“Imagine going to an academic conference.. Not one sponsored by CCCU but the real professional conferences in whatever field we’re talking about. Now imagine a college president getting up at that conference and warning us not to pursue our studies into our fields too deeply lest Satan use our explorations for his own subversive purposes. What do you think would be the reaction at such a conference? Stunned silence? Guffaws? Incredulity? It certainly would not be a chorus of Amen!..” – W. Crenshaw

Although the FB page ‘Alumni for Erskine’ is a closed page (and the Administrators have not approved my access to the page), The Aquila Report has received several confirmations of a recent sequence of comments on that page (from the evening of Wednesday, March 30).

To set the background for this sequence, a separate commentator on all things ARP, the Reverend Chuck Wilson had published on his blog page a response to President David Norman’s most recent article from the ARP Magazine on the topic of scripture. (Read that commentary here.)

Jay West, a former administrator at Erskine now working elsewhere, made a comment as to how the “Pharisees” (Chuck and his friends) were turning on President Norman.

Daniel Wells, an Erskine graduate, posted a response to West. We will pick up the stream with that response. (Note: The ‘Bill’ that Wells addresses in a later post is Professor William Crenshaw.) It is Crenshaw’s final post on this stream that is the newsworthy item.

DANIEL WELLS
Some people in this group noted how the “Pharisees” turned their backs on David Norman a couple of days ago. Just to give an update on this matter…Dr. Norman replied to Chuck’s open letter at ARPTalk in the comments section. Ironically, they seem to be on the same page now.

WILLIAM CRENSHAW
Daniel — not much to Dr. Norman’s response. Isn’t it mostly a reprint of the first article on inerrancy? So what’s new?

P. MARK WILSON
It seems like Chuck Wilson and David Norman are bosom buddies. I would have hoped that the President of Erskine would not roll in the mud that Wilson flings. I think that public discourse with him is beneath his position as college president. Does anyone else share my concerns?

ABBEY VEAL
I’m afraid Dr. Norman has dipped his finger in the Kool-Aid.

DANIEL WELLS
Bill,

Do you really not think what Dr. Norman posted as a clarification is not significant? I can’t always tell the difference between when you are kidding and when you are doing “critical analysis of a text”.

I take the following comments by Dr. Norman to be a very clear expression of his position on Scripture and Inerrancy and the ARP interpretation of it:
Norman: “Do I believe and support the ARP position on Scripture? As you know, my answer is, unreservedly, ‘YES!’.

I know there are many who would like to obfuscate my very clear position on this.”

Then, at the end of the article Dr. Norman gives us a glimpse into whether or not he sees this as a ‘newly minted doctrine, since 2008’ when he says:
“Since my conversion as a child, I have never wavered in my belief in absolute biblical authority. I am not sure when I first heard the doctrinal formulation adopted by the ARP synod in 2008, but I know I cited it in writing as my own position as early 1994.”

So, according to Dr. Norman, some are trying to obfuscate his very clear position on Scripture that he has personally held since 1994 (when Dr. Strobel was President at Erskine). I find that to be revealing, and, personally, very encouraging. I hope we all do and that we can ALL support Erskine more and more financially as it pursues its educational purpose and missional goals. I say let’s all show our support of Dr. Norman and of Erskine by clicking the “like” button!

WILLIAM CRENSHAW
Daniel — That is of course nonsense. Who has been trying to obfuscate the president’s position? Show me. Evidence. What you’ll find is that people have been trying not only to CLARIFY the president’s position, because he IS president and what he thinks counts, but also to clarify through that Erskine’s corporate position. It hasn’t been easy to get clarification, but I think we have it now.

But not from anything the president says in his letter to Chuck. That’s all general and abstract, essentially without meaning. You and Janis and, yes, the president have been dancing hard to avoid saying what this idea means for Erskine. I and others have been trying to pin you all down to gets specifics, to examine implications. You have tried to avoid being pinned down because the implications are not only embarrassing but are almost certainly destructive to Erskine. You are rarely specific and concrete. You hide behind the smoke of generalities and accuse others of obfuscation.

And, yes, Mark, I share your concerns. I think most of us do. I hope so. Most of us should be appalled at what has been revealed over the last few weeks on this site, and I find it disturbing that more of us aren’t condemning it.

I might be wrong. Maybe there are only a few of us appalled by what we see. If that’s the way it is, so be it. But if it is not, silence is assent.

We will have people interviewing in a few weeks for a position in the English Department at Erskine. They will ask us, as potential colleagues (not administrators) to tell them what the inerrancy clause in the faculty contract actually means. And now, thanks to the president, I can tell them.

It means that you have to believe in Satan. You have to think that Satan is an “actual person.” You have to avoid trying to understand terms, especially theological terms, because the Evil One will use your pride to hurt Erskine. You have to believe in angels and demons and all that such belief implies and denies. We reject science as it is practiced by the professionals. We have, we will have to say to the candidates, a college president in the 21st Century who says that Satan exists.

Imagine going to an academic conference, as all professors do. For me it would be the Modern Language Association, or, more fun, a medieval group, to hear papers and exchange ideas. It might be a history conference, a biology conference, a psychology conference. Not one sponsored by CCCU but the real professional conferences in whatever field we’re talking about. Now imagine a college president getting up at that conference and warning us not to pursue our studies into our fields too deeply lest Satan use our explorations for his own subversive purposes. What do you think would be the reaction at such a conference? Stunned silence? Guffaws? Incredulity? It certainly would not be a chorus of Amen, My Brother.

We might also consider the intellectual and theological cowardice evinced in an article that tries to spin honest inquiry into, on the one hand, “hyper-definitions” of mere words while on the other insisting those “mere words” be used as a filter on new applicants — a filter that the article refuses to define by hiding behind Satan’s skirts. And this from the leader of an academic community. The mind reels.

There is, as the cliché goes, an elephant in the room. We’re trying to maintain Erskine as a solid college, the one most of you alums graduated from, but the leader of the college is kowtowing to a man who a few years ago was an outcast and is invoking Satanic threats to avoid answering basic questions about the implications of the policy he endorses.

It is beyond embarrassing. Mortifying is too mild a word.

With what has been revealed on this site, do you think we can remain the college you graduated from?

They will destroy the college to save it.

So yes, Mark, I share your concerns. And yes, Daniel, I think the president has clarified his ideas, but not the way you claim he has.

And that clarification can only hurt the college. Satan won’t hurt the college. But our pronounced fear of Satan will.

It appears to this writer that the line in the sand is a wide one and that Dr. Crenshaw and his friends stand far apart from those who hold to the Biblical position on Sola Scriptura. Of course, the determination as to which side holds the controlling vote on the Board is yet to be determined. As a journalist, that means more news to print. But as a Christian, it is sad to see an institution going through this kind of turmoil. However, I am encouraged that a number have gone through it, overcome the pain, and are again today strong defenders of the ‘faith once delivered’ rather than fallen to the status of self-denying religious institutions such as Davidson College.