Hi!

Does anyone have any *current* reviews of these colleges? As in, the last year? At one point, we had heard that Covenant College is not *what it was*.

I know that the *flavor* of a school can change as faculty come and go and leadership changes. I am wondering if these schools are as reformed as they have been known to be or if some compromises have been made along the way. Also, what about *academics*?

Thank you in advance for your help.

__________________
Polly
wife and mom
participating in an OPC church plant effort in Collierville, TN
living in N MS

I've heard the same from friends who've attended Covenant. There are much better schools out there, IMHO. I would not send our children there.

__________________
Toni Cunningham, Wife of Bill (Theognome)
Parkwoods OPC, Overland Park KS

"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As, to be hated, needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace." ~ Alexander Pope

Depends on what you mean by "what it was."

I'm preparing to start my sophomore year at Covenant.

Of the three you mention, from what I gathered in looking at them, Covenant is the most clearly reformed. Grove maintains the loosest of loose affiliations with the PCUSA and many of its students end up Anglican. Geneva requires its Bible department and administration to subscribe to the WCF.

Covenant, however, requires all faculty to subscribe and aims at integration of education, something I did not perceive at my visits to Grove and Geneva.

The Biblical studies department at Covenant is headed up by Dan MacDougall and Ken Stewart, both Godly men who teach faithful biblical doctrine. The Philosophy department is also excellent (part of why I chose Covenant as a Philosophy major). Generally speaking, Covenant covers the whole spectrum of reformed thought, though Gordon Clark's name is strangely absent in the college's history.

In terms of academics: Grove is the most well-known. Their economics department may be the best Austrian economics school in the country (though George Mason University is almost as good and much more affordable) and has excellent sciences. Geneva is about the level of most private schools: not terrible, but not great either. Covenant is also quite rigorous. Their pre-med program is possibly the hardest in the country and our liberal arts are also first-rate. In addition, Covenant has a unique major called "community development" which focuses on local economics and rebuilding communities from a Christian perspective.

In terms of demographic: Grove has the largest student body and also the most broadly evangelical. When I visited, there were posters advertising various denominations including Anglican, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox. However, most at Grove are going to be white middle-class. Geneva, unlike the others, does not require its students to be Christians, but other than that, I can't really give much more info, as I didn't get a chance to talk to Geneva students.

Covenant has (from what I can tell) the most diverse student body. The students include white, black, asian, etc and include a lot of missionary kids, who bring unique perspectives. As a result, Covenant tends to have a global focus in certain areas, especially economics, sociology, and psychology and places a high emphasis on cultural understanding.

Denomination at Covenant is about half Presbyterian, a third Baptist/Reformed Baptist, and that last sixth everything else.

I really haven't heard of anything better than these three. I had thought about Erskine or Wheaton at certain points, but decided not to visit. As it is, God has me where He wants me.

__________________
Philip
Potomac Hills Presbyterian Church (PCA) Leesburg, VA
Attending Reformed Presbyterian Church, Lookout Mountain, GA
Student Covenant College

The Importance of Being Orthodox

Covenant has a better view If I were going to choose one purely on non theological choices it would be Covenant especially since it is only about 1.5 hours away and I could commute

__________________
Robert K. "Kelly" Brumbelow
In Inquirer's class at Grace Presbyterian (PCA) Cedartown, GA
Cedartown, Georgia

Dear Lord and Father of mankind, Forgive our foolish ways;
Reclothe us in our rightful mind, In purer lives Thy service find,
In deeper reverence, praise. - John Greenleaf Whittier 1807-1892

My family actually accuses me of choosing Covenant because it's so far away--actually, it was because it was the only school that offered grits at breakfast and sweet tea at all other meals.

I don't know how to put into words, concisely, the things we've been hearing about Covenant. At one time, it was top choice for my daughter. I guess, it seems that maybe rather than being committed to being reformed, they are allowing some compromise to draw students? Maybe more liberal leanings than there used to be?

My daughter is pursuing piano. This is her senior year and we are prayerfully considering many options right now.

Call me an old fogey, but is there not a solid music school closer to where you live? I cannot imagine sending my daughter (if I had one) 6 hours away to a school (from where you are to Covenant is about that).

As I said, we are weighing carefully all aspects. She prefers to be close to home, as do we, we are just taking the opportunity, while we can, to consider all options.

I am *from* Chattanooga (from jr.high until marriage). We have lots of family there still. So, for our family, a bit different than sending her even *three* hours to a place where we would not go except for her being there. Make sense?

And while music is the focus, it would be a *plus* to get music AND the benefit of some good reformed classes...if possible. It may not happen. We have two choices within an hour from home at the top of the list, but we are just revisiting things we *crossed off*, while we can. Thanks for your input though

I think it is expensive, but Belhaven has an excellent music program. It is probably not that far from you. It is at least mostly reformed, and has an RUF on campus. There are also many good PCA churches in Jackson.

If I had my choice (and I will in a few years), not counting the music option, I would send my kids to Grove City.

__________________
Fred Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

I think I know what you're taliking about. There are certainly political liberals in certain departments (the econ department is far from total free-market).

If you're referring to the Biblical studies department, I have seen only two instances of what some might term "liberalism".

1) A couple years ago, Dr. Stewart wrote an article for "ByFaith" on the possibility of new orders of ministry for women already serving in deaconal capacities.

2) Certain more biblical studies-minded profs are not six-day creationists, but then again, neither was B. B. Warfield.

3) The philosophy department is decidedly Thomist.

The music department at Covenant is excellent. I have friends who are music majors and absolutely love it, as well as a couple friends majoring in musical composition.

I was an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Covenant College from 2002-2008. My graduate work was in Continental philosophy, and I received a Ph.D. at Vanderbilt University. The Lord blessed me with the opportunity, after I graduated, to work at Covenant College.

While I would be quick to tell you that there are many wonderful people at Covenant College (trustees, administration, faculty, and especially the students), I must also tell you (with great sadness) that there are serious doctrinal and philosophical problems at Covenant College, in my opinion.

One way to put this: If it were possible for either Francis Schaeffer or R.C. Sproul to teach at Covenant College, neither would get tenure there. (Tenure at Covenant College amounts to either a three or five year contract.)

Practically speaking, that means that the writings of these men are not held in high regard (that is, respected and supported) by most of the faculty.

When I was hired at Covenant College I naively thought that Covenant College was working in the same tradition and outlook as Francis Schaeffer. I found out quickly that this is not so.

