CEA Notes
The ad hoc Council for Educational Accountability is currently in what we might call "early conceptual study" stage. The mission of the Council, as I envision it, will be to hold Christian colleges and private schools accountable to their own public doctrines and beliefs. The mechanism used to accomplish this will be an audit process derived from similar initiatives regarding academic accreditation, financial accountability, and most importantly, the ISO9000 series of quality standards used in manufacturing.
Huh?
CEA S-100 (currently in draft status at Rev. 0.3) describes the audit process. You can request a copy from the e-mail address given below if interested. If you have professional experience or a strong concern over the current lack of accountability of private schools to parents, students and alumni regarding what is actually taught (versus what is professed), please consider working with me to launch the CEA.
Please note: Neither the Council, nor auditors would have any control over what a school professes. Their job would simply be to ensure that the public is correctly informed regarding the real state of a school, the curriculum, and faculty. The driving "engine" of the audit process will be the support given to certified schools by parents, alumni, etc. Would you send your child to a school that can't give reasonable assurance that it is teaching your children according to your own beliefs, if you had a choice?
Harvard, Princeton and many other schools were once devoutly Christian institutions. Through a lack of accountability they are no longer recognizable as such. Many schools that profess to be Christian today have a faculty that denies the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. The audit process can put a halt to that, insofar as most parents do not willfully support such degradation of doctrine nor desire to endanger the souls of their children.
If someone wants to encourage a change, let it be accomplished through honest debate between adults on an equal footing. As a young adult I know firsthand the usual technique humanists rely on to drive change: indoctrination of the youth such that they never even realize the perspective from which they are being taught, and how it compares with other viewpoints - and the full range of evidence.
If you think this is not a problem or have been living under a rock for the past fifty years, check out sources such as the following:
Barnhart, David R., The Church Desperately Needs Revival (Eagan, MN: Abiding Word Publications, 1986).
Lindsell, Harold, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976).
Smith, J. Kincaid & Leppien, Patsy A., What's Going On Among Lutherans? (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1992).
Quotations and such from cited sources....
"No one wants division or schism. But this possibility must be weighed against another possibility: that of the purity of the church. Peace at any price is always possible. There is no place in the world where peace may not be had with the Communists. All men need to do is to capitulate to their demands, and peace, their peace, will come. But peace at the price of theological purity for the church is too high a price to pay." (Lindsell, 25)
"A great battle rages today around biblical infallibility among evangelicals. To ignore the battle is perilous. To come to grips with it is necessary. To fail to speak is more than cowardice; it is sinful. There comes a time when Christians must not keep silent, when to do so is far worse than to speak and risk being misunderstood and disagreed with." (Lindsell, 26)
Lindsell 42-43 makes the point that infallibility was universally accepted by the church until the 19th century.
"Christ's attitude toward the Old Testament was one of total trust:
nowhere, in no particular, and on no subject did he place Scripture under
criticism. Never did he distinguish truth "in faith and practice"
from veracity in historical and secular matters, and he told the Evil Foe in no
uncertain terms that man lives "by every word that proceedeth out
of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4, quoting Deut. 8:3). To his apostles,
under whose scrutiny the New Testament would be written, he promised his Holy
Spirit, who "shall bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever
I have said unto you." (John 14:26, cf. II Peter 3:15, 16).
Inerrancy?
Yes. Induction? Yes. The way out of the fly bottle? Approaching Scripture always
and everywhere as did the Lord Christ." John Warwick Montgomery, Christianity
Today, March 3, 1967, p. 48. Cited in Lindsell, 44-45.
Former Dean of Princeton Theological Seminary Dr. Elmer Homrighausen:
"Few
intelligent Christians can still hold to the idea that the Bible is an
infallible Book, that it contains no linguistic errors, no historical
discrepancies, no antiquated scientific assumptions, not even bad ethical
standards. Historical investigation and literary criticism have taken the magic
out of the Bible and have made it a composite human book, written by many hands
in different ages. The existence of thousands of variations of texts makes it
impossible to hold the doctrine of a book verbally infallible. Some might claim
for the original copies of the Bible an infallible character, but this view only
begs the question and makes such Christian apologetics more ridiculous in the
eyes of sincere men." (Lindsell, 63-64)(From: Homrighausen, Christianity
in America (Nashville: Abingdon, 1936), p. 121.)
Lindsell, 64: Westminster Theological Seminary founded as a reaction against apostates such as Homighausen within the Presbyterian Church.
Lindsell, 64: 1962 Presbyterian Outlook published a symposium "Do We Need an Infallible Bible?" - All contributors attacking the infallibility of Scripture.
Lindsell, 65, etc.: Infallibility held in denominations until invasion of German higher criticism in late 19th century in the seminaries.
"On the supposed historical errors of the Bible we remark, (1) They
relate, for the most part, to matters of chronology, generally numbers, etc. (2)
Transcribers are specially liable to mistakes in copying numbers, names, etc.
