Moving off—or being perceived as moving off—from sufficiently conservative viewpoints is a major gamble with poor odds of success. The inverse is also true—the more conservative a religious-based college is, the better its odds are of not just surviving, but flourishing.

For decades, Hillsdale College and Grove City College mirrored each other.
Fiercely independent, neither takes any federal dollars, including government-backed student loans, in order to be exempt from most federal rules.
Located in bucolic settings — Hillsdale in agricultural southern mid-Michigan and Grove City in the hills of western Pennsylvania — one feels smarter simply by stepping on the carefully groomed campuses with spectacular academic buildings, chapels and residence halls. Both have reputations as bastions of conservatism.
But the last two years have started to push the two apart, at least in the minds of their core markets.
Hillsdale, to the delight of conservatives and the consternation of liberals, has continued to burnish its conservative credentials. It has worked closely on education matters with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis  and Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee.
“The college’s belief in genuine classical education and its deep admiration for the principles of the American Founding, as espoused in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, has made it a target for those who oppose such challenges to the status quo of what is now taught in most American institutions of higher education,” Hillsdale spokeswoman Emily Davis told the Free Press, adding that Hillsdale wants all students, not just those in Michigan, to have a quality education. “Hillsdale College has been dedicated to pursuing truth and defending liberty since 1844 and has no plans of retreating from that noble effort.”
And while Hillsdale alumni, students and faculty have been supportive of the college, alumni, students and faculty at Grove City have been engaged in all-out-war  over whether it is woke.
The two schools represent the newest battle in Christian higher education, one that isn’t centered on theological issues such as creationism or who is God, but rather on whether Donald Trump won the last election or whether Black people are still targeted by systematic racism in America. It’s about politics brought to campus, witnessed by students who arrive as self-styled culture warriors, armed with smartphones and social media.
This conflict of ideas is setting up a litmus test with real consequences: Want to survive and perhaps even flourish as a small religious liberal arts school? Don’t invite someone to speak on campus who can be characterized as being woke. Have your soaring chapel be dedicated with a speech from Clarence Thomas. Be a training ground for the next Ben Shapiro.
“The clearer a faith-based institution is on where they stand on issues, the more families are happy with them,” said Jim Hunter, chief executive officer of Emerge Education, a Pennsylvania-based college enrollment consulting firm. He has studied and co-authored an academic paper on the topic.
The statistics show a clear result: Moving off  — or being perceived as moving off — from sufficiently conservative viewpoints is a major gamble with poor odds of success. The inverse is also true — the more conservative a religious-based college is, the better its odds are of not just surviving, but flourishing.
The growth comes in the crossing of two narratives. One: conservatives convinced in the depths of their hearts they aren’t welcome in higher ed and thus highly attuned to any slight — real or perceived — that their so-called safe institution is no longer a place where their views can be heard and even flourish. Two: a realization by college leaders that times are tough and they have got to keep people happy.
“It’s a major reality,” said Grove City President Paul McNulty, a former George W. Bush appointee in the U.S. Attorney General’s Office. “It’s a continuous reality. You have to always be thinking, ‘how will this impact our ability to attract students?’ ”
The upheaval in religious education is rivaling the great debates over higher education from the 1920s that led to the foundation of many superconservative schools, like what is now Bob Jones University, where some were upset over what they saw as a progressive-led move away from traditional belief systems to a more inclusive, modern approach to the world.
Different than previous Christian higher education disputes?
In 1994, I got word the president of the small Christian liberal arts college I was attending wanted to see me. The school, then known as Grand Rapids Baptist College, was going to announce it would be changing its name to Cornerstone College. As the editor of the school paper, I was going to be writing the story on the change and needed the information.
The name change was an acknowledgment by the school’s board and administration that the student body was, while still Christian, not simply from the Baptist denomination. It was also part of other shifts, including the loosening of various rules, that left the college, while still more conservative than most places, a wee bit more progressive than before. The changes drew protests from some alumni and donors, worried about the direction of the school, particularly that it was moving away from its traditional set of beliefs.
