This week we have looked at some of the other Baptist universities who have stayed with their conventions after the fundamentalist takeover. Some of these colleges are not much like OBU. Some of them are a little bit closer. And some of them may as well be OBU if a few things had gone differently.
But each gives us an interesting look at the same question. What does it mean to be a Baptist-- specifically with regards to higher ed?
For our friends at Shorter, they will be waiting until December to find out if their addition of a lifestyle statement to the requirements for continued employment there will ruin their accreditation visit from SACS. Because although it is their prerogative as a private institution to institute such a statement, it is a big no no in the world of higher ed accreditation to do anything which denies the value of tenure-- i.e. firing professors for refusing to sign even if they are tenured. It's estimated that one third of their faculty will leave before they sign.
Is that what it means to be a Baptist? Making sure that all of the people we associate with act a certain way, hold certain political views, and above all, not to take seriously the requirements of an institution for higher learning?
We have seen this week that that is certainly what it can mean to be a Baptist.
But something we here at Save OBU have said from the beginning is that the recently fundamentalist state conventions do not have the last word on what it means to be Baptist. And perhaps, in 1910, when our forerunners decided to build a co-ed, liberal arts university for their newly incorporated state instead of a seminary, it was because they knew that to be Baptist could mean a celebration of learning and truth seeking in all disciplines.
So this week, we say Baptists should be known for what they are for, not for what they are against.
I look forward to exploring each of the historic Baptist freedoms in turn and their implications on higher education. Perhaps we will see that the future is not so bleak after all.
There is another possibility for the future-- one for which Save OBU will continue to advocate before it is too late.
For those who are curious, I take number and outline of the four Baptist freedoms from Walter Shurden's book, The Baptist Identity. Shurden, Walter B. The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys Pub, 1993.
Academic Freedom also comes with Academic Responsibility. It is not responsible to let people teach and undermine the word of God by condoning lifestyles that no matter what any liberal wants to say the word of God prohibits.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with already knowing everything the bible allows and doesn't allow is that historically the bible has been used to justify way too many atrocities-- the crusades, colonization, slavery, racism, the oppression of women, anti-semitism, etc.
DeleteSo maybe we should all be a little more careful before we decide we are right all the time.
As Dr Kelly taught us at OBU if you come up with a new intepretation of scripture contradicting church history then you are probably wrong. Today we have countless people bashing Paul like they are more inspired than he was and hiding behind academic freedom. There is academic freedom but also responsibility. If we doubt the word of God lost people will doubt the word of God. Look at the Scopes Monkey trial one of the lines of defense was to Williams Jenning Bryan who said a day may not be 24 hours and the defense said if you do not believe the word how are others suppost to.
Delete@Anonymous, I think your appeal to Church history is not as nuanced as reality reflects. Any historical analysis Church doctrine would quickly affirm that there have always been many tributaries that form the river of thought from which we today drink. To appeal to historical church doctrine is to appeal to the broad thought and tension that exists in the Body. As another OBU prof also taught us, the Truth is often in the tension :)
DeleteHere's the local newspaper's coverage of the protest and the SACS visit:
ReplyDeletehttp://rn-t.com/view/full_story/18176674/article-Despite-the-rain-over-a-dozen-protesters-picket-Shorter-University-?instance=home_most_popular
There's a good video clip that the paper has on their video page at:
http://rn-t.com/pages/multimedia_video
(I don't know how to link to the specific video on that page -- look for the one labeled "Shorter protesters take stand on sidewalk despite rain")
This may be a better link for the video -- it's about 5 minutes long and includes comments from departing faculty and the alumnus who led the fundraising effort for a new library:
Deletehttp://romenews-tribune.com/view/full_story/18284907/article-Protesters--accreditation-officials-visit-Shorter?instance=home_news
The lifestyle article states that the statement, "requires them not to promote homosexuality, adultery or public drinking."
ReplyDeleteTo which of those three activities are the people protesting the signing of the statement? While I might agree to debate the issue of public drinking versus drunkenness, I fail to see any scriptural basis to suggest that homosexuality and adultery are anything other than sins. Are you saying that all of these activities are defensible activities under soul freedom, etc?
If OBU is allowed to go the way of other great academic institutions of the past who left their Biblical moorings, OBU will become just another bastion of liberalism that supports every anti-God issue that comes down the pike.
Of course, that's just my soul-freedom speaking.
Amen
DeleteWell written. Amen.
DeletePlease explain more about your definitions of the "anti-God issues".
DeleteIt's not about the contents of the lifestyle statement, but the philosophy which supports a lifestyle statement at all. My problem with it is the fact that instating such a policy does not respect current faculty tenure.
ReplyDeleteFurther, to me, it is anti-God to tell people what to do to the point that they can no longer respond to the spirit or use their God given freedom to make those decisions. I am not arguing for OBU to become liberal, but only to respect the product of its own production enough to allow those whom it teaches and employs to make such important decisions on their own.
Oh, but whether or not you agree with the things the article chose to highlight, it does show that the issues at stake in the statement are far more political than they are theological.
ReplyDeleteWith out the BGCO OBU would wander off in a leftward direction. The university being ownded by BGCO should reflect the beliefs of the churches that comprise the BGCO not hide behind "academic freedom" and teach things that clearly contradicts the word of God such as now we are more inspired than the Apostles because we "do not believe what they once did" Those who do not believe the way the BGCO does have an option go to Baylor where you can believe what you want. Go to the college that has your beliefs do not come into Oklahoma and try to hijack ours.
ReplyDeleteJesus was crucified because he did not reflect the beliefs of the "churches" that comprised the power elite of his time. Wash your hands.
DeleteYou got to be joking right? Jesus put a stricter standard of holiness not a lesser one. Jesus never taught parts of the Bible to be false and parts true. jesus never condoned sin. There is a big difference. Jesus said all of the Bible as truth. Big difference between what Jesus did and what SaveOBU wants
DeleteYou're right. Very strict standards and new commandment: Love one another.
DeleteHe did say love one another but which is more loving to warn someone or to allow them to continue a destructive behavior? When I saw my son get to close to the stove I did not say oh that is ok kids will be kids. I instead said do not play there you can get hurt. The path of academic freedom without responsibility which is what Shorter has emphasised is a destructive path
DeleteThis is where the discussion should begin. I think many people have the intent of "warning" what they believe is wrong, but many people ("christian" or not) disagree with certain people's behavior and shove this "love" down their throats. I think people in the church should step back and examine their own lives. Then they should NOT condone sinful behavior but be willing to love even though they are sinful. This illustration of the child and stove is a good one, but what if instead of a child it is a 30 year old woman who just decides to burn her hand on the stove even though she knows it will be painful. To keep telling her that what she is doing is going to be painful is a waste of breath. We should be willing to love them for who they are, NOT tolerate what they do or do not do, and continually pray for them and let God work in their lives.
ReplyDeleteAnd again, this is where the discussion begins. How should we go about not tolerating sinful behavior from our brothers and sisters but still be loving to them. The line is a fragile one that many have claimed to have drawn. Our first action should be love, and sometimes love is tough. God is a clear example of that.