A Tale of Two Colleges
This week brings fascinating news from two colleges. The two institutions are facing almost opposite situations, and the contrast between them is both remarkable and illustrative. Because change occurs constantly, Christian organizations are constantly required to apply their principles to new situations. Cedarville University and Faith Baptist Bible College provide a clear contrast in terms of how new applications might take place.
The school that is now Cedarville University started out as a Bible institute in Cleveland. During the early 1950s it acquired the name and campus of Cedarville College, formerly a Presbyterian school. For many years, Cedarville College staked out its identity as a fundamentalist, Baptist institution. Under the leadership of James T. Jeremiah, it was one of the flagship schools identified with the Regular Baptist movement.
In 1978, Paul Dixon became president of the college. He brought with him a vision to make Cedarville into a world-class university. Regular Baptists, however, had neither the numerical nor the economic strength to fulfill his dream. Dixon needed a larger constituency and broader appeal, and in pursuit of these goals he began to downplay some of the distinctives that Regular Baptists thought important. There was a softening of ecclesiastical separation as the platform featured a broader variety of evangelicals. There was an increasing openness and even friendliness toward the more current trends in popular culture. There was even a shifting of the criteria for faculty selection. By the early 1990s, Cedarville professors were putting themselves publicly on record for their (belated) support of the Equal Rights Amendment—legislation that was almost universally opposed by conservative Christians of all sorts.
As Cedarville broadened its appeal, it experienced growing tensions with Regular Baptists. These tensions came to a head when, at the end of Dixon’s tenure, Cedarville formally identified with the Southern Baptist state convention in Ohio. Under the new president, William Brown, the university refused to endorse the Statement of Purpose of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, a requirement for partnering institutions. For both these reasons, the GARBC terminated its partnership with Cedarville in 2006.
The divorce was ugly, at least on the Cedarville side. Since the GARBC national conference was held in Michigan that year, Cedarville supporters were transported by busloads to try to overwhelm the vote. At one point some threatened to rush the platform if a particular parliamentary ruling did not go their way. In the end, however, the association had the votes to remove Cedarville from partnership.
Shortly thereafter, scandal erupted on campus as a couple of the most conservative tenured professors were terminated suddenly. Alarmed constituents formed watchdog groups and began to spread word of theological aberrations. Most Cedarville constituents found these charges difficult to believe, but the university continued to show signs of movement away from its fundamentalist roots. In an attempt to reassure conservatives, in 2011 the university adopted white papers dealing with creation, with justification, and with divine omniscience.
The situation, however, continued to deteriorate. In 2012, a professor was fired for teaching that the opening chapters of Genesis were non-historical. Then two philosophy professors published that they could not vote Republican since they supported universal health care, decreased defense spending, increased spending on social programs, and economic redistribution. Consequently, the question was no longer whether Cedarville should be considered a fundamentalist institution, but whether it should even be considered a conservative one.
In response, the board placed the philosophy major under review and indicated its intention to end the program. In October, President Brown tendered his resignation, followed by a key vice president in January 2013—many believed under pressure from the board. In response to concerns that Cedarville might be moving in a fundamentalist direction, board chairman Lorne Sharnberg was quoted as saying that Cedarville “isn’t moving anywhere. We’re staying right where we’ve always been.” Ironically, these are the very words that the Cedarville leadership used to say when it was moving away from fundamentalism.
While these events have been taking place at Cedarville, Faith Baptist Bible College has been facing a difficult decision of its own. The school long ago staked out a position that was traditionally dispensationalist, strongly Baptist, and conservative in its appropriation of contemporary popular culture. It has required its students to become members in churches that share these commitments.
Through the years, one of the congregations that allied itself with Faith was Saylorville Baptist Church. Dozens of students and several staff are members at Saylorville, and in many ways (for example, its commitment to evangelism) Saylorville models values that Faith shares. Over the years, however, Saylorville has adopted an increasingly contemporary ministry, and it has recently dropped the word Baptist from its name. As Saylorville has made these moves, Faith has felt considerable pressure to soften its commitment to its principles and to broaden its appeal.
Decades ago, one of the presidents of Faith Baptist Bible College (David Nettleton) argued that when Christians disagree, they must either limit their message or limit their fellowship. This past week, Faith’s board made the decision to stand by its message and allow its fellowship to shrink. Students and staff will no longer be permitted to join Saylorville Church.
This may represent the hardest decision that the administration and board at Faith has ever made. They are not angry with Saylorville. They love its pastor and its staff, and they believe that Saylorville is in some ways a good model. They are not denouncing the church, but they are separating from it at one level. They are making this move because, if they do not, their principles will be obscured. They are aware that the decision will be costly.
