March 23, 2006

Christian College Sheds Professors Who Found Wisdom in Mark -- and Marx

Is the Bible the source of all truth?

No, according to two professors who until recently worked at Patrick Henry College. The professors wrote an article for the Virginia college’s student magazine, Source, in which they argued that there is value in reading books other than the Bible. “There is much wisdom to be gained from Parmenides and Plato, as well Machiavelli and Marx,” they wrote.

Truth in Machiavelli or—gasp!—Marx? A shocking notion, apparently, at this conservative Christian college.

Both professors resigned shortly after the article was published, according to Leesburg Today, a local newspaper. The paper quotes the college’s president as acknowledging that the professors’ article had prompted an “exchange of ideas.” Two other professors also resigned at the same time.

Patrick Henry is the first college aimed at home-schooled students (The Chronicle, July 2, 1999). It is a candidate for accreditation under the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, a recognized accreditor.

Comments

1. Something to note: the Leesburg Today article seems to be based more on speculation and “anonymous” rumor than on fact and good journalistic research.

   — Kelly    Mar 23, 01:39 PM    #

2. Regarding, “Patrick Henry is the first college aimed at home-schooled students”: the admissions criteria is not that a student was homeschooled, but that s/he has the right kind of relationship with Jesus. This is no more a “homeschool college” (an oxymoron) than is BJU. Mike Farris simply used the word “homeschool” to attain better publicity for PHC, which would otherwise have been yawned at as just another small Christian college.

   — VB Sporks    Mar 23, 03:29 PM    #

3. As a student at the institution you are criticizing, I would like to ask you to please keep the facts right. The professors mentioned were not fired. They resigned.

   — Jeremiah    Mar 23, 06:00 PM    #

4. To Kelly:
   Unnamed sources have long been the lifeblood of good journalism, particularly in environments where an open exchange of ideas is criticized or restricted. Besides, what is considered speculation? Lengthy quotes from published articles and emails? Quotes from Statements of Philosophy and Directors of Communications and college Presidents? Odd characterization. In fact, I see only one paragraph based on anonymous sources, both of whom were merely speaking to the campus environment. Those are statements to which I can reasonably understand an undergrad would be concerned about having their name attached. This argument is particularly persuasive at an institution acknowledging a debate over “intellectual freedom.”

   — Deepthroat    Mar 23, 10:11 PM    #

5. It is important to note that all four professors are active members of churches that prescribe to orthodox, protestant doctrine. One professor frequently preaches for a local Orthodox Presbyterian Church and another serves as a deacon in a similar congregation. I can say with absolute certainty that each of these men believe that all truth is a gift from God, as are all good things. With the loss of these men, Patrick Henry College should reconsider advertising as a non-denominational, evangelical school, rather, the administration should be open and disclose that the direction they desire for the college to become an anti-intellectual, fundamentalist school that is antagonistic to any Christian who disagrees with its founder’s dogmatic, Arminian and dispensationalist theology. Farris’ Bible College (FBC) would be a fitting new name.

   — Erik    Mar 23, 10:58 PM    #

6. I do not believe the institution did acknowledge a debate over “intellectual freedom.”

   — Kelly    Mar 24, 09:56 AM    #

7. As a student that left the college due to the fact that it was drifting AWAY from dogmatic, Arminian, and dispensationalist theology, I am disappointed to see that current students and others are confused as to why this type of turnover occured in the faculty.

   From the start, Farris advertised the school as being a college dedicated to the promotion of conservative Christianity and developing young leaders that would become a part of the culture. This is nothing new, but some professors simply didn’t agree with the “fundamentalist” (if you must call it that) view of Farris, and taught in opposition to it. Once it was clear that they were not in agreement with the college’s founding principles, it is completely within Farris’ sphere of influence to ask them to resign.

   — R.J.    Mar 24, 12:29 PM    #

8. I don’t think conservative Christianity implies Armenianism or Dispensationalism. If the “founders” were looking for people that agreed with every point of Farris’ personally-held theology, they should have said so. I thought the only requirement was being able to subscribe to the statement of faith.

   — Michaela    Mar 24, 12:55 PM    #

9. They weren’t asked to resign. And the anonomyous sources characterization of campus atmophere was inaccurate.

   — Emily    Mar 24, 01:01 PM    #

10. To Quote:

    Patrick Henry’s Director of Communications David Hallbrook said no one was asked to resign, but admitted there has been an “ongoing dialogue” relating to academic freedom about “what is being taught in classrooms that differs from [the college’s] mission statement.”

    — Deepthroat    Mar 24, 01:53 PM    #

11. The reason the students remain unnamed is the problem. They are delusional if they believe that Dr. Farris is gonna come and get them in their sleep if they have their names in the paper for something that Dr. Farris doesn’t like. That’s a juvenile belief, and it shows them to be, not worried about spreading the truth, but doing what they can to cause trouble. It seems they’re doing a wonderful job. These students in “Root’s camp” have shown themselves to not care about the school, rules, or morality. They care about having a good time, getting drunk, and getting away with it. When they don’t, this firestorm of debate starts because they whine like the priveliged children they were.

    Please leave Patrick Henry… We (the sane students) don’t want you here anymore.

    — Afraid my room will be egged by aliens if I post my real name    Mar 24, 02:29 PM    #

12. It really doesn’t matter if they resigned or not. What will always be true is that Farris has the right and responsibility to continue to shape the school to fit his original vision—which is obviously not a vision that everybody will agree with (nor should they).

    Granted, the statement of faith is a general statement, but the particulars as well as the theology ascribed to by the founders of the school was very specific—something any prospective student who did their research on the school should have known.

    — R.J.    Mar 24, 04:26 PM    #

13. Dear “Afraid,”

    My reaction to your comment is that you must be delusional to believe Dr. Farris wouldn’t retaliate against a student for criticizing the school to the press or publicly saying something he disagreed with. I can only forgive your statement by assuming you haven’t been here long enough to know. It happened to me, and I only spoke to the student newspaper.

    The thing that you and so many of your friends fail to understand is that the students in the “Root camp” have been fighting for 2… 3… 4 years or more to make PHC into a place where people from different backgrounds, with different beliefs and convictions, and different goals and dreams in life could come together under a common faith, freely discuss disagreements, and still live together peacefully at the end of the day. (I guess we were under the delusion that a college is made up of a community of students, faculty, and administration, not just one man and his wishes.) I don’t want you to leave PHC. I think PHC is better with a lot of people who disagree with me. This is the vision of Christian education that we came to PHC to learn under and embrace.

    But unfortunately that is not how you see it. You want to use the rules, your own version of “morality,” and a hate more vicious than I have encountered anywhere in this world to push away everyone who disagrees with your viewpoint. Well, I must say that you’ve likewise done an excellent job. The college being reduced to what it now is, you may have it and I shall go in peace.

    Now that we concede that you’ve won, can we please take this argument back inside where it belongs? Please?

    — This is ridiculous, everyone please stop    Mar 24, 04:58 PM    #

14. “Afraid”
    You speak of juvenile beliefs, yet what is juvenile is public slander of a group’s character instead of a reasonable critique of their beliefs. Your comments reveal much about your character.

    — Demosthenes    Mar 24, 05:03 PM    #

15. R.J.

    Just where exactly was PHC ever promoted as a Arminian school, deeply hostile to Calvinist theology?

    And, you seem to have an autocratic view of things, where Farris can speak of his vision one way, and then run the school another. As if The public statements of the corporate vision of the school are irrelevant, Farris can run it as a very denominational school if he so desires. Hardly a principle for Christ and Liberty, is it?

    — Calvin and Hobbes    Mar 24, 07:22 PM    #

16. To “Afraid,”

    Wow. If I extended the same courtesy to you as you have shown to the “Root Camp,” then I would assign all of your ridiculous ramblings to the “Dr. Farris Camp.” You see, we don’t do that. I think that there actually are some smart people that hold to the same manner of thinking as you however wrong it may be.

    The problem is, much of this debate has been formed around the premises that the “Root Camp” (of which I would proudly call myself a member) is evil, while the “Dr. Farris Camp” is stupid. We try to enlighten the close-minded fundamentalists that claim they are morally superior to us, while you claim that you are beholden to the truth and will not be extricated from it by those who are evil.

    It’s sad really. All this does is show the world that the fictional tension between Christianity and the Liberal Arts is alive and well and they can never be reconciled.

    — Randy    Mar 24, 09:04 PM    #

17. R.J.,

    Some questions:

    What constitutes teaching in opposition to fundamentalism? Can you give any specific examples?