It’s not uncommon for there to be disputes about the direction in which a college is headed. Those debates date to the early 1900s, when a push was made to have colleges and universities focus more on scientific methods and less on their faith-based foundations. Then, in the 1920s, conservatives fought back and founded a variety of very conservative schools.
Now it’s 2022. The most recent battle is on and experts believe this iteration is different than previous ones.
“This is not a split over classic theological beliefs,” said Andrea Turpin, an associate professor of history at Baylor University and the author of a book on gender, religion and the changing of the American university in the early 1900s. “Nothing about the creeds is at stake at Grove City. They aren’t debating questions like: Who is Jesus?”
The debates are about political issues, often wrapped in Bible verses and interpretations. In many cases, colleges aren’t changing their political views, just becoming more vocal about them.
The schools are mirroring their donors. Those leaders who stay are the ones who can show growth and showing growth means listening to the donors and families who keep revenue coming in.
And at higher-priced colleges, which often opt out of federal grants and loans for students and the oversight that comes with them, parents have clear expectations.
“If they are willing to pay a premium, they want to get what they are paying for,” Hunter said. “The lack of distinct values in the marketplace is a challenge in enrollment.”
Shifting to a more conservative outlook can bring problems, too. Just ask my alma mater, the now-named Cornerstone University. In October 2021, Gerson Moreno-Riaño was set to be formally inaugurated as the school’s president. But one day before the ceremony, faculty issued a vote of no confidence in him, saying he had allegedly opposed diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and created a culture of fear by firing staff and professors with little or no warning.
Moreno-Riaño came to Cornerstone from Regent University, founded by conservative evangelical leader Pat Robertson. One year before the no-confidence vote, Moreno-Riaño wrote about the “woke” movement in higher education, calling out schools where classrooms “are the breeding grounds of intolerance where the other, any other, who does not pledge absolute, blind allegiance to the emerging revolutionary ethos is demonized, canceled or destroyed.”
This spring, Moreno-Riaño told me he felt like the school had moved past those conversations. He said he’s trying to grow Cornerstone and doing so by showcasing how Christian higher education should work.
“The question is what does Christian mean today?” he said. “Is it subject to whatever the present culture is? Christian is meant to be the Gospel of Christ. At every institution (Christian or not) there’s moral formation going on. Every (college) has an anchor point. We are a Christian school. That means we are to touch a deeper part of a person.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Charles B. Williams |
Sunday, June 11, 2023
In these blessings, we find the description of the citizen of heaven (Phil. 3:20–21), and with it, a heavenly pattern, for it marks the man who recognizes that this world cannot truly satisfy and reminds us that true blessedness is not found in the fading pleasures of all that this fading world offers. And it is here that we see the greatest blessing of all: that this pattern makes us ready for heaven, by molding us into the image of the King of this heavenly kingdom.

At the close of every Lord’s Day, the minister is afforded the tremendous privilege of pronouncing the benediction of our triune God on his assembled people: “May the Lord bless you, and keep you . . .” What beneficence! What boon! What bounty! to become the recipients of the divine favor and protection of the Maker and Redeemer of heaven and earth!
But then Monday comes, and once more we find ourselves engulfed in a seemingly endless wave of tragedies, both personal and corporate: an ailing father, a failed engagement, a divided congregation, a people in turmoil. Have the blessings failed? Has God forsaken his people?
Many of us recognize that divine favor is not materialistic, for the Scriptures never promise a life of influence, ease, or pleasure. At the same time, the sorrows we endure can so overwhelm us that we are left feeling confused and helpless. Bearing under the fury of a world that hates us from without, and the terrors of a conscience awakened to the depth of our own sin from within, such circumstances leave us utterly humiliated and exposed to our own inadequacy. And we ask: where is the blessing?
It is within this context that our Savior addresses his own, a people wounded and wearied under the weight of their estate of sin and misery. Matthew recounts to us those glad tidings Christ has brought as he pronounces the inauguration of the long-awaited kingdom, the blessings conferred upon the recipients of that kingdom, and the mode in which such blessings come as we await its consummation.
