Thoughts on Cedarville and Claiborne

Well said Scot. That has been my biggest complaint. That it isn't the university that is losing in this, it is the students.

Scot, I am a graduate student at a Christian liberal arts school. We had quite a controversy this past fall when a democratic senator was scheduled to speak at commencement. Alumni, students, faculty, and even a few members of the Board of Trustees complained about the senator because of his pro-choice and pro-homosexual voting record. The senator eventually had to cancel because of other commitments, but the complaints revealed an unwillingness to listen to different opinions on a Christian college campus.

I agree that this is an educational issues. Student development theorists like James Marcia and James Fowler show that exploring different viewpoints and asking questions is an essential part of identity/spiritual development. Granted, we need to be responsible about how we introduce different viewpoints. But is extreme to claim that a school is abandoning its Christian heritage when it invites a democrat to speak.

Good to hear, Scot. So glad they're reinviting him.

And RJS, I replied on yesterday's post on this, from my hit and run blogging, for what it's worth.

Yes, this is so important. Why I like to listen to NPR and Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippet. Have to hear others. And in so doing, not only do I learn about them and how they think, but I am also often greatly enriched.

Thanks for this take Scot. I think this is right on. One of these days I'm going to grow up, stop taking things personally, and be so level headed to post a response like yours. Sorry for taking up so much of the board yesterday! Thanks for covering this so thoroughly.

Scot,

I'm newly embedded here in Cedarville, close to the situation. My husband and I hope to be agents of change--so that Cedarville looks even more like Christ. Many of us, including students, have said the same thing (it's about education)--but it's wonderful to hear it so well said from someone on the outside. Perhaps your voice will be heard here.

I heard Shane speak at Apex and he is most gracious, unlike many who criticize him. Hopefully, this situation exposes the critical need to watch our words--especially on the internet. It's easy to murder people with our words--to demonize and create one-dimensional characters out of human beings.

Those of us that are word-careless on a blog or in an e-mail do much damage. We say things we'd never say to someone's face. We forget James 1:26, "If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless."

That said, if theological opposites acknowledge that they are each almost surely (and unwittingly) wrong about some things, if they are humble and gracious, they'll have more credibility and more listeners.

Scot--

I'm a Cedarville grad. My observation of the school from a distance is that it has grown in these areas over the years, so I too share your sadness at these recent events. American Christianity isn't ever going to get over these issues, is it?

A loss of opportunity for education and a loss of opportunity for spiritual formation...How can we possibly engage the world if we can't even engage fellow Christians with differing views? Excellent points, Scot!

Scot, I know that you have a great deal of experience in this matter, so what do you think: should a man like John Spong be invited to an institution like North Park (Or Cedarville)? After all, he would expand the students' horizons, wouldn't he? Or is it proper for a Christian institution to guard against heresy and not invite people who they feel would spiritually damage their student body?

RJS, I fundamentally disagree with you: in my mind, Christian colleges are supposed to "indoctrinate" their students; they aren't like secular universities (which indoctrinate people anyway, but aren't supposed to). Should heresy be tolerated?

I know that most people on this blog do not think that the emerging church is heretical, but those that do believe this do not believe that Christian students should be exposed in such a raw setting with heresy. Like an infection, heresy will merely infect healthy people who come in contact with it; it is a strange notion that the best cure for heresy is more engagement.

Am I calling Claiborne a heretic? No. I don't know enough about his theological viewpoints to make a judgment on that. But the questions above are pertinent in this case if one takes the position that he is.

As a Cedarville alumnus I was just as disapointed about this as well. I do believe that the school realizes now that a mistake was made in handling this issue and that "giving in" to every little demand of every obscure blogger out there is perhaps not the best way to handle controversial topics and issues.

Even then, to call Shane Claiborne and one's concern about social issues "controversial" is really stretching things.

I was on campus at Cedarville last night and most students I spoke with said they wanted Shane on campus and they wanted to interact with him regardless of what outside critics said and wanted.