    When you speak of Farris’s “sphere of influence” are you being descriptive or prescriptive, i.e., ought Farris have that power? If he ought to have it, for how long? Forever? Is it illegitimate for those connected to the school (e.g., students, faculty, alumni) to disagree with Farris and attempt to push the school in a different direction? If so, is any disagreement illegitimate or does it only become so at a certain point? If the latter, at what point?

    — David    Mar 25, 10:03 PM    #

18. Wow, I guess that I need to clarify my positions. Since it’s late, I’m probably going to wait to answer them in more depth, but I do want to throw something out that will help guide this discussion, and that is the topic of fundamentalism—because only after we define it can true discussion occur.

    I personally believe that fundamentalism should be described as a group/movement that believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible, that the Bible is 100% accurate (though not always interepreted with 100% accuracy), and that the Bible can and should be applied to every facet of everyday life. This view, based upon personal AND class discussions with at least one of the professors who resigned, as well as one of the professors who has not resigned, would lead me to believe that they do not ascribe to that same view. I will not speak for Michael Farris, because I don’t know his view of fundamentalism, but I have never heard him say anything that is inconsistent with that statement.

    I don’t have specific examples that I can use to quote these professors on—I was too worried about my homework notes rather than their philosophy at the time. And I don’t think that it’s right to discuss specific instances where I disagreed with professors in this public forum, especially since I haven’t discussed it with them personally first.

    Regarding the sphere of influence that Farris possesses, I was being descriptive. Based upon the sums of money that he and his friends, family, and longtime supporters have invested in PHC (we’re counting in the millions), he has a right/responsibility to make sure that the money is being spent in a fashion that he agrees with. Now, I fully agree that students, faculty, and alumni have contributed towards the school in truly significant ways. But I also believe that the trustees and president of the college are charged with maintaining the purpose and direction of the school against all opposition. It’s their job to do, and they would be remiss if they failed to do so.

    I’ll post more later if I have time.

    — R.J.    Mar 26, 12:48 AM    #

19. Re: Calvin and Hobbes’ Questions

    I would say that PHC itself has always welcomed an open debate on the topic of Calvinism and Arminianism. Dr. Bouchoc, who is closely aligned with Dr. Farris (obviously, since he wrote the opposition piece to Culberson and Noe) stated once in class that he believes that both “sides” in the theology debate have valid points, and both sides must also be incorrect on some points. I would tend to agree with him, although I think the school itself, due to the majority of supporters (possibly not the students, but the contributors to the school’s general fund), support a more Arminian view than Calvinist. Farris himself is closer to Arminian on the theological spectrum; this is public knowledge (at least when I was at the school).

    I think one of the problems that Farris has faced is that he hasn’t run the school, he has let other people run the school, and then has stepped in to “fix” problems as they have occured. I would agree that this somewhat autocratic management style is inconsistent, but his recent actions in removing himself from the college management and instead focusing on development and parent relations (leaving the management duties to a new president) will resolve issues related to a failure to ascribe to the founding documents.

    I also think that a correct understanding of those documents is necessary before applying their principles to the school, and it would be wise to talk with the trustees and founders as to their intent when comparing the documents to Farris’ vision. Based on my knowledge (such that it is), I think they are very similar and closely aligned when correctly interpreted.

    — R.J.    Mar 26, 12:57 AM    #

20. Hmm. I just noticed something in Randy’s comments that triggered a heart response. You say that the “fictional tension between Christianity and the Liberal Arts is alive and well and they can never be reconciled.” Based upon your position, would you then agree that the “Root Camp” stood for Liberal Arts, the “Farris Camp” stood for Christianity, and that Christianity won out? Shouldn’t Christianity always win out? Doesn’t Christ precede Liberty in the motto?

    On the other hand, there is the view that the principles of Christ and the tenets of liberty are inextricably linked. You cannot have one without the other. Liberal arts (and the incredible free will and expression thereby derived from the study and application of liberal arts) were created by God, to be used by God’s people, to display God’s handiwork. A division cannot exist if you believe in the God of the Bible. My only question (and this isn’t meant to be condemning, it’s simply a question) is whether the “Root Camp” believes in the God of the Bible—because your statement would lead me to believe that it does not.

    — R.J.    Mar 26, 01:36 AM    #

21. Randy,

    I think you are right, the “tension” between Christianity and the Liberal Arts, is just that: fiction. I hope that people do not misunderstand this whole series of events as anything along those lines. The last thing we need is some sort of rumor going out that PHC (a Liberal Arts based school) thinks that understanding the Liberal Arts is bad.

    — Jeremiah    Mar 26, 02:11 AM    #

22. Dear “Afraid,”

    You are a fool. Your statements were ignorant and unsupported and revealed a deep vain of false humility that rivals that of the Pharisees.

    — Erik    Mar 26, 11:59 AM    #

23. Your most recent post troubles me. You question the faith of an entire group of individuals based on a misunderstanding of Randy’s comment concerning the fictional tension between Christianity and the Liberal Arts. In your naivety you have both missed the point and committed a serious error by judging the faith and intentions of individuals you do not even know.

    I do not claim to know your heart intentions but I am compelled to tell you that your statements are simply wrong. The dichotomy that you have set up between the “Root Camp” (Liberal Arts) and the “Farris Camp” (Christianity) is not accurate. Randy, in his post, was not setting the Liberal Arts opposed to Christianity, rather, he was pointing out that there is a group at PHC led by the administration that view the Liberal Arts as antagonistic to their beliefs. This is a serious error my friend.

    The other group, narrowly coined as the “Root Camp,” does not reject Christianity as you seem to believe. This group understands that God showers his truth on both the just and the unjust, the godly and the ungodly. This is a simple definition of a basic theological principle called general revelation. This group does not reject the accuracy or authority of the Bible as you seem to think. It does however seek to use the Liberal Arts as a tool to discover truth and beauty that exists in God’s creation. There is a basic understanding that there is truth that exists outside of the Bible, not that it supersedes the Bible in anyway.

    R.J., I hope that you do not reject reason in a vain display of personal faith. I pray that you come to realize the kind of fundamental blessing that reason is. Also that it is reason that God gives to all men that underpins the gift of faith He grants to many.

    — Erik    Mar 26, 12:00 PM    #

24. Erik,

    I think that I possibly misunderstood Randy’s comments, but I also think that you understand his comments and the context behind them better than I do.

    That said, I do not believe that the administration and connected “group” are antagonistic to Liberal Arts—although they are concerned about those who put more faith in the Liberal Arts than in God.

    While I fully respect the discipline of reason, I do not place it higher than faith. Others are free to disagree. That’s really all that I have to say at this point in regards to the issues you have raised.

    — R.J.    Mar 26, 03:25 PM    #

25. R.J.,

    You misunderstood my comments and Erik understood them well. My point was that there should be no antagonism between the Liberal Arts and Christianity. There are those on campus who believe this tension exists and claim that God is in need of a defense against reason and the Liberal Arts. That’s just pathetic.

    It’s amazing how common this misconception is among American Evangelicals, especially those at PHC. If this college continues to cling to this false view and shun those who believe that the bible is not the sole source of truth, then I would never encourage anyone to attend this institution.

    — Randy    Mar 26, 08:02 PM    #

26. The resignation of these four faculty members is unfortunate and, if the major issue revolves around PHC Statement of Christian Philosophy “God is the source of all truth, be it spiritual, moral, philosophical, or scientific…”, totally unnecessary.

    The Culberson/Noe article is predicated on the idea that the Bible is not the ONLY source of truth, which is totally consistent with PHC Christian philosophy statement.

    If one questions this logic simply replace the word “God” with the words “The Bible” in the PHC statement.

    I don’t believe any “camp” would sign on to that revision.

    — Alan    Mar 26, 09:50 PM    #

27. Speaking as one who is saddened by the course of events surrounding the situation you are discussing, I would like to caution those who are airing their discourse in this forum. A full disclosure of one’s position is to be encouraged, but I would draw attention to the passage that speaks of “sharing the truth in love.” Please be aware that you are conversing in a very public place at a time when many are interested in the events you are discussing. My request is that discretion, tact, and careful consideration be exercised in the course of this discussion.

