Greenville College, Prof. Gerald Eichhoefer, and academic freedom...

The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. This is a basic principle of spiritual leadership and it applies to those God has called as fathers, pastors, elders, or professors who, by virtue of their calling, are required to watch over and guard immortal souls.

If you were a professor at a state university and Alfred Kinsey was a fellow faculty member, would you speak out, warning student's against him? Or would you protect your tenure by sitting silently as Kinsey did his private and public work of normalizing sexual perversion?

Let's make the question harder. Say you were a professor, not at a secular university but a Christian college--say Westmont, Gordon, Wheaton, Taylor, or Covenant. And the colleague in question was not a zoology professor who was publishing studies that purported to show that sexual perversion was much more common than previously thought. Rather, it was a Bible professor who lectured and wrote books opposing the Scriptural doctrine of father-rule. Would you publicly warn students against him and seek to have him removed from his tenured position? Would you work to inform your students' parents that this man was undermining their son's and daughter's Biblical faith?

Let's turn up the heat even more. Say this same Bible professor not only attacked the Biblical doctrine of father-rule publicly, but was widely known on campus to have been involved in sexual immorality with one of his female students who had had an abortion but, from shame, was unwilling to testify against the professor. If you knew the story was true, would you take it to the administration for their action?

Reform is hard work and reformers frequently die bloody deaths, so if you answered "no" to any of the previous questions I commend your honesty and fully understand how the self-preservation instinct has led to your silence.

Occasionally, though, God blesses a home, church, or college with a faithful shepherd who, in the power of the Holy Spirit, is willing to die for his sheep. Such a man is my friend Professory Gerald (Jerry) Eichhoefer who, until recently, was a member of the faculty of Greenville College in Greenville, Illinois. Jerry gave up his life for his sheep when, in December of 2004, Greenville College's administration fired him as punishment for his work protecting Greenville's students.

For the previous two years, in addition to his duties as a professor of computer science, Jerry had been working to expose wolves who, under cover of faculty status in Greenville's Department of Philosophy and Religion, had been hard at work undermining the faith of their students. Jerry's work publicly exposing the department and its supporters infuriated the powers that be and led to his termination, although the administration disingenuously claimed that fiscal constraints were the reason for his departure.

Rarely do these stories end well, but two weeks ago Jerry got help from an unlikely place, the American Association of University Professors. The AAUP investigated Jerry's termination and released their findings in the May-June issue of Academe, a magazine published by the AAUP and circulated to its 44,000 members. The AAUP investigative committee's findings dealt a roundhouse blow to Greenville's administrators, faulting them for unfairly terminating Jerry in order to silence him. (Here's a brief piece on the Chronicle of Higher Education's news blog that summarizes the AAUP's action.)

The committee's report ran to fifteen thousand words, concluding with eight findings, the next to last (seventh) reading as follows:

While the stated grounds for the administration's termination of Professor Eichhoefer's tenured appointment were financial difficulties and unsatisfactory service, it is likely that the dismissal was, to some degree, a reaction to his dissentient activities, particularly his perceived lack of "supportiveness" for the administration. To the extent that the dismissal did constitute such a reaction, the administration not only displayed an unacceptably low tolerance for dissent, but it also violated Professor Eichhoefer's academic freedom.

It's strange to be rejoicing over any secular organization of university professors issuing a report that faults a college administration for, among other things, not placing a high enough value on academic freedom, but when that report is in defense of a godly professor who has used his position to defend innocent sheep against wicked professors and administrators, we fully understand Jerry appealing to Caesar and are pleased Caesar vindicated him.

Read the report yourself. It is eye-opening and should be required reading for anyone who anticipates teaching at a Christian school or college, or is already a paid professor of Christ at one of these institutions.


I'm also glad that people are standing up for this. One thing that comes to mind with the case involved is the level of evidence. As important as it is to separate the wolves from the sheep, the Scriptures also remind us that we need to be equitable in judgment, no?

That said, I don't think that a lot of these things leave a whole lot to the imagination--though convincing administrators that something is wrong can be incredibly difficult.