A Conflict of Kingdoms
The opening chapters of Matthew’s gospel narrate the irruption of the heavenly dawn into the earthly realm of sin and darkness. Against the backdrop of yet another mock Pharaoh comes one greater than Moses, the virgin-born Davidic Son, upon whose shoulders rest the government of an ever-increasing, unshakable kingdom (Isa. 9:6–7).
For sure, the nation had long awaited a deliverer, but their expectations were too small, too earthly. As Jesus travels from town to town, heralding the kingdom’s arrival, the people expect a political Messiah who will expel the Roman legions from their midst, not the demonic hordes. They hold to delusions of grandeur—of earthly power and prosperity—not spiritual liberation. The citizens want a theonomic revolution and festal buffets, while the rulers want only parlor tricks and magic shows. Yet Jesus’s message of the kingdom, summarized in the Sermon on the Mount, proclaims, not simply a better kingdom, but a different kind of kingdom. As Daniel portended, and as Luther recognized at Heidelberg in April 1518, the difference between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdoms of men was not a difference between dwarves and giants, but between light and dark. It was a difference not simply of size, but of kind. It was the difference between heaven and earth. And as this heavenly kingdom has irrupted into the earthly plane, it operates according to a different set of principles. The Beatitudes (Matt. 5:1–12) describe what life as a citizen of heaven looks like here on earth, as that light shatters and scatters the darkness. These blessings take on a particular form, upending Israel’s, and our, expectations.
The Blessings of the Heavenly Kingdom
When we consider the Beatitudes, we must first recognize what they are not. They are not natural dispositions. The great nineteenth century novelists—Hugo, Dickens, and Tolstoy—wrote of the poor, almost as if poverty itself was an unqualified virtue. Today, others do the same, but with respect to particular personality traits. Our Savior, however, does neither. He does not pronounce favor on a particular economic class; nor is he declaring that God’s grace is restricted solely to the morbid, the introvert, or the blissfully naive. Rather, the blessings of the kingdom befall those who have been subjugated by grace and reconciled through the mediation of the Son.
Read More
Related Posts:

Against the decision of the 220th General Assembly of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church to dissolve the Second Presbytery of the A.R.P.C. – and all associated Index #11 decisions tethered thereunto – without first upholding the giving of the ‘due process’ that is required to be given, per the A.R.P.C. Book of Discipline, to those presbyters and select groups of presbyters specifically named in Index #11 of the published reports that were submitted to Synod (2024).

A previous General Synod had appointed a Special Committee to Investigate Second Presbytery’s Handling of Certain Allegations Against A Minister. The Special Committee reported to the 2024 Synod. The report expressed multiple challenges including the massive nature of the case and the difficulties in dealing with members and officers of Second Presbytery. The Committee completed its investigation and presented twenty events that had happened, two of which were deviations from the Book of Discipline, while the others touched on lack of requested records and how matters were processed by the Presbytery. Following the report to Synod, the Committee’s recommendation was approved: “That Second Presbytery be dissolved as of September 1, 2024.” It was against this action of General Synod that two Complaints have been filed.

COMPLAINT #1
To: The Principal Clerk of the General Synod of the ARP Church
We the undersigned, being members in good standing of Second Presbytery under the jurisdiction of the ARP General Synod, file this Complaint, pursuant to Book of Discipline 5.13.
On June 12, 2024, the General Synod voted to dissolve Second Presbytery, effective September 1,2024. This action was beyond the constitutional authority of General Synod.
Form of Government[1] 12.22 states: “The General Synod shall advise Presbyteries in its processes, but not the outcome, of the actions of the Presbyteries, in order to: A. Organize, receive, divide, unite, transfer, dismiss, and dissolve Presbyteries in keeping with the advancement of the Church ….” (Emphasis added.)
It is clear that the General Synod does not have the authority to initiate and execute the dissolution of a Presbytery. Rather, the General Synod shall advise a Presbytery if a Presbytery pursues dissolution and requests the advice of General Synod (FoG 12.22.B.).