    — A concerned friend    Mar 27, 04:36 PM    #

28. I think many people that have been posting here have made the same mistake Culbertson and Noe did in their initial article—attacking the straw man that says the Bible is the ONLY source of truth, period. No one, whether Dr. Farris, the administration, the students that have taken their side, or anyone else is saying that. Our position is simply that the Bible is the HIGHEST source of truth—particularly for spiritual matters. Yes we say the Bible takes priority over other sources of truth, but we do not take that to the exclusion of all others! As Alan said, there is no one at this school who ascribes to the view that the Bible is the only source of truth. The “Root Camp” is attacking a position that simply does not exist.
    Think about it for a moment. We are a Christian Liberal Arts College. Saying we don’t believe in the liberal arts is just ridiculous. Of course we do. That was the whole reason Dr. Farris established this school in the first place—to give students a Christian liberal arts education.
    This is not a debate of faith vs. reason. Everything the administration has been doing lately (especially with today’s Faith and Reason lecture) indicates their commitment to a union between the two, giving both an important role in the Christian’s life. Those who have been attempting to characterize this debate as faith vs. reason are simply wrong.
    What this is is a simple dispute over the authority and primacy of scripture. As I said, no one believes the Bible is the only source of truth. However, the college does indeed hold that it is the highest source of truth, and is sufficient for guidance in Christian living.
    In all areas of life, the Bible must still be our highest authority. This is equally true in academics as anything else. What Culbertson and Noe did in their article was take the exact opposite extreme as the perceived position they were refuting. In attempting to discredit the view that the Bible is the only source of truth, they made it just another source of truth, equal to Plato, Machiavelli, etc. They then swung the pendulum the other way and gave the Bible too little a role in education, subjugating it to other sources of knowledge. This is wrong, and this is what Dr. Bouchoc stood against with his article. That is the essence of this debate.
    A few other notes. The “Root Camp’s” attempts in the news article to characterize themselves as being in the majority are rather exaggerated. Based on my personal observations, there are no more than at most 20 or 30 students that belong to this group—as evidenced by their public declaration as such by wearing orange ribbons during the whole “Save Root” campaign. And while I would not put it anywhere near as bluntly as a previous poster, I also have not been terribly impressed by the character of many in that group. I have no wish to slander them, nor do I have anything against them personally, but I think it matters of the integrity of the mission of our school, the character of those who are advocating a particular side should be taken into consideration.

    — Patrick    Mar 27, 08:05 PM    #

29. Dr. Farris is simultaneously PHC’s greatest asset and greatest liability. Part of the problem here is Farris’ endorsement of Dr. Bouchoc’s rebuttal. A good president (and chief academic officer Dr. Sanders) wouldn’t undermine a faculty member in that way. In the end, this is really academic minutia…it isn’t a central to PHC’s existence as some faculty and staff think it is. PHC needs to decide if it truely wants to be an academically rigorous Christian college. There are a lot of Christian colleges out there, none have stated their case for academic excellence like PHC has. For PHC to thrive, they have to actually attract fewer homeschoolers, and to allow the creative tension between faith and intellect to flourish. I’m worried about that direction at present. Lets hope that Dr. Farris comes to his senses and convinces at least Stacey and Noe to return.

    — Innocent PHC Bystander    Mar 27, 09:11 PM    #

30. to “A concerned friend”

    Thank you and Amen.

    I am familiar with what happens when people start “taking up offenses,” dividing themselves into “camps,” and stereotyping others- and it’s never good. Debate the issues all you want folks (on a different forum), but keep it to the issues. No one honestly thinks that the professors who left are apostate or anything; they just have some differing views.

    — PHC Distance Learning student    Mar 28, 12:57 AM    #

31. The statement of faith of the university includes the following. “The Bible in its entirety (all 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the inspired word of God, inerrant in its original autographs, and the only infallible and sufficient authority for faith and Christian living.”

    This statement is very clear cut… and may well have been in conflict with the professors’ opinions. In fact, the school in its statements takes a very strong opinion in many areas of Christian worldview, that likely would have provided difficulty for many outside of a fundamentalist christian viewpoint.

    The school may not have asked them to resign, but their resignation likely was the best result. Students who chose the school for this very viewpoint were not being served by professors who disagreed with this worldview.

    — Rhonda    Mar 29, 10:29 AM    #

32. I’m dismayed to see some of the debate being characterized as Arminian vs. Calvinist. If you want to put me in a “box”, I’m a Calvinist/Fundamentalist/pro-Liberal Arts/Bible-lovin’/conservative Christian who supports Dr. Farris and his attempts to keep too much “vigorous debate” from undermining PHC’s original and primary purposes. If everybody spends all day long debating everything under the sun, other important things (like getting a good, solid Christian education) are going to get waylaid. When I sat at PHC’s groundbreaking ceremony with my family, Mike Farris assured us that this college would not go the way of Harvard and Yale which had once promoted Christianity but now are actively hostile to Christian truth. The way I see it, Dr. Farris is keeping that promise. And while no one is perfect, I also see him and his supporters as behaving in a more mature, Christian manner without resorting to ad hominem attacks and other questionable methods. I want PHC to continue teaching the TRUE Liberal Arts in the tradition of the great Christian reformers who upheld that while all truth is God’s truth, only God’s revealed Word, the Holy Bible, can shed the piercing light needed for real discernment. As we examine and debate the writings of men, however great and learned, if we don’t look through our “Biblical glasses” (as Ken Ham always says), we will be led astray. With all due respect and Christian love to the possibly departing professors and students, if you feel you would be happier elsewhere, there are many other colleges that you can go to, some of them decently Christian. But, for those of us that hold to the founding ideals of PHC, and who tend to be conservative in both matters of life and faith, Patrick Henry College is the only place some of us feel we have left. I appreciate the current attempts of the leadership at PHC to keep it that way. I also pray for reconciliation of the parties involved to the glory of God in front of a watching world, whether in the loving decision to part ways as did Barnabas and Paul (to use the analogy of someone very dear to me), or in an ability to stay and embrace PHC’s founding ideals and values.

    — just a mom    Mar 29, 11:07 AM    #

33. I was going to refrain from any commenting, and had hoped this debate would fizzle. Since it hasn’t, I’m going to respond. But I only intend to respond to two things; though there would be ample opportunity for me to correct assertions that there have been no adhominems from the “Farris Camp” (to stick with the ridiculous terminology) as well as many other things that need corrected. I will not make these corrections because of my first reproof here: Please be quiet and take this out of the public forum!!! The media are hardly our friends, and I seem to recall Paul saying that Christians ought not to sue each other in the secular courts because it would portray to the World that we can’t solve our own conflicts and need to take it into their public square. There is this thing called “In-house,” and it exists for a reason. So, please, everyone, if you really want to help, then be silent! I’m sure if you know students at PHC, they could help you find a more private (as in campus only) forum and could post your comments there for you if you really want to be that involved. But many people who would like nothing more than to have a reason for this place to fall and to rejoice at its struggles read this ridiculousness and delight in it. Silence, for mercy’s sake!!!

    Second: if people won’t heed the first reproof and cease to air this all in such a public and unconcerned forum, then at the very least people who are not even here, like Distance Learning students and yes, though this will not be received warmly, even parents, should refrain from making such stark, absolute, and incredibly uninformed comments. We students who are actually around every day to talk to the people involved don’t even know that much, so for you who aren’t even here to pretend that you can even come close to grasping what is going in is, frankly, foolish and arrogant to a severe degree. Especially when you make comments, assertions rather, about the spiritual state of people who you have never even really interracted with (that does go for DL students too; you have only had nice little “chats” with them online, never actually related to or with them). It is an example of sinful judgementalness and adherence to gossip rather than searching for truth.

    Meant in respect and love, and in all sincerity,

    Corey

    — Corey    Mar 29, 02:59 PM    #

34. After reading all of this, it makes me want to just break down and cry. I am a beginning DL student(2 semseters), and love PHC very much. It was shocking reading some of these posts that were written in exchange between fellow brethren and fellow college students. The school is facing enough of a problem as it is. Retaliating in a wrong way and choosing sides in not only wrong for a Christian, but it also puts an even bigger burden on the College and gives the media a chance to make a moutain out of a molehill. If negative sentiments continue to be exchanged, then the chances for reconciliation becomes less and less likely. I for one support Dr. Farris, and my prayers are with him at this time. It seems to me that the whole situation is not all that terribly bad, but once more and more people and their opinions get involved things take a turn for the worse. Dr. Farris has every right to run the college according to the ideals and beliefs that he has set. If someone does not agree with the college’s beliefs or goals, then maybe they shouldn’t go there. God will not lead someone to a college that is contrary to their beliefs. If college students leave because the professors leave, then it is of my opinion that they never felt lead to go to PHC to start off with. I can personally attest to what has been taking place. My church right now is beginning to split on two sides, one side are the younger people who have a vision for the church that is in line with the pastor. The other side is composed of Senior Saints who like it the old way and don’t want to see and have changes. I have family members on both sides, and so I find myself caught in the middle, not knowing what to do, and I have cried many a time over it. Please, I beg you to not let your emotions get away with you. I know that you may have a lot built up inside you that you need to let out. Tell it to Jesus and ask him what he would have you do in this time. Thankyou for reading.