So, if you or others who are parents have a high regard for what Schaeffer did in works like The God Who Is There, Escape from Reason, and He Is There and He Is Not Silent -- or the many very valuable books written by R.C. Sproul -- just know that many of the faculty presently at Covenant College not only have little respect for these works but also disagree with them. And I don't just mean in certain particulars, for they would surely be able to find things they did agree with in these works, but in the broad outlines and contours of the works of Schaeffer and Sproul -- e.g., Schaeffer's critical standpoint towards Western culture based on Scriptural truth or Sproul's Classical Apologetics.

For example, while I was at Covenant College -- my fourth or fifth year -- they hired Prof. Herb Ward in the Biblical and Theological Studies Dept. Prof. Ward was going to use Sproul's Classical Apologetics for his apologetics class and the department "persuaded" him not to do so. I do not mean to imply that this was not Herb's decision (for he clearly indicated as much to me); I am saying that I know how tenure works there and the subtle but real pressure that departments can put on faculty (probably not too different from other colleges). The point is (and in my opinion), people like Shaeffer and Sproul are squeezed out from the list of worthies which the Covenant College faculty commend to their students as those they believe are worthy of respect.

The faculty would likely deny or attempt to talk around my claim about their lack of respect for the work of Schaeffer and Sproul, because, in my opinion, they are aware of what an adverse effect such an admission would have on their relationship as a college to the PCA as well as student enrollment.

For another thing, I don't think the trustees would allow the faculty to advocate a public and dismissive attitude toward Schaeffer and Sproul.

But what I'm saying is that the store front appearance of Covenant College maintained by faculty, administration, and trustees is one thing, but what is actually happening on the inside with the faculty themselves and in the classrooms, is another.

A faculty member on the inside soon learns that most of the faculty, if they are familiar with Schaeffer or Sproul, would label both Schaeffer and Sproul as "rationalists" or carry overs from the Enlightenment period.

The faculty who would level this kind of criticism at Shaeffer and Sproul generally do so on the basis of an acceptance of certain postmodern beliefs, such as, (1) the rejection in general of certainty or confidence in knowing things in general as part of a rejection of modernism's prideful and overly ambitious claims to knowledge (as if the modern or Enlightenment period's approach to certainty in knowledge was the first and only paradigm for either confidence in knowing or the use of reason); (2) perspectivism (also indebted to Kant and means that truth is relative to or mediated by one's perspective or "conceptual framework" -- all Covenant College students are indoctrinated to believe that they wear perspectival glasses and cannot see or know reality or absolute truth directly); (3) pluralism (which is logically correlated with a tendency toward universalism or the belief that everyone is or will be saved in the end); and (4) in the integration of faith and learning, it is taught (this is found in Arthur Holmes' Idea of a Christian College) that there is a monism and not a (what Holmes calls a "gnostic") dualism of the kingdom of Christ and a perverse or evil world. I was told by one of the leading faculty members while attending a new professor's orientation meeting that the world of learning is a "friendlier" place to be than what our church background has taught us to think it was. (In my view, this last position denies Rom. 12:2 where we are taught not to be conformed to this world or age, and other places in Scripture which speak of sinister and evil aspects of the world system in which we live.)

Related also to pro-Kantian thinking, there is also an observable tendency for students to become Barthian and neo-orthodox under the teaching of Dr. Kelly Kapic, a self-declared postmodernist. He occupies an endowed chair and is popular with students and the faculty. No one seems to want to address this problem.

All three professors (Drs. Kapic, Green, and Petcher) recently given endowed chairs at Covenant College have significant sympathies with and to postmodernism.

All you would have to do is ask them: Do you believe that there is absolute truth and is it knowable or accessible to us?

When I was there, the philosophy club put together a forum to assess the Emerging Church movement (a postmodern movement in the church today). The president of the club told me that originally the plan was not to use philosophy professors for the panel but other members of the faculty to represent the side opposing or challenging the postmodern ideas in the Emerging Church. He said he had to change his plan, though, and was asking me to serve on the panel, because he couldn't find any one on the faculty who was critical of the postmodern ideas represented by the Emerging Church.

I have another serious concern about how the members of the faculty view Scripture in relation to education. Though their creedal commitment (the Westminster Standards) and statement of beliefs would seem to indicate a strong position on the role of Scripture in education, the actual application of that position in the classroom is different.

The Biblical and Theological Studies Department presented a document to the faculty, administration, and board of trustees in the beginning of 2007. The document was almost unanimously supported by the faculty. The purpose of the document was to resist a proposal by the trustees that the Affirmations be formally instated as part of the faculty manual. Instead, the Biblical and Theological Studies Dept. argued in their paper that Covenant College should discontinue the use of the Affirmations for hiring new faculty. The Biblical and Theological Studies Dept. believed that the Westminster Confession is all that is needed as a hiring standard. (Background note: the Affirmations originated at the request of the trustees, were written by faculty to please the trustees, and eventually used, contrary to faculty wishes, as a standard for hiring. The Affirmations themselves address contemporary cultural challenges to Christianity such as theistic evolution, abortion, homosexual practice, ordination of women as pastors, etc.)

There were things said, though, in the context of the Biblical and Theological Studies Dept.'s making their argument against the Affirmations that were, in my opinion, alarming. I will mention some of the main points that come readily to mind. They state that Scripture is "abstract" or "raw" and that without the interpretation which the Westminster Confession provides Scripture is not concretely meaningful. They also state that there are errors in the Bible that have to be specially interpreted. They have at best a weak view of the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. The also claim that there is a dual revelation (or "two books") of God: Scripture (special revelation) and secular learning (general revelation). They claim that Heb. 1:1 teaches that general revelation (what we read about in Psalm 19 and Rom. 1 and 2) involves actual words, not just a creation that declares God's power and glory (wordlessly as the psalm itself says). So their point seems to be that the major and canonical works, for example, in Western culture (whether Plato or Aquinas or Milton) are part of or on a par with God's revelation. This also implies that in contrast to the completeness of the biblical canon or special revelation, God's general revelation is ongoing or continuing.

There were, besides myself, leading trustees who were quite upset with what the Biblical and Theological Studies Department had written in their document. Emotions ran high. A special meeting of trustees, administration, and faculty was convened to calm the waters. The trustees declared the document unacceptable. But the trustees made a conciliatory move toward the faculty: they rejected the Affirmations as a standard of hiring. The trustees were aware that there was considerable solidary on the part of the faculty about the Affirmations. Consequently, the administration and faculty found a statement of beliefs that they could agree on and it replaced the Affirmations.

