 |
| 
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 1/11/2002 12:56 PM (GMT -6) |   | I just did a search for "Greg Boyd" on the Bethel Seminary website and discovered the following letter written against Greg and those who let him keep his teaching position.
As a group of Bethel students with an interest in the theological debate surrounding Bethel College and the Baptist General Conference, we have written a response to the affirmations of the Concerned and Committed Students (CCS). This response was written as a fulfillment of the request by the CCS for continued dialog related to this issue, and not as a malicious attack against them or against Dr. Greg Boyd. The following is the full text of our response to the CCS, and we encourage everyone to consider the issues and facts raised herein:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We desire to further the academic and theological discussion on the topic of academic freedom and the proper response to open theism. We feel there are several elements that are amiss in the current discussion of this subject and that, as members of the Christian Community, it is our responsibility to bring these into the discussion:
1. Open theism has never been ruled to be within the boundaries of Evangelical orthodoxy.
2. This discussion must be continued despite occaisonal disunity until a conclusion is reached because:
• Those who make the conclusion must be well informed and surrounded by well informed people in order to make a God-honoring decision.
• Sound theology is an essential part of God's calling for us as Christians, and this calling can at times be more important than unity.
3. Bethel needs to decide officially and clearly where to draw the line in this debate, and not through an institutionally-tied committee of eight people. This must be done not only concerning the issue of academic freedom, but also concerning the acceptability of open theism.
Section One: Did Bethel Make An Official Conclusion On Open Theism?
In your affirmations you claim that open theism has already been found to be within the bounds of evangelical orthodoxy. After speaking to John Mayo, we believe your stance on that subject is simply a case of your committee being misinformed by a faulty source. However, we are unsure as to where you got the idea that open theism has been found to be within the bounds of evangelical orthodoxy. Are you referring to the vote made by the Committee for Theological Clarification and Assessment (CTCA) as your source?
After speaking directly with President Brushaber, we learned their purpose was only to determine whether Dr. Boyd’s views warranted his being removed from the Bethel faculty. As we all know they voted to allow Dr. Boyd to stay. But the committee was not assembled to vote on the validity of open theism. That was not what they did, nor can that be concluded from their decision to let Dr. Boyd continue teaching at Bethel. Open theism was not voted to be within the bounds of evangelical orthodoxy by this committee even though that is what was subsequently reported. One of the participants of the CTCA who served without vote, Dr. Timothy George, recently stated that, "I do not want to give any support to open theism or to the view that sees it within the bounds of tolerable evangelical diversity."
If the CTCA had actually voted on the validity of open theism, why would Dr. Bob Ricker later ask that open theism not be taught by any "Bethel professor or instructor who espouses such views?" (It was this very statement that caused you to write your original affirmations, was it not?) Ricker was one of the voters on the CTCA, and the vote was unanimous. Because of this fact, it logically follows that if the CTCA had been voting on the validity of open theism, Dr. Ricker would be expressing two completely opposite points of view (It’s OK, but don’t let open theists teach it).
In addition, the determination of orthodoxy has historically been done by a third party group of Biblical scholars, not by a small group of men with extremely strong ties to the institution from which the teaching came (as in the CTCA’s case). It was not Bethel’s intention to redefine the boundaries of evangelical orthodoxy. If that were the case, it would be nothing short of theological arrogance.
Are you referring to the vote at the BGC annual meeting last summer? The motion before the delegates on that day was whether or not to amend the BGC Affirmation of Faith. We are left unsure as to where you got the idea that open theism has now become an acceptable, orthodox teaching. No events in Bethel’s history have lead directly to this conclusion.
Section Two: Doctrinal Disputes and Disunity
We share the worry you’ve expressed over the escalation of the theological debate at Bethel. We also appreciate your willingness to support the BGC Affirmation of Faith.
However, we cannot agree with your statement that the pursuit of Biblical truth is detracting from Kingdom work. The continual pursuit and preservation of sound, orthodox theology is an essential prerequisite for Kingdom work. Doing God’s work involves standing for sound doctrine at all times.
Because of this, we could no longer keep silent while we watch a truly great school slip toward fulfilling the grim prophecy in II Timothy 4:3-4. The fifth verse of that chapter also convicted us to act in this fashion. If we ever expect to make a godly decision on this issue we must all be well informed about the teachings involved, and consider the issue aside from all personal emotional biases (or a desire for "ear-tickling" as Timothy puts it).