    For Christ and for Liberty,
    a concerned DL student

    — anonymous    Mar 29, 04:08 PM    #

35. Without wading into the substance of the controversy, two notes:

    (1) To “just a mom”:

    Your piety is admirable, but let this point be perfectly clear: this is not a simple case of a “Christian worldview” versus a “non-Christian (or pagan or whatever term you want to use) worldview.” The professors in questions are, to a man, learned and highly devout. They are rigorous thinkers, to be sure, but their thinking is biblically informed and consistent with historic, orthodox Christian norms. For anyone to suggest otherwise is a grotesque distortion.

    To Corey:

    Sometimes controversy reaches a point where the benefits from exclusively internal debate cease to be worthwhile. At that point, the debate either stops or goes public. Sometimes the debate should stop; sometimes the debate should go public. In this case, whether for good or for ill, the debate has gone public. I’m sorry, Corey, but I’m afraid that it is too late now.

    — David    Mar 29, 04:57 PM    #

36. I’m a PHC donor who has been watching this issue closely. I have read the article in The Source, and it speaks for itself. There was nothing in the article that lined up with Scripture, from the assertion that knowledge (we’re not talking about Godly wisdom here) is the highest good to the dubious statement that God’s handiwork can be seen through the writings of unregenerated men. There was no solid Scriptural basis to their assertions. Indeed, I could hardly believe that I was reading material that professors at a Christian college had written. I wanted to say, “Get thee behind me, Satan, for thou savourest not the things that be of God but the things that be of men.”

    I fear that those in the “Root Camp” are blinded by loyalty to these men and are not seeking with all their hearts to bring all things to the test of Scripture. I also think they are suffering from intellectual pride and need to repent.

    — Anonymous Friend of PHC    Mar 29, 07:36 PM    #

37. To “Anonymous Friend”:

    So you don’t think that “God’s handiwork can be seen through the writings of unregenerated men”? And that such a statement is utterly lacking Scriptural support? Yet St. Paul, on Mars Hill, reasons with the Athenians and quotes their own poets to them as sources of truth (Acts 17). “Get thee behind me, Satan”? Are you serious? And then you have the audacity to suggest that others suffer from “intellectual pride” and need to repent? “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?”

    — David    Mar 30, 12:18 AM    #

38. My mom read the article in the Source, and I think she explains it very well as to why what the professors wrote was offensive.

    “What implications does this have for liberal arts? The ancients rightly believed that since man is the pinnacle of creation, so the best place to find evidence of Providential handiwork is not in mountains, birdsong, and sunsets, but in the works of men: chiefly philosophy, poetry, and the sciences. In the liberal arts, therefore, a Christian must refuse to view special and general revelation as hostile to one another. Nor should he hesitate to learn from a pagan. There is much wisdom to be gained from Parmenides and Plato, as well Machiavelli and Marx. That Plato understood there is a standard of absolute justice by which we shall all be measured is a profound insight.”

    *That is a segment taken from the article of those two professors.

    The error I see with this is that they are trying to take the thoughts and writings from men who have not the working of the Holy Spirit in their lives, and use them to make a case for Christ. When you have the Bible, you don’t need the books of men. When you have the Holy Spirit, you don’t need the thoughts of men. There have been many times when I have heard sermons from sincere Christian preachers, but a red light would go off when they begin imputing their opinions versus being Spirit led in their conversation. They can explain the Scriptures by studying the passages, praying for wisdom, and personal testimony.

    We should never have to read the likes of Marx, Darwin, or Plato to be enlightened to the sinfulness of man. They all rejected the Almighty God and if there is any wisdom in their writings that man need know of, than it too will be found in the Bible. The Bible does teach that men and women are to teach “the younger” and books are a way of doing this, but the books to be used are to teach from a Christ-like viewpoint or teach those things that Christ himself would not be ashamed to have read. For some reason I cannot see my Lord and Savior reading the likes of Marx or Darwin. A Christian does not need the teachings of heresy in order to gain wisdom for God has said that he giveth wisdom to all men liberally who asks for it. The only thing we need learn from a pagan is to not be one.

    It has been said that the way to know how to detect conterfeit money is to “study” the real thing. The same can be said with Christianity. The way to detect false teachings is to read, study, and know the Holy Bible that God used Spirit led men to transcribe. Study it, memorize it, and meditate on it and hide it in your heart so that you can give an answer to every one who ask about the hope that lives in you. And yes, it does make a difference what version you use. The King James is the best translation of the original texts, if not the only one. God has sustained that version since 1611 (with changes only from the Old English, not the text itself). Why would he ordain anyone else to change what he has already established for so many years and has not “come back void”?

    — A DL Student    Mar 30, 02:43 PM    #

39. And once again a DL student proves to us how closeminded fundamentalism ends up burning books, not reading them. And we wonder why Christians are considered to be ignorant bigots.

    DLStudent: How do you refute David’s argument that the “teachings of heresy” were directly quoted by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament, as evidence that all man can see God’s truth? The work of a pagan was thus enshrined in holy, inspired Scripture. How does your dogma respond to that?

    I only hope that this discussion does not become a tangent on the blasphemies of KJV-supremacists. Go read the preface.

    — Calvin and Hobbes    Mar 30, 07:30 PM    #

40. I didn’t write the post, my mom did. If you would like to take the matter up with her, let me know and I’ll send you the e-mail address.

    So, do you believe that if the Bible was the only book in the whole wide world, that we couldn’t get all that we need in life from the Bible only? The reason I like PHC and want to go there is to get away from the teachings of Marxism, etc. Some of the mentioned people(Marx,Pluto) in the article may have had one or two things to say that was good, but not enough that Christians should be studying their stuff. Sure Marx’s and others works might be fascinating and cause you to wonder how someone could write such stuff, but do you think that God agrees with their views? Do you see God agreeing with and supporting communism and evolution? I don’t believe God would inspire people to write things that are contrary to Him and His handiwork. Sure He allows it, but that doesn’t mean that He agrees with it. It’s like a message I heard the other night, your concentration becomes your conformity.

    Anyway, this is not my battle, and I had no intention of starting anything. I was just giving another view point. The Bible says in Proverbs 18:19 – A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle.

    I don’t want to be a part of that, or cause any offending, and I am sorry if I have done so to anyone and would like to ask your forgiveness.

    Psalm 133:1 – Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

    — A DL Student    Mar 31, 09:42 AM    #

41. A DL Student wrote,

    >Some of the mentioned people
    >(Marx,Pluto) in the article may have
    >had one or two things to say that was good,
    >but not enough that Christians
    >should be studying their stuff.

    How can you claim to be a student if you do not study? Your mind is closed. Keeping it closed is not an education. And many Christians will tell you so.

    “pluto”, indeed! QED.

    — Concerned Educator    Mar 31, 01:02 PM    #

42. To “A DL Student,”

    If you want to study the Bible, go to a Bible college.

    If you want to come to PHC, I’m afraid you’ll be reading Marx, Plato, and a whole host of other evils as well – Nietzsche, Kant, Homer, Kafka, Voltaire, and Rousseau, among others. You see, while the Bible may give us the understanding of human nature necessary to know why Marx was wrong (though he was arguably wrong for non-scriptural reasons as well), what the Bible cannot give us is a history of the last two centuries and a knowledge of how Marx’s philosophies influenced and shaped those 200 years and continue to do so to this day. The same can be said of so many other philosophers, authors, artists, critics, theorists, and revolutionaries that we study.

    I’m afraid too many Christians have made an illogical leap from “we should be careful when reading X because his arguments do not line up with Scripture and should be read critically” to “we should not read X at all because his arguments are contrary to Scripture.” Many have taken the bad logic even further to “because X did not believe Scripture, his arguments are worthless and unimportant.”

    If you want to be effective in your nation, culture, and world, it is important to understand how they came into being, the ideas that shaped them, and what ideas animate them now. I came to PHC to learn this, not to hide from having to read things other than my Bible. While asking the question “does God agree” (which could be synonymous with “is this true?”) may be important in understanding a work, another important question is “how can this work help me understand and respond to my world?”

    This is the education I received at PHC. However, much of the reason for that education has just walked out the door, so perhaps PHC is now the safe sort of place you’d like it to be.