The AAUP's 1999 statement "On Collegiality as a Criterion for Faculty Evaluation" (referenced near the end of the AAUP's report) is fascinating. Here's an excerpt:

"Collegiality may be confused with the expectation that a faculty member display "enthusiasm" or "dedication," evince "a constructive attitude" that will "foster harmony," or display an excessive deference to administrative or faculty decisions where these may require reasoned discussion. Such expectations are flatly contrary to elementary principles of academic freedom, which protect a faculty member's right to dissent from the judgments of colleagues and administrators."

It seems that the secular AAUP has more of an understanding of the necessity of a Paul vs. Peter face to face conflict than many professing Christians.

Praise God for this faithful computer scientist! As a fellow computer scientist, I am encouraged by his example to continue to oppose the evil policy my company enacted this year that gives benefits to the unmarried partners of employees. After engaging in a written discussion with a corporate benefits vice president (2000 miles from Indianapolis in Fullerton, CA) over several weeks, my local HR representative told me to stop. I was told they re-evaluate the plans every year and that my input would be considered. I'm not holding my breath.

Sadly, Christians defending Biblical principles have MORE rights in a tax-funded institution than at a "Christian" college. Despite what some America-hating enemies of freedom at Indiana University might want, IU cannot fire someone like Eric Rasmusen for expressing un-PC opinions.

Sometimes, for Christian college faculty members, it's not other faculty who cause problems. In my case, it was the students. For two years I was an adjunct English instructor at a Christian college here in Texas. In all my classes I had problems with disrespectful and unruly students, and I was just floored--and tremendously discouraged--at what I had to deal with. One of the worst problem students was a star athlete. I had some help from my faculty mentor, but she was really busy. . . .

Another adjunct, with whom I shared an office, had the same problems in her classes. She left after one semester.

But my worst experience had to do with class devotions. At this school, every class begins with a short devotional (which is good!), and it was my privilege to read a verse or two of Scripture, offer a brief comment, and then ask for prayer requests, and pray. The Scriptures I chose were usually from Psalms or Proverbs. In one particular class I chose several verses from Proverbs having to do with the fear of the Lord. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"; "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge," and so on. I had barely finished reading these verses when the students began voicing disagreement. They didn't want anything to do with the fear of the Lord. God was their buddy and their pal, and they didn't need to fear Him. I looked at them in astonishment and said, "This concept is all throughout the Bible--both Testaments!" --but they would have nothing to do with it. Their disagreement became so sharp that I abruptly ended the devotional, and with a heavy heart, began our academic work for the day. That event was the beginning of the end for me at that school, and I no longer teach there.

I love to teach writing and editing to respectful, disciplined, and motivated Christian students (I have done this in the past), and I would gladly relocate for such an opportunity, but I don't know if such students exist anymore. So I am working as a hospital lab tech.

As Pastor Bayly said, the AAUP report is well worth reading for anybody contemplating offending a university administration. The contrast with my own case at IU is interesting. Two big differences are that (a) Greenville is a small place, so the President had direct control of the Professor, with no significant Dean or Chairman between them; and (b) since the Professor's complaint reflected badly on the Trustees, he could not appeal to them successfully. This makes his stand on principle all the more admirable.

It is noteworthy, but not surprising, how unsupportive the rest of the faculty, the students, and the denomination were. He wouldn't have lost his job, I think, if someone else had credibly threatened to come forward and fill his shoes if he were. As it is, it seems Greenville's "fire the troublemaker" strategy has succeeded in solving the adminsrators' problem, at a slight monetary cost.

First of all, I'd like to say that I was a Computer Science student at Greenville College and had Dr Eichhoefer as my advisor during much of Eichhoefer's employment. I enjoyed his CS classes and thought that he was doing a good job as a CS professor. I know that many students did not feel that way about him when he began teaching non-CS courses.

Secondly you call the religion deparment "wolves who... had been hard at work undermining the faith of their students." This could not be further from the truth. In fact, I feel that they saved my faith. I do not think that I would attend church anymore if it weren't for the lessons and mentoring of Dr. Rick McPeak and others within the Greenville College Religion department.

Thirdly, many of the things that Eichhoefer said in his campus wide email were attacks on the character of the other professors. They felt that he went to the point of being libelous. I agree that academic freedom is important, but there is a difference between academic freedom and the freedom to spread untruths about others. The Bible is clear about bearing false witness.