Your introduction refers to division being generated within Bethel and the church because of the evolution and continuation of this debate. We would assert that the division and hostility you refer to are purely the reactions by some to the objections raised against open theism. The harm was not done when protests were made against open theism, but rather when open theism was "determined to be evangelical" (see below) in spite of the fact that it is contrary to the classical, historic view of God's foreknowledge. Could anything but division be expected when two opposing ideas of the nature of God are both supposedly considered evangelical? Scripture tells us that the actual source of controversy in the church is false teaching, not those who oppose it (I Tim. 1:3-4;6:3-4; Titus 3:9-10).
You might say that we should just go on doing the work of the Kingdom of God and forget about this lack of harmony. This, however, would make as much sense as a cancer patient choosing to disregard their diagnosis and go on with life as they had before. The sickness that they refuse to acknowledge will eventually undo them. As parts of the body of Christ, how can we expect to have an impact in the world when we cannot agree on the very nature of the God we are trying to make known to lost people? A solution must be found, and agreeing to disagree is not sufficient. The line must be drawn somewhere. Where will we draw the line?
Section Three: Academic Freedom and Open Theism - Where's the Line?
The vote by BGC delegates that you refer to is a troubling one, without question. Some are trying to twist the BGC action to support the secular ideal of relativistic tolerance ("What’s right for you may not be right for me, but we’re both OK") in the body of Christ. Those who want to reinterpret the BGC delegates’ vote think it more important to preserve a delusion of unity, shaky as it may be, than to stop evangelicalism sliding down the slippery slope on which it currently rests. Now that we have two entirely contrary views of the nature God, what’s to say we can’t have three or four? After all, absolute truth regarding the nature of God cannot be established through scripture, even though it is all God-breathed (II Tim. 3:16), can it? If we cannot differentiate between sound doctrine and errant teaching (at best), what is to set us apart from a culture that has let morality decay for the sake of tolerance? Where will we draw the line?
Your statement brings the issue of academic freedom into this debate. That issue can be misleading for a couple of reasons.
To start with, Bethel has never claimed to be an institution offering pure academic freedom. Bethel has, first and foremost, been a school with foundations in classical Baptistic theology with close ties to the BGC. In order to provide academic freedom in its truest sense, Bethel would have to offer courses potentially advocating atheism, Mormonism, and an endless list of other religious (or purely academic) areas of study. The problem at this point is obvious. Complete academic freedom is unattainable at Bethel because of the distinct mission of a Christian college. Besides that, theological truth is of far greater importance than any alleged censorship. The comparison of academic freedom and theological truth rings rather hollowly. Academic freedom has never really existed here in its more open form. That fact makes it a difficult issue to support.
The expression of your desire to "open doors of communication and make students’ voices heard" may accidentally mask the fact that the voices you represent have never really been blocked. Have students ever been actively censored in this debate?
Second, your interpretation of the term "liberal arts education" is a bit puzzling. A liberal arts education is one that includes instruction in a variety of areas (Biblical themes, modern technology, cultural diversity etc.). A Bachelor of Arts degree from Bethel is one that includes a broad field of topics of study. A Bachelor of Science degree from a public university or certificate from a vocational school is not as well-rounded. A liberal arts education does not imply that the concepts that are taught in these areas are necessarily considered "liberal." Diversity in areas of study, not concepts within a subject, is what a liberal arts education implies.
As we stated before, academic freedom is not at stake because pure academic freedom has never really existed at Bethel. So the question remains: Is it more important to be free to teach whatever the instructor desires, or to advocate only what is Biblical (especially in the context of this theological debate)? Where will we draw the line?
Conclusion
Once again, this letter was not written with a hateful attitude. We hold absolutely no animosity toward Greg Boyd because we are called as his brothers in Christ to love him as we would love ourselves (Mark 12:31). On the other hand, we sympathize with him in that he has been made the central figure of controversy in this debate that is not about any man at all. Simply put, we see it as our responsibility as Christians to continue to pursue the Biblical truth and to challenge others to do so as well.
We are as tired of this debate as any of you are, but are not willing to see Biblical truth compromised to support unity and "academic freedom." Our thanks again go to the CCS for their concern regarding this issue. May the Lord bring us to a resolution soon.
In Christ,
Seth Olson
Josh Lewis
Cosigned,
Joab Rico
Joe Protzmann
Ronnie DeVries
What do those of you in St. Paul (expecially those who are at Bethel) think of that?
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/11/2002 1:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Chance, I'm betting that I saw this letter, after doing a similar search, on Bethel's site when it was contemporary.
