(internet shut off…)

9:00–American will have its own religion…its own distinctive message of salvation and manifest destiny, set apart people group, and own creed. Its own symbols and enemies and deity. But in it all do we hear the cross, the enemy love of Jesus, the BLESSEDS. Does it look like Jesus. American can say one nation under God, but what is the character of that God…and is Americas gospel reflective of the gospel of our Lover Jesus…Reading Gal 1:6-7

8:57–Caesar has colonized our creativity and economy (God on money) and creation (pictures of Mt Rushmore). And then we try and brand Empire with the Cross…the SUV with the Jesus sticker. It becomes legitimization of everything that stands against the Cross.

(read quote from Hitler who thought he was doing the work of the Lord by coming against the Jews. Then Truman quote thanking God for bringing the A-Bomb to them instead of the enemy and sought guidance from god for its use.)

8:55–Can we serve two masters? How can we wait on God to move in history when we can move it now…Many will remain faithful, like those in the military will plunge themselves on their own swords rather than kill others. Eventually Empire takes notice of the spread…Constantine becomes a Christian/ For many, people see that the Cross of Christ was exchanged fro the sword of Rome. CHristians begin to kill, and ask Gods blessing. Religious leaders will do horrible things in the name of God and ridding the wordl of evil. Instead of following tragectrory of Abraham and Sarah, they follow the way of Empire.

Since the Church has become respectable, the Church has been able to be prostituted for any cause…especially war and killing.

singing now about Babylon and rising no more.

8:50–They were athiests and faithless because they rejected the religion of Empire Rome and turned into a new citizenship. So the Christians described the Empire as a charming Adulteress. John in Revelation described Empire as the great whore and called the Church to come out of her. Empire offers a cup to drink to all the world…but its a fraud. THere is a cup however that is the true Cup. What is highly regarded among men is detestable in Gods sigh. Romes splendor is false and comes on the blood of the innocent.

8:45–The early christians were called to make disciples of the nations, meanwhile the nations would be trying to make disciples of them.

We are fools for Christ…Paul

I recognize no empire of this present age–Acts of the Martyrs

Christ in disarming peter diarmed every soldier–Tertullian

If everyone were to act as you christians the national government would soon be left utterly deserted and without any help––Origen

(they’re reading a bucnh of quotes of early church and other ancient peeps)

emperors could only believe in christ if they were not emperors–as if christians could be emperors–tertullian

8:30–We’re back

(just said Lords Prayer…30 min intermission)

8:00–Jesus died for the sins and died because of them. Quoting Paul: Jesus triumphed over the powers and made a spectacle of them…thats bad exegesis. Im not sure the powers were the earthly powers, but the spiritual ones: think Cristus victor. Taking about enslavement to powers…which ones? Simply Rome or America…or the ethical powers of the Dark One?

Now we are to take on the nature of Christ in the face of the patterns and kingdoms of this world, the pattersn of the kingdoms of all the world.

(my question at this point is: what was the point of the cross in their eyes…was it to simply disarm the political/earthly powers? to disrobe the systemic powers of the world? hmmm so Jesus’ cross procession mirrors Roman Imperial processions? how about OT prophetic procession…just a thought)

7:55–Did they really know what sorta king they were in for with the TRIUMPHAL ENTRY. His revolution is not about how the kindom will come with a horse and entourage…but with a donkey. Peter protests this and says the meak and mild will not cut it…Operation Silent Lamb not good enough. jesus scolds because Peter is still thinking wiht the mind of Caesar and later attempts to fight with the tools of Rome (sword). When Jesus disarmed Peter, he disarmed all Christians. His was a suffering revolution.

Jesus’ throne was a cross…Mark portrays his march to the throne in the lights and eyes of the Roman Inauguration:

Pretorian Guard: proclaim Caesar as one who is glorius

Purple Rob/Scepter:

Ceremony includes gathering of people shouting triumphant over all other pwoers

Followed by slave who would kill a bull as sacrifice

Proceed to Head Hill which is the Center of Rome

Offer Cup of wine and mhyr

Following that would be Caesar rising to throne of power with someone on left and right

Lastly, divine miracle…like solar eclipse or flock of doves flying…

I like that line: Jesus’ kingdom is an upside down one not with FISTS but with a TOWEL…AWSOME!

7:50–And we see in this invitation of Jesus an invitation to figure out who He is…hes peculiar, a homeless rabbi, he has an upside down kingdom not with a fist but with a towel…with kids and the last seat…rather than adults or the FIRST seat.