Cedarville and Faith represent opposite approaches to the application of principles in changing situations. Cedarville committed itself to wider influence and was willing to sacrifice principles in order to obtain it. Faith has committed itself to maintain its principles, and it is willing to accept narrower influence in order to uphold them. Both have responded to change, but they have responded in opposite directions.
Granted, sometimes Christians hold mistaken principles that they ought to revise. Simply to abandon principles in favor of increased influence, however, is a devil’s bargain. Once principles have been obscured, they become very difficult to clarify. Both Faith and Cedarville will face some unhappy constituents. Cedarville’s will be unhappy because their school’s position is not clear. Faith’s will be unhappy because their school’s is. The difference is this: no one is attracted to obscurity and uncertainty, but some may be attracted to a clearly stated position when it is consistently maintained.
Christ Jesus Lay in Death’s Strong Bands
Martin Luther (1483-1546), translated by Richard Massie (1800-1887)
Christ Jesus lay in death’s strong bands,
For our offenses given;
But now at God’s right hand he stands
And brings us life from heaven;
Therefore let us joyful be
And sing to God right thankfully
Loud songs of hallelujah. Hallelujah!
It was a strange and dreadful strife
When life and death contended;
The victory remained with life,
The reign of death was ended;
Holy Scripture plainly saith
That death is swallowed up by death,
His sting is lost for ever. Hallelujah!
Here the true Paschal Lamb we see,
Whom God so freely gave us;
He died on the accursed tree—
So strong his love!—to save us.
See, his blood doth mark our door;
Faith points to it, death passes o’er,
And Satan cannot harm us. Hallelujah!
So let us keep the festival
Whereto the Lord invites us;
Christ is himself the Joy of all,
The Sun that warms and lights us.
By his grace he doth impart
Eternal sunshine to the heart;
The night of sin is ended. Hallelujah!
Then let us feast this joyful day
On Christ, the Bread of heaven;
The Word of grace hath purged away
The old and evil leaven.
Christ alone our souls will feed,
He is our meat and drink indeed;
Faith lives upon no other. Hallelujah!
Kevin T. Bauder Bio
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, who serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 175 views
JVDM… You asked, “Are you saying that Dr. Bauder is confusing, absolutely ludicrous, disappointing and typical because he would rather his kids learned piety instead of impiety? I’m having trouble following what you’re saying.”
My response: No. I only used adjectives, not nouns. I was calling him nothing. I was describing the statement in question. You’ll need to explain to me how a kid will learn “piety” at a state school or Catholic school better than at a Christian school and of course, I’ll need some basis — either empirically or Biblically — that would support your explanation.
Jay…I missed nothing. Read it all. More than once. The fact remains that Kevin’s statement was typically and ludicrously an over-reaction to what is, without question, a concerning series of events. Concerning, yep. Problematic, again, yes. Reason to pull my kids and put them in the hellholes of the statist university systems of this country….you have got to be kidding. And yes, I find such mindless rhetoric disappointing and quite surprising coming from someone of the generally disciplined pen of Kevin Bauder. (Such statements are usually found originating from the likes of firebrands like me.)
There is no evidence that such a move would benefit the student in any way nor is there any that would indicate that staying at a place with the examples in question in place would harm the students. Let’s not do anecdotes, because I can counter-match anyone’s student for student. I find the statement quite ridiculous, not to mention typical of the over-the-top declarations of those that Kevin just castigated the week before.
Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com
Writes this..
“The fact remains that Kevin’s statement was typically and ludicrously an over-reaction to what is, without question, a concerning series of events”
Then writes:
“Reason to pull my kids and put them in the hellholes of the statist university systems of this country”
Doesn’t that overstate the the state university system or understate hell, a bit?
It was only last year that Cedarville fired professors for teaching principles contrary to God’s word, so why should I think that things are getting any better?
Um…because they fired the professor that denied a literal Adam and Eve. That in itself is an improvement because he did not hold to their statement of faith.
Over the years, I’ve learned to be careful how I go about judge Christian institutions of higher learning from a distance because I’ve seen so much window dressing take place. When Cornerstone U was Grand Rapids Baptist in the 1980’s, the rules bred some of the worst rebellion that I ever experienced in my life because so many of my classmates were forced to attend the college by their fundamentalist Baptist parents. Half of the young men that were music majors in my class with me are now practicing homosexuals. The spiritual thermometer was at an all time low when I attended there. Yet when I traveled on gospel music teams to recruit students and connect with churches, they were all given the impression that God was really doing things at Grand Rapids Baptist College and should continue supporting the institution.
