The Controversial Points

Maybe it would be most helpful if I mentioned what I think are the four most controversial points of my series on what a Wesleyan academic institution might be. I would welcome your evaluation, thoughts, and contribution on these four issues:

1. I have suggested that it is Scripture in its "received" sense (Scripture-as-churched) that should hold prime of place in the dialog of academic disciplines. But the implication is that some perceived original meaning of an individual passage might at times constitute more of an equal voice in discussions with the perceived conclusions of other disciplines. Is this correct? What are the unforeseen consequences?

2. I have suggested that dialog should take place between academic disciplines and the concerns of theology and Scripture under the rubric of "All truth is God's truth." The presumption is that, on some level, all real truths can be integrated. At times this may be in God's mind, but this is no reason to avoid trying. Still, perceived biblical interpretations change as do the perceived conclusions of various disciplines. Therefore, dialog must always take place.

3. I have suggested that individual disciplines must "map" their conclusions to the consensual beliefs of Christendom. By this concept I suggest the important factor is not the specifics of the doctrine but the essence of what the doctrinal affirmation meant to affirm.

4. I have suggested that it is helpful to have some diversity of belief at a large Wesleyan institution with the understanding that the Wesleyan positions are the positions of the university and that it is the fixed standpoint from which the others are measured. I suggest that the current percentage requirements (66% for religion division, 50% for broader university) change slightly.

Just as a starting bid, how about that 75% of the entire faculty and 75% of the entire religion division be Wesleyan in theology (mandatory for theology profs--I also think there are some necessary points of concurrence on other issues as well for the whole division, such as an affirmation of women in ministry by all involved in ministerial training)? Then how about if 50% of the religion division, including chair, be Wesleyan in denomination, along with the president and key administrators?

Any thoughts on these ideas?