Tuesday, February 19th, 2008...11:02 am
UPDATED STORY: Alumn Outrage Over Cedarville University’s Claiborne Cancellation
Related Articles
Dr. Ruby Editorial
Faculty and Staff Letter
UPDATE 3: Today sometime I will post an editorial piece Dr. Ruby wrote for the campus newspaper in addition to pieces of a letter he sent to the faculty. He’s given me permission to post both, if anyone is interested in gaining more clarity about the situation.
UPDATE 2: Dr. Carl Ruby wrote me an email yesterday in an effort to bring some clarity to the firestorm that erupted a week ago. We had a great conversation that helped alleviate my concerns with my alma mater and nuance the story. While I cannot go into details about the conversation out of respect for Dr. Ruby’s privacy, I can say that a number of extraneous events collided to create a perfect storm which forced Dr. Ruby to cancel the event.
After a concerted smear campaign by the efforts of Those Who Shall Not Be Named (many of you will know the watchbloggers to which I’m referring) to denigrate the school and leadership, Dr. Ruby wisely pulled the plug and took his lumps. And even though the event was cancelled, the school arranged for an alternative event at a local church, connected interested students to him through an arranged breakfast, maintained personal connection to Shane, and is looking to have him back on campus for another lecture at a better time.
Unfortunately, I responded far to quickly to a CT article that really did not do the situation justice. While the content and quotations did give a rather entrenched, reactionary appearance on the part of the University, I regret my response and apologize for adding to the confusion. In some ways it was a good lesson and a good barometer of the blogger I’m becoming/want to become (more on that later). For those of you who are visiting from Google, Yahoo, or Technorati, as a formerly concerned alumn, the situation is not as it appears. I still have respect for Cedarville, but especially for Dr. Ruby and his handling of an unfortunate situation. Again, sorry for the confusion and my knee-jerk response…
UPDATE: About a week ago Shane responded to the flap at Jim Wallis’ blog with a post called “Don’t Fear Disagreement.” Like, Grace said in a comment: his response was predictably Christ-like. Go figure!
Thanks Wess for ruining my morning! I had heard about the Shane Claiborne lecture cancellation briefly but hadn’t paid much attention to it, mostly because I didn’t realize what it was all about. Then I read the Christianity Today article and totally lost my Grande Columbian Drip and Low-Fat Cinnamon Swirl Coffee cake!
As an alumn of this institution, I feel the right and responsibility to speak against a place that has been trending toward an entrenched, defensive posture in regards to “absolute truth” and “doctrinal clarity” and “biblical world view” issues for the past few years. After an internal professor flap within the Bible Department forced them to reassure everyone and there mother they weren’t “going liberal” by drafting a “Truth and Certainty Document” (which is diappointingly laughable in and of itself), now they wilt to the outside pressure of the likes of such emergent watchbloggers as Ingrid Shlueter, of all people. How an institution that desires to be a place of “world-class academics, christ-centered mission and life-changing experience” can shelter students from ideas from within, let alone outside, the Body of Christ is beyond me.
Aside from perpetuating the “Cedarville Bubble” that alumni and students have all grown to loath, the most disturbing part of this whole brouhaha is the explaination given by Vice President of Student Services Carl Ruby:
“There was a tension between my desire to use this event to challenge students to take a closer look at a very important social issue, and the need to protect Cedarville’s reputation as a conservative, Christ-centered university,” said Ruby. “There can’t be any confusion about our commitment to God’s Word and our historically conservative doctrinal position.”
Let me get this straight, Carl: you and the institution were concerned that having a man who has devoted himself to Jesus and intensionally, deliberately living out His Way would create confusion over the University’s Christ-centered status and commitment to God’s Word? What about Shane is inconsistent with Christ-likeness and God’s Word? Does Cedarville not believe that “religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world,” or are they only concerned with an archaic, wooden literalism that forces people to accept their version of a pietism that borders on repackaged American Christian Fundamentalism?
What’s more, “Nearly all of the opposition to Claiborne’s visit came from off campus,” he said. “The reaction from both faculty and students has been along the lines of, ‘We are a university … We need to be having these kinds of conversations on campus if we are going to adequately equip the next generation of Christian leaders.’ ” I think the true colors of this institution were shown in this incident: they are more concerned with “the need to protect Cedarville’s reputation as a conservative, Christ-centered university” to outsiders than they are with grounding students in a diverse, integrated faith experience.
Shame on you Cedarville University.
Shame on you for caring more about your reputation than exposing students to diversity within the Body of Christ. Shame on you for even suggesting allowing Shane to speak would call into the University’s commitment to Christ, thus calling into question Shane’s own commitment to Christ. Shame on you for bowing to outside pressure from whack-job bloggers whose skeleton fingers drip with poison with every reactionary rant they post.
A few hours ago I posted about how we as the Church can navigate a pluralist public square with regards to questions of morality. While I’m not sure how best to go about doing that, I will say that the type of hyper-ventilating, convulsive defensiveness exhibited from this glorious institution will always produce boarded-up windows and calls to “run for the hills!”. If we can’t even have a sane conversation with others within the Body of Christ, how will we ever think we can have productive, irenic conversations with the Other outside our community? This latest move by Cedarville shows it is neither willing nor capable of doing either, and that is truly sad and shameful.
Popularity: 25% [?]