What no one addressed or even seem to want to address was the obvious fact that though the document written by the Biblical and Theological Studies Department and almost unanimously supported by the faculty was rejected by the trustees, this does not change the fact that that document obviously represents the opinions of the BTSD and the faculty. The trustees were given a rare opportunity to actually hear (through that document) not only what Covenant College faculty actually believe but also what they teach in the classroom.

By the beginning of the fall of 2007, I posted a paper in response to that document on an online faculty bulletin board. My paper was devoted to raising and address questions concerning the role of Scripture in relation to education at Covenant College and based on the document the faculty put forward. More specifically, I questioned certain points the Biblical and Theological Studies Dept. had made in relationship to the teaching of the Westminster Confession on the topic of the role, meaning, and status of Scripture.

The Biblical and Theological Studies Department (hereafter, "BTSD") under Ken Stewart as chair told me in no uncertain terms to remove the paper from the online faculty bulletin board. The BTSD represented by their chair went to Vice President of Academic Affairs Jeff Hall and persuaded him to have me temporarily remove my paper from the online faculty bulletin board until Dr. Hall had time to consider the matter.

I will not get into all the details of what followed but I eventually agreed to remove my paper from the faculty online bulletin board if the BTSD would meet with me and the chaplain and discuss the contents of my response paper. Ken Stewart, again, in no uncertain terms, informed me that his department would "not be theologically adjudicated by anyone." He also said that his department was not interested in actually responding to my paper as it was for reproving me for questioning them in that manner. The department met to discuss my proposal for a meeting and agreed that the chaplain would not be welcome to the meeting with me. They were willing to meet with me and no one else. On those terms, I declined to meet with them. And that's the way things were left.

To be clear: my no longer being at Covenant College is not because of the issues I am speaking of here. The faculty did deny me tenure, but I appealed and the president upheld my appeal. I was offered an ongoing arrangement of one-year contracts with what I and those involved understood to mean that there was a strong likelihood I'd never get a three or five year contract with the raises that go with such. But the reason I'm not there now is because I failed to meet a German language requirement that was part of my original contract when I came to Covenant College. I alone bear responsibility for that. I've never been good at learning foreign languages.

To attempt a summary of all I've said here and state it concisely: many on the faculty at Covenant College (1) are significantly influenced by postmodernism in their acceptance of post-Kantian perspectivism; (2) have a questionable commitment to a strong view of the inerrancy of Scripture as well as to belief in Sola Scriptura as the supreme standard for judging all doctrines and ideas; (3) approach the integration of faith and learning with an unbiblical, overly positive and optimistic construction placed on what is happening in the various fields of secular learning; and (4) have a dual view of divine revelation which in some sense puts secular developments in the sciences on a par with Scripture and makes them as divine revelation (and in contrast to Scripture) ongoing or continuing.

I hope this was helpful in answering your question. I'm sure it is far more than you were wanting, but you happened to hit upon a matter that weighs heavily on my heart. I'd be happy to answer any other questions. If you are interested, I could send you a copy of the paper I wrote.

Joseph Partain

__________________
J.N. Partain
PCA
Indianapolis, IN

Mr. Partain,

I cannot thank you enough for sharing this here. You have specifically addressed the things that I think have been *eluded* to by more than a couple of people in the form of a *caution* or *warning*. It is nice to hear this from someone directly involved rather than from *hearsay*. I appreciate your honesty very much. This has been very helpful to us.

I must admit, this is discouraging.

I would like to read your paper, by the way, and I will pm you our email.

As for your daughter's interest in Music, my best friend majored in piano at Geneva and her husband majored in Violin and Music Ed. She went on to get her masters at Ohio State, and now teaches piano (as adjunct) at Bryan College, which is another Christian school in TN, which it sounds like has a good music program. Her husband taught band at a school in Chattanooga and is now going to UTK for conducting or music theory or something. So that is two musical success stories from Geneva. They are both Reformed, and her husband became Reformed while at Geneva, I believe.

I personally think that the three schools are basically interchangeable, but I would send my kids to Geneva, first, and Covenant, second.

Sorry for not having a current review, though.

__________________
Shalom,
jessi
PCA
Steelers fan exiled to Virginia


“Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is really your God.”
Martin Luther

Dr. Partain,

I'll keep your words in mind this next semester (though as usual, I'll take it with a grain of salt--as I usually do when there's any sort of split). I did note a distinctly Kuyperian strain in the Christian mind class, but was reassured by some things Dr. Davis said.

I honestly don't know of a better reformed college.

From what I know both Grove City and Covenant are fine schools. Most of if not all the kids went to Covenant in our NoCal OPC churches. Though Grove City does have some very good bible teachers in T. David Gordon and Ian Duguid.

I went to The Masters College. Good fundy education though not distinctly reformed they are predestinarian and strongly, dogmatically dispensational. Dispite all that it was good times..

__________________
Jason Rivera
Member
Covenant OPC Berkeley, CA
Romans 4:5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Polly,

As the dad of six, a Covenant Alum, where I met my wife to be, I...

- started the oldest (adopted as a teenager) at Covenant (in '89) - lasted a barely a semester before not being able to accept what she said were the levels of maturity and community there, transferred to Bryan in Dayton TN, loved it (not Reformed, but with more mature students).

- 2nd oldest graduated Grove City class '01, after a top notch pre-med program. Sorry, Covenant doesn't hold a candle to Grove in most academic areas, a truly elite student body in academics (every 5th or 6th kid was 1st or 2nd in their respective H.S. class) and at the very least the equal in areas of maturity to the other schools mentioned. Went on to get her MD. The academic, vocational, and mission minded training w/ the Grove City pre-med profs prepared her well as she, and my son-in-law, both docs, help staff a medical campus Christian ministry. LOTS of PCA and OPC folks there at Grove City.

- #'s 3,4, and 5 had very specific vocational goals and training needs not addressed by Christian Colleges (Aviation, Intelligence, etc.)

- #6 just graduated class of '09 at Grove City, signed on for a year to teach ESL in China (now near Beijing) with one of those 'under the radar' Christian groups that recruit folks to serve dual purpose (ESL and mission) - the group recruiting is a fairly regular visitor recruiting at Grove City. Plans to take the LSAT in Beijing this year to try to get into law school when she's done in China. She was 2nd in her H.S. class, but barely average at Grove City.

My younger son is in the process of becoming a member of what I understand to be the largest congregation in the OPC (just outside DC in Maryland). He says it has a large, impressive, Grove City alum group there.

Polly, make sure your prospective student spends an overnite in the dorms of any college he/she wants to consider seriously. Also, at Grove, between 80-90% of the applicants admitted had on-campus interviews. Be sure your student does that if he/she really wants a chance there - it is, I think, rated in the 'most selective' catagory now by Peterson's guide. If your student is NOT interested in being challenged by 'the top of the class', do him/her a favor and don't go to Grove - it's not a place for the 'average but good' student if you know what I mean.

__________________
Warren
Member, PCA
South Carolina

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek"
Romans 1:16

Warren,

I am never went to Grove City (but I did go to my share of elite universities - UChicago grad school and UMichigan Law), but my (vicarious) experience has been similar to yours. My wife is a grad ('92) and I have now had a niece graduate and a nephew who is a Junior. One of our congregants is a freshman. A man from our old church who is now a PCA minister was Grove's "man of the year" in 2001 or 2002 (I forget).

I am very impressed with Grove City's quality of education and opportunities for spiritual growth (good Reformed profs, excellent PCA/OPC churches).

Either choice would be a good one.

I know some faculty members at both schools but I'm more familiar with Grove City (and esp. the theology/Bible dept) since one of our former faculty (Iain Duguid) teaches there and my old and dear friend Paul Schaefer is head of the dept.

Without slighting Geneva, I can recommend Grove City enthusiastically. We've had good grads from both schools but I think some of our more outstanding students have been Grove City graduates. (Otoh, one of our current faculty and the pastor of the OPC congregation that meets on campus are both Geneva grads).

__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Westminster Seminary California
Associate Pastor, Oceanside URC
The Heidelcast Podcast
The Heidelblog

Dr. Partain,

I am quite confused. How can the above be true, and it also be true that the philosophy department is Thomist? Thomism was pre-modern, and isn't the neo-Thomism espoused by, say, Etienne Gilson opposed to Kantian (or post-Kantian) epistemology? What you described in your post sounded more like critical realism (a la Michael Polyani or even Alister McGrath) than Thomism. The perspectival glasses comment sounds very Kuyperian/VanTillian, though with a more individual bent.

__________________
Charlie Johnson
Downtown Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, student

Critical realism then would be what would be taught at Geneva these days, at least in those classes where Esther Meek is the professor. Much of her academic focus has been on Polanyi.

__________________
Wayne Sparkman, Th.M.
Director, PCA Historical Center, St. Louis, MO
Blogs: The Continuing Story and PCA History Blog

Please, have mercy on me, a mom - NOT a theologian and speak in layman's terms. LOL!

I am familiar with some of these things because I enjoy digging and studying, but I admit that I read Mr. Partain's letter with a dictionary close and doing some googling.

Please explain critical realism vs Thomony.

The bottom line is that if my daughter's best choices for a reformed education puts her in a classroom where scripture is fallible and all things are relative, then I will send her down the road to the state school, which is CHEAPER and the issues are not cloaked. If she's going to get garbage *anyway*, I'd rather it be EVIDENT and that she get it for *free*. (She has high test scores and gpa, full scholarship is a possibility)

Polly,

I don't think that there is going to be no difference between a Christian school and a State school, even if there are troubling aspects of the teaching. I am not sure what the answer is, but i wanted to make sure that you consider not only the academic environment, but also:

1. The availability of solid, Reformed churches in the area that will minister to your daughter. If given the choice, I would send my children to Texas A&M, where I know there is a great PCA church and a rock solid RUF man and ministry, than a Christian school where there is no good Reformed church within 100 miles. I find that parents do not adequately consider this fact , which i think trumps nearly everything else. (Not saying you have, but I want to be clear to everyone).

2. The actual social atmosphere of the campus. I don't mean in terms of how easy it is to fill your calendar, but how ungodly the student body is.

CharlieJ,

It's actually part of the difference between the philosophy and biblical studies departments at Covenant. I noticed from the get-go that while my philosophy professor was thomist, that my OT prof was a presuppositionalist. I suspect that some of the teaching (at least in some areas) is in reaction to the teaching of Gordon Clark there thirty years ago (though, to date, I have heard him referenced once).

Polly, the fact is that there is no perfect school. What I would encourage you to do is to actually visit and talk with the faculty at these schools and also letting your daughter make some judgement calls on this.

Thank you Fred, and I (we) do *completely* agree.

I have also asked about Union University here, it is not far. We are also close to Univ. of Memphis and Ole Miss. All three of these schools have programs that will satisfy academically and musically. All three give her the option of either good PCA churches and active RUF OR the option of attending *our* OPC church plant while in school. (Yes, we know the reputation at Ole Miss! But we also know there *is* a strong RUF there...and we are close enough that commuting is possible if necessary - she also has a couple of strong Christian friends starting there this fall)

We are a close family (with extended family near) and lots of good friendships. I think my questions here have served a good purpose for us. My husband, daughter and I have pretty much come to the conclusion that we don't need to send her *away*. There is nothing *away* that outweighs what she has available *here*. (This is her personal preference as well)

I (we) really appreciate the feedback we've been getting here. It has helped us to prayerfully consider all things. The decision isn't *made*, but things are becoming clearer.

We have been visiting campuses and visit Union this coming week.

We will continue to appreciate any feedback. We also have friends who are considering these schools as well, so we are passing on anything shared here.

-----Added 8/7/2009 at 09:53:32 EST-----

It appears I'm out of thanks

Thank you Philip. Yes, I know there is no perfect school. My daughter has been completely involved in all of this, down to sitting and reading Mr. Partain's post. LOL! And yes, we have hunted down and talked with many people, but there is also something to be said for asking outsiders. Faculty will not always give you what you are searching to find out. Typically, they have a *party line* so to speak. LOL! So, we are taking *all* with a grain of salt and praying for wisdom.

We know the Lord will guide our daughter to the school He can use to equip her for the way in which He plans to use her. We see His hand already.

Polly,

I'm glad that you are moving closer to a decision. If I can be of any help, especially with respect to Grove City, I'd be happy to. Feel free to send me an email:

fred.greco at cckpca dot org

Polly, If your daughter actually read my earlier post, I'd say she is really serious about this! And if she reads this one, I'll personally pay for her education! (Just kidding, of course. I'm presently living at the poverty level, living off my retirement savings and trying to find work as a philosophy teacher.)

Anyway, I just read everything posted after my first entry and have, as you can see, too much to say. I am actually a very quiet person in real life. It must be that I'm making everyone pay for my unemployment by listening to me hold forth on what I think it means to get a proper Christian education!