As you know, Scot, I teach here at Cedarville University. I’m not going to comment on the situation here, but will only respond Ben’s comment (#15). A university education, even (especially!) a Christian one, is not indoctrination. Our university philosophy of education, on our Academic V.P.’s web-page, states this very nicely. An excerpt:

“We recognize that the task of a Christ-centered, comprehensive university is constructive, far more than it is defensive. Our task as educators in a constantly-changing cultural and social situation requires that we do not simply give students pre-packaged sets of answers to anticipated questions so that they are conditioned to respond in certain ways. Rather, while helping students set a firm foundation in the truth, we educate students to demonstrate independence and to exhibit creativity of mind in fashioning new skills and techniques, as well as new patterns of thought. At Cedarville University we will educate students to have a disciplined understanding of their heritage, but also to exercise creativity, logical rigor, and self-critical honesty, all within a biblical framework...

Academic freedom implies that faith and learning at Cedarville University is graciously and reasonably presented. Like love, faith cannot be forced. In addition, we will be just as, if not more, interested in helping students grapple with issues for themselves in light of their heritage of Christian faith than instructing them in the correct set of answers. Finally, we must keep in mind, that while Scripture is the final rule of faith and practice, not all of the truth about everything is fully revealed in it and our understanding of Scripture is subject to refinement and revision based on careful study.”

This is the vision of education that we're working towards.

Steve K (and others)
Let's get something straight: Cedarville by canceling the event was not "protecting" the students or sheltering them from Shane's ideas. I know that is how it could be perceived in light of the CT article, but the same assumptions I made as alumn (and wrote about unfortunately) turned out to be incredibly misinformed and downright ungracious. This isn't an issue of intellectual supression, but rather a collision of unfortunate events.

As I and some others have pointed out, a perfect storm of timing, extraneous events, and rabid critics forced their hand. They went out of their way to get another venue through which to host Shane, connected students to him, paid him like they were going to anyway, strengthened their relationship with him, and by all accounts plan to have him back.

As an alumn, I'm thankful for this place, even though they did bungle this one pretty badly!

-jeremy

Jeremy (comment #24), thanks for clarifying that. That's helpful to know.

"Our Dept probably wouldn’t invite Spong; but if he came we’d make the most of it. By the way, we have all sorts come to our campus … and I mean all sorts. Ruether, Guttierez"

This is interesting statement to me and it is where I think the stance about who gets invited and who does not gets a little fuzzy. Institutions have to draw the line somewhere and we acknowledge (openly or not) that there are some folks that clearly fall outside the goals and direction of an institution. For instance would we invite Dawkins or Hitchens to speak at our christian institution...probably not...but why not? are they not as relevent to the conversation of what is happening to christianity as Claiborne?

Ben (#27),
You need to delete "indoctrination" from your vocabulary. You begged off on the definition you have in mind. It is a given that a Christian university is going to educate students from a certain point of view, so for you to say that does not advance this conversation. I suspect that you actually believe that a unversity ought to "control" not just "form" the thinking of students. That view of education is not happening, has never happened (except in totalitarian regimes) and will not happen.

I must say this was what struck me about the last Calvin Festival. They invited Rushdie to speak. Sometimes we can't even begin to know how to talk to others until we first let them speak. But I do think it's important you made the distinction that inviting a speaker isn't necessarily an endorsement.

I've been thinking alot about the topics discussed yesterday and today about orthodoxy and definitions about orthodoxy. I have also been reading NT Wright alot lately. Wright surfaces a first century question in many of his writings, "who are the people of God?" "Who is true Israel?"

I think the questions about Shane and Cedarville have to do with similar questions... Who are the people of God?

The whole emergent, liberal vs, convservative, debate seems to be around definitions about the question, who are the people of God?

While in many evangelical/fundamentalist circles that I am part of, we give a head nod to the historic orthodox positions of the faith... there is another definition or set of criteria that involves one's political perspectives and one's cultural perspectives. Created is the us vs them thought common in the first century.