7:45–To say God’s reign is like mustard is to relocate our hope from the Big Powers, from Empire, into the small peculiar people and crazy different alternative way of living of jesus. Jesus challenges the logic of the Imperial Cult.

The LOGIC of what the world says is reality…and replaces it with something that intitially seems crazy and stupid, but simply works over against the way of Empire.

There really is such a contrast between the categories and Way of Jesus and the categories and Way of both Empire and Religon, isnt there?! Jesus is BRILLIANT!

7:40–Jesus teaches nonviolence and transcend the categories of this world. We’re to love the enemey not as a strategy but because thats the way it is…

7:39–Jesus teaches a third way of how to overcome evil with Good, not simply passiveness or overt aggression (thank you walter wink!). If someone slaps you look them in the eye, turn your cheek, which is a posture of love. When you walk a mile with a soldier (which required civilians to carry gear), walk two…which the Roman army code forbid…walking an extra mile with them is an offer of love and friendship. Befriending the enemy is a risk to disolve the power structure…???

(ok…using some horrible exegesis on the casting of the demons out of the Gerasene possesed man..oh well)

(reading a Roman insignia relating to Caesar August as God manifest and bringing Peace on Earth, the bearer of the Gospel and good news of Empire)

7:32–It was a tumultouse time during the time of jesus; there were revolts and uprisings. Political parties like the Zealots, and Essenes, and Pharesees. But he lives with such political imagination that he doesnt live with these categories…he subverts even the political groups of his time and his own people. Jesus calls into question those campes and calls them into question through question. If we can listen with the ears of 1st centiry Mediterranean peasants we can come to understand what jesus was saying. When you understand Son of God was taken by Roman emperors, his name takes on great political weight. But Jesus isnt reclaiming Rome for God. The political language is to serve as a contrast between Kingdom of God and Kingdom Rome

‘Freedom is coming

Like a light on the dawn

Jesus breaks out chains

Lord carry is on”

(initial thought….I wonder if they read too much Emperical language back into the story…hmm)

7:26–Hes born on the run, homeless, and poor. Herod and the leigons of armies are afraid of this baby…only even when all he can do is cry and poop his pants…Herod the Great kings is afraid. And we must remember that to understand Jesus is to understand a particular time and place and specific towns and customs. Its lik trying to understand MLK without knowing about Birmingham and Boxcars.

7:24–Then God invades the world to bring down the powers in the most unlikely of ways. In the form of a child/man he comes to bring in and usher in a new way of being that subverts what Humanity views as normal. (singing the Magnificat in an original number)

7:22–While Empire uses might and Kings to declare and push agenda, God uses Prophets, who use strange antics to declare Gods decrees and unveil the sins of even Empire Israel.

7:20–God assures them He is their God and King and will protect, but the people want a king, and military, and thus security and safety. The people refuse to listen to Samuel, even after God warns what seeking after the things of Empire would bring…and God relents and gives them a King, in his anger. Prophets continue to remind them that Kings are doing what GOd said they would do. But even in this there is humor of Gods redemption eveident: small boy defets Giant and becomes King; they rally to war using very small armies. People are to trust not in size of military of might or power but Gods power. God uses the weak things to confound the wise and defeat the powerful. Amazing!

7:17–God through the Law give the people release from marginalization, debts, provide for care from orphans and widows…given strict guidelines to assure the poor are cared for and inequality is destroyed. These are the ways God brands them and sets them apart, even though the laws sound weird and crazy. God limites violence through the LAws (an eye for an eye, not 2). If you dont do the lasws you will end up like Egypt. God creating a new culture that is counter imperial. Spend years getting Egypt out of them. Slavery sounds more stable than Exodus. They want to be like other nations…rather than relying on God.

(prolly around 2500 people)

7:12–IN the mddle of an imperial genocide, God hears the cries of his people and chooses a baby, Moses. An orphaned refuge who cries to Pharoah to let people go and leads people beyond empire and into dessert. God protects thorugh the wilderness, if they will call to him and look to him.

(the show is a cool mixture of poetry, music, narrative. with a bunch of handmade instruments. very indy and organic. very beautiful)

7:10–The quest to be like God begins and continues with tower…God topples the centralization of power through the unification project of Babel. He chooses another way of being Human through an old couple. They were homeless, powerless, and the antithesis of the Babel project. Not just our story, but ours. Its about pain, struggle.