It was needed at one time, and happened then. (As best as I can figure--going from my memory since you clipped the date that it had been in the Clarion. Bethel, and that student newspaper have a great tradition of doing what colleges and students SHOULD do! One of the Editors at Christianity Today cut his teach at the Clarion as its editor. So, like I said, these students are (using this verb in a kind of past tense, since the "issue" is old now) doing what they should do, and at a college where it can be done. A VERY special place!!!
(an alum)
Edited by - potonwheel on 01/11/2002 9:14:50 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/11/2002 2:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Chance, I don't know of ANY college that practices such "openness" (transparency in making such things available to outsiders from the web) as Bethel. And the BGC, for that matter, placed itself in a position of vulnerability that maybe went too far. They were "open" in publishing a while hard debate right there on the web.
You might, and I hope you do, find it VERY interesting to read the article in Christianity Today where CT interviewed Pres. George Brushaber, Greg, and also a Gary who ran/runs the BGC website. NOTHING like the Classic/Open debate had every hit such a forum before BECAUSE the web was brand new. It was groundbreaking stuff. The article also quoted Greg Boyd's remarking that at first he underguessed the impact cyberspace can/would have. Like I said -- it is interesting. I hope that you read it. Good facts make for a sympathetic reader.
They also help us pray well!
(Someone who was affected)
Edited by - potonwheel on 01/11/2002 9:18:38 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
June
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 1/15/2002 7:43 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 1/16/2002 8:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Not sure when it was written June but I would date it somewhere around the time the BGC Conference was taking a vote on God's foreknowledge. Perhaps a few months prior to the BGC vote.
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth | | Back to Top | | |
|
Yrrek
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 1
| Posted 1/31/2002 11:35 AM (GMT -6) | | I may be a few weeks late on this topic but here goes a few observations:
Observation #1:
1. Open theism has never been ruled to be within the boundaries of Evangelical orthodoxy.
Clearly these students are unaware of Christian history.
Observation #2: Sound theology is an essential part of God's calling for us as Christians, and this calling can at times be more important than unity.
Please define "sound theology." Theology is a man made construct which is meant to help us understand God. As such no theology can be really considered sound. If by "sound" these students mean some sort of logical consistency and Biblical faithfulness.
Obs. #3 and this calling can at times be more important than unity.
The implication obviously is that the Open Theism debate may indeed be worth dividing over.
Obs. #4 Dr. Timothy George, recently stated that, "I do not want to give any support to open theism or to the view that sees it within the bounds of tolerable evangelical diversity."
Dr. George is entitled to his opinion. So were the inquisitors. If Boyd is ever persecuted in such a manner we will surely make a marked return to the Dark Ages.
Observation #5 - The harm was not done when protests were made against open theism, but rather when open theism was "determined to be evangelical" (see below) in spite of the fact that it is contrary to the classical, historic view of God's foreknowledge. Could anything but division be expected when two opposing ideas of the nature of God are both supposedly considered evangelical?
This is surely laughable. To which historic view are they referring to? I challenge these students to prove that there was ever total agreement concerning the classical view among Christendom? Today the opposition to Open Theism consists of many theologians who cannot even agree among themselves as to the nature of such doctrines.
Obs. #6
Could anything but division be expected when two opposing ideas of the nature of God are both supposedly considered evangelical?
Only if allegiance to a creed becomes the mark of Orthodoxy. These students assume prior to any supporting argumentation that the Open View is opposed to evangelical distinctives. Would we rather become close minded theological clones? Again these students demonstrate their lack of historical knowledge and blindess to contemporary inconsistencies in those opposing open theism.
Obs. #7 classical Baptistic theology
Case in point! Since when has the Baptistic tradition claimed to extend to the theology of the early church! If I remember correctly there are many denominations within the pale of orthodoxy. The Baptist being a later group!
Final Obs. Simply put, we see it as our responsibility as Christians to continue to pursue the Biblical truth and to challenge others to do so as well.
Why would these students need to continue to pursue the Biblical truth? It appears they are very confident that they have attained it.
Until our Christian institutions allow for more dialog and freedom we will continue to become less and less relevent to a dying world. The more we cling tenaciously to our dogmatic assertions and creeds the less will we develop and grow. These students and those so opposed to Boyd and the Open View really need to chill out. Open Theists do not question the biblical nature of the Gospel, the Trinity, and other far more important evangelical distinctives. Until Open Theists attack these foundational truths the opposition needs to back off or at least enter into real dialog and not be pridefull and dogmatic in their own opinions.
