse square law or Planck's Constant, but whether we treat our children as we ought and whether people care about us, or we about them, and what is a good way to deal with the fact that within thirty years (or maybe thirty seconds) I will be yielding up my Carbon, Phosphorous, Nitrogen, etc. to the soil. (I've always wanted to be composted, but it's probably illegal.) That's what churns the heart and makes most of us unable to stand on the sidelines.
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.