2000 CFH FALL MEETING REPORT
The Fall 2000 CFH MEETINGwas at Point Loma Nazarene University
on October 19-21, 2000. Over 100 attendees benefited from thecare and
attention given to the meeting by program chair, Barry Hankins, Baylor
University, and our genial host, Rick Kennedy of PLNU. In addition to the
conference, the organizers planned a bus tour to Mission San Diego and other
points of interest in thearea. Your industrious editors actually managed to
attend all the sessions ofthe Point Loma meeting (thus justifying the faith of
their dean who picked up the tabfor sending all three of us to California).
Herewith our report on Point Loma 2000.
The meeting began on Thursday evening witha roundtable discussion
on "THE CHRISTIAN PROFESSOR IN THE MODERN ACADEMY: FOUR
PERSPECTIVES," chaired by Rick Ostrander,John Brown University. The
panel included Glenn E. Sanders, Oklahoma BaptistUniversity, Paul Spickard,
University of California at SantaBarbara, Abraham Friesen, University of
California at Santa Barbara, and DwightBrautigam, Huntington College.
Varying perspectives related to teaching,to the integration of faith and
learning, and to theattitudes of modern academia to Christian historians
sparked a considerable response.
On Friday, Session 1, "RELIGIONAND REVOLUTIONS" chaired by
Richard V. Pierard, Gordon College/Indiana State, saw papers "OnGod' s
Side: The Problem of Submission in theAmerican Revolution," by Tom Scott,
Mercer University; "Revolution and Revelation: The Effect of the 1848
Revolution on the PrussianEvangelical Awakening, 1848-1855" by David L.
Ellis, Purdue University, Calumet; and"AShort History of Religious Change
among the Highland Hmongof Vietnam and the Response of the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam to It," by James Lewis, Wheaton College. The discussant
was L. Edward Hicks,Faulkner University. Scott's question was an
interesting one:how did American pastors and theologians rationalize their
support of the anti-British revolution, given that they tookthe Bible seriously
and could not just ignore Romans 13 and 1 Peter. Some,like Jonathan
Mayhew, tackled the passages head on and used them to support resistance
to unjust authority; such resistance was not only permissible but required.
Others argued the moreconservative line that Peter should be seen as
arguing that we are to obey God rather than man when the two conflict.