In addition to being friends with Dr. Eichhoefer and members of the religion department, I am also very good friends with the student who wrote the article about her loss of faith. I sincerely doubt that the religion department had anything to do with it. The guy that she was dating at the time is very prone to discussing philosophy and had written an almost identical editorial a few years prior. I think that his influence was more directly responsible for what she said in the article than any class she had taken.

Dear Mr. Coulter, I appreciate your own perspective on this matter. Since your comment, I've posted new evidence and hope you will take the time to read it. For ease of viewing, I've created a category titled "Greenville College" you can access down the left column of the main blog page.

Let's keep in mind that the AAUP's investigation found in favor of Professor Eichhoefer, not Greenville College, and that Greenville settled with Professor Eichhoefer, paying him a large sum of money in exchange for his keeping his mouth shut about what happened and agreeing not to sue the college. (I don't know the terms of the settlement, but I'm happy for the college administrators to tell me I'm wrong. Until they do, though, I'm assuming the above details are accurate since it's almost always what happens in these cases.)

But one last thing: my primary concern is not academic freedom, but the betrayal of Greenville's board, administrators, and faculty members of their sacred trust to protect the students placed under their care from such the false shepherds Professor Eichhoefer has so amply documented. In other words, the true scandal is not that Professor Eichhoefer GOT FIRED but that a number of other professors and administrators DID NOT.

In fact, from reading the record, it's apparent that the other professors were almost voiceless in defending God's little ones from those devouring the flock.

Yes, Professor Eighhoefer wasn't perfect; and yes, each of the false shepherds has been a great help to some souls in some ways; and yes, many of the sheep were (and still are) bamboozled by the administration.

But this stuff is evil, and men who have been set apart by the Holy Spirit for church office recognize it quite easily for what it is, as well as our duty to defend the flock from such attacks. This was the central command the Apostle Paul left the Ephesian elders with:

***Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. (Acts 20:28-31)***

I realize that you and the others who have left comments on here will only see the Greenville College religion department as being "evil" "wolves". I can assure you that you could not be more wrong about them. They are good men and women who have strong relationships with God and countless students have been blessed to be exposed to their classes and tutelage. Your second hand opinions of them cannot change that fact. I'm sorry that there is no way for me to prove that to you.

Have a wonderful day.

Dear Mr. Coulter,

I'm sorry you reject Professor Eichhoefer's testimony, but it's not second hand. He was a direct observer of all these things and is testifying concerning what he himself saw and heard. Further, the AAUP investigative committee would have no sympathy for the heart of Professor Eichhoefer's complaints which are grounded in conservative Christian faith, and yet they vindicated the truthfulness of his testimony at key points. Finally, these documents have been circulated widely and those Professor Eichhoefer has accused have had ample time to defend themselves, but where is their defense? They are silent and their administrators paid Professor Eichhoefer money to settle his claim.

All this and more leads me to encourage you, brother, to review your own opinions and consider that false shepherds kill sheep easily until good shepherds oppose them. It's not the sheep who oppose them. Discernment is not the strongest trait of sheep. This is the reason the Holy Spirit led the apostles to appoint elders in every city.

And please don't think pointing out that spiritual leaders are harming, not healing, God's sheep means those leaders are devoid of appealing traits that cause the sheep to trust them. Sheep always trust false shepherds because false shepherds need sheep to survive and they work hard to make themselves appealing to the sheep. Remember Little Red Riding Hood?

So in the end we're left with the question whether you and the other students under Greenville's Bible and philosophy department will heed Professor Eichhoefer's warnings or not. He's older, wiser, and a direct observer of these things, many of which you yourself have not observed. An independent investigative body has confirmed a number of important aspects of his testimony and your college's administration has paid him money to keep the matter out of the courts and to keep him silent beyond what he's already said.


Pastor Tim Bayly

First, the AAUP decision simply stated that they believed that the college fired him improperly and violated academic freedom which you said above is not your primary concern. They were not making a statement on the spiritual state of the Religion department at Greenville College. Yet you cite them as though they lend credibility to your spiritual argument.

Secondly, since you have not experienced any of this first hand and you do not know anything about my spiritual journey, your insinuation that I am unwise, unthinking, a "sheep", and grievously mislead is not only unfounded, but insulting.

Thank you, sir, for the attack, subtle though it may have been.

