*Updated Link on 2.19.08* On February 11th, Shane Claiborne, a voice of new monasticism and founder of The Simple Way was invited by Cedarville University to speak as a part of their annual student life speaker series. According to an email I received from a faculty member, the series is to provide Cedarville's students with "opportunities to learn to think critically and biblically and engage the issues that are shaping the church and impacting society." Claiborne was invited because "he is a strong advocate for Christian involvement in issues of justice like poverty and racial reconciliation. These are critical issues in our culture, and we wanted our students to engage them thoughtfully and biblically." Kudos to Cedarville on such a great series idea! Unfortunately, Claiborne never got the chance to speak at the Christian university. The event was canceled by administration amidst protests from Christian apologists, which then stirred up the concerned hearts and minds of Cedarville parents… which of course led to emails and phone calls demanding Cedarville axe the already invited guest speaker. The university was backed into a corner, particularly the Vice President of Student Life, Dr. Carl Ruby. "I didn't cancel the Shane Claiborne event because I thought it was a bad idea to have people like Shane on campus, "said Dr. Ruby. Rather, it was "canceled because I hadn't anticipated the hostile attack by so many off-campus blogs. We weren't adequately prepared to respond and it became a distraction from other issues facing the leadership team here at Cedarville." The critics may have forced the hand of the university, but the students happily scurried towards Apex Community Church in Dayton, Ohio who was quick to jump on the chance to sponsor Claiborne for the night. There is more to this story than just Claiborne being uninvited. This incident is part o f a larger movement of conservative schools, churches, and para-church organizations being pushed to define their identity in the sea of "Emergent" and postmodern developments in theology (for instance, the recent moves by Young Life). A common critique of postmodern circles it that "truth is up for grabs." To counter balance this, those identifying themselves with the label "conservative" come up with non-negotiables, dogmatic treatises, and statements of faith that must be adhered to in order to be in the club. You are either in the conservative club, or you are backsliding towards the pub, where those slippery Emergents hang out. Giving this movement a boost is the availability of information on the web. Anyone can have a voice. People can grab information of this website, combine it with that quote from a few years ago, and call it "evidence" that a school, organization, person, etc… is a heretic according to conservative principles. Furthermore, anyone who sponsors these individuals or groups are guilty by association. Eventually, you will have to either come out and condemn these wanderers or you are going to be lumped in with them. This is the phenomenon that Cedarville is currently battling and one gets the feeling it's been going on over the last year or perhaps even longer. Claiborne was just a public example of this internal tidal wave. The same faculty member from above alluded to this situation in an email I received last week: Sadly, our intended purpose for the Shane Claiborne event was being overshadowed by accusations about Cedarville's theological commitments…Some attempted to portray this event as an endorsement of the emerging church. We have deep concerns about the theological positions associated with the emerging church movement, particularly positions that do not maintain a high view of the scriptures nor clearly affirm the exclusivity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There must be no confusion about Cedarville's commitment to God's Word and to our historically conservative doctrinal position. Our commitments to the inerrancy of Scripture, to our historic doctrinal statement, and to our conservative theological heritage have not changed. Cedarville was in an already tight spot getting tighter. Despite that Shane Claiborne doesn't use labels like "postmodern" or "Emergent," despite his fitting of the bill that Cedarville was trying to fill, that and despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of students and faculty on campus wanted to hear Claiborne's thoughts, the university cancelled the event. I can have sympathy for the administration. I know it must have been a difficult decision, with donors, alumni, and conservative watchdogs breathing down your neck. But in the end, Cedarville bowed before the conservative powers that be rather than allowing their students to engage in truth outside the narrow lines constantly being drawn for them. It's ironic to me that "truth" is what a lot of these battles are over, and yet the response from angry bloggers is to suppress ideas and opinions. Particularly disturbing is the admission from Dr. Ruby that these online writers and anxious voices were not in the truth, and were in fact, using information out of context to attack the school. I have to agree with Claiborne's well-stated response: "A small group of people have used an impersonal, indirect means of communication to try and tear down something they disagree with. Unfortunately Cedarville gave validity to this group of bloggers by reacting to their demands." I'm not asking for everyone to become more "postmodern" or "Emergent," but I am asking for an organization to stand up and refuse the label of "conservatism," even it means losing a bit of respect and publicity within their own circle. If keeping the label of "conservative" is more important than being faithful to the good news of Jesus Christ, we (those of us on the outside of conservativism looking in) apparently are more than heretics—we are idolaters—because we must worship an altogether different God. Here are a couple of links to the angry conservative think tanks/ "research" centers and their take on Claiborne and his evil New Age religion: Slice of Laodicea (check out the title of that post! Wow!) To read a portion of Claiborne's response in Christianity Today (which, by the way, Lighthouse condemns, along with AWANA, The National Day of Prayer, and others): Jesus Creed's write up, including Shane's entire response:
2.18.2008
Cedarville University Cancels Shane Claiborne
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)



16 comments:
Some morning's I have to remove stacks of piled up wood from our driveway...oddly enough, I received a birthday card with an Inquisitor on front last May...hmmm.