First, it's probably important to note that the present philosophy department at Covenant College does not have anything like the same influence it once had on the faculty under Dr. Reg McLelland (retired in 2007). Or, I perhaps should say: it remains to be seen what influence that department will have. With the changing of the guard, the scene has changed dramatically. However that may be, to speak of a philosophical school of thought in the philosophy department at Covenant College presently is largely unrelated to what the rest of the faculty believe. If you were to poll the faculty right now, I'm fairly confident that the majority would agree with me.

So, we probably need to be more specific to avoid confusion.

There are two professors in the Philosophy Department at Covenant College right now: Drs. Bill Davis and John Wingard.

Dr. Bill Davis is likely the present chair (has been since 2002). Dr. Davis is somewhat difficult to pin down philosophically. This is an important way in which he is different from Dr. McLelland and is part of why, in my opinion, the department has less influence with the faculty. Dr. Davis identifies himself as a Reidian. Although, Dr. Davis seems to follow Nicholas Wolterstorff's more postmodern reading of Thomas Reid. I wouldn't say (and don't think he would say) that Dr. Davis is a common sense or naive realist at all (as one could say of Thomas Reid -- though both Wolterstoff and Davis would probably argue with me here). Dr. Davis has a great respect for Lesslie Newbigin (works such as Proper Confidence) and Newbigin has what could be identified as postmodern leanings and sympathies. In what I know of Dr. Davis, I would place him still in the camp of perspectivism or the postmodern (Kantian) belief that all knowledge is interpretive (i.e., we can only and necessarily see things "as" this or that) and not directly correspondent to reality or truth itself (i.e., we can see some things directly, the they way they actually are, in reality or truth).

The other philosophy professor, Dr. John Wingard, I believe, is the professor being referred to in these posts as pre-modern, a Thomist (i.e., in some significant but unspecified sense, indebted to Thomas Aquinas).

Dr. Wingard came to Covenant College my last year there (2007-2008). When he interviewed, he told the philosophy department that he had used Douglas Groothuis' book, Truth Decay, in an apologetics course. In my opinion, this book is consistent with the work of Francis Schaeffer, as well as with a direct or naive realism (the belief that reality or truth not only exists but is directly and immediately or non-mediately knowable). I supported the choice to hire Dr. Wingard and was quite surprised (as well as thankful to God) that Dr. Wingard was hired.

Last year (2008-2009) was Dr. Wingard's second year at Covenant College and that means that this year (2009-2010) is his third year in which he will write a paper and apply for a three year contract at the college. I'm pretty confident he will get a contract, even though he is pre-modern.

One of the concerns I have about both Drs. Davis and Wingard is that they both seem to have the view that because the Bible does not openly present a theory of knowing (an epistemology) akin to the questions and theoretical proposals of Western philosophy, the Bible does not, therefore, have an epistemology.

I think this is seriously mistaken.

(By the way, you may recall the nature-grace distinction which Francis Schaeffer criticized in Thomas Aquinas, how Schaeffer says that because of Aquinas there has been a tendency in Western culture after Aquinas for reason to destroy faith -- his graphic expression for this was: "nature eats up grace." This happened, Schaeffer argued, because Aquinas believed that the sciences belong to evidence and reason while the Bible and Christianity belong to faith.)

What tends to happen with such a view of Scripture is that, by default more than anything else, one tends to get one's epistemology from Western philosophy and then brings and applies it to Scripture. Consequently, an epistemology foreign to, even undermining of, God's revelation through Scripture may well have its leavening infuence. Again, as Schaeffer says: "nature eats up grace."

Basically (and for example), it means that Dr. McLelland's claim that we get our metaphysics from the Bible is not altogether (even on his own terms as a Dooyeweerdian, a term I explain below for those who aren't familiar with Dooyeweerd) complete or correct: for epistemology is inseparable from metaphysics. And metaphysics always includes this consideration: the nature of the reality in and from which any theory of knowing has its point of departure and environment.

I would suggest that the Bible does not have to present its truth in the form of Western philosophy's questions and theories in order to serve as reliable truth or knowledge in the areas it touches on.

Moreover, the Bible does clearly evidence both metaphysical and epistemological realism (the view that reality or truth exists and is directly and reliably knowable) in its assumptions, and those assumptions are integrally related to what it means to know God.

So my claim is that the Bible does have a theory of knowing (which is epistemological realism) just as it has a philosophy of history, a philosophy of religion, a philosophy of human nature, a philosophy of ethics, a philosophy of ultimate reality, etc. On none of these other areas does the Bible declare itself the way philosophy's own dialectic does. But whatever the Bible says in those areas where there is an overlap with Western philosophy, its knowledge and truth must be taken seriously as knowledge or truth from God. The prerequisites of knowing which God's self-revelation through Scripture assumes cannot be traded out or synthesized (for example) with the skepticism and perspectivism of modern and postmodern philosophy without changing what it means to know God.

Put another way: we must not use the tool of philosophy to craft mental idols out of the material content of Scripture.

Getting back to the infuence of the philosophy department and what I said at the outset about Dr. McLelland: again, it's important to recognize, in my opinion, that the dominant role the philosophy department had at Covenant College had for roughly the last 20 years was due mainly to Dr. Reg McLelland.

Dr. McLelland is a presuppositionalist or perspectivist, Kantian, Vantillian, significantly postmodern, and neo-orthodox. (All these descriptions are logically related to one philosopher: Kant.)

Dr. McLelland probably more than anyone else shaped the thinking of the faculty all those years. That was due both to his personality and his sincere, well meaning passion as a teacher: to get the entire college on the same page of integrating Calvinism or Reformed theology with certain aspects of Kant's thinking and postmodernism, etc. was very important to him. He worked relentlessly to that end -- in public and private.

I can remember a time, for example, when I was sitting at the table with other professors, eating lunch in the cafeteria, and hearing Dr. McLelland expostulate (like a Sermon at the Table) out of the clear blue: "Now we rely on the Bible for metaphysical reality but we rely on science for empirical reality." Heads nodded approvingly, and I was thinking, "Who does he think he is?" Of course, to be fair, I may not have been the only professor there thinking that. But the point is many on the faculty agreed with him.

In another lunch setting of faculty members, we were having a similar conversation. I was sitting next to Dr. McLelland and suddenly turned to him and asked: "Do you believe that Jesus Christ was literally and physically raised from the dead?" Dr. McLelland's head bobbed as he turned immediately to his left and inquired of another professor who was known to be the most conservative member of the faculty in the Biblical and Theological Studies Department: "Professor So and So, what do you believe about that?" The professor rather sheepishly referred to 1 Corinthians 15 and the importance Paul places on the literal resurrection of Christ. The subject was dropped after that comment.