Moreover, Second Presbytery is a corporation under the South Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act and with the South Carolina Secretary of State (See attachment)[2]. As such, the corporation must be dissolved pursuant to either South Carolina Code of Laws Title 33-31-1401 or 33-31-1402 (See attachment), and the action by the ARP General Synod on June 12,2024, did not comply with either section. Therefore, the action of the ARP General Synod is unlawful, illegal, and unjust.
The Executive Board of the General Synod should declare this Complaint an emergency, pursuant to Manual of Authorities and Duties p. 13, and vacate the decision of the General Synod dissolving Second Presbytery.
Respectfully submitted,
Anthony R. Locke [email protected]Peter Waid [email protected]Brion Holzberger [email protected]Jonathan Cook [email protected]Bill Smalley [email protected]John Cook [email protected]RJ Gore [email protected]

COMPLAINT #2
Per:  The A.R.P.C. Book of Discipline, 5.12-13.
RE: Against the decision of the 220th General Assembly of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church to dissolve the Second Presbytery of the A.R.P.C. – and all associated Index #11 decisions tethered thereunto – without first upholding the giving of the ‘due process’ that is required to be given, per the A.R.P.C. Book of Discipline, to those presbyters and select groups of presbyters specifically named in Index #11 of the published reports that were submitted to Synod (2024).
This June 2024 dissolution decision by the General Synod also effectually served as an “act” (per B.O.D. 5.12) of roadblock – whereby the potential allegations named in Index #11 do not just suffer ‘a neglect of prosecution’, but will forever be unprosecutable once the court to which the alleged offenders are primarily/directly amenable is dissolved. For a court of the church (viz., the General Synod) to neglect to encourage the upholding of an application of the Standards of the A.R.P.C. church (viz., the Book of Discipline) in the present and/or to inhibit any legitimate future application of said church standard unto the published instances of known/stated offence (in Index #11) – before it chooses to dissolve a presbytery – is a serious error that merits a reversal of Synod’s improper ‘dissolution decision’ of Second Presbytery.
Filed by: Rev. Jack Van Dyk, Northeast Presbytery – A.R.P.C. Date: July 8, 2024
GROUNDS (the “supporting reasons and evidence” – B.O.D., 5.13.A) for this COMPLAINT:
The matters of legitimate ecclesiastical discipline, contained in the Index #11 report that was supplied to all delegates of the 2024 General Synod, simply cannot be overlooked. Many of them involve Second Presbytery functioning as the court of ‘original jurisdiction’. Any dissolution of that court places all potential and alleged offences outside of the mandated ‘original jurisdiction’ prescriptions of the A.R.P.C. Book of Discipline. An ‘automatic transfer of allegations’ stipulation – to some other court of the church, upon dissolution of any ‘court of original jurisdiction’ – is simply not found in the A.R.P.C. Book of Discipline. Dissolving Second Presbytery leaves ‘unfinished business’ unfinishable.
The integrity of the court must be maintained so long as there are publicly named real and/or potential ‘outstanding offences’ yet to be prosecuted. The Report itself leaves no room for doubt that matters of serious offence and grave import are before the court. From start to finish, a total of twenty items are enumerated as being the foundational merits upon which the recommendation that Second Presbytery be dissolved rests. More than mere trifles, or singular ‘irregularities’, the Standards of the A.R.P.C. are cited as what was being violated time and time again.
“Serious errors were made at every turn . . . ” (emphases mine)
“The Lord has not been honored . . . ”
“The Standards of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church have been exploited . . ”
Some form of the phrase “deviation from our Standards” is found no less than seven times on page 2 of this Index (#11) alone.