In seriousness though, this reminds me of the recent outcry of musicians asking for their music to not be used by campaign's unless the musician's political sympathies are in agreement with the campaign. So, because a school invites a speaker who has different ideas about how to better live out the kingdom of God, they are landsliding towards liberalism? We know this is nonsense, but it still reminds me of a renewed inquisition.
Thanks for keeping us updated Mike. Without your blog, I never would have had a clue. It's sad to see such a hostile reaction to someone who is simply promoting the one greatest commandment of the Bible. LOVE.
Having not grown up in the Baptist church, what do you suppose it is that prompts this kind of a response (since I have had multiple experiences with baptists and this behavior)? Why is there such a fear of ministering to people, of promoting thinking for yourself, or living a life that is others-focused?
The band I'm playing in recently did a concert at a local baptist high school (might I say that we are all Christians in the group, though the music is not explicitly "Christian"). Before the show, parents had checked our myspace, saw that there were bars/clubs scheduled for show dates and promptly called the school to complain! This resulted in the principal having to show up to the event and make sure that we weren't planning to lead the kids down the paths of destruction by playing some music.
Do these people live their entire lives in a quarantine zone? If so, how then are they planning on "making disciples of all nations?" I guess I simply do not understand.
Dan,
Here's how this basically works: "Emergent" leaves a bad taste in people's mouths with some of their more "Catholic" excursions and adoption of what some see as Eastern mysticism. It's bogus, but it's their take on the situation. These people are a bit isolationist, as you point out.
But I should say, not all Baptists are created equal, just like all conservatives, liberals, Wesleyans, etc... The problem is with generally labeling a group, stereotyping them, and then lumping people into this false group who in all actuality claim no affiliation other than friendship (as it is with Claiborne and McLaren and company).
I actually am sympathetic with those who fear postmodernist leaning theology and "emergent" like stuff, but ultimately, this is not the way to go about it. There are more constructive means to critique others we disagree with and more fruitful discussion to be had around more beneficial topics. There are so many strawmen set up by these "ministries" (how ever they minister and to whomever) that it just makes me cringe.
Mike,
Thanks for this. The Lighthouse ministry has also been slamming my CT article. They certainly do lump everyone together and pronounce the same anathemas on them. No subtlety or proper research at all--just fear peering out from every word. Sad.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Chris Armstrong, author of the cover article of this month's Christianity Today! Privileged to have you by my blog!
I'll have to see their write up on your article. They actually have a funny label for Christianity Today. They've pronounced doom on the whole magazine.
Wow, thanks for the links.
I guess I might have slightly understood how this made sense... when I was in high school. Now I just shake my head and move on to something productive.
I try, but I get sucked in. Like I wrote on Schenck's page, I guess I am more willing to go to bat on this because I interact personally with many of the targets these men and women use as dartboards for dogmatism. They lose sleep over it, get wounded, but can't respond because even their response will be critiqued in public light. I'm not as important as these individuals, therefore, I feel I can mix it up more. Perhaps I'm naive and immature as I am sure many over at Jesus Creed are thinking currently (see a string of posts between myself, some guy named Jeremy, and Ken Silva).
Interesting how the critically fundamentalist sites have no functions for user interaction or commentary. Typical!!
You have to email, but I'm not sure you will get a response. I emailed Mr. Silva tonight. We'll see what happens. Here is what he has written about my post and comments I made over on Jesus Creed:
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2008/02/shane_claiborne_6.html
Even Chris Armstrong's quote was taken and placed over there for disapproval. Be careful all of you posting on my blog, you may find yourself being critiqued as well! If you can take it, go ahead, but if not, you may want to stay away from this post.
Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention, Mike. I appreciate the time and effort that went into piecing this post together.
I'm interested in this conversation for a number of reasons. My ears are particularly piqued when I see the anonymous comment that includes the word "fundamentalist." Coming from a strictly historical stand point, allow me to makes a few observations about this issue.
1.) Calling all of the above organizations "fundamentalist" is not entirely correct. The term "fundamentalist" carries with it a specific set of meaning and I'm not sure that you could aptly apply it to every organization listed above. I'm guessing that anonymous used the word as a pejorative to mean close minded and pugnaciously defensive. However, the use of the term without qualification, introduces ideas that, while perhaps having parallels with this discussion, are not accurate as they stand and probably serve more as a distraction than an aid.
2.) When I read Claiborne's stuff, it reminds me of three books that I have sitting on my mantle. These books are sermons written by Walter Rauschenbusch and Henry Fosdick. Yeah, Claiborne's stuff (and other Emergents for that matter) are often very similar to the great texts out of the protestant liberal tradition. But, to say that Claiborne and the Prot. libs are cut from the same cloth doesn't seem right either. I'd place Claiborne more along the lines of a Dorothy Day, a theologically orthodox member of the church who firmly believed that Christ's gospel carried with it enormous social ramifications for the mystical Body of Christ.