Dear Mr. Coulter, The report of the AAUP's investigative committee runs over fifteen thousand words and I believe it does provide partial confirmation of key points in Professor Eichhoefer's testimony. But the principal testimony is Professor Eichhoefer's and that testimony neither you nor anyone else has proven inaccurate. To meet it by saying those he accuses of sin are holy and helpful men is not to meet it at all, but simply to dismiss it. There are specifics to Professor Eichhoefer's charges. Where is he wrong?

I'm sorry you consider my admonition as an attack, but then I'm not your pastor and it is hard to have another pastor you don't know warn you away from error. But that's the nature of correspondence--you only know one another through words on a page (or screen) and that must suffice. Then too, I didn't mean for the admonition to be subtle, but rather gentle. Yet it is easy to mistake the two, isn't it?

Being a sheep in need of the Good Shepherd and His undershepherds He has appointed to serve in His Church is not demeaning, brother. It's a privilege.

Love in Christ,

Pastor Tim Bayly

I could argue many points of Eichhoefer's testimony because I witnessed much of it first hand. I am not saying that the events he talks about did not take place. You'll notice that the AAUP report mentions that he went about much of this in a very caustic way, but that in the end, he was improperly discharged.

Let me say something. I like Dr Eichhoefer. I have nothing against him. I just disagree with him on how he thinks that the religion department should be teaching students. The religion department also disagreed with him and since they were the ones who were trained and hired to teach people about Christianity, they felt that he was unqualified to tell them how to do their jobs. I feel that Eichhoefer's arguments about the intentions and methods of the religion department are something of a straw man.

I realize you meant what you said as an admonition, but I still feel that it was an attack because you did not give me the benefit of the doubt. Instead of assuming that I am capable of making critical decisions about my faith and what people are teaching me, you assumed that because I disagreed with you that I have been misled. One telling line is that you said that he was older and wiser than I. You can safely assume that I am younger than he is (and you would be correct). I will even say this: he is much smarter than I am. He can be very intellectually intimidating when he wants to be (and sometimes when he doesn't want to be). To assume, however, that he is wiser than I am because he is older is a fallacy. That assumption may also be built on the fact that I disagree with your point of view, though.

Also remember that I did actually observe many of the things that he talked about in the various documents. Those that I haven't observed, I've been told about them by people who have observed them, people with varying points of view on the subject.

I would be glad to address the topic of a specific sin you believe has been committed. If, however, you simply say that they've led people away from Christ based on anecdotal evidence, I can only reply in kind.

Revs Bayly:
I'm the Jack Chism referred to in the AAUP documents. I tender you my thanks for your coverage, and also my tribute to your father's memory: I used to love his "Out of my Mind" column in the old Eternity magazine.

[I found you through Dr. Rasmusen's blog, where I had left a comment, which I will repeat here, hoping it might be helpful to anyone following this discussion:]

I was involved in the Eichhoefer case, and the AAUP referred to me as Jerry's "staunchest supporter." I'm not sure if that's true, but I was certainly a visible one whether I wanted to be or not. Many of his other supporters were afraid to be publicly identified because of fear of retaliation. I suspect that this will put some restraint on comments that they might post here, in his support. (unless you were to provide a way for their names to be withheld)

The religion department's hostility to evangelical faith at Greenville did not occur just recently; I've seen evidence of it for decades. Not all members of the department shared it fully; and individual members adjusted their views as time went by. But the dominant position came to be one of condescending ridicule toward evangelical faith and toward Christian exclusivism. Many of us were pleased to see someone with the courage to criticize it, even if some of us thought that Jerry may have swept too wide a stroke. This was unfortunate, because his subsequent termination has solidified the fear of saying anything at all critical of GC's program of faith development.

One discouraging symptom of these deep troubles has been the complete inability to set up a courteous dialog about the issues involved. Dialog is what Jerry pleaded for in every one of his public communications. In the midst of the angry reactions to Jerry's first couple of mass emails, both Dr. Rick McPeak of the religion department and I tried to set up conciliatory meetings between the aggrieved parties. Rick and I had understandably different reactions to Jerry's positions (understandable because Rick had come under criticism in Jerry's paper, and Rick believes that the criticism was both inaccurate and unfair) But both of us were troubled by the outpourings of hateful rhetoric that were occurring, and wanted to help find peace.