    To “Concerned Educator,”

    Thank you.

    To “Anonymous Friend of PHC,”

    In response to “the dubious statement that God’s handiwork can be seen through the writings of unregenerated men”:

    I must believe that Truth exists, that it is real, and that it is absolute. If so, I have no reason to believe that a real, absolute Truth does not exist independent of the Bible or the minds of me and my fellow believers. It is – and should be – available to anyone with eyes to see. Obviously regeneration is required for the knowledge of salvation and the knowledge of many of the truths of scripture, but why is it a requirement for the knowledge of all truth in toto?

    I wonder how you can call yourself a friend of PHC and yet understand so little of the way in which the college accomplishes its mission.

    To “anonymous” and “Rhonda,”

    Nothing in Noe and Culberson’s article is in conflict with any of the foundational documents of the school. It is, however, in conflict with the official articulation of the college’s stance on such matters according to three important people in the administration who just decided to make their opinions known.

    To Corey,

    I sympathize. I’m sorry.

    To Patrick,

    Stop hating.

    To R.J.

    “You have no frame of reference here, Donny. You’re like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie…”

    Please – former students, DL students, parents, anyone who cannot say that they attend, teach at, or graduated from PHC, stop pretending like you understand the debate. There’s more to it than appears on paper. You’re not going to change anyone’s mind, so do yourself a favor and stop displaying your ignorance for the world to see. I don’t mean stop posting, but please stop pretending to know more than you do.

    (The above quote was a cultural reference for those of you who were homeschooled.)

    — A SaveRoot student    Mar 31, 02:56 PM    #

43. To concerned educator:

    Oops! My mistake. I meant Plato, I just wasn’t paying attention to the spelling. Thanks! Spelling a word wrong can sure give a wrong impression.

    To SaveRoot student:

    Thanks for your post. I understand what you are saying and agree with you, I don’t mind if we have to read the works of Marx, etc. to see where they erred and contradicted scripture, etc., but I do mind having to read them and being taught by liberal professors that their teachings are the best route for mankind and government to be successful as some colleges teach. I just think that you have to be careful when studying these sort of things and should always compare it with what God says is right and wrong. Anyway, I really don’t have much to do with this because I can’t say that I really know all that is going on. So, I will just stay out of it. Thanks.

    — A DL Student    Mar 31, 03:46 PM    #

44. The “Concerned Educator” has an excellent point. Here is an additional one: how can the “DL Student” state that “Pluto” had one or two good points if the “DL Student” has never studied him?

    — David    Mar 31, 03:55 PM    #

45. I am heading up to PHC as a freshman this August – and I am very sad to hear that Dr. Stacey has resigned; I sat under him in “Freedom’s Foundations” when I visited PHC earlier this year.

    I do not pretend to know a thing about the “camps” or orange ribbons or the cause for the resignations. So I will refrain from making any statements concerning those. However, I consider myself a “thinker” so I might say a word or two about the premise of the original debate, and particularly about whether Christians can find truth in a book other than the Bible. I believe that the Bible is that highest source of Truth; it is God’s revelation to the common man, and it is from this written Word that we draw the basis of our faith. That being said, I do not in ANY way believe that reading a book by Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Rousseau, Hobbes, what have you, is inherently wrong. If the Bible is the highest source of Truth, than any seeming truth or wisdom found in a lesser book should be subjugated to it and measured. If it aligns with Scripture, then it is profitable and applicable. If it doesn’t align with Scripture, it is a nice idea, but worthless to the Christian. I personally have read Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species,” and I do not think that I am now bound to the eternal flames of Hell. I read it with the understanding that the Bible says that God created the earth in six days (I’m a young-earth and 24-hour-day believer), and I read it simply to get my mind around what exactly Darwin said instead of what my science textbook hemmed and hawed about endlessly (I, by the by, attend public high school). I’ve also read Rousseau, Trotsky, Stalin, Lenin, even some Marx (in the flesh!), for my 20th Century History class. I don’t think it’s wrong if you read it simply to understand fully what they are saying. That way, you are fully able to apply the Truth contained in the Bible and say, “This is wrong.” Also, how can you respond intelligently and particularly to a debate about…evolution, communism, socialism, what have you, if you don’t TRULY know what the theory of evolution or the philosophies of communism and socialism actually say. Our faith is not blind. It is an intelligent faith.

    I will make one reference to the fighting or debate or whatever, and that is this: tempers would flare at a lower level (for the temper will always flare) if diligent students were careful not to make very broad, general statements about someone’s character or faith or particular worldview.

    I hope this issue is solved soon, and in a Christ-like manner, with brotherly love and grace and forgiveness abounding. See you all in August!

    — Annie    Apr 1, 01:06 AM    #

46. If PCH’s administration condemns the article written by Culbesron & Noe out of hand as inconsistent with the college’s stance on the role of general revelation, then would the school kindly remove several of the statements from their website which claim to be applications of a Biblical worldview. I point specifically to some of those under the heading of government which are clearly derived from general revelation and not scripture itself, such as the statements that government and law:

    “must provide the right of self-government, so that citizens may either directly decide questions of law and policy or have a voice in selecting those who make such decisions;”

    and

    “should-in order to achieve the highest possible level of stability and fairness-be based on the firm foundation of a written constitution and laws, whose meanings are determined by their text and the original intent of those who enacted them, with appropriate processes for change and amendment over time and with the approval of the people.”

    These statements about government are the product of general revelation, often based upon the observations and critical assessment of unregenerate men working within the classical and enlightenment traditions. They are not revealed in Scripture. Nor can they specifically be deduced from any teachings within Scripture. We view them to be true and consistent with Biblical teaching about the nature of man and best suited to promote the smattering of statements (e.g. Rom 13) where Scripture talks about the god-ordained role of government.

    It would seem that Culberson and Noe have actually made a fine defense of exactly the kind of philosophy the school promotes in its explicit statements to support and defend the American system of government. If they reject the statement of these two professors, who it seems attempted to justify exactly what is going on, then let PCH be consistent and dismantle its governemnt program.

    — Outside but interested observer    Apr 1, 09:13 AM    #

47. I have not read the article, and I do not know where I can find a copy of it. Would anyone be willing to post a copy, or direct me to a site where the article has been posted?

    I am not going to say whether the professors’ ideas are right or wrong, but I do not feel that their actions were appropriate. First of all, when they decided to teach at PHC, they knew that they would be expected to keep their ideas in line with the policies of the college administration. Similarly, if they had chosen to teach at UCLA, they would have chosen to teach from the point of view that the UCLA administration wants to promote. Secondly, even if they did disagree with the administration, they chose to make their stance public. They did not have to publicly disagree with the PHC administration, but they did. By publicly stating their views, they directly challenged the PHC administration. Finally, the professors chose to resign (according to all reports). To reiterate, the professors were not forced to teach at PHC, they were not forced to disagree publicly with the college adminstration, and they were not forced to leave. These were all their choices, and for these choices they must accept the results.

    On another note, though, I am immensly disappointed in the behavior in these debates. Name calling, sarcasm, insults… is that helpful for building up others? If you disagree with someone, fine, but what does name-calling accomplish? It is sickening to me to see ADULTS behaving like this. :-(

    — Another DLer    Apr 1, 09:43 AM    #

48. To: A SaveRoot student

    Frame of reference has nothing to do with this discussion. A lot of other things do, which we have been conversing about. If you wish to focus the debate on a particular issue, feel free to do so. Otherwise, I would suggest that ad hominem attacks are unnecessary.

    — R.J.    Apr 1, 02:56 PM    #

49. St. Augustine called pride the Root of all sin. Pride can incite other sins. That has been evident at PHC. Arrogance, hate, egotism, superiority, divicivness, unforgiveness, rebellion against authority… The emotions of the professors involved needs to be marshaled and the foolishness that is running rampant on our campus and in this blog for the world to read needs to end. What an example of Christianity you are exemplifying. You are all very small in God’s economy but He has been gracious to you and has given you precious young lives to shape and mold and to set examples for. Up until now you have done a wonderful job. Don’t erase the legacy of your years here and destroy by pride your Christian stature. “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” I beg you, and others would beg you, go back to loving and building up the lives of the students entrusted to you in the time you have left on campus. Be settled with the decision that you yourselves made, not one that was made for you. You were not fired. No one wished for you to go. You resigned. If each of you could be but slightly introspective and see where you yourself might be in the wrong in attitude or action and just leave well.
    God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.—-Aurelius Augustine

    — Aurelius    Apr 1, 09:03 PM    #

50. Take a step back and look at the big picture here.

    Four (and now a fifth) professors have declined to continue teaching at this fine institution. That represents fully one-third of the faculty. To any observer, this should raise a red flag. This isn’t just one professor and an isolated case of disputed doctrine. This is about a President and a Chief Academic Officer undermining their own faculty. That is something that good college administrators just don’t do. Aurelius, it is interesting how you blame the professors for this situation. Perhaps that is the innocence of your youth. When this many professionals are involved, there must be more sides to this story than the one you are on. When Dr. Farris states that he doesn’t know why the professors resigned, that should be a clue right there…why would a man in his position not know this? I’m not saying Dr. Farris is at fault; I’m merely pointing out the magnitude of this problem stretches beyond the faculty to include the administration…there is no way it couldn’t. This is not a matter of the “Root camp” and the “Farris camp” both being right or wrong, for certainly they are BOTH right and wrong in some facets of this debate. You’re correct Aurelius, pride is the root of sin…and there is plenty of pride on all sides of this debate.