A day or two later, Dr. McLelland let me know that he was somewhat hurt that I had questioned his orthodoxy in such a manner. He talked about it with a colleague who served as his spokesman in the situation. The colleague later explained to me (lightly laughing as he did) that Dr. McLelland's hesitance over my question was because he wasn't sure that the same molecules of Jesus' body could be disassembled and reassembled as a literal resurrection seems to imply.

Please understand that I don't relate this anecdote to make Dr. McLelland look bad. I wish to give outsiders who are inquiring a glimpse of what it was like on the inside when I taught at Covenant College.

And I relate this incident to say that it fits what I observed as a general approach to education in a Christian context, and that is, that whatever the scholars or experts say in any particular field of knowledge is what tends to carry the most weight, even if it conflicts with the Bible.

That I observed this is no surprise, really, if one cares to investigate the philosophy of education that has dominated Covenant College for many of the years in which Dr. McLelland was there. One name stands out to identify this philosophy: Dooyeweerd (especially as interpreted by Arthur Holmes and Roy Clouser).

The long and short of it is that Dooyeweerd (and Clouser) regards the Bible as a "religious book" which does not offer reliable truth or knowledge when it overlaps with non-religious areas of knowledge. Dooyeweerd puts the Bible out of play, when it comes to any application to other fields of learning. He believed that he had to protect all the other areas of knowledge from Scripture to preserve the intellectual freedom necessary for them.

On this point Van Til and Dooyeweerd had a major disagreement (see, e.g., essays in Jerusalem or Athens?). (By the way, an excellent warning about and critique of Dooyeweerd can be found in Dr. John Frame's writings. He has an essay, "On the Amsterdam School," or something like that.)

Hence, under a Dooyeweedian approach to Christian education, if postmodernism prevails as critical theory in either literature or philosophy, this is what should be taught. If evolution is what science advocates, then this should be taught. If Freudianism is what psychology is all about, then it should be taught. If sociology upholds cultural relativism, that's what should be taught. If Barth is held in high regard in modern theology, then Barth should be taught as one to be respected accordingly. That is, in all these cases, what the scholars or experts uphold should be taught instead of Scripture and, especially, apart from any outside criticism from Scripture.

In short, this is my general concern about the faculty at Covenant College (regardless of the college's storefront advertisement of the faculty's commitment to the Westminster Confession and Scripture): in my opinion, the faculty do not take the Scriptures as seriously as they should for reliable, authoritative, and pertinent knowledge in their respective fields of learning. Anyone who actually attempts to do that is labelled a "fundamentalist" (the kiss of death for Christian faculty) and marginalized accordingly.

But on a postive note: Dr. McLelland is gone now. Dr. Wingard is not a postmodernist, and both he and Dr. Davis are otherwise known (my above stated concerns notwithstanding) for upholding the Westminster Confession and Scripture teaching. President Nielson clearly, strongly, and publicly supports the use of Scripture as a standard of truth in all the fields of learning (read, for example, his blog at Covenant College | The college of the Presbyterian Church in America). So does Chaplain Rev. Aaron Messner, a powerful and excellent expositor of Scripture who preaches two or three times a week. None of this changes the fact, of course, that the majority opinion and trend of thinking among the faculty is postmodern. But it does indicate to my mind that the Lord may be on the move to make Covenant College more truly Reformed in its teaching.

My ongoing prayer for Covenant College is that our gracious Head, the Lord Jesus Christ, would shake the foundations of that school and place godly, courageous, Valiant for Truth teachers there for the sake of the lambs of Christ entrusted to their spiritual care. I am praying (and would beg any of you to pray) the same prayer for myself as a teacher, because there is much to be repented of and reformed in my own life in the great and ongoing process of what it means to be "truly Reformed." God knows that my saying this is not an affected humility but a real and urgent need.

I apologize that I seem not to be able to write a short post. I'll stop now before my mind builds up steam and takes off again.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*You could do a Google search on "idealism" or "epistemological idealism" and you'd find a nice article providing a historical survey which shows that "critical realism," though popularly accepted as the label for this kind of epistemology is actually a misnomer. It is heavily indebted to Kant, and Kant more accurately identified this (as well as his) epistemology as "transcendental idealism." "Idealism" is the view that reality is or primarily is mental. I don't think British/American philosophers in the Analytic tradition like being called "idealists" in any sense (but that's another story). But the point is that in the history of Analytic treatments of German idealism, though they were critical of such, they also bought into it significantly. And then called their version, "critical realism." They just got to where they believed that epistemological idealism is the way knowing is and declared it "realism" of a "critical" sort. But, I would argue, this is a historical and terminological error which muddies the waters of epistemology.

Again, I thank you Mr. Partain. It will likely take us a bit longer to dig through this post and digest it, but we *will*. My daughter DID read and ponder the first one and she will read this one. She is quite hungry herself to learn and understand and be able to defend that which she believes. She has inherited her mother's *question everything* mentality. LOL!

It seems like part of the issue here is the dilution of, or removal of, what is basically the *faith* aspect of our beliefs. It seems that scripture is good as long as *we* can understand it and follow it out from point A to point D. But, when there are things in scripture which require nothing more than *faith* in "God said it, so it is so", then scripture cannot possibly be true and we must look to science or whatever other discipline to look for a way to *explain* it away and therefore reconcile the scripture to our human understanding, rather than just accept that some things are a mystery. Also, possibly a bit of "scripture may say *thus and so*, but since it hasn't been *my personal experience*, then scripture cannot possibly *mean* that" seems to be in there.

Am I oversimplifying and painting too broad a stroke? Or missing the point altogether?

The questions you have asked are good ones as you go through the college search process. Blogs can be helpful but I’d also like to encourage you to visit the Geneva College Web site, particularly the links that I have provided below. Make no mistake, Geneva College is reformed and integrates faith in and beyond the classroom.

Here are some excerpts from Geneva College’s Foundational Concepts:
“Inasmuch as we were created to glorify God, Christian education seeks to develop the students’ abilities to know God and to relate themselves and the created universe to God through the study of His Word and Works.”

“Christian education endeavors to develop each student’s capacity for the enjoyment of the world as God’s creation, in all its cultural richness, realizing that all of life as a coherent whole is related to God and His redemptive activity.” Geneva College - Foundational Concepts

Dr. Kenneth A. Smith, President of Geneva College, articulated his vision for the institution in his October, 2004 inaugural address: Geneva College - President Smith's Inaugural Address

These viewbooks will give you a current glimpse into life at Geneva College:

Faith and Learning: http://www.geneva.edu/object/faith_viewbook.html

Academics: http://www.geneva.edu/object/academic_viewbook.html

Explore from a distance what Geneva College has to offer through the Web site. Contact me as you have questions at church.relations@geneva.edu. Better yet, plan a visit to the campus to experience Geneva College for yourself.