13 Comments
February 16th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Jeremy,
I also saw this story today (ht wess) and agree that it is really disappointing.
I have a feeling that this will be a decision that the school comes to regret as the resulting backlash overshadows whatever worries they imagined would result in having Shane as a speaker.
Shane’s response at his blog was predictably Christlike.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I agree, grace: the backlash they’ll receive from this decision is going to be huge and mark the school for years to come.
Thanks for alerting me to Shane’s respone; I’ve updated the blog with a link.
-jeremy
February 16th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
“whack-job bloggers whose skeleton fingers drip with poison with every reactionary rant they post.”
He said, in love of course. As one of those “whack-job” ministries in question I can tell you this is what we’re reacting to:
Shane Claiborne and the Gospel of Goodness
February 16th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
“He said, in love of course.”
While you’re probably right about my tone, Ken, you no doubt know many of our frustrations with those who ‘testify’ against the ‘abomination’ of the emerging church movement. I think what we’re confused by is why anyone, you and Ingrid included, would think this man who (and especially after hearing his story) has given his life to Jesus and his mission, would consider him dangerous and unclean…
Thanks for the link (though I haven’t read your thoughts, yet, Ken) and thanks for stopping by.
-jeremy
ps-btw, Ken, I’m posting a reaction piece tomorrow on the inclusiveness of the emerging church that I think you’ll appreciate…so come back tomorrow?
February 17th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Did this really surprise anyone? I graduated from Cedarville in 79 and then taught there for two years in the 80’s. They have always been more concerned with how they appear than anything else. I have tried and tried over the years to uncover evidence that would convince me that the school had made progress intellectually and spiritually under a new administration, but I am sorry to say I’ve never seen it. I would never recommend that any thinking young person attend Cedarville.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Jeremy,
I am saddened both for Shane being excluded from Cedarville and that some vicious bloggers, who think their mssion is to the Holy Spirit for lots of other folks, lobbied to have Shane ejected. These vitriolic bloggers must think that after spewing their venom Jesus gently pats them on the head saying “Good little girl…good little boy.” I think they’re sick.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Jeremy,
I have been following your blog for a while now, and I very much appreciate your post here. In the last two days I have been going through the comments posted on Jim Wallis’ blog in reply to Shane’s post. I also spent some time on Ken Silva’s and Ingrid’s sites. I ended up posting on my blog too about the incident and regret that I didn’t see your post here first. Thank you for your critique of CU’s reaction. I have a friend studying there right now who has become frustrated by some of the views of Christianity that are coming her way. I will get her to take a look at your post. Thanks!
February 18th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Well thanks for ‘following’ dawn
I fear the frustration your friend feels at the school will only be compounded by this latest incident of fearful evangelical overraction. I emailed alumni relations about the flap and got an…”interesting” email in return. I may be getting in touch with Dr. Ruby to hear a more nuanced perspective, so maybe I’ll have more to report that will shed light on this unfortunate situation…
-jeremy
February 19th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Thanks for the updates Jeremy, I can see that this is a complicated issue to say the least.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Hey, Jeremy thanks for the updates.
This whole situation doesn’t make a lot of sense and I’m waiting to get the whole story before I hav an opinion. I expect this from Ken, Ingrid, et al. but not from a place like Cedarville, and not against Shane Claiborne. God forbid we Christians actually helped the poor…before you know it we could be heretics.
Thank goodness I’m a schmuk or Ken would come after me because…
- I graduated from Talbot (not Fuller) but I like most of the emerging folks
- Last spring I led a bible study at a gay bar
- I just posted about gambling not being a sin
- I have dreadlocks
- I breathe…
Geesh guys like Shane get the heat???
He is a hero.
Cheers.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Hi Nathan,
Please understand that this situation is not “against” Shane. Cedarville or the administration is not against Shane. They are very supportive of him and will have him back on campus. Other events coupled with the coordinated smear campaign (and yes, that’s what it was…) forced Dr. Ruby’s hand. Yeah it doesn’t make sense on the outside, but I’m happy about the situation…and if you read my initial reaction that says alot
thanks for writing in…
-jeremy
February 20th, 2008 at 2:27 am
Jeremy, I share your frustrations with our alma mater and how it bungled the “invitation” for Claiborne to speak. I marvelled at how a university could so willingly “give in” to the cries of shock, outrage, and protest from a few people . Perhaps there were many people who complained - since we’re not on the university staff list, we’ll never completely know. And I also share your feelings in regards to sites like “Slice” and “Apprising Ministries.” They seem much more concerned about condemning people to hell than advancing the Kingdom.
I do find fault with your dismissive attitude towards the “Truth and Certainty.” I, for one, am glad that Cedarville published it. I don’t think it’s any form of appeasement, but an affirmation of Cedarville’s historic stance towards the Scriptures. How exactly is it “disappointingly laughable?” Are you saying that we can’t know the Scriptures, so it’s laughable to even assume so? Should we not regard the Bible as “truth?”
Matt Brown
1993 grad
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I am only ashamed that Dr. Ruby cancelled not out of principle but out of pragmatic convenience. It was the right thing to do and, unfortunately, too many alumn are such shallow thinkers and band wagon ideologues to know any better.
The whole Shane and emergent issue at CU shows how so the thinking of this movement is so thin, empty, and just after the latest theological fad and fashion.
Leave a Reply