Is there hope for Erskine becoming a decidedly evangelical Christian College & Seminary? I hope so. This one thing is for certain: the new policy on sexual conduct and the ensuing flap from the LGBT and secular communities brings to sharp focus the challenge for Erskine College & Seminary to truly become a decidedly evangelical Christian educational institution that exists to the glory of God. If the Erskine leadership equivocates at this point, Erskine will surely die; perhaps, a slow death, but die nonetheless!

The title of this article, as it poses my question, laments Erskine’s past. I am 69 years old, and I do not remember Erskine College & Seminary as a decidedly evangelical Christian educational agency of the ARP Church. This does not mean that the desire in the ARP Church for Erskine to be a decidedly evangelical Christian education institution was absent. This does not mean that many efforts have not been expended to accomplish that end. This does not mean that wonderful mission statements and faith declarations have not been written — and, then, ignored and warehoused as museum documents to be admired. This does not mean that Erskine has been bereft of an evangelical Christian presence on campus — but it has been something like the lingering fragrance of lilacs in an old house after the bouquet has been discarded. This means that, in spite of all the political spin from multiple administrations and boards to the contrary, Erskine has not been functionally a decidedly evangelical Christian educational institution of the ARP Church. The evidence to convict Erskine of being a decidedly evangelical Christian educational institution does not exist.

As readers of ARPTalk are aware, Erskine has gained national notoriety since the Erskine board posted its new policy on human sexuality after last’s month’s board meeting (February 19 and 20). The policy reads, in part, in this manner:

Christ affirms that marital union is to be between a man and woman (Matt 19:4-6). The Bible teaches that monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is God’s intended design for humanity and that sexual intimacy has its proper place only within the context of marriage (1 Thes. 4:3-5, Col. 3:5-7). Sexual relations outside of marriage or between persons of the same sex are spoken of in scripture as sin and contrary to the will of the Creator (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:9-11).

We believe the Bible teaches that all sexual activity outside the covenant of marriage is sinful and therefore ultimately destructive to the parties involved. As a Christian academic community, and in light of our institutional mission, members of the Erskine community are expected to follow the teachings of scripture concerning matters of human sexuality and institutional decisions will be made in light of this position.

In the ARP Church, there is nothing particularly novel about this statement. Among evangelical Christians, there is nothing novel about this statement, either. The statement is plain vanilla Bible teaching! This is what Bible-believing Christians believe.

So, why does this statement create such a stir for Erskine?

How is it that the Facebook alums are in such a turmoil in opposition to the statement? They foreswear the policy and claim it is regressive and antithetical to the Erskine they knew and loved (http://www.arptalk.org/?p=2318). And I believe them!!

When I read the thoughts of the Facebook alums, I ask this question: “At a so-called Christian college (and especially one that identifies itself as evangelical, Reformed, and Associate Reformed Presbyterian), how did they come to affirm a form of Christianity that is antinomian and so latitudinarian that anything one wants to do in the name of love is accepted by a Jesus who disregards His own teaching and the clear teaching of the disciples and apostles whom He sent forth to spread His teaching and to speak in His name?” Did the Facebook alums learn such a libertine and pseudo-Christianity at Erskine? They affirm that they did! In fact (and I do not want to put words in their mouths), they indicate that evangelical Christianity was absent from their experience at Erskine (and, in those cases where they acknowledge the presence of evangelical Christianity, they speak of it as marginalized and unthinkable). At the 2009 meeting of General Synod, a room full of students and former students who are evangelical Christians testified to the presence of a “culture of intimidation” at Erskine that was opposed to evangelical Christians and the evangelical Christian mission of Erskine.

When interviewed by Al Jazeera, Ms. Tobe Frierson and Mr. Cliff Smith danced around the new policy like they were walking on red-hot coals. And did Ms. Frierson really mean that it is not the business of the institution what students “do sexually” behind closed doors? Are there not policies regarding male and female conduct? Does Ms. Frierson mean that the policy regarding male and female conduct is not enforced? Are there not policies regarding alcohol consumption on campus? Is not the Erskine campus “dry,” and are there not laws regarding minors consuming alcoholic beverages? Does Ms. Frierson mean the alcohol policy and the law of South Carolina are ignored? Does Ms. Frierson mean there is now another policy regarding conduct that will be ignored and not enforced — at least, as far as she is concerned? (unfortunately, the Al Jazeera news video has been removed by Al Jazeera)

New President Paul Kooistra has his hands full. The new policy represents what he believes as a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America. The new policy on sexual conduct originated out of the Student Services Committee of the Board. The policy did not go to the board without passing by President Kooistra and his leadership team for edit and/or approval (and I am sure Ms. Tobe Frierson and Mr. Cliff Smith were not surprised by the adoption of the policy). The new policy represents what the board believes and, the policy was adopted unanimously — even with the yea votes of Ms. Lisa Senn (who is usually a supporter of the secular alumni) and Mr. Steve Southwell (the alumni representative). Now, how is it that staff personnel and faculty members are attempting to dilute the position statement of both President Kooistra and the unanimous board? Are Ms. Tobe Frierson and Mr. Cliff Smith, and other staff and faculty members in opposition to what President Kooistra and the board affirm? Are they misrepresenting Erskine as they attempt to recruit students for next year’s class? If they are doing such a thing, is that not “bait and switch” and an act of disingenuousness?

Read More