Can we have “Academic Freedom” as a Slave to Christ?
The Evangelical Theological Society made a move a couple years ago to try and oust Clark Pinnock & Co. from membership, due to them holding the unconventional position of Open Theism (“God doesn’t know the future, because the future doesn’t exist yet,” etc). Pete Enns was forced from his professorship at Westminster Theological Seminary due to trying to reevaluate our presuppositions about the nature of the Bible, and let the Bible define itself on its own terms (redefine inerrancy).
At Calvin College, the board of trustees has recently issued a memo to the faculty that no one will be allowed to teach, write, or advocate on behalf of homosexuality. Now, the professors are calling for a campus meeting on “academic freedom.”
Here is the problem:
To what degree can there be true “academic freedom” (and the expression of ideas) at a credal, confessional institution, that submits to the kingship of Christ?
How can one have “academic freedom” while being a slave to Christ? I think this is a genuine dilemma, and I don’t pose this question rhetorically.
On the one hand, freedom of ideas is crucial. Without the freedom of ideas, we wouldn’t have the Copernican Revolution, the Protestant Reformation, et al. We need to be ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda—the church reformed, always reforming. Without this academic freedom of ideas, we lose the ability to critically evaluate conventionally held positions.
But on the other hand, the so-called freedom of ideas is explicitly prohibited in the New Testament. We have verses everywhere commanding the upholding of sound doctrine, the condemnation of false teachers, holding fast to the truth, etc. So when we have confessional, credal institutions (ETS, WTS, Calvin) putting prohibition on the “freedom of ideas,” it is generally in the spirit of trying to uphold sound doctrine for the Body of Christ.
So where is the solution? How broad is “sound doctrine”? How generous is orthodoxy?
The two examples in the introduction are important. I am sympathetic to Pete Enns and his project, and believe he is onto something important for us to consider. However, while I am sympathetic to the Open Theist project of similarly reevaluating our presuppositions on God, I remain unconvinced—and would not encourage the promotion of their ideas. But in these two examples, I side with “academic freedom” on the one hand, and “upholding sound doctrine” on the other. So what is the solution?
Of course, it’s all a matter of perspective. One person’s heresy is another person’s orthodoxy. Conservatives think I’m liberal because I read the Bible literarily rather than literally, while liberals think I’m conservative because I believe in the authority of the Bible and resurrection.
And going back to the situation with Calvin College on homosexuality, how do we reconcile “academic freedom” while submitting to a confessional institution? To what degree should this “freedom” be allowed? And more broadly, are we operating from a misdirected understanding of “freedom,” inherited from liberal democracy, rather than freedom in Christ?
How do we have “academic freedom” while being a slave to Christ?
My name is Aaron Rathburn. I am a senior in philosophy at Calvin College, and formerly studied at Trinity School of Theology (Wales, UK). I am a husband, and father of two. This site is a collection of musings on theology, culture, and more. 
“Of course, it’s all a matter of perspective. One person’s heresy is another person’s orthodoxy. Conservatives think I’m liberal because I read the Bible literarily rather than literally, while liberals think I’m conservative because I believe in the authority of the Bible and resurrection.”
This is really the fundamental point in discussions like this. We can get all hot and bothered about who’s orthodox, who’s heretical, what have you… but if you wait long enough (sometimes hundreds of years)… eventually we all take a turn in one of those seats.
As far as Calvin goes, you cannot have “intellectual freedom” if your tradition involved burning dissenters at the stake. When the stakes of “truth” are that high (no pun intended) you can’t afford to let diversity sneak in the back door.
That was in no way intended to slam Calvin… that’s just a fact. When the consequences for being “right” or “wrong” involve never-ending torture in the pits of hell… you don’t really have room to think freely do you?
I think this is the big problem with statements of faith and the like. If I was in a church and had to sign to agree to certain doctrines in order to be a member and serve, if there was some element that I wasn’t sure about I would either have to just be an attendee or find a church that didn’t have such constraints – or perhaps better still plant one!?!
I can see that statements like this maintain the status quo and stop churches, colleges, etc going into error but also it stops them moving on in God as he reveals more. We can see this throughout history e.g. Wesley not being allowed to preach in church and so preaching in the open air. So I wonder if people who feel hampered by such ruling should leave and set up new institutions. Just a thought.
Good thoughts guys.
My only hesitation is that I take very seriously the New Testament commands against false teaching and upholding sound doctrine. Ideas have legs, and bad ideas have very serious consequences. And ultimately, the concern all stems from a pastoral imperative for the Body of Christ.
The Ekklesia is not a democracy, and there is no “freedom of ideas.” And neither should we cultivate one. The last thing we need is hyper-Protestants running around thinking they can interpret scripture individually for themselves—that’s how we get people making YouTube videos claiming that Jesus called Barack Obama the antichrist (with serious consequences thereafter).
At both Westminster Seminary and Calvin College, faculty have to sign faith statements such as the Synod of Dordt (TULIP), Westminster Confession of Faith, etc. It’d probably be too nuanced and micromanaging to ask church members to subscribe to, but I can understand a credal/confessional institution’s concern to uphold sound doctrine in a place of theological study.
But back to my original post, we still need to be the church reformed, always reforming. And we need a broad orthodoxy that doesn’t allow people to be burned at the stake in the 16th century, or ousted from professorships in the 21st century.
http://www.whywouldwe.org/
Stumbled on this organization and thought if Christ responds with responsible compassion to humanities practices (homosexuality)why are followers who claim to be slave’s for Christ always befuddled on how to follow Him in his likeness?
He came to free us from our self-imposed legalities so that we would be free to academically/professionally/socially/fill in the blank allys grow beyond our smallness into His greatness. There are big problems to eradicate in our lifetime (genocide, human traficking, poverty, hunger etc.) but they are only going to be solved by Christ’s Slaves who honor His work (Cross) in active practice.
Resurrect yourselves as He did and claim the academic freedoms he died for! Rise to the status of a Son and Daughter of the most high God and Live His Glory in freedom of speech and Spirit…his HOLY SPIRIT! Walk – Talk as children of Light!
Move our collective academic world ~ Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc. to higher ground and free the world of negativity of thought! As is written in Holy Scripture Philippians 4:8-9 Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy ~ meditate on these things. The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you.
“Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you?” Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you 1 Cor. 3:16 This is academic freedom – Just Do It!
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God. Rev 2:7
Closing Remark by Christ the only true Teacher/Rabbi that supported academic freedom:
Matt:22:36-40
Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
On the subject of academic freedom i feel quite strongly that you need to look at whether the questioned teaching went against doctrine and scripture or just went against a popularly held interpretation or cultural preference.
Many different denominations have different teachings – where do we make a stand for doctrine, and where do we make a stand for unity – my personal belief is that God gave us his spirit to guide both our heart and our brain, as we grow in our beliefs hopefully we become wiser and stronger (through the spirit not through works) and able to make better choices.
Younger believers must defer to our spiritual elders in these cases, can we agree to disagree for the sake of the unity of the church or will we take a stand against something we believe to be against the true teachings of Christ. My vote is most often going to be to hold out for unity – disunity damages the church as a whole in ways people within the church can’t see, it is the number 1 complaint against Christianity that i receive from friends etc who are non-believers.
Abi, I would lean toward the same — unity. If the issue at stake is a peripheral one, the witness and testimony of unity is more important than doctrinal squabbling. But then again, for some people some issues are peripheral, but for others they are central. This is the problem of Protestantism—because everything is open to interpretation by anyone at all, and there is no centralized authority, it creates these dilemmas!