What might have helped would have been this: Numerous people, reacting to Jerry's emails, were heard to say that he had said false things, or had committed logical errors. But it was impossible to get those people to list what the falsehoods and errors were, at least within Jerry's hearing, so that he could respond with whatever evidence or reasoning he might want to offer.

It may be that Jerry said things that were incorrect; but we could not find out. His accusers insisted on working entirely behind his back, and on attacking his character rather than challenging his specific assertions. One of the earliest, angriest, and most repeated accusations against him was that "Jerry claimed in his first email that members of the religion department did not believe in the physical resurrection of Christ." But that email is now part of the public record, so that anyone can read it and search for such an accusation. They will not find it, or even an implication of such. His critics apparently had given it an angry, hasty misreading.

This is the kind of fact-issue that I wish we all could have confronted together. If Dr. Eichhoefer said things that were unfair or untrue, he should have been confronted with them in detail so that he could retract them and apologize. On the other hand, if some of his complaints had value, those deserved to be addressed by the faculty. None of this was allowed to happen.

I genuinely believe that Greenville could have profited and grown if we had honestly sat down and talked through the various complaints-his about the college's program of faith development; and his accusers' about the fairness or accuracy of his criticisms. I pleaded with numerous people of influence to bring about such dialog, but failed totally.

Now the faculty tries to get along, but with some key subjects totally taboo. I'm so sad for the demise of the loving, collegial, Christian spirit that once prevailed here. Many are now afraid to make spontaneous comments to each other.

[This ends the comment I posted previously.]

I will add some detail here, since that's been so sorely lacking in all the discussions here on campus.

Dr Eichhoefer offered two broad concerns that he had about the behavior of the religion faculty. The first was that they were conducting general education courses in such a way as to manipulate young believers away from specific Christian beliefs, or to relativize Christian truth-claims with those of other religions. He said that their methods were (1) manipulative, and (2) based on a theological mistake--a mistake made by the originator of Fowler's "Stages of Faith" and incorporated uncritically into their approach to spiritual formation of students. He wanted to have public dialog about this, because the content of general education courses was the business of the entire faculty and not just of the department that happened to teach them.

While I agree with that last point, and therefore supported his efforts to provoke dialog, I can't tell you whether his suspicions were correct or not. He was speaking of things that occurred behind classroom doors. He got his information from complaining students, and I did not hear their testimony. Also, the issues surrounding "Fowler Faith" are much beyond my expertise, and I could only have been a spectator if these issues had ever been debated. Dr. Eichhoefer had the education to discuss these things with religion professors, but that was not true of most of us who shared his concerns about how our students were taught and shaped. We just wanted to get it out in the open so we could know what was going on.

But there was a second concern he voiced, both in his papers and to me, about which I did have personal knowledge. He was upset by many statements over the years by members of the religion department (though not all of them) in which they attacked and ridiculed evangelical faith. Sometimes they actually made open, sardonic attacks; but more often they would use a gentle condescension. (Either way, they made it clear that if you wanted to be cool like them, you would not go around saying the Bible was true or (perish the thought) inerrant. And you would not proclaim too boldly that people of non-Christian faiths urgently needed Christ to have any hope of eternal life.) I myself heard numerous statements like this over the years, by some of the faculty members in question. They made them in chapel, and in faculty meetings.

It was always understood that making fun of evangelicals or conservative believers was OK. They were all lumped together as "those Fundamentalists who think God dictated the King James Version."

I have to admit that they meant well, as far as I could tell. They seemed to believe they were on a mission to enlighten these poor, narrow kids from youth groups and home-schooling, and they seemed to act out of real concern for them. I wonder if they may have wanted to protect them from the disappointment sure to follow for those who, in their opinion, trust God too much.

And again I want to point out that not all members of that department participated in these actions I saw. And the views of those who did seemed to change over the years, sometimes more hostile to evangelical belief, sometimes less so. I know that each of them is on a spiritual journey, experiencing change and victory and defeat. And of course the department had changes of personnel over the years.

I feel a bit silly writing this comment four months after this conversation ended, but this is an issue that's been eating away at the back of my mind for a long time. A friend of mine recently emailed me the link to this sight, knowing my interest, and I read it tonight and had to make a comment, if only to let off steam.