__________________
Becky Phillips
Associate Director of Church & Parent Relations
Geneva College
Member, College Hill Reformed Presbyterian Church
Beaver Falls, PA

Thank you. Now I understand where you're coming from and can make sense of your posts. Your rejection of Kant and your connection of Kant with Van Til is significant to the way you view the goings-on at Covenant College. I'm not inclined to argue with you, since I too see a great deal of Kant in Van Til (but I'm not yet sure that's a bad thing).

However, could I ask for just a little bit more clarification on behalf of members who may have been shocked by your posts? Are you saying that Van Tillians are necessarily postmodern/neo-orthodox, or that Van Tillianism leads to (or stems from) postmodernism/neo-orthodoxy, or simply that Van Tillianism is compatible with postmodernism/neo-orthodoxy? (I think those are the only options.) I ask this because there are many Van Tillians on this board, and they probably could not make any sense out of how someone could be labeled all the ways you labeled Dr. McLellan.

Thank you. Now I understand where you're coming from and can make sense of your posts. Your rejection of Kant and your connection of Kant with Van Til is significant to the way you view the goings-on at Covenant College. I'm not inclined to argue with you, since I too see a great deal of Kant in Van Til (but I'm not yet sure that's a bad thing).

However, could I ask for just a little bit more clarification on behalf of members who may have been shocked by your posts? Are you saying that Van Tillians are necessarily postmodern/neo-orthodox, or that Van Tillianism leads to (or stems from) postmodernism/neo-orthodoxy, or simply that Van Tillianism is compatible with postmodernism/neo-orthodoxy? (I think those are the only options.) I ask this because there are many Van Tillians on this board, and they probably could not make any sense out of how someone could be labeled all the ways you labeled Dr. McLellan.

Charlie,

These are carefully nuanced and thoughtful questions. How they are answered can, of course, have profound implications for those who are Reformed. I think by the way you pose these questions, you are aware that the stakes are high.

At Westminster Seminary for forty-three years, as you know, Cornelius Van Til had a significant influence on an entire generation of Reformed pastors. As you've noted, a number of people associated with this blog are Van Tillian. It is not surprising that he has had such an impact. He was quite intelligent, spiritually alive and dedicated to Christ, committed to Scripture, and well versed in philosophy.

As you noted, Van Til is, while being critical of Kant, also indebted to Kant. Through Kant, Van Til brought to the church (at least in its Reformed branch) an epistemology that was a synthesis of Reformed theology and Western philosophy (Kant). The result was particularly evident in a new apologetics, altogether unprecedented in the church's history. John Frame recognizes this when he notes a parallel between the importance of Kant in all that follows in Western philosophy and that of Van Til in Reformed circles and thinking.

We might want to pause here for a moment, though, and think through the troubling implications of this (regardless of what one thinks of either Kant or Van Til):

(1) Can we identify another instance in the church's history where an significant overhaul of the presentation and defense of the gospel of Jesus Christ hinged on the teaching of a secular philosopher?

(2) If Van Til had been relying solely on Scripture (Sola Scriptura), which is arguably the most important principle of Reformed thinking, would he have been able to present his influential proposal for apologetics?

(3) Related to the first question, if Van Til was right to incorporate Kant's epistemology into Reformed and biblical theology, does that not mean that the church was in the dark on apologetics for roughly eighteen hundred years prior to Kant? Moreover, does that not mean that the apostles themselves (e.g., Peter in Acts 2 and Paul in Acts 17:2-4), not having Kant's theory of knowing, mistakenly related to people as if there was a common ground of neutrality, shared facts, etc. between themselves and the unregenerate people they were trying to persuade that Jesus is the Messiah?

(4) And does this not all mean that Scripture, as the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20) and that which equips the "man of God" for "every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), is actually not sufficient or complete enough for that "good work" which is preaching and defending the gospel of Christ? That the church doesn't have its fullness completely in its head Jesus Christ but needs philosophy for that particular aspect of its work? That the church needed Kant before it was fully enlightened about the true state of the unregenerate in their blindness and with respect to knowing in general and hence, what ought or ought not to be said in bringing the gospel to them -- what ought or ought not to be expected of them as unregenerate?

Just on the face of things, why is it that Reformed people have become so enamoured with a philosopher? Have they read Calvin's Institutes with a view to noting his critical posture toward philosophy, his reasons for opposing any synthesis of Christianity and Western philosophy? Have they really worked through the philosophically learned apostle Paul's clear charge: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy" (Colossians 2:8)?

Anyway, it is difficult to talk about Van Til's ideas without considering philosophy, and particularly, what is going on in Kant.

The short answer (oops, too late!) to your question is that Van Tillianism, postmodernism, and neo-orthodoxy all share the epistemological idealism of Kant.

Moreover, the approach that Van Til took with synthesizing modern philosophy (Kant) and Reformed Christianity has a logical and historical continuum -- i.e., the insight Van Til took from modern philosophy in its historical development calls for an update: modernism has aged into postmodernism.

I will say more about this later, but Van Til naively and inconsistently assumed a direct realistic access to Scriptural meaning, although, this was what saved him from the implications of epistemological idealism which in its latter form as postmodernism denied that there was any directly or immediately accessible meaning in the text (the Bible included).

But I've gotten ahead of myself. I've already used a term which may not be clear. So if I may, I need to do some preliminary work first before I respond further to your questions. Though you may be familiar with my terminology, for the sake of clarity and for readers who may be following this discussion who may not be familiar with philosophy, I will provide a couple of definitions that will need to be learned, or it will be difficult (if it isn't difficult already) to follow me.

I. I define "epistemological realism" as the belief that reality or truth exists and is directly or immediately knowable.

For my purposes, "epistemological realism" is the same as "common sense realism," "naive realism," and "direct realism."

"Epistemological realism" is associated with the "correspondence theory" of truth which states that "truth is what accords with (or corresponds to) reality."

The implication here is that there is a reliable correlation between the way the mind processes reality and the way reality itself is. There can, therefore, be a match between the way the mind knows things and the way things actually are.

I see a pencil on my desk right now.

"Epistemological realism" takes that statement not as a claim or "belief" that needs to be justified somehow before it can become knowledge (the way philosophers may feel is necessary) but as "knowledge" already and in itself.