    Another DLer, yes the article in question is available online, and I could link you to it, but quite frankly, the debate extends so far beyon d this article that it really isn’t relevant any more.

    Is this the right forum for this discussion? Probably not. But for those of us who are innocent bystanders to this whole mess, it is the only one we have. Perhaps you noted the concern for retribution in the Leesburg Today article…I’m sure that is genuine. And it is sad that it is so.

    Perhaps Dr. Walker will be the one to save PHC from imploding…and I pray that will be so, because the promise of PHC is so great…

    Make no mistake, these arguments are not new. And both sides will involke Scripture to defend there positions. The problem is, there are no longer just two sides to this situation…the collatoral damage is huge…but no one seems to be recognizing it.

    Dr. Farris and Professors, if you’re reading this, please prayerfully consider the concept of RECONCILIATION…put your pride and egos aside and realize that the future of PHC depends on it.

    — Innocent PHC Bystander    Apr 2, 08:54 PM    #

51. I agree with Corey, this really is not providing a good witness for Christ. Please, both sides—if you must speak, for the sake of the Kingdom, let us remember Who we serve. Was it not our Lord who said “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another”? Right now, I fear that we are presenting the opposite representation.

    Please, at least try to read one another’s statements with charity and not assume the most wicked or stupid meaning—even if it is true, no honest thinker should act like that, much less a believer in Christ. Please, try to love Dr. Farris AND the professors who are leaving AND the students and others who disagree with you—not because they deserve it, but because Christ thought they were worth dying for.

    Under the Mercy,
    Jonathan

    — Jonathan    Apr 3, 12:29 AM    #

52. To Aurelius:

    That’s funny, I could have sworn Mr. Farris has accused Augustine of being a Palagian. And your first four sentences are exactly on the mark, just not in reference to the men you suggest.

    If you were truly exhorting PHC faculty to humility, you would have said “WE are all very small in God’s economy, but He has been gracious to US.” Telling slip, isn’t it?

    Yes, God does bring good out of evil, which is why any of the students at the institution have received a good education at a college led by the fundamentalist extremism embodied by Michael Farris’s actions.

    You write: “If each of you could be but slightly introspective.”

    I wonder what you truly know about the men you so brazenly call out. If you are half the person of God, the thinker, or person that these men are, there is no clue anywhere in your rambling, hate filled post. Marshall your own attitude before you marshall others.

    — Augustine Understood, Not Confused    Apr 3, 12:44 AM    #

53. To Annie:

    A year ago I would have been excited to hear that someone like you was coming to PHC. I might have told you even then that you would find yourself in a minority here, but I would have encouraged you to come anyway. I’m sorry to say that I can no longer in good faith do so. If you come, I wish you all the best, but what PHC was and what it will be in the future are two drastically different things. The college took a turn this semester and the people you are arguing against now hold the predominant view. If you do come, I can only counsel you either to keep your head down and mouth shut, or to prepare yourself for a long, hopeless fight.

    To Outside but interested observer:

    An excellent observation. Unfortunately, consistency has never been something PHC cared about too much.

    To Another DLer:

    First of all, of course the professors knew what was expected of them. Their ideas were always in line with the college’s written policies. They understood those policies and still profess to agree with them wholeheartedly. Secondly, they did not intend for their articles to be in opposition to PHC’s policies. As I have stated before, I don’t think they are. Nothing in those articles violates what is written in the Statement of Faith, the mission statement, or any other document to which they were required to adhere. At the time that they wrote the articles, there was no indication that what they were going to say was going to provoke outrage from the administration. Finally, the professors chose to resign because of the response from the administration to their articles. As far as I understand, they realized that they could no longer, in good conscience, teach at an institution that would not allow them academic freedom within the bounds of the written documents, but rather expected them to hold to a different, unwritten standard and to narrow views held by only a few (but important) people within the administration. Of course they will live with their choices… and they’re happy to. We’re not concerned about them (well, we are, but not the same way), we’re concerned about the future of our college.

    To R.J.:

    It was not an ad hominem. Go watch the movie.

    To Aurelius:

    I don’t think I’ve seen at any other college students holding their professors in such low esteem and treating them with such disrespect – especially not at PHC where our professors are on campus and available every day, where they take personal interest in our lives and well-being, and go above and beyond to invest themselves in us.

    I suppose it would be arrogant of me to suggest that you re-read your post while looking in a mirror…

    — A SaveRoot student    Apr 3, 01:08 AM    #

54. This is in response to several different posts promoting the view that a college should belong to its administration, and the faculty exist only to do the bidding and further the ends of that administration.

    I’ve had some experience at other colleges, and it seems to me that, in most cases, it is exactly the other way around. The administration exists to provide services in support of the faculty. Of course, there is a president with a degree of power, but his usual job is to promote the college and raise money – so that the faculty may continue doing their work. The various other executives, the admissions officers, the registrar, etc. exist as a support structure to facilitate the teaching at the college, not to tell the faculty what to do or believe. It is the faculty, for the most part, who choose the direction and define the character of a college.

    To the commenter who claimed that at UCLA, professors must adhere to the goals and mission of UCLA’s administration… I am not so sure. This is why we have something called academic freedom: so people can teach and learn in places where they hold minority views.

    I am not entirely certain that my perception is correct. Perhaps one of the many kind educators or professors who read this blog can enlighten me on this topic?

    To any PHC students or affiliates who are thinking about replying that PHC is supposed to be different, set apart, better, whatever, than “most other colleges,” please be prepared to explain why it must diverge on this point. Then tell me if the true mission of the college is what is written in its foundational documents and promotional literature, or if it is rather the narrower articulation by the man who started the college. Are we a school, or a personality cult? Do we exist to train people, or to create carbon copies of Dr. Farris? Is the outcome predetermined, or only the method?

    — A SaveRoot student    Apr 3, 11:30 AM    #

55. To A SaveRoot student:
    Nothing I said in my posting was disrespectful to the professors or hate filled as “Augustine Understood” espouses. This person’s blog reads: I wonder what you truly know about the men you so brazenly call out. If you are half the person of God, the thinker, or person that these men are, there is no clue anywhere in your rambling, hate filled post. Marshall your own attitude before you marshall others.”

    Now, if you go back and read my blog, I would ask you which blog reads more hate-filled? I would propose that it is the responders to my blog, who are modeling what they have been taught, by the haters of Pres. Farris. This issue is out of control. The professors, no matter what kind of “rigorous thinkers” (as they like to superiorly refer to themselves) are, they are wrong on so many levels because of HOW they are behaving now and HOW they are dragging those of us who are students into their argument with the administration. I paid a lot of money to come to this school and thanks to these four professors, this has been the worst semester I’ve ever had and I’m just ready for it to be over. These men used to have my respect, and I loved them and looked up to them. Now I don’t feel like I ever knew them and I’m just ready for them to be gone. I wish they would just teach our classes like they used to do and not bring their personal battles and politics into the classroom. That would be really nice. School is hard enough without the constant drama. Have some mercy for God’s sake! Don’t you care what you are doing to us? Is it all about you? Why do you want to hurt everyone on your way out the door, from Pres. Farris, to the Dean, to the students, and even the school itself? Why?

    — Aurelius    Apr 3, 03:13 PM    #

56. Aurelius:

    Just for the record, as a student who knows a good bit about what’s going on (though my knowledge is far from perfect and complete), I would say that arguments like the ones you just made against the professors could just as easily be made concerning Dr. Farris.

    It is true that neither side has responded properly at all times or in all ways. However, the clash is an ideological/principled one, and regardless of the manner in which either side has responded, principled ideological stands have to be made. Even if one side were completely wrong in their response, that would not as a matter of course negate the rightness of their stance.

