I pointed a while back to a dispute at a Missouri school called Southwest Baptist University, where an especially conservative heresy-hunter was fired for surveilling the doctrinal purity of his colleagues. Since theological disputes are not susceptible of objective resolution by appeals to facts, y’all will probably not be surprised to learn that the matter remains unresolved.
What do you know? A group of alumni have somberly concluded that Good Ol’ SBU has got some problems, allright.
Having observed the recent controversies at our alma mater, Southwest Baptist University (SBU), a number of like-minded alumni have corresponded and determined it would be beneficial to provide alumni testimony and express our concerns regarding SBU.
All of us had amicable relationships with our professors. Some of our professors welcomed us into their homes and treated us with genuine kindness and respect. These positive experiences notwithstanding, we are compelled by recent events to bring to light doctrinal concerns related to some of the Redford faculty and their teaching.
Especially troubling is that one of the faculty claims to see contradictions in the story of Jesus’ unhappy encounter with the fig tree.
We are concerned about recent statements made by Dr. Reeves, who has recently affirmed the doctrine of inerrancy. In his recent affirmation concerning biblical inerrancy, he has gone so far as to say that he affirms inerrancy even as it is defined by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. For many of us who sat under his teaching, we regret that Dr. Reeves did not speak with such conviction and confidence in the classroom. At least one alumnus experienced his teaching to directly contradict this affirmation when twice calling the account of the fig tree in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark a contradiction. Dr. Reeves gave no further explanation for his statements. Many of us were unsettled, either by his intentional lack of clarity on the doctrine of Scripture or by his teaching that challenged or contradicted the doctrine of inerrancy.
You can see what a serious problem this is; the Bible is inerrant or it isn’t, and there can be no contradictions if it is inerrant.
Don’t laugh: These characters are serious, and seriously alarmed, and the well-being and livelihood of real people hang on the outcome.
Can they prove that a supernatural being exists? They cannot. Can they prove that the supernatural being that Abraham was so proud of exists? They cannot. Can they prove that the supernatural being whose existence they can’t prove somehow superintended the production of the Bible? They cannot. They are not merely intellectually dishonest, they are intellectually corrupt because they refuse to do the hard work of establishing their premises; the entire fairy-castle of theology floats on … nothing. But, even so, careers will inevitably be destroyed in order to gratify the certitude of resolute ignoramuses.
That goes to character, and faith is bad for character.