When I came back as an adjunct prof teaching urban ministry fifteen years later when it was Cornerstone U, I was blown away by the passion that so many students had for Christ. Christian students actually wanted to attend Cornerstone and many were growing in their faith in Christ. Yet a few years later, I felt that there were some profs that were giving lip service to Cornerstone’s statement of faith and lifestyle statement and it seemed as if they were drifting theologically. It was starting to impact the students as well as many flirted with the emergent church and so many were enamored with Rob Bell. Then when Dr. Stowell became president, due to some decisions that he made, it returned to become more conservative theologically and these professors are now gone. Yet at the same time, they relaxed the rule that its professors were able to drink alcohol in moderation. By the way, I don’t necessarily have a problem with that decision under the current administration. However, I am much more concerned down the road when inevitably someone else becomes president of the Cornerstone who isn’t as much of a spiritual leader as Dr. Stowell.
Barry….as one who spends a lot of time on college campuses of various kinds, I believe the term “hellhole” was wholly accurate.
Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com
[TylerR]Surely you are being sarcastic here … There is no conservative seminary in the world that teleports you away from the local church, imprisons you into a classroom, then parachutes you back into local ministry after studies are over. Seminary is academic instruction designed to complement the practical, hands-on discipleship which should be taking place in the local church. Your characterization of Seminary is absolutely incorrect. You are either being sarcastic or are significantly misinformed.
Hi Tyler,
Ya, I’m being a little sarcastic, but do Seminaries really have a personal mentoring in the midst of local church ministry? Most Seminaries are not local church based.
Speaking for Maranatha - they are not local church based. That being said, any student is accountable to themselves and to God for their faithfulness (or lack thereof) to a local church. Seminary requires attendance in a local church, but short of putting tracking devices on students how can this really be enforced without some degree of mature, personal accountability?
Lousy and uncommitted students go to Seminary, who have little to no relationship with Christ. Great students go to Seminary, who will eventually be used of God for great things.
To put it rather bluntly - Seminary does not exist to babysit students. They should have left diapers and pullups behind their freshman year at Bible college. Seminary gives more advanced academic training in God’s Word to furnish men to handle it better. The extent of involvement in the local church is the student’s responsibility. There is, after all, a heart issue to worship that cannot be legislated or mandated (Deut 10:16; Rom 2:29).
Does a Christian educational institution have to be church-based? I’ll admit I haven’t done too much thinking on this, and I don’t have the time to do so now! My knee-jerk opinion is that neither side of the aisle will guarantee orthodox doctrine. I didn’t care about it at all when I applied to Maranatha. I agreed with their doctrinal statement, they had an excellent reputation in fundamentalist circles, I liked what I saw when I visited campus. My approach here was admittedly very pragmatic, but there you have it. I’m already embedded in a local church. It wasn’t an issue for me. It still isn’t it. Perhaps I’m being naive, but I just don’t care whether an institution is tied to a local church. I care about their doctrine.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Piety apart from faith in Christ is worthless. There is no eternal value in piety for the sake of piety.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[TylerR]Seminary requires attendance in a local church, but short of putting tracking devices on students how can this really be enforced without some degree of mature, personal accountability?
To put it rather bluntly - Seminary does not exist to babysit students. They should have left diapers and pullups behind their freshman year at Bible college. Seminary gives more advanced academic training in God’s Word to furnish men to handle it better. The extent of involvement in the local church is the student’s responsibility. There is, after all, a heart issue to worship that cannot be legislated or mandated (Deut 10:16; Rom 2:29).
I guess this is where I have a different philosophy from most of “Christendom” type churches. Baby sitting isn’t what I’m talking about. I’m talking about discipleship which is what the church is commissioned to do. All theological training, counseling and plain ol’ Christian growth is to be done within the mission of “disciple-making” as the point. We as Christians were never meant to be left on our own to only be personally responsible and unaccountable for our own spiritual growth and health. A Christian by definition is to be a member of a mutually edifying community(IE The local Church). I know that everyone here would agree with that last sentence, but how seriously does the church take this? When a guy is called to preach and teach, the church ships him off to a Bible College and outsource that part of her discipleship responsibility. Only in the context of local church discipleship and actually leading under the authority of the elders can a man’s profiting be seen and verified by the congregation. We are to lay hands suddenly on no man and thereby partake in his sins. A couple of interviews, seminary transcript and sermon tapes is not enough to know if a man is truly qualified.