(3) Different names for the same person, and different termini for the same
period, are quite frequent. (4) Round numbers are often employed for specific.
Making proper allowance for these facts we deny that historical errors are found
in the Bible."
"All references to matters of science in the Bible
are (1) Merely incidental and auxiliary; (2) Clothed in popular language; (3)
Confirmed by consciousness, so far as they relate to the mind. Remembering these
facts, we say that the Bible has not been shown to contain scientific errors -
astronomy, geology, ethnology... Bearing in mind these facts, it will be
impossible for us to find in the Bible any contradictions which mar its
excellence." (Hovey, Alvah, Manual of Systematic Theology and Christian
Ethics (Philadelphia: A.B.P.S., 1880), p. 83.) Cited in Lindsell, 66)
"No lover of the Gospel can conceal from himself the fact that the days are evil. We are willing to make a large discount from our apprehensions on the score of natural timidity, the caution of age, and the weakness produced by pain; but yet our solemn conviction is that things are much worse in many churches than they seem to be, and are rapidly trending downward. Read those newspapers which represent the Broad School of Dissent, and ask yourself, How much further could they go? What doctrine remains to be abandoned? What other truth to be the object of contempt. A new religion has been initiated, which is no more Christianity than chalk is cheese, and this religion, being destitute of moral honesty, palms itself off as the old faith with slight improvements, and on this plea usurps pulpits which were erected for gospel preaching. The Atonement is scouted, the inspiration of Scripture is derided, the Holy Ghost is degraded into an influence, the punishment of sin is turned into fiction, and the Resurrection into a myth, and yet these enemies of our faith expect us to call them brethren, and maintain a confederacy with them!" (Charles Spurgeon, in Rusell Conwell, The Life of Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Edgewood Publishing Co., 1892), pp. 574-576.)(Cited in Lindsell, 67)
"There is no evidence that errancy was ever a live option in the history of Christendom for eighteen hundred years in every branch of the Christian church that had not gone off into aberrations. It can also be said that what was true for eighteen hundred years is no longer true today. In the last two centuries inerrancy has become a live issue and increasingly there has been a turning away from this belief until the point has been reached where it is safe to say that a great proportion of scholars and ministers in the Christian church in all of its branches no longer hold to biblical inerrancy. However, there has been a strong evangelical strand in the church that has held to inerrancy in the last two centuries.... [I]n recent years evangelical Christianity has been infiltrated by people who do not believe in inerrancy." (Lindsell, 69-70)
Lindsell, 81, quotes former Concordia (St. Louis) president Tietjen saying that the historical-critical method had to be used to operate a Dept. of Exegetical Theology at a grad school. Lindsell points out there are grad schools where it is not used.
"the historical-critical method is not a neutral tool, but rather a very special instrument that is inseparable from its own presuppositions, procedures, and results. As one surveys the anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions, the secular procedures and thX ýþr-reaching results, it becomes obvious that a wedding between the bride and 'Lutheran presuppositions,' is as impossible as the marriage of light and darkness." (Dean Wenthe, Journal of Bible and Theology Vol. XXV, (1) Jan. 1971, p. 50, 57.)(Cited in Lindsell, 81)
"Before J.A.O. Preus became president of the Synod in 1969, his predecessor, Oliver Harms, constantly defended the seminary at St. Louis and repeatedly assured the denomination that all was well there. Dr. Harms was a well-meaning man whose reassurances were based on statements he had received from seminary presidents. [NOTE THE LACK OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTABILTY - THIS FAIRLY SCREAMS FOR THE CEA AUDIT PROCESS] Since he was not particularly discerning and displayed no particular acuity concerning the issues at stake, he was taken in. He spoke either out of ignorance or lack of understanding, but in any event he served the purposes of the neoliberals in the denomination." (Lindsell, 82)
Dr. Janzow's survey of Missouri Synod Lutherans around 1970: 89% of laity in upper range of theological orthodoxy, compared to 82% of parish clergy and 69% of "elites" at synod HQ, seminaries and schools. Among "elites" only 51% said Bible was inspired & inerrant, (65% for parish clergy, 83% of laity). Only 35% of "elites" under the age of 35 accepted the inerrancy doctrine, compared to 78% of laity under 35. (Lindsell, 82-83)
"If history has any lesson to teach, it is that defection from inerrancy generally takes place in the educational institutions and then spreads from there. In the case of the Missouri Lutherans it appears to have resulted from postgraduate studies pursued by men trained in Missouri schools who then secured doctorates in secular or liberal institutions. They were enamored of the historical-critical method, and numbers of them left their old moorings with respect to biblical infallibility. More frequently than not, men with this kind of training did not go into parish ministry, but headed for institutions where the possibility existed to disseminate this newfound learning among younger minds that could easily be influenced away from historic Missouri viewpoints... they became editors and writers for church school materials." Lindsell, 83.
 Return to CEA Main Page |
Return to Eric's InfoCenter