History Repeats Itself

Jay Horsley

Many have looked on with dismay as Florida College, an institution loved and supported by many faithful Christians for two generations, became home to men who denied the literal, 6 day, Genesis account of creation. That alarm increased as many of the college faculty, even at the highest levels, defended the right of the teacher to teach such things to the youth who came in search of education at the feet of Bible believing men of God.

Though the man that taught this error openly was reassigned so that Genesis is no longer his subject and then did not have contract renewed, it is apparent that a different mind set has developed among many at that place. In the recent controversy, some appealed to “academic freedom” and having “an atmosphere of open investigation” more than they showed a dedication to a “Thus saith the Lord” approach of sound scriptural interpretation and application.

Consider Shane Scott's own words of self defense in his “Response to the Open Letter” that exposed his teaching:

The letter also raises the issue of how I have dealt with this issue in my work at Florida College. The impression is left in the letter that I have actively promoted my particular views of Genesis in my classes. The charge that I stated the non-literal view as the preferred view in my class is only half-true. Only one of the men signing the letter has talked with me about how I have dealt with this in class, and for some reason, my clear explanation was distorted to cast me in a negative light.

Here are the facts. In my one lecture I present at FC on Genesis 1, I present four basic interpretations and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each. This is exactly how I was taught when I was at FC. I only tell the students which view I prefer if I am directly asked. (emphasis in original - wjh) So far out of four classes, only two have asked. If, on occasion, students ask me about these issues outside of the classroom, I endeavor to maintain impartiality, and I encourage them to study these issues for themselves. I have never "bombarded" others with my views, whether in the classroom, pulpit, or personal conversation. (page 4)

This is exactly the approach secular professors take in teaching history, sociology, psychology and the other “soft sciences.” This is not how one teaches the Bible. But Brother Scott admits to teaching, and even preaching, in this way. While we are glad that he was not dogmatic in his error, he does not have the mind set that a bold proclaimer of righteousness ought to have. But this is the type of teaching sought out by those who want to have their college accredited by various professional organizations and confederations of schools – as FC has striven do in the last several years and proudly announces. In seeking worldly approval worldly ways invariably come.

This is strikingly parallel to what has happened before. Abiliene Christian University became home to evolutionist in the 1970's. Conservative denominationalists in the early part of the last century also experienced the same thing. They had to form a new college dedicated to teaching the scriptures based on the idea that they really were inspired because other religious schools were eaten up with modernism. But soon their own college digressed when it sought to gain approval from the world.

...Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism, by George Marsden...Tracing the history of one influential institution, Marsden recounts in detail how Fuller Seminary compromised and ultimately abandoned its commitment to biblical inerrancy. The school was originally founded to provide a conservative, biblical training ground after denominational seminaries had embraced liberalism or otherwise abandoned the faith. But within a few decades, Fuller Seminary itself capitulated on the issue of biblical inerrancy. Why? Marsden's account reveals that many of Fuller's founders and early faculty were obsessed with the notion of intellectual and academic respectability. They wanted Fuller Seminary to be viewed in the elite academic community with the same esteem as the liberal denominational schools. Unfortunately, the intellectual climate of the age was almost unanimously sympathetic to skepticism, liberalism, humanism, and sub-Christian rationalism. The very community from which the Fuller men sought to win acceptance was at war with the theology Fuller Seminary was founded to uphold. In order to gain the stature they sought, the Fuller men were willing to compromise. The history of the school therefore often reads like a sad chronicle of controversy and doctrinal decline.

Is intellectual and academic respectability a worthy goal? Not if the world sets the standards that determine what is acceptable and what is not. “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become foolish that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God.” It is folly to seek the approval of human wisdom; the goal itself is incompatible with biblical integrity.

John F. MacArthur, Jr., Ashamed of the Gospel: When The Church Becomes Like The World, Crossway Books, 1993, pg. 106,107.

Their new creation turned against them, just as their older one's had done.

Unless bold, “Thus saith the Lord” preaching and a mind set to staunchly defend the truth returns to Temple Terrace, history gives use numerous examples of the deviations from the faith that will continue to come amongst us from that place.