Going to a University whose team is named after Darkness

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Mark,

Thanks for your comments, too!

Originally posted by satz
Andrew,

I agree that the chosing of a demonic mascot is indeed problematic and a sin on the part of those concerned. However, as far as deciding on the validity of a university, I would not see it as necessarily being any worse than the fact that the university does not have a compulsory first year subject on the lordship of Jesus Christ. I agree was well that the problem is severely aggrevated if the institution is theological in nature. However, I do not see it as a sin for a Christian to get a education in secular skills from a university. If arms length transactions or relationships with unbelievers makes us partakers in their sins, even sins that do not touch directly upon our dealings with them, we would indeed have to go out of the world. Whatever interaction with unbelievers we have, we will inevitably have some indirect contact with their sins, because unbelievers sin constantly in all they do. I do not believe it is a sin for a Christian to pay money to a university to obtain an education in secular skills, even if the same university runs other immoral programs. If that were the case, we could not buy anything from unbelievers, or we would end up in endless speculation on how they would use our money.

You raise good points. I grant that we can't expect a full sinless accounting of where all of our financial contributions go when we pay dues to a particular organization or institution. And I agree that institutions exist which are not perfectly theologically or spiritually sound whereby one may obtain education in matters "secular." But I do think that it is wrong to apply no moral standard to decisions about education or where one spends their money. Duke and Wake -- even if one disregards the fact that they are theological schools and looks only at the non-divinity school departments and programs -- are abominations. Their sins are so pervasive, so much a core of their campus experience and curriculum that I don't believe there is any excuse for seeking education or giving money to those institutions.

Daniel attended a university run by those worse off by far then any of the liberals of our day. While it is true he had little choice in the matter, we know he later drew the line when called upon to perform acts that compromised his faith. While he would not bow to the statue or stop praying, he evidently did not consider it a sin to receive education from the Babylonians, despite their many abominations.

Daniel was a captive of the Babylonians. What we know about his schooling in captivity is limited but here is what Matthew Henry says:

He ordered that they should be taught the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans. They are supposed to be wise and knowing young men, and yet they must be further taught. Give instructions to a wise man and he will increase in learning. Note, Those that would do good in the world when they grow up must learn when they are young. That is the learning age; if that time be lost, it will hardly be redeemed. It does not appear that Nebuchadnezzar designed they should learn the unlawful arts that were used among the Chaldeans, magic and divination; if he did, Daniel and his fellows would not defile themselves with them. Nay, we do not find that he ordered them to be taught the religion of the Chaldeans, by which it appears That he was at this time no bigot; if men were skilful and faithful, and fit for his business, it was not material to him what religion they were of, provided they had but some religion. They must be trained up in the language and laws of the country, in history, philosophy, and mathematics, in the arts of husbandry, war, and navigation, in such learning as might qualify them to serve their generation.

Also Moses was taught in the courts of Pharaoh. The experience of Moses and Daniel shows that one can learn knowledge in a pagan educational environment. I have already previously granted that point. It does not follow, though, that we ought to seek out a pagan education. Again, education is moral and religious in nature. Christians have a duty to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. Going out of our way to seek a ungodly secular education is not Biblically warranted.

John the Baptist did not tell soilders coming to him for baptism to quit the army, and neither did Peter give such a command to Cornelius before baptizing him. This was despite the fact that the roman army had helped put Jesus Christ to death and was involved in persecuting Christians. While these men may eventually have had to leave the army if asked to perform sinful acts, their involvement in the army was not sinful per se simply because of the immoral deeds that army had committed and was still committing.

It is true that paying taxes to Rome and voluntarily paying fees to a university are not quite the same thing. One is commanded by God and the other isn´t. However, Paul had no qualms in invoking his roman citizenship to save himself unnecessary pain or to protect himself from his enemies multiple times in Acts. This goes beyond merely paying tax to the government because God has commanded it. Paul voluntarily embraced the benefits of his roman citizenship to aid him in a non-sinful manner. He did not think this made him a partaker of the Roman empire´s many sins.

Paul also allowed Christians to work for the pagan government of Rome. Phil 4:22, Rom 16:23. While this was in a sense their vocation they could have changed jobs if continuing in those positions involved sin.

The examples cited here have to do with lawful service to a government. I have addressed them before in the thread on the oath of loyalty to the US Constitution. The work itself of a soldier or government official is not sinful unless they commit specific sinful acts. That is because the institution or ordinance of magistracy is of God (Rom. 13). Nor is it sinful to partake of the benefits of government, even an ungodly government, if those benefits are Biblically lawful. But if one has to sin in order to serve an ungodly government or sin in order to partake of civil benefits, then separation or dissent is required. In the case of education, it is a duty given to parents by God. Parents may delegate others to assist in the education of their children, but there is no warrant in Scripture to delegate that important function to the ungodly or to give money to an institution that is as permeated with public sin as Duke and Wake.

I guess what I am saying is that association with an unbeliever or unbelieving institution does not NECESSARILY make one a partaker in all of that man or institutions´ sins. I´ll admit I do not know as much about Duke university as you do and hence probably cannot make an accurate judgment on this specific case. All my answers assume we are talking about a secular university and a christian man wishing training in secular skills. I am not sure if the religious activities of Duke can be seperated from its other activities. If they cannot then that is a problem off course. I respect your views and your zeal for avoiding sin. But since you lamented that no one but Phillip responded I thought I would chime in"¦

I appreciate that you are aiming to show that we can live in the world without being partakers of others' sins. I fully agree. Not every association with an unbeliever is sin on our part. However, when we enter into financial arrangements for our education or the education of our children, morality must play a role. Mascots aside, Duke and Wake are so far from resembling anything close to a moral environment or curriculum in which a Christian can obtain an education, that I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that Christians ought not to submit themselves or their children or their money to such a cause.

[Edited on 8-10-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Puritanhead]

Are the universities whose team mascots represent darkness offering any full scholarships?
:bigsmile: