Christian faith is hate speech...

(Tim) So, speaking only personally, I have a friend fired from the faculty of Greenville College (a small Christian liberal arts college in Southern Illinois where three of my in-laws attended), for defending Christian orthodoxy; another friend denied the Ph.D. by Harvard because his thesis defended Christian orthodoxy; another friend ejected from his Ph.D. program in the history department at UW-Madison (my own alma mater and major department) because of his commitment to Christian orthodoxy; another friend terminated from Covenant College who found the atmosphere there stifling to Reformed orthodoxy; another friend disciplined and publicly humiliated by the Vice Chancellor in the Faculty Council (on which he sat) for holding to Christian orthodoxy (see here, here, and here); and now, another friend has been terminated...

for holding to Christian orthodoxy--this one by the University of Illinois (see here, here, and here).

Of course, in every case the academics who canned these men covered their actions with perfectly legitimate excuses: they had a budget crisis; the student wasn't prepared for his orals; the thesis didn't reflect state of the art scholarship; what the professor had said and written was hate speech and students found it deeply hurtful... There's no end to the subterfuges academics use to cover their aggressive intolerance and hatred of God and His Word.

By God's grace, in some of these cases the American Association of University Professors rode to the rescue and succeeded in defending Christian orthodoxy under the rubric of academic freedom. Thing is, for every prof paid off or reinstated, thousands of other Christian profs learn that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the shame that can't be uttered. And so they don't.

Comments

"another friend terminated from Covenant College who found the atmosphere there stifling to Reformed orthodoxy"

I'm not sure what to make of this. Could be true. But it sits right between two examples that are documented with no documentation and no facts. Its just asserted as a fact with no proof. So we are to think Covenant College "stifles" reforemd orthodoxy just because?

Bobby, use the index, and read to your heart's content.

Yes I can see from you comments past & present that you are no fan of Covenant Seminary. No one in the PCA (as far as I know) is forced to take a vow of loyalty to Covenant College or Seminary. I can infer from your past post that you don't care for the direction of the school. Personally I've never set foot on the campus & have little or no emotional attachement to it. If it was no longer part of the PCA I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep.

But you infered something more in this post. You implied that an unknown friend was fired because he stood up for Reformed orthodoxy at the college of the PCA. (or as you say: "he found the atmosphere there stifling to Reformed orthodoxy")

I don't see any evidence in your past post of Covenant Collge firing anyone for standing up for Reformed orthodoxy. I don't need to read all your posts to know your opinion of Covenant College but if you are going to accuse someone or the College of a specfic sin then you should provide some collaboration for your accusation.

Dear Bobby,

A closer reading of the post might be in order. Covenant College is the only example given that does *not* have a corresponding reason given for the termination.

There was no accusation at all against Covenant College. Instead a statement was made that a person who was let go from that school found the atmosphere "stifling to Reformed orthodoxy." The point of sending you to the index was to let you decide for yourself, with publicly available information, whether Covenant College can properly be described that way.

For my part, speaking as somebody who almost attended Covenant College, I certainly wouldn't advise anybody in my congregation to send their son or daughter there.

-Joseph

I think I can relate to some of these friends... although I am hardly in the academic field right now.

"Covenant College is the only example given that does *not* have a corresponding reason given for the termination."

That may be true. It dosen't have the word because. But you do put it right there in the midst of the other examples and a fair reading would lead most readers to infer that your friend was fired because the enviroment at Covenant is hostile to reformed orthodoxy.

Where, in a parallel construction, a word is changed or missing, it's likely BECAUSE the author chose to change it or leave it out. And as words have meanings, so the changing or absence of them do, also.

Love,

Speaking of subtle issues, notice, for what it's worth, the fact of how "discreet" the changing of one's mode of thinking can be.

"it's likely BECAUSE the author chose to change it or leave it out"

Yes & its also true that writers place statements within a contest to infer certain meanings.

But if you are saying that you had no intention to infer that Covenant was terminating people because they hold firmily to reformed orthodoxy then I can accept that.

Bobby,

My name is Eric Wilson. I am a friend of Tim Bayly. I was a Professor at Covenant College. My tenure-track position was terminated. I found the atmosphere at Covenant stifling to particular orthodox Christian doctrines.

Why was my position terminated? After much prayer and consideration, it was decided that this should be part of the schools response to a financial crisis.

Was I targeted for holding to orthodox Christianity? I seriously doubt it. Were there any members of the faculty sad to lose my voice in the battle against the feminist heresies that rages within the denomination and within our own souls? I seriously doubt it.

So what are we arguing about anyway? Are you concerned about whether Tim is using unfair rhetoric? Or are you concerned about the environment at the PCA's denominational school? I'm sure there are some in Galatia that were so scandalized at Paul writing that the Judaizers should cut the whole thing off that they failed to be concerned about the destruction of the heresy.

So forget the rhetoric. Tim makes the point that, just thinking of his personal friends, he finds that you don't win popularity contests at Christian institutions for proclaiming God's truth plainly and with earnest concern for souls. If you want to argue this point, then bring your case. Otherwise, please stop distracting the other readers.

>>Tim makes the point ...that you don't win popularity contests at Christian institutions for proclaiming God's truth plainly and with earnest concern for souls.

In fact, such men are disproportionately likely to be terminated. For budgetary reasons, of course; and after much prayer.

Meanwhile, the Cliff Foreman's of the world win battle after battle, receive apologies from their new President, and arrive at retirement in perfect peace.

Love you, Eric

Mr. Wilson,

Which feminist heresies were you speaking out against? Which feminist heresies are "raging" in the PCA?

Mr. Suffolk,

I think Dr. Wilson meant feminist heresies--at least that's what I got from what he wrote. I think he meant the sort of heresies the Apostle Paul condemned when he warned the early church not to allow woman to teach and exercise authority over man because of God's order of creation and woman being the one deceived by the Serpent...