"It is true that a mirror has the quality of enabling a person to see his image in it, but to do this he must stand still"
-SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
justinsbts
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 2/13/2002 2:09 PM (GMT -6) | | I need some clarification on this:
"1. Open theism has never been ruled to be within the boundaries of Evangelical orthodoxy.
Clearly these students are unaware of Christian history."
I need some clarification on how the students are "unaware of Christian history". Please elaborate.
"Observation #5 - The harm was not done when protests were made against open theism, but rather when open theism was "determined to be evangelical" (see below) in spite of the fact that it is contrary to the classical, historic view of God's foreknowledge. Could anything but division be expected when two opposing ideas of the nature of God are both supposedly considered evangelical?
This is surely laughable. To which historic view are they referring to? I challenge these students to prove that there was ever total agreement concerning the classical view among Christendom? Today the opposition to Open Theism consists of many theologians who cannot even agree among themselves as to the nature of such doctrines."
Please also elaborate on the division among detractors of the OV.
"The more we cling tenaciously to our dogmatic assertions and creeds the less will we develop and grow."
This sounds a lot like process theology. To suggest there is something wrong with being dogmatic on issues opens up a brave new world of relativism. You can keep your "growth". There are something Christians need to be dogmatic on. What hills are you willing to die on? | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 2/13/2002 4:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Justin: I need some clarification on how the students are "unaware of Christian history". Please elaborate.
Doc: When has ANY view of the future, or of the precisely content of God's knowledge, been ruled as being within or without the parameters of orthodoxy?
Justin: The harm was not done when protests were made against open theism, but rather when open theism was "determined to be evangelical" in spite of the fact that it is contrary to the classical, historic view of God's foreknowledge.
Doc: And that harm would be....? You seem to think that God LOOSES something, and thus Christians looses something (are "harmed") by embracing the open view. What is this loss Justin?
Justin: Could anything but division be expected when two opposing ideas of the nature of God are both supposedly considered evangelical?
Doc: And how does the Open View present an "opposing" view of God's nature? I'm thinking you don't understand the view very well Justin.
Justin: Please also elaborate on the division among detractors of the OV.
Doc: Doctrine of God, of Jesus, of Scripture, of the atonement, of the content of God's knowledge, of eschatology, of baptism, of communion, of the nature of the Church, of the interpretation of Genesis, of.... well, you get the idea.
Justin: To suggest there is something wrong with being dogmatic on issues opens up a brave new world of relativism.
Doc: Interesting antithesis: either we're dogmatic, or relativistic. What about holding to open minded convictdions?
Justin: You can keep your "growth". There are something Christians need to be dogmatic on. What hills are you willing to die on?
Doc: You would DIE for your view of the future as exhaustively settled? Have you even really TRIED to enter into the open perspective -- to REALLY understand it?
Justin, I like your questions. But you seem here to be sarcastic and dogmatic -- in a knee jerk mindless kind of way. That's what Yrrek is referring to. You can only afford to not be open minded and learn if you are absolutely certain that your thoughts are God's thoughts. Otherwise, there is just the wee little bit of a possibility that you -- and I, and Yrrek, and all -- may be wrong on a point or two.l But if we are open to one another, we can learn. Indeed, we WILL learn, even if we end up disagreeing. We'll at least learn how the other person thinks, why they think the way they do, and (just maybe) how an intelligent goddly bible-believing person could think that way.
If this possibility isn't in your mind, then you 've installed a phobia of learning, and dialogue is impossible.
For what its worth
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul
Edited by - GregBoyd on 02/13/2002 9:40:16 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
boljer
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 18
| Posted 2/14/2002 9:51 AM (GMT -6) | | WhenI first took Boyd's theology class and learned of the open view,,I thought about it, talked with a number of family and friends and conluded at the time that I would hold to the Arminian view of divine foreknowledge...HOWEVER--more recently ,,questions of my own(regarding evil, sin, and warfare))have been surfacing and I have been pondering changing my position...(DON"T GET TOO EXCITED DR..Just kidding)---This struck me--If GOd already knows all the evil I will do before it happens,,,(it's already settled) then how does that leave any room for me to choose life, and righteousness etc..IF all of my future is exhaustively settled--it doesn't give me any ambition--it makes me feel like giving up on GOd....But when I think of my future as partly unsettled--It motivates and drives me to want to "be holy as He is Holy"(1pet1:14-16) Anyway--I agree with Greg--I think we need to keep an open mind on a lot of issues in the faith and really study and give some "non traditional" views a chance----
Jered P. Boley | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:59 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|