Furthermore, Index #11 assures the reader that: “The following events all happened in time and space, and therefore, the court must contend with the reality that they present.” (Index 11, page 2, paragraph 2). Fair enough. But isn’t the court ALSO REQUIRED to ‘contend with the reality’ that both the Scriptures and the A.R.P.C. Book of Discipline present? Both of these documents specify quite clearly how the assured “reality” of Index #11 is to be dealt with. And neither of these documents state that it is to be by ‘the dissolving of a Presbytery’. That administrative act was an unjustifiable substitute for the requisite (biblical) ‘gold standard’ prescription of: confrontation, repentance (or ‘censure’), confession, forgiveness, restitution, and restoration. In like manner, the 2024 General Synod’s corpus of ‘Index #11 decisions’ created an inadvertent(?) bypassing of a following through to a judicial conclusion what is also clearly prescribed in its very own ecclesiastical standards – namely, the A.R.P.C. Book of Discipline.
When the 2024 General Synod received Index #11, a long list of what was purported to be thoroughly investigated matters (and what was, therefore, to be trusted as being confirmed ‘facts’), it ought to have immediately sought to enforce an application of the Book of Discipline to those matters – before any decision was made to dissolve Second Presbytery. It is odd that Second Presbytery is faulted, in item #1 of Index #11, for something that the 2024 General Synod itself backhandedly committed when it voted to dissolve Second Presbytery – namely, a failure to appropriately apply 4.2.A of the Book of Discipline in the face of known viable allegations.
However, the ultimate self-indictment that befell the 2024 General Synod – in its decision to receive Index #11, and to then subsequently vote to dissolve Second Presbytery – is found in the last six words of that Index (right before its Recommendations):
“ . . God’s Word has not been followed.”
IF this statement really is true, then why is the A.R.P.C. Book of Discipline not first being applied – to ALL matters of legitimately real and/or potential allegations in this Report – before the dissolving of Second Presbytery takes place? When were the ‘due process’ rights, of all of the members of the A.R.P.C. that are named in this Index #11, afforded to them – before this Index #11 ‘verdict’ of guilt was pronounced (and the ‘penalty’ of ‘dissolution of the Presbytery’ thus imposed)?
It was an error of the 2024 General Synod to have both ‘decided’ and ‘acted’ against Second Presbytery before a proper application of the Book of Discipline could be made to so many alleged violations of both Scripture and the A.R.P.C. Standards.
A REDRESS OF THE ERROR: That, upon further review, all decisions made regarding Second Presbytery – on the basis of the stated Index #11 ‘grounds’ for doing so – at the 2024 meeting of General Synod are now determined to have been made in a manner that was procedurally ‘out of order’ and/or constitutionally ‘in error’ with respect to the explicit prescriptions stated in Scripture and/or the A.R.P.C.’s Book of Discipline (as noted by the specific reasons stated throughout the ‘GROUNDS’ section above) and that all Index #11 decisions regarding Second Presbytery are thereby now rendered ‘null and void’.
AN APPENDED PLEA FOR EXPEDITED ACTION:
The Book of Discipline requires that this Complaint be taken up by General Synod (or its Executive Board) “at its next stated meeting” – OR: “at a called meeting prior to” (5.13.A).
Convenience and expediency may incline the Executive Board of General Synod to simply ‘wait’ (until the next Stated meeting to take up this matter). However, in light of the fast-approaching September 1, 2024 ‘dissolution of Second Presbytery’ date – at which time almost all of the alleged offenders and alleged offenses contained in Index 11 will automatically pass beyond the reach of biblical justice per the A.R.P.C.’s Book of Discipline Standard – it is essential that the Executive Board of General Synod hold a Called meeting within the next few weeks for the purpose of responding to this Complaint. The relationship of the dissolution date – to the date of the next stated meeting of General Synod (or even of a Stated meeting of its Executive Board) – catapults this matter (of evasion of ecclesiastical discipline and avoidance of ‘due process’) into the category of a denominational ‘emergency’. It should be declared as such by the Executive Board – inasmuch as it has occasionally made said declaration regarding a number of other matters over the course of these past 2-3 years – and then dealt with them accordingly.
In light of the above circumstance, please do honor this very reasonable request for immediate action.

[1] The Form of Government is a governing document of the Standards of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.
[2] This certification can be found at https://businessfilings.sc.gov/BusinessFiling/Entity/Profile/6aafe746-2276-429a-9aa5-b83e09e9e256

Related Posts: