Quote:
Originally Posted by Disciple4life
It had to do with more than just Don Fisher. The two other teachers that were more open-minded were Lewis and Howell.
Did they (the teachers) push it too far?
Fudge at one point says that if you want to work at Jackson you have to respect that you have to teach certain things.
But the other side is that if the UPCI was TRULY interested in education, a student or teacher asking a question does not hurt the college.
Eventually EVERYBODY leaves the UPC. Why?
They were not given enough leeway to reform the Church/School/Themselves. So they probably figured it was time to move on.
|
I also found the situation at Jackson to be interesting. I have recently contacted Joseph Howell and he has agreed to send me the booklist and his FSU dissertation “People of the Name”. It should be interesting.
I found very little evidence in Fudge’s book that Lewis, Howell, or Fisher actively taught ideas that would be considered heresy if one defines it by the 1945 merger agreement that allowed divergent views. Jerry Dillon’s views regarding the nature of God were suspect, but when he was questioned about it in a meeting of local Pastor that included conservatives-- they were satisfied with his answers. I certainly don’t think these men would have been considered liberals in the wider world of theological education. If their ideas regarding historical criticism were similar to the text they used by Bernard Ramm, it is hard for me to understand how this could have been problematic to anyone. Dr. Fudge points out that Ramm was influenced by Barth. Much of Barth’s work itself was a reaction against theological liberalism (albeit he would be strong enough on inspiration for most UPC folks). These men understood that the Bible did not fall down from heaven in a leather edition complete with maps. There is often a deconstruction and reconstruction of faith in the process of serious learning; if truth really matters this ought not to bother us. That Bloesch influenced some of the JCM faculty seems to indicate to me that they were looking for models on how to develop a “mediating” system of thought within the school.
Dr. Fudge is certainly passionate about academic freedom. One of the most disturbing violations documented was when the JCM library was “purged” of certain books that were added by Fisher (p. 97-98). Reading a book in no way entails agreement with the content. Academic freedom in the liberal arts and sciences should be non-negotiable. I would hasten to add that academic freedom is a two way street—conservatives must be given the right to speak out about their ideas as well. Absolute academic freedom in theological education is a more difficult question. Biblical Scholars should be able to follow the evidence wherever it leads. But, just about all of the Seminaries that Fudge sites as having problems are financed by evangelical denominations. What, if any say should they have about the teachings of the Seminaries? It is one thing to go after people for trivial doctrinal reasons and hair splitting that are obviously power plays, but what about extreme cases where a professor claims to no longer believe in God or begins to teach the virtues of abortion and wants to keep their job (it has happened)? However, I see nothing that these people in this book believed remotely undermined the life of the Church.
Fudge’s book is well written. The writing and the photographs/documents give a vivid sense of a time and place that is gone, never to return. I don’t agree with him about everything, but he has a gift of combining historical accuracy, deep cultural perception, and theological knowledge of regarding all the issues. Parts of it left me with a troubled sad feeling.
BTW, it seemed obvious to me that one of the conspirators of the secret recordings of the meeting was Fudge himself (it was pretty thinly veiled in my view that he was Manchester). I could be dead wrong about this, but did anyone else that read the book come to this conclusion?
Pray tell, what are you planning?
Linear Mode