Jesus did life with 12 guys and prepared them in three years. Why don’t we do this? Inconvenient? We lust for worldly respectability by having letters attached to our names? We’ve succumbed to the “professionalization” of the ministry thereby falling into the clergy/laity distinction.
[JVDM]Right. That is why I also used adjectives. But I understand what you’re trying to say.
Is one going to learn piety at Cedarville by rocking out to Switchfoot and listening to socialist philosophy lectures? Or at a Catholic school by performing Tallis and reading Josef Pieper?
I’d rather send a young man or woman into a secular university that he already knows up front is hostile to his faith where he/she will have to make it or break it, than send him to a lukewarm, progressive Christian college that will turn him into a spiritually flabby blob.
[WilliamD][JVDM]Right. That is why I also used adjectives. But I understand what you’re trying to say.
Is one going to learn piety at Cedarville by rocking out to Switchfoot and listening to socialist philosophy lectures? Or at a Catholic school by performing Tallis and reading Josef Pieper?
I’d rather send a young man or woman into a secular university that he already knows up front is hostile to his faith where he/she will have to make it or break it, than send him to a lukewarm, progressive Christian college that will turn him into a spiritually flabby blob.
Oddly, having degrees from two fundamentalist colleges, one secular university and while currently on the faculty of a university that I’m confident you’d label “lukewarm/progressive”, I never sought to learn piety at any of them. I did, however, find students who were both “spiritually flabby blob’s” and who were sold out, consecrated Christians. Again, I would note that you make your declarations in the utter absence of any viable empirical evidence. I can play “match the anecdote” all day long with you, should I be so inclined. Frankly, I think one of the most dangerous places to be is enrolled at the most conservative fundamentalist university confident that they will successfully a) teach you Biblical piety; b) protect you from evil influences and c) prepare you for real life ministry in which one engages the actual culture in hand-to-hand spiritual conflict. Such thinking is naive. It is also the thinking that killed whatever little influence fundamentalism (historic or otherwise) ever had in our culture. But go ahead and keep thinking that — it’s far easier than to actually turn on those critical thinking skills and developing one’s own personal piety apart from institutional group think.
I’ve heard that cliched pronouncement about preferring to “send a young man or woman into a secular university….blah, blah” drop from the faces of fundamentalist preachers in order to elicit a hearty amen at the local/regional/national meeting of their “camp” for nearly 50 years. I guess the only thing we need now in this thread is for someone to say, “As goes the music, so goes the…..”.
Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com
WilliamD:
I hear you - I really do. However, I think we’re talking about two different things.
You have a valid concern with 18-yr old boys who want to go to Bible College. They are young and impressionable. Should they be “shipped off” to an institution for four years? Will they even be recognizable when they return? This makes the choice of a Bible College so important - and I believe this explains Dr. Bauder’s comments above which have raised the heckles of some. Is there another way? Is there a better way? It depends on the person. With the continuing march of online education, many more students can get their undergrad finished all while staying in their home church surrounded by friends and the leaders who know them best - supervised discipleship can occur. This may work for some people. It may not work for others. Your concerns are very valid. I share them.
You do not have a valid concern with men who go to Seminary. Yes, there are some 23-yr olds in Seminary who still live at home, or in their dorms, and know nothing about real life. They hopped directly from undergrad to graduate studies and the same concerns I mentioned above apply.
When I mention “Seminary,” my conception of the typical student is a man who is experienced in life or ministry who is returning for additional education. My classmates, by and large, are older men who are mature Christians. They are returning to get a better grasp on things. They are not children. This may help you understand where I’m coming from when I discuss Seminary.
Again, you have valid concerns about the “ship the kid off to school” Bible College models. However, there are undoubtedly some men who call those years the most formative of their lives! It is difficult to draw a line in the sand on this one. I praise the Lord technology has allowed us to have alternatives to traditional brick and mortar schools.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Dan Burrell]Oddly, having degrees from two fundamentalist colleges, one secular university and while currently on the faculty of a university that I’m confident you’d label “lukewarm/progressive”, I never sought to learn piety at any of them. I did, however, find students who were both “spiritually flabby blob’s” and who were sold out, consecrated Christians. Again, I would note that you make your declarations in the utter absence of any viable empirical evidence. I can play “match the anecdote” all day long with you, should I be so inclined. Frankly, I think one of the most dangerous places to be is enrolled at the most conservative fundamentalist university confident that they will successfully a) teach you Biblical piety; b) protect you from evil influences and c) prepare you for real life ministry in which one engages the actual culture in hand-to-hand spiritual conflict. Such thinking is naive. It is also the thinking that killed whatever little influence fundamentalism (historic or otherwise) ever had in our culture. But go ahead and keep thinking that — it’s far easier than to actually turn on those critical thinking skills and developing one’s own personal piety apart from institutional group think.
