Controversy at Cedarville University

Tags

Barton Gingerich, Carl Ruby, Cedarville University, Christian college, education, John Gredy, Mark Weinstein, Michael Pahl, student life, William Brown, Zak Weston

Vice President of Student Life Carl Ruby is to step down June 30th. Yesterday was his last day on campus. (Photo Credit: Cedarville.edu)

The community of Cedarville University faces controversy in the wake of several prominent resignations and possible cessation of its philosophy major. The Ohio-based Baptist school with a fundamentalist heritage is well-known in evangelical circles as a popular choice for undergraduate education from a Christian perspective. Now some developments have some students wondering if there is a covert cleansing of the ideological temple.

Earlier last year, theology professor Michael Pahl was relieved of his post for doubting a literal Adam and Eve. While the college’s stringent doctrinal statement seemed to affirm a literal account of Genesis, Pahl was able to sign off the document in good faith until the advent of the trustees’ theological white papers. Oddly, only a half-hour after the Christianity Today announcement on the matter was published, Cedarville president Dr. William Brown announced his resignation effective June 30, 2013.

On January 10th, the Cedarville community experienced another shock. The office of the Provost John Gredy sent out a memo announcing that Vice President of Student Life Dr. Carl Ruby would also step down from office on June 30th. However, the press release did not mention that Ruby’s last day on campus was in fact January 15th (yesterday). Near the end of his nearly 30 years of service at the school, the student life officer had led the Critical Concerns Series, which discussed immigration in 2011 and the American Dream (focusing on economics) in 2012. These events raised some eyebrows since they brought prominent figures of the Evangelical Left to speak on campus, including such notables as Jim Wallis, Shane Claiborne, Ron Sider, and Lisa Sharon Harper. Mark D. Weinstein, Executive Director of Public Relations, told IRD, “The majority of people on campus are sad [Dr. Ruby is] leaving…I don’t know what prompted his resignation, but I know that he resigned…, and I know that he and the administration came to a mutual understanding to keep it private.”

Student body president Zak Weston reported that rumor and suspicion now plague the campus. The suddenness of the announcement, the vagueness of reasoning, and the restrained communication agreement shocked students. They doubt that Ruby’s resignation was voluntary. Some students and alumni suspect Ruby’s more moderate approach to politics and interaction with society may have fallen afoul of more fundamentalist-leaning parents, donors, or trustees.

Aggravating the entire situation is the proposed axing of Cedarville’s philosophy program. There has been a recommendation to the board of trustees requesting the removal of the program and perhaps its professors. This decision quickly sparked protest. The two philosophy faculty members are also known for their more moderate views. For example, they wrote up an article for the student newspaper critiquing Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The editorial did not endorse Barack Obama, and another professor wrote an article supporting Romney in the same newspaper.

Weinstein revealed that this situation was actually the result of unfortunate timing. He clarified that every program goes up for review every five years. This year, it just so happens that enrollment, interest, and other factors call for significant alternations to the philosophy program as well as the cessation of the bachelor of arts in physics (a different department altogether). “This is more of a decision based on a decline in philosophy and decline in physics,” Weinstein urged. Weston recounted the same, mentioning that the major would be cut from the catalog while philosophy classes and minors would probably endure. However, one or both of the professors may be released, depending on the board’s decision to have either full-time faculty or a collection of adjuncts.

The student body president stated that, as liaison between students and the University’s leadership, he was appreciative of Dr. Ruby, Dr. Gredy, and the members of the board. Echoing the sentiments of many fellow classmates and alumni, Weston declared, “I for one hope answers will come to light for the student body…It’s fair to ask questions and have concerns, as long as they’re presented in positive manner.”

As always, Cedarville University will have to navigate the academic waters between the Scylla of fearful fundamentalism and the Charybdis of noxious liberalism in its pursuit of learned orthodoxy. No doubt the Christian academic community wishes and prays for the best of outcomes.

Bart Gingerich is a research assistant with the Institute on Religion and Democracy. You can follow him on Twitter at @bjgingerich.

“Benevolent Sexism” at an Evangelical University

Tags

education, evangelical, gender, Institute on Religion and Democracy, Kristin Rudolph, women

A group of professors at Biola University recently released a report called “Women Faculty at an Evangelical University: The Paradox of Religiously Driven Gender Inequalities and High Job Satisfaction.” The report shows that women faculty at an evangelical college face “benevolent sexism,” resulting in fewer opportunities for advancement than their male colleagues, yet overall, they report higher job satisfaction than women at a secular research university in the same region. The authors conclude this “paradox” results from the evangelical institution’s relational emphasis, which provides women with high job satisfaction, even though their career advancement is limited by a variety of factors.

In an interview with Christianity Today, the researchers reported that “Many women faculty … reported feeling undermined at work by implicit assumptions that they should be home with their children, or that the qualities that are valued in academia—intelligence, assertiveness, and confidence—are not traits appropriate for Christian women.”