7:07–Shane and Chris taking stage–story of a God who loves huanity so much…a story started way beyond America…stody begins in a garden

7:05–Singing the “Jesus for President” theme song

7:03–Wer’re being encouraged to committ to an ethic of love and simply so outside of all associations

(almost didnt get internet…thank you Mars HilL!!)

7:01–Starting

6:55–Seated

If I may also say, while I believe my alma mater bungled this one, I’m thankful there is a spirit of dialogue and a willingness to engage the Other, both inside and outside the Church. This cancellation was a very unfortunate situation that was caused by bad timing and rabid criticism, creating an unmanageable situation for the institution, the students, and Shane. Hopefully, they’ll learn from this and not empower the criticizers by bowing out next time a ‘controversial’ speaker is invited to speak.

I’ve become aware that some have chosen to use blogs to criticize our decision to bring a young author named Shane Claiborne to campus for an evening lecture on February 11. The blog that initiated this criticism also attacks friends like David Jeremiah, Tim LaHaye, Dallas Willard, James Dobson, Beth Moore, Kay Arthur, Charles Stanley, Chuck Swindoll and great organizations like AWANA, Intervarsity, National Day of Prayer, Youth With a Mission, and Moody Bible Institute. I believe that it is necessary to respond to their charges and explain why a theologically conservative institution like Cedarville sponsors academic discussions like the one that we are
anticipating on February 11.

Shane Claiborne, identified in his book as an evangelical Christian activist, is a very popular speaker and writer among college students. Other speaking engagements listed on his itinerary include the National Conference on Youth Ministries, the Zondervon Pastor’s Conference, Mount Vernon Nazarene College, Bethel College, Grace College, and Willow Creek. Shane is a strong advocate for Christian involvement in issues of justice like poverty and racial reconciliation.

I first heard of Shane Claiborne last summer when I saw a young college student from Cornerstone University reading a book called The Irresistible Revolution. She explained that all of the student leaders at Cornerstone had been asked to read this book over the summer. I picked up the book, began reading and discovered a fascinating story about a young man from Eastern College who stepped out of his comfort zone to assist the poor and homeless in Philadelphia. He also did an internship with Mother Theresa in Calcutta before concluding his education by doing another internship at Willow Creek and studying at Wheaton College.

The author of the blog identified Claiborne as an “emerging church activist.” While it is true that Claiborne is broader theologically than we are at Cedarville, I have never seen anything that identifies him as an official spokesman, or even a member of an emergent group. It is true that some of the people who have endorsed Claiborne’s book are active in the emergent movement. However, it was also positively endorsed by John Perkins, the founder of the Christian Community Development Association, who has spoken in Chapel twice, once under Dr. Dixon and more recently under Dr. Brown, and by Rob Moll, a Cedarville graduate who works as an editor for Christianity Today, and whom we recently honored as our Young Alumnus of the Year. Recommending the book, Rob Moll wrote, “This book will challenge you to sell all you have and to follow Jesus to the margins.” This is a challenge that I want our students to hear and consider.

While I have never heard Shane speak personally, I have checked with faculty and students who heard him speak at a Christian conference on community development. After getting a positive recommendation from a member of the Bible faculty who teaches courses in urban ministry,I asked one of my staff (Jon Purple, Dean of Student Life Programs) to explore the possibility of bringing Shane to campus for an evening lecture.

Things I Liked about The Irresistible Revolution

• It challenged me to consider whether I was being as attentive to the needs of the poor as I should be as a follower of Christ.
• It challenged me to think about how my faith in Christ, and my allegiance to scripture should inform my approach to politics. I fear that I have sometimes allowed my allegiance to a political perspective to shape my approach to scripture more than I have allowed scripture to define what my values are politically. I’m not where Shane is on many political issues, but he has caused me to take a hard look at a few of my blind spot.
• It challenged me to explore the relationship between my faith and my works, particularly acts of charity and a commitment to justice for the poor and the powerless. I’m troubled by the fact that sometimes people who don’t share my doctrinal convictions seem to do a much better job actually living out obedience to some of Christ’s teachings. Shane tells of his experience doing an internship with Mother Theresa. I wish there were more examples of conservative evangelicals engaged in that kind of ministry. I don’t support a move away from conservative theology, but I do long for a more liberal (in an appropriate Biblical sense) practice of obedience to Christ’s call to leave our stuff behind and follow him. It’s exciting to me to see that some Cedarville students have a growing sensitivity to this call.
• I also identified with Shane’s discomfort at being lumped together with other people who call themselves evangelical Christians, but then act or speak in ways that don’t seem much like Jesus. I interact with students every week who demonstrate a love for Jesus and have been hurt by “Christian” people, who can’t seem to translate that belief into behavior that models the godly virtues of patience, gentleness, humility, and kindness.

