Have you heard about Bryan College?  It recently found itself surrounded by controversy after requiring its faculty to agree to an expanded belief statement that indicated belief in Adam and Eve as historical people.  Certain students and faculty members led the uproar against this amended statement.  On student, Allison Baker, was reported in an article by NY Times reporter, Alan Blinder, as saying, “It makes Bryan a different place.  I would argue it makes it a more narrow place.”  She’s absolutely right.

Bryan College is a Christian college founded in memory of William Jennings Bryan, who in its town of Dayton, TN, prosecuted John Thomas Scopes for teaching evolutionary theory in public school.  There is a bit of irony then in the nature of this controversy.  A school named after the man who famously argued against evolution is in the hot seat for clarifying its beliefs against evolution.  Why exactly is Allison Baker right when she states that this updated belief statement makes Bryan College “a more narrow place”?  Because truth itself requires narrowness.  Ms. Baker is right, much more than she realizes.

Earlier today I mentioned in my previous post that I would explain how the Sweetbay Magnolia tree I saw, with its branches snaking along in search of patches of light was a metaphor not merely for individuals but also for the church today.  If Bryan College remains committed to a biblical worldview and its attendant truth, this updated beliefs statement will not be its last.  The church is like the Sweetbay Magnolia.  In every culture the shadows fall differently over the church, whose branches must grope for the light of the gospel.  Upon finding that light, the energy of truth allows the church to continue to grow and flourish.

I have just started reading Historical Theology, by Gregg Allison.  It was a gift from my dad after graduating seminary the other week.  In its pages it recounts the fascinating ways that Christian teachings have changed over the course of two millennia.  Albert Mohler noted that confessional statements get longer over time, not shorter, because new heresies develop that threaten them.  Did you know that, while we need to argue for Jesus’ divinity nowadays, early Christians had to argue for His humanity?  Cultural shadows were different then.  Another example comes from the belief on the inspiration of Scripture.  For centuries Christians called the Bible inspired by God (as 2 Timothy 3:16 makes clear), and this affirmation held that the Bible was trustworthy in all matters.  In the late 19th century, however, the inspiration of Scripture was explained differently, equated with the inspiration an artist has before painting a masterpiece.  B. B. Warfield had to apply a new term – infallibility.  From there, another descriptor – inerrancy – was added to further clarify against changes.  Truth is narrow, and any entity committed to truth will continue to narrowly define it.

Take a moment to think about the shadows cast over the church today.  Where have the previously sunny spots of Christianity been darkened?  It has been six decades since the ideals of Christianity were deemed important to the larger American society.  Something of a revolt against those times has taken place.  The church finds itself under a shadow of cultural engagement.  It must again position itself in the light of truth within this culture so that it can continue to communicate with it.  At no point can the church be content to exist under any cultural shadow.  When that takes place, it has already been overshadowed and will cease to have any active presence.  That’s why magnificent church structures dot the European landscape while their congregants are nowhere to be found.  In many cases the churches have been sold and have new congregations, there edifices now housing pubs and other places of business.

Let’s pray that the controversy surrounding Bryan College will settle down and that the right faculty members will continue teaching the truth.  Stephen Livesay, the college’s president, made some interesting remarks about the wording change and about the outlook of the school:

We want to remain faithful to the historical charter of the school and what we have always practiced through the years.  There has never been a need, up until today, to truly clarify and make explicit what has been part of the school for 84 years.  We want to make certain that we view culture through the eyes of faith, and that we don’t view our faith through the eyes of culture.

The church must endeavor to do the same.  It must clarify the unchanging truth upon which it stands and do so in a way that it can effectively minister to culture.  Any distinction we hope to have must be rooted in Scripture and embodied by loving acts.  We cannot adjust our doctrine to appeal to the world; neither can we retreat into our church buildings and ignore the change.  We must, as Paul said, “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15).