Further, evangelical ideas about appropriate relationships between women and men limit the transfer of information about opportunities. According to the authors, “women faculty at this university are being excluded from important job-related information because of their exclusion from male social groups.”

This is at least in part because “Personal choices with regards to sexual ethics are seen as of particular importance in the evangelical subculture … guarding against sexual temptation seems to trump concerns about any gender inequality that results from avoiding too much contact with the opposite sex at work.”

Ultimately, this problem arises because “we are not taught how to have appropriate professional relationships with the opposite sex.” Women in the study reported observing “male colleagues going out together for coffee or meals, or seeing the male chair of department invite a young male colleague out. These descriptions suggest that the males do, in fact, have great access to opportunities for socialization.”

Further contributing to this pattern is “a dominant theology of gender hierarchy in evangelicalism, which does not necessitate, but in practice results in, limiting the professional advancement of women.”

But despite experiencing “benevolent sexism,” women at the evangelical school “paradoxically” reported higher job satisfaction than women at the secular university. This is probably explained by the fact that “close, warm, personal relationships with students and colleagues are one of the primary reasons these faculty chose to work at an evangelical institution as opposed to a secular university.”

This news is disappointing but unsurprising, and it probably reflects a general trend among evangelical colleges beyond just this particular case study. Sexism is wrong no matter what adjective you put in front of it. But because this “benevolent sexism” results from relational patterns, assumptions about gender roles, and theological beliefs often expressed in “informal information sharing networks,” it is difficult and probably unhelpful to prescribe a solution. It is an issue to be aware of, but perhaps one that must be resolved with time as the number of women in academics increases and shifts the relational dynamics and assumptions at evangelical colleges.

Church Renewal at its Finest

Tags

ACNA, Anglican, Anglican Way Institute, Barton Gingerich, catechesis, catechism, catechumenate, Dallas, education, family, Institute on Religion and Democracy, IRD Blog, Keith Ackerman, Lee Nelson, Ray Sutton, REC, Reformed Episcopal, spiritual formation, theology

Church of the Holy Communion in Dallas, TX.

Last week I had the great pleasure to attend the Anglican Way Institute (AWI) in Dallas, TX at the Church of the Holy Communion. Entitled “Renovate Your Life: Christian Formation in a Post-Modern World,” the event brought together about 100 participants (26 clergy and the rest young people under age 35) to learn about catechesis in contemporary society. Bishop Ray Sutton, Bishop Keith Ackerman, and Fr. Lee Nelson lectured as featured plenary speakers.

The Rt Rev. Ray Sutton, Bishop Coadjutor of the Diocese of Mid America in the Reformed Episcopal Church, taught on renewing the mind. Sutton, who also works as professor of Scripture and theology at Cramner House Theological Seminary, instructed that man as Imago Dei expresses the mind of God. “The Imago Dei including the mind of God is corporate,” Sutton asserted. He then argued that sin had a noetic effect, in which the Imago Dei as expressed in the mind was marred but not removed. Likewise, Bishop Sutton warned that Satan takes the mind to twist it to think contrary to God. Thankfully, the bishop observed, “The Incarnation restores humanity and the human mind with it.” Later on, he exegeted Romans 12:1-3, highlighting that the text refers to “bodies” as plural and “mind” as singular. “The singular mind is first and foremost the mind of Christ,” he added. This same singular mind of Christ must then have the mind of the undivided church, Christ’s Body. Assuming Anglican sacramental theology, Sutton instructed that the mind must first be exorcised and regenerated by baptism to wash away original sin. The soul must also convert to continue on the path of pursuing the mind of Christ. Liturgical habits of Word and Sacrament conform the human person to the redeemed Imago Dei. A significant part of Christian life then is the catechumenate—the spiritual formation of the person pivots on the practices and teachings of His Church.

Head of Forward in Faith the Rt Rev. Keith Ackerman shared his vision for catechesis in one of his sessions. He instructed that catechism derives from kata (“down”) and eichein (“to sound”); the catechumenate is the sounding down of the church’s teachings. “We’re trying to go back to the time when the church acted rather than reacted,” he claimed, “We have a lot to say. I think the church fathers had a lot to say.” He warned, “We can no longer operate under the assumption that the school…and the church [alone] can teach the faith.” He encouraged families to transmit “the Gospel of the Christian community as it has received, understands, celebrates, and communicates it.” Indeed, the family was pivotal in Ackerman’s conception of catechesis. “We can stay that if there is a redefinition of family, there will be a great destruction of the truth,” he counseled. He pointed out the harm done when divorce ceased to be the exception in society. Nevertheless, the former bishop of Quincy remained hopeful. “God doesn’t give us obstacles, but opportunities to be overcome by his grace,” he announced, “We can be the preservation of society…or we can preserve the truth about the transformative work of Jesus Christ.” “It doesn’t make any sense to get mad at a world that doesn’t know any better…I’m mad at my own people,” he chirped.