Things about Shane’s Book that Cause Concern

• In Shane’s effort to encourage more compassion toward people of other faiths, some feel that he hasn’t been clear enough about the exclusivity of the gospel. The writer of one critical blog selectively lifted quotations from a 2005 interview between Shane Claiborne and Tony Campolo (On Evangelicals and Interfaith Cooperation, Crosscurrents.org/ CompoloSpring 2005) making it look as though each of them were promoting doctrinal errors like universalism or inclusivity.
• I found the original article and I would agree that it includes statements (mostly by Campolo, not Claiborne), which raise concerns for us as conservative evangelicals. For example, Tony Campolo said, “I’ve got to believe that Jesus is the only Savior, but being a Christiain is not the only way to be saved.” Other similar statements raise legitimate questions about Campolo’s position on this matter. He seems to be trying to find a way to say that one can be saved by Jesus Christ without converting to Christianity if one is faithful to “truth as they perceive it.” Such an argument seems compassionate, but it fails to account for the fact that one can perceive truth inaccurately, and thereby remain lost. (Since Campolo’s position isn’t clear to me, I’ll send him this letter and ask him to clarify his position because I may be misunderstanding the point that he is trying to make.)
• I’ve never endorsed that article and I’m concerned with some of the things that Campolo seems to suggest, but I believe that the blogger’s use of selective quotations lifted out of context, falsely represents the positions of both Campolo and Claiborne. Honestly pointing out error or asking for clarification, seem like appropriate acts of Christian scholarship. Distorting a person’s message to make a point, by selective quotations lifted out of context, does not.
• I also believe that in fairness to Shane, it should be pointed out that he acknowledged the exclusive claims of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and rejected the idea that “all religions are one tree with many branches,” all leading to salvation. In fact, the following words, quoted from the same article demonstrate his interest in evangelism to people of other faiths. “The Muslims that I know are very interested in seeing another face of Christianity than that which they have encountered in the media….we may still want them to experience the love and faith of Jesus but how else will that happen apart form them seeing it in our lives.” [It should be noted that the entire article was partially in response to comments made by an Evangelical leader who said, “The only answer is to bomb all the terrorists off the face of the Earth in the name of the Lord.” Comments like this make it harder to reach non‐violent Muslims with the gospel. It is also important to acknowledge that the article was not about working with Muslims on evangelistic projects, rather, it was about the possibility of cooperating with them in things like disaster relief, humanitarian relief for victims of war, and issues of social justice. Finally, I want to note that I was not aware of this article until January 23, 2008 when these blogs surfaced.]
• In an effort to show respect for people of other faiths, and to recognize their good works, some feel that Shane does not place enough emphasis on real theological differences. Claiborne and Campolo discussed the issue of God’s grace extending to people of other faiths and it was not clear to me if they meant saving faith that alters a person’s eternal destiny, or the effects of common grace like Jesus talks about in Matthew 5 when he urges us to love our enemies and pray for those who misuse us, citing the fact that God sends sunshine and rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. Shane also frequently commends Catholics for their leadership in areas of social work and social justice, recognizing them as brothers and sisters in Christ. I believe that an honest recognition of their good works doesn’t eliminate the need for a very careful evaluation of substantive doctrinal differences; differences, which I believe, could impact the eternal destiny of those we serve.

While I think it is fair for us to ask for more clarity about these doctrinal issues, I think we must also confess our failure to grapple with some of the tough sayings of Christ about the cost of discipleship, and we need to commend Shane for reminding us that God wants converted lives, not just converted beliefs. Discussing the challenge of reaching both homeless transsexuals and wealthy suburbanites with the gospel, Claiborne wrote, “I also became aware of how delicate that venture can prove to be. The temptation we face is to compromise the cost of discipleship, and in the process the Christian identity can be lost.…we can end up merely cheapening the very thing we want folks to experience. This is the cheap grace that [Dietrich Bonhoeffer] called the most deadly enemy of the church.”

• Finally, I would like to see Shane’s emphasis on a commitment to this type of discipleship complemented with a clearer discussion of the propositional truth claims of the Gospel. I believe that the Gospel message includes good works that attract people to Jesus and propositional statements about who Christ is and what he has done on the cross for our sins.