    Additionally, my dad could beat up your dad!!!

    :)

    Corey

    — Corey    Apr 3, 07:24 PM    #

57. “Afraid” says:

    “These students in ‘Root’s camp’ have shown themselves to not care about the school, rules, or morality. They care about having a good time, getting drunk, and getting away with it. When they don’t, this firestorm of debate starts because they whine like the privileged children they were.”

    “This is ridiculous” responds to the immorality charge, but only after a fashion:

    “You want to use the rules, your own version of “morality,” and a hate more vicious than I have encountered anywhere in this world to push away everyone who disagrees with your viewpoint.”

    No one apparently wishes to deny the rule violations alleged against those in “Root’s camp.” PHC may not be Bob Jones, but it IS supposed to have high moral standards and actual rules. Does it, or doesn’t it? (Sorry, but this debate is already painfully public.)

    — Disheartened Yet Puzzled    Apr 3, 08:13 PM    #

58. I do not think you understand either the debate, or the greater issues. Imagine yourself saying these same things when you see on Fox News a conservative (Christian) intellectual taking fire at a “secular” institution and see if your same thought processes would apply. Even if you suggest they would, I imagine you and those who support your views would be the first ones calling your state senator, or newspaper or The Rutherford Institute. We cannot stand up for the teaching of truth in secular institutions when we will not even rise to defend it in our own.

    — Augustine Understood    Apr 3, 09:08 PM    #

59. In response to “Disheartened,”

    I don’t think anyone can deny that there are a few students who are friends of Dr. Root and the other professors who have broken rules in the past. I suspect many people who are not in the “Root camp” have done likewise. Have you never broken a rule? (Be careful before you say no, there are a lot of rules, many of which are frequently overlooked).

    Even if you haven’t, that is not the central debate here. Just because a handful of students in a certain group have done certain things does not mean that their actions, “character,” reputation, or what have you can be extrapolated onto the entire group. “Afraid” is making a blanket accusation about the character and motives of a rather large and diverse group of people, and that position is not only uncharitable, but any reasonable person on campus knows it is untrue.

    Also, it is a mistake to equate “the rules” with “Christian morality.” There are a lot of rules that are not about moral issues. However, what “This is ridiculous” was referencing was a document signed by over 100 students that explicitly stated their desire for a rules system at PHC which would effectively create a campus environment amenable only to people who agree with them. Many of the “Root camp” people would rather take a different approach, with a system of rules allowing people of many different beliefs and convictions on issues of personal conduct to enjoy the educational benefits that PHC offers. But that argument is hard to make on campus, since the people who promote such a view are usually accused, by people like “Afraid,” of being moral degenerates, libertines, heathens, etc. The accusation that they “don’t care about the school” is also a painfully common misunderstanding.

    Furthermore, I have to count this as yet another – also painfully common – instance of Christians shooting their wounded. Just because a few people made a mistake does not make them ineligible to comment on campus affairs. It does not automatically negate their ideas. It is not necessarily indicative of their motives. (It does not even make them bad people). Of course, these same things could be said about people who hold a holier-than-thou attitude, who are judgmental, self-righteous, unforgiving, or ungracious. As rational beings, I think we should be able to carry on this debate on the merits of the arguments raised – about the issue at hand. Our personal opinions of the people making those arguments really have nothing to do with the actual point.

    So, I’m going to throw this out there because I think it’s something that is pretty universally felt but almost never spoken about. On the one side, there are people who are tired of feeling like their convictions are being belittled. They don’t like being told that they are naive or stupid or backward. Maybe they are afraid of losing what makes PHC special to them – a community of like-minded people with high standards pursuing a singular, God-given goal. On the other side, there are people who are tired of feeling like they are constantly being watched and judged. We don’t like being told that we’re immoral, rebellious, and of bad character when we firmly believe otherwise. We are afraid of losing what makes PHC special to us – a community of people devoted to rigorous education, Christian liberty, and the relentless pursuit of truth, the good life, and the improvement of the environment that supports these things.

    This is not the right forum for this very tangential debate, but I wanted to say it so that maybe, after all this, we can put down our guns and start talking to each other. It’s not like we won’t see each other tomorrow, so we don’t have to do this right here. So let’s put this aside and get back to the point.

    — A SaveRoot student    Apr 4, 01:00 AM    #

60. Thanks for the reply, SaveRoot. It’s interesting, isn’t it, that the SaveRoot camp simultaneously espouses a broader approach to theology and to the proper subjects of academic inquiry (which I myself might favor) along with looser moral strictures (which I imagine I wouldn’t favor, if I knew the precise content of the more lenient rules). The former wouldn’t seem to require the latter.

    Moreover, the academic approach is by its nature elastic, whereas the rules governing conduct at PHC seemed to me to be fairly clear. I can understand how the professors could have come to the college with different understandings of the statement of faith as applied to the contents of their courses. But I don’t understand why students would ever come to PHC in order to loosen rules they understand in advance—making the school just like dozens of other nominally Christian colleges, if a bit more academically rigorous. The conflating of the academic approach with the rules of conduct really muddies the waters, if you ask me.

    — Disheartened Yet Puzzled    Apr 4, 10:00 AM    #

61. Addressed primarily to ASaveRoot Student:

    I find it rather ironic how quick the very people claiming to uphold academic freedom, free thought, and all that’s good and holy are to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of simply spewing hatred and ignorance, while largely ignoring the substance of their arguments.

    In particular, you ask me to “stop hating.” Exactly how, I ask, have I expressed hatred toward you, the professors in question, or anyone for that matter? Yes I did make a statement that the character and motivations behind a certain side’s views are relevant to this discussion, but I in no way expressed any sort of “hate” against them.

    It occurs to me that dismissing your opponents arguments offhand as mere “hate speech” is a tactic much more characteristic of the closed-minded anti-intellectualism you accuse us of adhering to, than to the free-thought and academic freedom you claim to support.

    Regarding intellectual freedom, I have a simple question for you: how much freedom is too much? In our efforts to broaden our intellectual horizons and allow discussion of minority views, should we then open up our school’s faculty to EVERY viewpoint that exists? Should we, in the words of Dr. Walker this morning, hire professors based purely on academic standards such as articles published in prestigious journals, while ignoring their personal beliefs and worldview? How much is too much?

    I agree our school should have a certain degree of academic freedom (you will not, for example find me supporting the position of an earlier poster who seemed to think it was sinful to read any book other than the King James version of the Bible). However, when that freedom starts to compromise the distinctive purpose of our school in giving students a Christ-centered, Biblically based, classical education, I would say such freedom has gone too far.

    Dr. Walker’s chapel speech this morning all too clearly illustrated what happens when academic freedom is valued too highly.

    PHC’s mission is not to be a marketplace of all ideas everywhere, but to train students in their Christian worldview by means of a classical education. Let us not, for the sake of academic freedom, abandon the very thing which makes our school unique

    — Patrick    Apr 4, 04:04 PM    #

62. To “Disheartened,”

    The former may not require the latter. I’m not going to argue that it does, though that argument could probably be made.

    I think you should take care to avoid a conflation here as well, though. What I talked about in my post was a different system of rules, not “looser moral strictures.” The rules could be significantly reduced without running into a truly moral problem. The rules do not make us holy or keep us holy. They are just rules. But this is not the place to debate my (or your) ideal system of rules.

    I would like to respond to one other thing that you said:

    “But I don’t understand why students would ever come to PHC in order to loosen rules they understand in advance—making the school just like dozens of other nominally Christian colleges, if a bit more academically rigorous.”

    I don’t think anyone came to PHC “in order to loosen rules.” As far as understanding them in advance, let me tell you a little story. When I came to PHC, dancing was allowed on campus. Students could smoke and drink not far from campus. Girls could wear halter-tops and were not fined for accidental dress code violations. As time has gone on, these and many other rules have gotten more and more strict, which is something none of us expected in advance. Do you wonder, then, that some of us resist?

    It is true that some rules have likewise become looser in that same period of time, like the graduated curfew system and the rules governing romantic relationships. But these rules were only changed because students fought for them to be changed. And at that time, the students who fought were accused of the same sorts of bad character and motives – by the people who resisted change – that the “Root camp” students are accused of today. But as a result, today at PHC you can take a girl to McDonald’s without being questioned by the Dean, or make friends with a boy without putting him in the awkward position of having to either call your father or stop hanging out with you. (You think I’m kidding. I’m not.)