Again encouraging the recovery of family, he recommended providing catechetical materials for homeschoolers. He inquired, “How many of you young people here were homeschooled at some point?” A vast majority of the room raised its hand (myself included). Turning to the clergy, he ordered, “I need you to look around. This is the future. Our idea of community is changing.” Bishop Ackerman implied that churches should start ministering to and pulling from such counter-cultural groups rather than alienating them. He explored how liturgical practices and the church calendar could be applied to form young Christians in childhood. “We need a catechism bound in absolute truth in order to be passed on in appropriate ways,” he proclaimed, “You and I are going to have to communicate this catechism, possibly in strange and unusual ways.” He concluded, “The task of worship is not to entertain people…but is grounded in worshipping God.”

The young Rev. Lee Nelson, who pastors a parish in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, shared his passion for catechesis in contemporary culture. A member of the ACNA Catechesis Taskforce, he reminded his listeners of the Scriptural command to “be not conformed to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Nelson distinguished between “renovating” life and “renewing.” The former “includes a demolition—it was old and worthless at some point.” Unfortunately, the church today fails to lay a strong foundation of teaching for its members. The building blocks of the Christian life cannot endure rightly without a proper base. “Today, we’re heavy on content and little on process,” he worried. Nelson then provided a lengthy description of the early church’s catechetical process, which included many sacrificial steps before membership in Christ’s body. He defined the catechumenate as “the operational framework in which catechism takes place.” He contrasted this with the “seeker-friendly” models of today. He contended, “The church has tasked itself with teaching the world, ‘We’re not that different from you.’”

Nelson blamed this development partly on the Sunday School movement. In the beginning when Sunday Schools basically taught grammar school to street children, teachers—regardless of denominational background—consulted together to author their curricula. Because of the wide range of faith traditions, the teaching materials pursued the very lowest common denominator in theological content. Thus, far too often today, Sunday School doesn’t teach doctrine. “Teaching the grammar of the faith is essential,” he posited. He deemed it crucial that churches form “a simple process that leads people through stages of spiritual growth…Process in today’s world matters.” Nelson believed that would-be Christians have too much disorder in joining a church. All too often, church membership pivots on a perfunctory account of one’s use of the Sinner’s Prayer or simply dropping a check in the offering plate. He reported, “So when you have a catechumenate, there’s a plan in place—a gateway into the life of the parish.”

The California priest realized the church faces three significant obstacles. Christians face congestion, where they stay the same and do not grow in Christ. Nelson also condemned theological divergence: “This harms our witness to Christ. ‘God loves me’ does not equal ‘God accepts me.’” Similarly, parishes face rampant moralistic therapeutic deism. In response to these ills, the church needs the catechumenate to fulfill several requirements. The catechumenate must provide clarity; like a blueprint, everything must be right before a structure is even built. Similarly, there must be an alignment. All constituencies in the congregation are fighting for the same thing. Nelson asserted that when youth and children’s ministries are aligned with the rest of the parish, they can actually yield great fruit. Unfortunately, most youth ministry involves cutting an entire generation away from the full body. Churches try to entertain the young and raise up faithful Christians sans elders. While the families are broken up for various age-segregated activities, the church reassures parents that simply sending away their children will result in a beneficial end. “The church has done more to dishonor the family in recent decades than you could ever imagine,” Nelson claimed.

Finally, there needs to be focus in the church. The priest informed his audience, “Although this is hard in our particular culture, [focus] pivots on the ability to say ‘no.’” Nelson rallied against the “program-approach to church ministry.” Some believe various activities ranging from yoga to elaborate shopping bazaars will somehow help congregations grow. The ACNA catechist stood for the opposite: “We have one purpose, and the purpose is to make Christians.”

Mornings began with Eucharist. Pictured here is the sun rising through the stained glass which overshadows the altar.

What struck me as different from many Christian conferences I’ve attended (emphasis on many) was that AWI was truly “churchly” in its character. Several churches within Dallas provided resources to bring the event together, with the Church of the Holy Communion at the helm. Volunteers fed attendees and housed visitors. The hospitality was truly exemplary. Parish priests taught nearly all of the workshops, constantly offering a pastoral outlook and poised practicality in their lectures. Parishes also offered musical talent in the youth choir and various ensembles. Choir director Andrew Dittman and organist Christopher Hoyt arranged hymns and composed settings for chant. AWI also provided daily Eucharist and Evensong. The liturgical life of the youth shone through here: most did not need to consult the 1928 Book of Common Prayer since so many had it memorized from daily usage.

We here at IRD try to encourage church renewal and reform. From what I experienced in Dallas, the Anglican Way Institute is certainly a big step in the right direction. Stay tuned throughout the week for more posts on the workshops and lectures.