3.) It's ironic that this breaks loose during the season of Lent where we celebrate and remember Jesus' humanity. It seems that the Emergents are restoring this aspect of our faith through their incarnational lifestyles and ministries, and we would do well to pay heed to their offerings.
Kevin,
I have tried to leave the word "fundamentalist" out of this discussion. I agree with you here. In some ways sides of the Emerging Church (and particularly in New Monasticism), there are people who could be considered "fundamentalist." Their focus on a counter-cultural Christianity pushes them towards a religion that looks a lot like what was labeled fundamentalist at the turn of the 20th century. Words need to be chosen carefully.
That's why I've gone with "angry conservatism." Their tone is often self-righteous and depressing. And it's more than just a "conservative" take on things--it's an "ism," a machine and ideology. Through a string of email, Ken Silva has agree to post a reply of mine with an apology of some things I said over at Jesus Creed.
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2008/02/shane_claiborne_6.
html
Hey, Mike,
I'm too busy for this, but...who isn't and I'm sure you have more going than I do. (You're considering the reminder of Deut 24:5 I hope -- I'm reading Wolgemuth/Devries "Most Iportant Year..." right now so the idea is on my mind.)
As to your comments on Claiborne, etc. I find it interesting and think, ironically, that some of the comments in the response stream can border on the very attitude they find, perhaps correctly, to be at fault -- that is a sort of self-righteous indignation that we all so easily fall into. (maybe I should quit typing right now and of course I do not know any of them -- this is just casual observation)
In addition, I find this quote interesting: You said, " But in the end, Cedarville bowed before the conservative powers that be rather than allowing their students to engage in truth outside the narrow lines constantly being drawn for them. It's ironic to me that "truth" is what a lot of these battles are over, and yet the response from angry bloggers is to suppress ideas and opinions."
In a paragraph allowing the power of blogging you seem to suggest that 'the narrow lines drawn for them' will somehow disallow them hearing Claiborne's message. It is one thing for an admin. to make a tortured decision with many competing priorities, but they will never keep their students from hearing this message, as evidenced by them going to hear him elsewhere that very date. In fact, the old backlash effect prob. means they will give Claiborne's approach more than it's rightful due. Disallowing a speaker for reasons of institutional stance and perception need not indicate close-mindedness about his views, as I'm sure you allow. It just means they do not want to take the very PR weighted move of giving him a public venue on campus. Pastors face this all the time in smaller ways. Putting up a pastor from a different denom., for example, is sometimes avoided because of perception, not ue to closemindedness -- or so I imagine.
ALll that said, I really think you deal well with this, though I did not read any of the links and am probably too novice when it comes to Claiborne and his emphases. But I do think some of the reaction -- as suggested only by my reading of your article is out of proportion to the real issues and, typical of things like this, can get misconstrued to conclusions beyond the standard ideals of all involved.
For what it is worth; thanks for the good piece,
Randy
Thanks for the Deuteronomy reminder. I'll be honest, I don't get back into the OT as much as I should. That was a good verse for me to read this morning. Some weeks I've been more faithful that to that idea than others. Lately, maybe not so much.
I appreciate your perspective. My tone is a bit harsh in some of this post, as were my comments on a few others' blogs on this topic. I was angry when I wrote this. I remained angry for a few days after! It's just hard to reason with some people. Whenever you get time, check out Apprising Ministries website and you will see what I am describing. In my opinion, it's a witch hunt being carried on by people who see the Church as being "pure" only when their standards are met. It's like a reprise of the Donatist controversy of the early church (c. 4th century I believe).
Like I said above, I am not as apologetic about this piece as I am sure many would like. I apologized to Ken Silva personally because I felt convicted about a few things I said. But when my friends lose jobs and a means to take care of their families because of these type of gross false-categories, I am going to go to bat for them.
What and amazing post. I looked at the blogs that condemned Shane's vist, and seem to be comeing from a fear based system of thinking. Is this typical from that community? I mean, what on earth could be wrong with discussing living out our Christian faith, in the real world?
FWIW, this begs the question. The whole discussion from the other side involves the fact that they do not buy into your premise that this is indeed "discussing living out our Christian faith, in the real world."
Not to strain out, my friend, but adding my two cents. Engaging the discussion, as I'm sure you allow, involves more than stating one's premises as if they were givens. If they were givens there would be little need for the discussion.
Kansas native, BTW, with a friend in the Episcopal community in Tulsa.
Blessings,
Randy
Hi, I came across your blog through a general Google search along the theme you're discussing here.
I didn't want to rant all over your blog, since i'm a guest; and the post I just wrote on my blog is not really a reply to what I just read here, though some of the comments got my irritations up; but it sort-of is, though mostly just a huge blow-off of emotional steam for me.
If you would like to read what I wrote -- Why Postmodernists Drive Me Crazy -- I'll invite you over to www.newcovenantliving.blogspot.com.
Jack
Post a Comment