First, let me say that I loved my time at Greenville college, and I do not agree that any of the faculty members there are "evil" or are trying to manipulate students away from their faith. I am firmly certain that all of them are sincere Christians acting out of good intentions.

However, I must also say that as a student, I experienced some of the "condescension" (as it was so accurately referred to by Proffessor Chism) from the religion department towards more traditional views of Christianity. When I took religion classes, I sometimes felt the attempt by professors to "shake students up in their faith." Having already been through some difficult faith times, and having spent a lot of my teenage years evaluating my faith and beliefs, I was more than a little insulted at the idea that the religion department had to "make" me go through a faith crisis in order for me to grow into a mature Christian. God was quite capable of doing that on His own time.

Having said all this, I think that Dr. Eichhoefer was perfectly within his rights to bring this issue before the Greenville College community. I find it beyond ridiculous to imply that Dr. Eichhoefer had no business bringing this up just because the religion dept "were the ones who were trained and hired to teach people about Christianity." Just because someone is trained in computer science and not religion, does that make them incapable of recognizing when there is a problem in their Christian community? And just because someone is trained in religion, does that make them always right on religious matters 100% of the time? I think not. Accountability to each other is a basic principle of Christianity, and accountability is exactly what Dr. Eichhoefer wanted from the religion proffessors.

Well, I hope someone reads this, although I find it doubtful. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to publicly put in my two cents, anyway. Wish I'd had the guts to do this while I was still at college, ha ha.

I am entering this discussion six years from its last post. Though the conversation has ended, I cannot help but interject in defense of my Alma Mater and my professors, who are my mentors and good friends. This blog represents Christ poorly by slandering and condemning brothers and sisters of Christ, people who the author has never known.
I am currently a student attending Greenville College. Although my experience with this incident is second hand, much of what I know about what happened comes from my mentor, a colleague of Eichhoffer while he was at Greenville, and the man who was his roommate while in college. His evaluation of the incident is this:
Eichhoffer was not fired because of budget restrictions or for challenging the religion department (regardless of what was published). He was fired for unsatisfactory service, due to his harsh personal attacks toward other faculty members which he sent out in 10 page diatribes across the all campus email function. He was repeatedly told to cease this activity, and was asked to meet privately to work out the dispute, but refused, and continued his attacks.
From my mentor's perspective, Eichhoffer was embittered because he had attempted to create his own philosophy course, which the religion department shut down because he was not properly qualified to teach the course (nor did he have approval on any level to do so). It was at this time that he began to accuse the Religion department of dark plotting behind closed doors. It was widely recognized on campus that Eichhoffer's actions were only conspiracy rumors and paranoia. What he railed against was not a department that was anit-evangelical and seeking to destroy the faith of students, rather he was unhappy because his particular brand of evangelicalism was not the theological tradition the department was made up of. This, I have been told, is because Eichhoffer comes out of a Baptist background, while Greenville College is a Free Methodist school, based in Weslyan theology.
There are always two sides to a story. I only know of Eichhoffer's side from those who are here at Greenville now, and 3rd hand from this blog. Certainly, as the reports by AAUP state, the situation was mishandled. However, on a personal level, I know that Dr. Rick McPeak, a sincere man of Christian faith and distinguished Weslyan scholar, made the effort to seek out Eichhoffer everyday of the controversy to offer him a handshake of peace and brotherhood, which was consistently rejected. I can see the end of this incident with nothing but admiration for Dr. McPeak, who handled the circumstances in a Christ-like way that gives credit to his place as a Shepard, not a Wolf.
To the author of this blog, I would ask you to cease your attack on a group of people you do not know. Your posts, though I am sure motivated out of a passion for the Gospel, fails to represent the Gospel as Christ lived it: in peace through love. As we are reminded in Romans:
"Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
Grace and peace,

The report is still available but the link has moved. It is now here:

>>> I know that Dr. Rick McPeak...made the effort to seek out Eichhoffer everyday of the controversy to offer him a handshake of peace and brotherhood, which was consistently rejected.

When Eichhoffer was sounding the alarm about students being turned from the faith by Fowler's "open inquiry" method (i.e. being taught skepticism of Scripture) and when he was objecting to students participating in the worship of other gods during a field trip for a religion course, how could he share "a handshake of peace and brotherhood" without seeing the issues addressed?

Add new comment