    I’m not about blindly loosening the rules for the sake of loose rules. I actually think some rules, like the business dress code, could be tightened a bit. What I’m about is making PHC a better place. Why? Because this is what I think sets PHC apart: its commitment to Christ and liberty, not Christ and rules (and you can’t equate Christ with rules). In PHC’s mission statement and much of its promotional literature, it speaks about a “fidelity to the spirit of the American founding.” The spirit of the American founding is the reconciliation of liberty with law – finding, correcting, and maintaining that delicate but necessary balance between personal freedom and rule of law. You don’t have to take my word for it – American thinkers from Alexander Hamilton to Russell Kirk to Harvey Mansfield say so as well. It’s my personal opinion that PHC should follow this example (it’s in the mission statement!) and constantly try to find, correct, and maintain a just balance between liberty in Christ and the stability of rules.

    If PHC is to be set apart by the strictness of its rules, I’m afraid there are several schools that go beyond even our standards. Is the school with the strictest standards the best? I would submit that the best school is the one that recognizes that the balance between liberty and law is essential for the good life, and strives to maintain this balance – even if that requires students and leaders to occasionally admit that they were wrong. Rules can’t set us apart and never will. But our attitude and approach to the tricky subject of liberty and law can.

    To Patrick:

    The “stop hating” was also a (rather vague) cultural reference, but I was under the impression that it would be recognizable enough not to require a caveat. I assume you’ve heard phrases before like “don’t be hatin’,” “what’s with the hate?” or “gosh, you’re such a hater!” That’s how I meant it. So calm down and take a deep breath. Your post was not “hate speech,” and I’ve put a lot of text on this page responding to peoples’ arguments in great (probably excessive) detail. But let’s not jump to conclusions. I’m sorry my post was obtuse, and I’ll forgive your misunderstanding if you’ll forgive me for being unclear.

    In response to your simple question, I don’t know. That’s an extremely broad and difficult question. It has a great deal to do with the ideas I expressed above in response to “Disheartened.” I’m not even sure there is one static answer to that question – but whatever answer can be found relies on a good deal of self-assessment and self-criticism by an institution. “EVERY viewpoint”? No, not in a Christian school. I never said that, I never meant that, I never espoused that. I think what I said was “academic freedom within the bounds of the written documents” of the college, including the Statement of Faith. We are basically in agreement on everything else you say, although I was not in chapel today so you’ll have to explain to me “what happens when academic freedom is valued too highly” if you want to comment further on this point.

    — A SaveRoot student    Apr 4, 07:07 PM    #

63. Hello, Save Root. Again, thanks for responding. I have a few questions and comments concerning your comments:

    “What I talked about in my post was a different system of rules, not ‘looser moral strictures.’”

    What would that system consist of? If it’s not looser (with the exception of your “business attire” concern), what is it? You say you’re concerned about “liberty,” so why not own up to “looser”?

    “When I came to PHC, dancing was allowed on campus. Students could smoke and drink not far from campus. Girls could wear halter-tops and were not fined for accidental dress code violations.”

    Well, I don’t understand that at all. I have been following the college since its inception, and I know that drinking and smoking have always been considered honor code violations, as long as students are under the jurisdiction of the school (which is to say any time they are not under the jurisdiction of parents). Similarly, it has always been my understanding that modest dress was required. I don’t see how halter tops are modest. I’ve been assuming you’re a man; do YOU think they’re modest? Or do you think, instead, that they are . . . interesting? What can be accidental about revealing clothing? This doesn’t sound honest to me. Back to your point: If what you say about these matters is true, I am amazed. I don’t understand the point of having an honor code or a dress code if they were truly ignored, as you suggest. If you are accurate, parents and students were egregiously misled.

    “What I’m about is making PHC a better place. Why? Because this is what I think sets PHC apart: its commitment to Christ and liberty.”

    Personally, I don’t see how that would set PHC apart in any way from loads of other Christian schools, if by liberty you mean fewer or looser rules. Again, if that isn’t what you mean, what DO you mean?

    “If PHC is to be set apart by the strictness of its rules, I’m afraid there are several schools that go beyond even our standards. Is the school with the strictest standards the best?”

    Of course not, but PHC is the only school I know of with high academic standards AS WELL AS high moral standards – which, by my lights although probably not by yours, means requirements that include modest dress, clean speech, and so forth.

    I think the crux of our disagreement is this: I don’t think college is the place for the kind of “liberty” you want (subject to your clarification about what you mean by your “different system of rules”). Certainly, “liberty” in the form of tolerance for laxness in dress and conduct is not what I would want to pay for. Yet you should and do of course have the “liberty” not to go to a college with rules you don’t like. Conversely, the students who want a school with an ambience in keeping with their morality – and an administration that designs a school with the desires of those students and their parents in mind – ought to have the “liberty” to create and maintain such a school. I hope they exercise that liberty, because PHC is the only school I know of with that particular mix—high academic AND moral standards—or at least I thought it was.

    — Disheartened Yet Puzzled    Apr 4, 08:24 PM    #

64. To “Puzzled”:

    What constitutes high moral standards? Is there a one-to-one correlation between strict rules (with strict enforcement?) and high moral standards? Can you offer any examples of Christian colleges that have high moral standards? You mentioned Bob Jones University, does Bob Jones have high moral standards? If so, why shouldn’t Patrick Henry take Bob Jones as its model, at least in terms of “morality”? Are Bob Jones’s moral standards too high? What about Pensacola Christian College (about which there was a fascinating article in The Chronicle of Higher Education recently)? Does Pensacola Christian have high moral standards? If so, should Patrick Henry emulate Pensacola Christian in this respect? If not, why not?

    — David    Apr 5, 12:57 PM    #

65. Hmmm, I’m not sure I have a quick answer to all those many questions, and I’m not sure why anyone would be interested in my opinions. Moreover, I wouldn’t expect to find any institution that would agree with me in every particular. However, I’ll attempt to sketch out my standards. Mind you, I don’t come from a fundamentalist or culturally conservative background, so I feel that I can look at these matters from a fresh perspective.

    If I were making the rules, I would require modesty in dress and courtesy and edification in speech. Tight clothing, halter tops, short shorts, cleavage, and belly exposure aren’t modest, no matter what is stylish or how many people in the broader culture are doing the exposing. On the other hand, I wouldn’t require girls to wear dresses rather than pants, in the manner of Bob Jones, because I don’t find pants to be inherently immodest or unladylike. At the same time, however, the Bob Jones rule wouldn’t be a deal-breaker for me. (I don’t know much about Pensacola and, without subscribing, I can’t gain access to the interesting-looking article to which you link.)

    I see no excuse for profane, obscene, or even vulgar speech, whether in person or onscreen, and would appreciate an environment that was free of it. It may be more challenging to be charming and humorous without resort to vulgarity, but that is one place where the brains required for PHC’s high academic standards might enter in. I might make exceptions for double-entendres if they were clever enough. In other words, Shakespeare would be allowed.

    I agreed with what I THOUGHT were the PHC rules about drinking – permissible while under parents’ jurisdiction. I’m a little surprised that smoking is an issue, since most people these days consider it a rather low-life activity even in the secular world, but I guess I would treat it the same way I would treat drinking. Dancing on campus wouldn’t bother me and in fact might be preferable to dancing OFF campus. Music ought to be edifying, though.

    While my preferred code is rooted in morality and can be defended by reference to Scripture, I wouldn’t argue that mine is the only acceptable set of rules. But I don’t think a college should be limited in creating its code by what is absolutely required by Scripture. A college should be free to go beyond what is required in order to create the kind of atmosphere the founders and administrators believe is conducive to the college’s mission.

    It seemed to me that PHC offered an approximation of the rules and standards I personally would pick, along with high academic standards – a combination I haven’t seen elsewhere. It is fascinating to me, if disheartening, that (a) I may have been deceived about PHC’s standards, if what SaveRoot has to say is true and (b) what I thought was a dispute about theology and educational philosophy seems to have been colored by a tug-of-war about drinking, dress codes, and curfews. The whole thing is just sad. Have the professors in the two camps taken positions on the dress and conduct issues as well as the academic issues?

    And may I ask: What were you driving at with your questions? Did you mean to suggest that arguments in favor of “strict” rules governing dress and behavior are somehow weakened just because there are schools with rules that are even “stricter” than PHC’s? If so, I don’t buy that. Each person should find a school whose code approximates his own—or should at least be prepared to abide by that code before signing on.

    — Disheartened Yet Puzzled    Apr 5, 05:01 PM    #

Previous: Getting Generation Y to the Voting Booth
Next: British Research Assessment Meets Its Waterloo