It is called "simple seeing" or "knowledge by acquaintance." It stands for knowing in its "is-structure" -- i.e. and in my above example, The pencil is the object I see and its actual structure or form accords with what I see.

This is just plain ordinary or everyday knowing as all of us know and depend on it.

One more definition.

II. I define "epistemological idealism" as the belief that reality or truth exists but is indirectly or mediately knowable. Reality is known through or by ideas, by conditions and structures internal to the mind.

Using the pencil illustration, epistemological idealism speaks this way: "I am being appeared to in the manner of a pencil on my desk. I see a particular object (x) as a pencil. It has the "as-structure" of a pencil. I don't know what it really looks like (its "is-structure"); I only know how it appears to me given the way my mind conditions it."

There is a family of different theories of truth which may all be associated with "epistemological idealism." I will mention the primary one: "the coherence theory of truth." Here's the definition: "truth is what coheres with everything else we believe."

There are other theories in the same family belonging to epistemological idealism (such as the "pragmatic theory of truth") but what this family does not accept, of course, is the "correspondence theory of truth."

Often in philosophy, "idealism" is regarded as a metaphysical (what pertains to the ultimate nature of things) description merely -- i.e., as the belief that reality is entirely mental or the product of the mind. Bishop Berkeley is most generally associated with this extreme form of "idealism."

But Western philosophy presents other forms of idealism than the Berkeleyan variety.

First, Plato's doctrine of the Ideas or Forms states that reality exists in an immaterial realm only encountered directly or immediately when the soul is disembodied after death. In that state, the soul sees directly or immediately the Ideas or Forms. Then when the soul is reincarnated it learns by recalling through questions what it knew perfectly, directly, and immediately when it saw the Ideas or Forms in its disembodied state. The material realm is a shadow (less real) of the immaterial realm. According to Plato, "the body is the prison house of the soul." Matter/body gets in the way of mind, distorts knowledge, makes knowing imperfect. The more purely rational one is while in an embodied state in the material realm is the more one makes progress in knowing reality as it actually is (that is the Forms or Ideas themselves).

Second, fast forward to Descartes, the father of modern philosophy. Descartes holds to a radical dualism between mind and body/matter -- that these are two different substances which cannot relate to each other. In his quest for indubitable knowledge, he believes all he can know, is known by a subjective turn within: his own ideas or thoughts as a thinking being. Plato's Ideas or Forms are now in the human mind itself. The mind has become its own prison. And that's where I'll have to leave it for now.

Blessings,

Joseph

My twin graduated from Grove City College in 2005. While he was very challenged and enjoyed it thoroughly, he felt pressured to date and marry...in fact, at the 'welcome speech' for new freshmen in 2001, one of the ladies speaking said, "Look to your left, and look to your right; your future mate may be in sight."

The school, is as previously stated...barely affiliated with the PCUSA and would not endorse the liberalism there. My brother said that the university president at the time would often join he and his friends on the back porch of one of the men's dorms for a pipe and theology discussions.

My sister went to Geneva briefly, but don't know much about it.

__________________
Jeremy Bailey
Deacon (Currently, not serving), PCA
Grace Church of Pleasanton (Seeking in San Antonio)
San Antonio, TX

Could you give some reasons for us to think that CVT has 1) imported elements of Kantian epistemology, and 2) imported elements contrary to Scripture (as your whole discussion seems to rest on these two points)?
Or am I missing where you already have done this?
Thanks for your detailed comments

__________________
Patrick
Covenant (OPC), Brighton, MI

Patrick,

No, you haven't missed it. I haven't shown that, yet. That's coming next.

Thanks for reading my post.

Joseph Partain

Whoa! I'M THERE!

Actually, I've never heard of GCC before this thread. I'm going to look into it. The only other college I've been this interested in is Masters College.

__________________
Andrew Thornquist My Photo Album
Calvinistic Baptist
Ukiah, California
To follow Christ was the best decision God made for me!

Geneva is where my oldest daughter is at. She’ll be starting her sophomore year later this month. Geneva has been an outstanding school for her. We have been highly impressed with the depth of the school’s Christian commitment and also how well they integrate their core beliefs into every area (academic, residence halls, student activities, you-name-it).

You may want to check this webpage out to get a better idea of Geneva’s commitment: Geneva College - Mission Statement

I don’t know of any other Christian college that both expresses this so clearly and does it so well. If I can give you any other information, please feel free to contact me. The other big issue for us was the cost. Geneva has been very good to us with their grants and scholarships. So don’t go just by the tuition sticker price. The bottom-line cost at Geneva is actually much less than other Christian schools. Specifically, we compared Grove City with Geneva, and we got a much better financial aid package with Geneva than what Grove City offered. And no, I don’t work for Geneva’s P.R. department – though I wouldn’t mind if I did.

__________________
Bruce
OPC
Pennsylvania

Hi Becky

Thank you for your post. We spent alot of time on the websites of each school I have asked about here.

I would like to reassure anyone reading that, while I (we) appreciate VERY much the feedback we are being given, we are weighing everything from many different factors and perspectives.

We actually visited Union University today...and were pleasantly surprised by what we found.

We continue to pray for God's guidance.

-----Added 8/11/2009 at 11:26:25 EST-----

Thank you Bruce. That was helpful.

Travel would be a big cost for us as well.

-----Added 8/11/2009 at 11:47:07 EST-----

Mr. Partain, we are still reading and trying to digest Thank you for defining your terms. This is very helpful on many levels....beyond my OP.

Would it be correct to understand that an outcome of epistemological idealism might be "every man doing what is right in his own eyes"? Or, am I oversimplifying...or just plain missing it? LOL!

When you visit make sure it is in the dead of winter so that you can experience wet feet and icy roads. (I grew up north of Grove City and DO NOT miss the winters!)

__________________
Pastor Nathan Eshelman, Los Angeles, CA
Reformed Presbyterian Church
PRESBYTERIAN THOUGHTS
Los Angeles Reformed Presbyterian Church
RPCLA Sermons Online
Puritan Reformed Seminary

For those who are interested, I've started a new thread (as suggested by Charliej). You can find it here.

Puritan Forum > Apologetics Forum > Philosophy

The focus of the thread is on the question of whether or what relationship (if any) there may be between Van Tillianism, Postmodernism, and Neo-orthodoxy.

Joseph

Errgh....I didn't think about that. I don't do well with the cold. Warm weather is definitely the most comfortable to me. Oh well, stretching myself and going through it might be a good thing. Haha, I'll try to remember this when I schedule a visit.