Even as I ask Shane to be mindful of the need for this kind of clarity, I am convicted of my own callousness and indifference to living in such a way that I earn the right to tell others about the Jesus that I love. I can become quite proud of my doctrinal clarity, but the truth is that I don’t share my faith nearly as often as I should and seldom do people come ask about the “hope that is within me.” If we are going to ask Shane to consider the need to be clearer in his articulation of the gospel, we better be sure that we are repentant in the areas where we need to be repentant and obedient in the areas where we must obey, otherwise we are like the foolish people described by Christ who ignore planks in our own eyes while we scratch away at the specks of dust in the eyes of others. I believe that Shane has something to teach us about following Christ, and I hope that a spirit of humility on our part will help him to accept our input and questions in a way that ultimately advances his efforts to live out the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Note: Shane’s doctrinal statement contains the following clear commitment to evangelism: “We affirm the importance of calling all persons to personal faith and faithful discipleship in following Jesus Christ. We recognize that this is done with words and without them.”]

How I would Like Students to Approach this Lecture

• Be inspired by Shane’s call (borrowed from a mentor) to “Choose Jesus and do something incredibly daring with your life.”
• Evaluate your life to see if it is full of gracious works that demonstrate the reality of your faith in Jesus Christ, particularly as it relates to ministry to the poor, the homeless, the hungry, and those in prison (Deuteronomy15: 7,8; Matthew 5:16; Matt. 25:34‐46; Romans 12:18‐21; Galatians 2:10; James 1:26,27).
• Treat this lecture just like you would a textbook, a film that you might watch in class, or an article that you discover while doing research that includes controversial statements. Allow scripture to shape your understanding of truth and be like the noble Bereans (Acts 17:11) who tested everything they heard by the standard of God’s word.
• Learn how to discuss theological differences in a way that honors both God’s word and the people whom God has created. The ultimate purpose of these discussions is to draw people toward Christ, to sharpen one another within the body of Christ, and to expose errors in the understanding of the gospel that may exist in our own lives, or in the lives of others.

(Also, I’m waiting on word to post an excellent letter he sent to faculty and staff. Posting that should clear up a lot of confusion…)

Some Random Reflections on Living as an Ordinary Radical

Last summer I saw a college student from another university reading a book with a strange cover by an author that I’d never heard of. The author was Shane Claiborne and the book was The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical. The student allowed me to thumb through the book and pretty soon, I was caught up in a story that disturbed and convicted me. Allow me to reflect on some random things that I’ve learned in my interactions with Shane Claiborne, and my recent decision to cancel his lecture on campus.

• For all of my adult life I’ve been a part of an evangelical group who pride ourselves on our high view of the scriptures. We defend its inspiration, its authority, and its inerrancy as we should. But sometimes we can get so distracted talking about how much we value Scripture that we forget to obey it. Shane’s book forced me to reflect on the relationship between my faith and my works (See James 2:14-19)…particularly as it relates to following Christ’s example of ministry to the poor and destitute. I must admit I’m a better believer in Jesus than I am a follower.
• Choosing up sides is a human tendency and a reflection of our sinful nature. Paul chided the believers in Corinth for choosing sides around certain Christian leaders (“I follow Paul” or” I follow Apollos”). He begged them to take their eyes off of Christian celebrities and to unite around the person of Jesus Christ (I Cor 1:10-13). Lets’ not be defined by our allegiance to Shane Claiborne, Dallas Willard, John Piper, D.A. Carson, or anyone else. Let’s be Christians who are known first and foremost for being people of Jesus.
• I need to think more carefully about my political values. I fear that I have allowed my party affiliation to shape how I interpret some of the words of Christ more than I have allowed the words of Christ to shape my political opinions. I thank people like Shane for reminding me of this.
• Doctrinal statements aren’t enough when it comes to deciding whom we can partner with in ministry. They are important, but they are not enough. James noted that demons can have correct doctrine (James 2:19). Some of the blogs that are attacking us with information that they know to be false have doctrinal statements almost identical to ours. Doctrine is important but we must also rely on the presence or lack of Christian virtues like humility, compassion, kindness, joy, truthfulness, and gentleness in deciding whom we can partner with in ministry (Galatians 5:22-26; 2 Cor. 6:6; Ephesians 4:2; Col. 3:12-15).
• Shane thinks that many young people are turning away from Christianity, not because we have made it too hard but because we have made it too easy; not because discipleship demands too much but because we’ve let it demand too little. His advice; “Choose Jesus and do something daring with your life.” Good advice!
• My last reflection is this: Cedarville students are phenomenal. Your grace, kindness and gentleness remind me of Jesus and make me want to partner with you for the rest of my life.

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.