I believe students are ill served if a Christian liberal arts community does not equip them to do this seriously. Erskine has tried to do so in the past. I pray it will be able to do so in the future.

Many are wondering whether Erskine has “gone secular.” I certainly understand why. Many colleges in my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church USA, were secularized in the last century. This has been a terrible loss. But Erskine College and Seminary, which were founded by the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, have resisted this trend. Indeed, Erskine has become much more conservative and evangelical in the last couple decades and I know of no alumni who would disagree.

I’m firmly committed to Christian liberal arts education and believe we should certainly continue to require commitment to Christian faith for employment here at Erskine. I know no one here who wishes otherwise. The problem is that the ARP Synod has introduced a new litmus test of orthodoxy. Employees are now being asked to affirm that the Bible is “inerrant in the original manuscripts.”

The problem is that we don’t have any original manuscripts of the Bible. We’re told we should “take it on faith.” But this, I believe, is a misunderstanding of faith. Faith, according to the Reformed-Calvinistic tradition, is always a matter of knowledge based on that which has been revealed and never merely a matter of trust. I believe, unreservedly, that the Bible is the Word of God. And based upon what it says about itself, I believe there is warrant for saying the Bible is “the only infallible rule for faith and practice,” as Presbyterians, traditionally, have been taught to believe. But we believe this not on the basis of original manuscripts but, as the Westminster Confession says, “by the inward work of the Holy Spirit.”

This new standard shifts, or at least confuses, the true source of Scripture’s authority and does so on the basis of an argument that is relatively new in the history of the Church (an appeal to “original manuscripts”). The entire Erskine seminary faculty publicly rejected this argument in 1977. Now this argument is being resuscitated. Given its track record, I believe it will do more to undermine the Bible’s authority than to safeguard it since it seeks to establish the authority of a Bible we do not have for the Bible we do have. Of course, the easiest thing to do would be to affirm this new litmus test. But some of us cannot do this in good conscience.

The Christian Church is being vigorously challenged on many fronts today. People don’t believe what the Church says just because the Church says it. On the contrary, many tend to reject what the Church says because the Church says it. And they certainly don’t believe what pastors say just because pastors say it.
Apparently, there are pastors who still don’t know this.

How are Christian pastors going to minister to people who are continually being informed about religious topics by reading Time or Newsweek or by watching PBS or the History Channel, if we simply ignore the kinds of arguments that are being made? Certainly not by relying on tendentious arguments that make us sound like Joseph Smith with his lost “golden tablets.” Some pastors seem to think the solution is to tell people not to read such magazines or watch such programs. I don’t think this is an effective strategy or a very healthy one. In fact, I can’t imagine a better way of producing more skepticism, doubt, and unbelief than by employing such a strategy.

If the Church is to resist secularization we must train up highly skilled pastors who are biblically grounded and theologically mature and whose faith has been tested, spiritually and intellectually. Our academic training, therefore, must be rigorous. We simply cannot afford to shelter students from facing the hard questions. And why should we?

There is no set of beliefs (political, philosophical, or religious) in human history that has been subject to more critical examination than the Christian faith. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam, for example, have been subject to little critical examination by comparison (Critical examination in Islam can get you killed!). Critical examination is not a threat to Christian faith. It’s a strength.

I know there are many Christian parents and students who are afraid that they will “lose” their faith. They want a safe environment. Yet, as C.S. Lewis says of the Christ-figure, Aslan, “Of course, he isn’t safe, but he’s good.” I understand the need for a nurturing environment. But students must be stretched in order to grow. Besides, is it really safe to let students leave college (much less seminary!) without wrestling with serious questions of faith?

The Christian faith is not fragile. You may ask any question you want. Asking critical questions is not a bad thing. It’s a good thing. We’re called to “test the spirits to see whether they are of God” (I John 4:1). The Bible also says: “always to be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is within you” (I Peter 3:15). I believe students are ill served if a Christian liberal arts community does not equip them to do this seriously. Erskine has tried to do so in the past. I pray it will be able to do so in the future.

Richard E. Burnett, Ph.D. is a Professor of Systematic Theology at Erskine Theological Seminary
This Opinion article first appeared in the Greenville News on March 17, 2010 and is used by permission of the author