Too bad we couldn't convene a Jerusalem council.

Scot, you are spot on—it is about educating students. But I think you are too easy on Cedarville, which should drop “university” from its name. Universities, secular and Christian, are necessarily liberal institutions in the sense that they foster an open and free exchange of ideas. When I was in college in the 1960s, John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” was required reading in more than one course, and I will never forget this passage:
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
John Milton, writing in the Areopagitica, a defense of a free press for everyone except Roman Catholics!?!, said that an untested virtue is no virtue. What he actually wrote is
“I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary but slinks out of the race…” Substitute “knowledge” or “truth” for “virtue,” and we have a core value of a university education.

i've worked on many university campuses across the uk partnering with uccf (the uk branch of ifes) and agape (uk's campus crusade) and it has always dismayed me that many/most of the christian groups in these campuses require their speakers to sign a (too) rigid "eveangelical" statement of faith before they can address the students. it seems to me that student days are exciting times to explore divergent opinion - especially within christendom. why not give spong a hearing. to my mind that would be exciting. why not even invite macarthur! in the aftermath of their talk the resultant conversation surely has as much possibility of producing light as darkness. where is the fear? i don't understand. so wheaton invites a pro-choice speaker - great! let's actually debate and discuss difficult and nuanced issues, with nuanced responses hopefully flowing; let's expose ourselves to other viewpoints in the certain knowledge that we do not know it all and that we may even learn something.

(i know universities often do all they can to prevent this horrible occurrence from happening, but just imagine!)

I hear you, Virgil. Our V.P.’s philosophy of education provides a rich account of the accountabilities involved in “academic freedom.” It’s great stuff – here’s a link:

http://www.cedarville.edu/academics/avp/philosophyofed.pdf

(Don’t know if that’ll work, I’m cyber-clueless!).

But on the flip-side, students are also responsible to be “students” in the most robust sense, taking on board in critical fashion a range of different views. We need to give them that opportunity and teach them the responsibilities attached to the endeavor.

Yikes - forgot to stop the italics. Scot said only the first paragraph - the next two paragraphs are mine. Sorry folks.

"For instance, would we invite Dawkins or Hitchens to speak at our christian institution?…Probably not…but why not?"

I think I would invite them. I'm not intimidated by their ideas, nor would I think that they would convert the student body to Atheism. Their opinions are shared by many who are hostile to Christianity, or just down right have no interest in it either way. That worldview is of great interest to me so that I can engage in dialogue with those who don't believe, so that they might become a follower of Christ.

I remember when Bill Clinton was invited to Willow Creek, and the Evangelical community was upset. I didn't care for it, either, but now I've totally reversed my thinking. Talking to those with whom we do not agree, or with those who are engaging in sinful behavior is exactly what we should be doing. I agree with Scot that an invitation is not an endorsement, any more than Jesus eating with tax collectors and "sinners" was an endorsement of the lifestyle that those two groups were known for.

The difference here is that Shane is a Christian. Biblical reasons to separate ourselves from a brother or sister in Christ are divisiveness (Titus 3:10), immorality (1 Corinthians 5:1), preaching another Gospel (Galatians 1:9), or teaching false doctrine (1 Timothy 1:3). The last passage tells us to "command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer". How exactly would not letting Shane speak at all, not engaging him at all, accomplish this last goal, if, in fact, you think that is what he is doing? Has Shane exhibited any of these four items that I've listed?

If so, then the college has a leg to stand on.

If not, perhaps they should reconsider.

Knowing Shane personally and hanging out with him at the Simple way, I really believe that Cedarville has lost an awesome opportunity to be the body of Christ and hear a man of God who has struggle with the Bible and his own faith. I find this to be ridiculous.

Thank you for sharing it, Scot.

This brings me to an interesting question, Scot. Has anyone ever done that to you - uninvited you based on your personal convictions? If so, would you mind sharing your experience with us? Thanks.