Ok, well I think you’re trying way too hard to read my mind or intentions. I don’t know what university faculty you’re a part of (Liberty U? maybe?).
The likes of Ergun Caner and his Arminianism was a bigger problem with Liberty, more than their music. At least he’s gone now.
Ya, all I can do is anecdotal…I knew people who went to Simpson College in Redding, CA. (CMA School) and I visited the place once. It was a Christian party school. I’d rather that my friend had gone to San Jose State than be in a place where the same kind of sinful lifestyles the kids were living, were socially accepted by other “Christian” kids. I’m not a big fan of Bible Colleges anyway if you read my other posts on this thread. I totally agree with the danger of conservative Fundy colleges that make you think that they will successfully do a), b) & c) that you mentioned…. Be careful that you don’t automatically put someone into the stereotype box of the group you don’t particularly like when they say something that sounds slightly different with you. Goodness. I definitely don’t fit in Fundy group-think.
[Dan Burrell]I’ve heard that cliched pronouncement about preferring to “send a young man or woman into a secular university….blah, blah” drop from the faces of fundamentalist preachers in order to elicit a hearty amen at the local/regional/national meeting of their “camp” for nearly 50 years. I guess the only thing we need now in this thread is for someone to say, “As goes the music, so goes the…..”.
I’ve heard that too…I’d say the opposite…”as goes the theology, so goes the music”
[TylerR]When I mention “Seminary,” my conception of the typical student is a man who is experienced in life or ministry who is returning for additional education. My classmates, by and large, are older men who are mature Christians. They are returning to get a better grasp on things. They are not children. This may help you understand where I’m coming from when I discuss Seminary.
Gotcha…that’s a different context altogether. I’ve been reading Tim Chester’s book “Total Church” where he makes some statements that go against conventional wisdom:
“Theology must be in the service of the church and its mission. Authentic theology must be shaped by what we might call a missionary hermeneutic. Theology divorced from this context is essentially barren, self-referential and indulgent. Philemon 6: “I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ.” P. 156
I’m confused…but then I’m pretty much always confused when I see these kinds of discussions. Thirty years ago I was hearing things about Cedarville that caused me concern. Students told me about how easy it was to break “the rules” and how Robert Ketcham’s practices and position were ridiculed by some of the faculty. Missionaries who were Cedarville grads told me how the music of Cedarville’s mission teams undermined the work they were trying to do on the field. Yet I was informed that it was better to send students to an approved Baptist school like Cedarville than a non-denominational school like BJU.
I’m also confused when a church that practices the Baptist “distinctives” but doesn’t have Baptist in its name is considered unacceptable but a Baptist Church in which the only thing Baptist is their mode of baptism is OK.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[JVDM]Leisure is the basis of culture. School is leisure. Culture is cult. If you expect your schooling to have absolutely no impact on your soul you are kidding yourself.
[JVDM]Leisure is the basis of culture. School is leisure. Culture is cult. If you expect your schooling to have absolutely no impact on your soul you are kidding yourself.
Everything in life — everything, has the potential to impact your soul. How you decide to interpret all of these influences is dependent on your Worldview. Your Worldview is based on your Philosophy. Your Philosophy is based on your definition of Truth. The battle for the Culture is fought when one is determining what they will accept as Truth. Wait until college to disciple that into your children and you are too late — regardless of whether they attend a fundamentalist school or an Ivy League school or anything in between. Parents have for too long relegated the important disciplines of thinking and discernment to churches and schools. Parents who have failed to properly disciple their own children into Truth should not be surprised when they choose to live and think apart from Scripture regardless of where they are going to school. The Apostles were tearing the world apart at the ages of many, if not most, college students. So I view the idea that it is in college when a young adult should set the form of their thinking as illogical and naive. Granted, my own thinking has matured over the years, but it has never moved from its foundation. The ridiculously inept efforts to re-educate me at the extremist and unstable fundamentalist college where I received my undergrad work was no more successful in changing who I was and what I believed than did the respected secular university where I earned my terminal degree. Personal experience is not a valid basis for forming principle however and it is the wise parent, who knows his child adequately so that they guide them into making a sound post-secondary educational choice. Some kids should never go to a BJU or a PCC, others should never go to a Cedarville or an LU and others still would not survive at Duke or Georgia Tech. Wherever one sends their kids or their kids determine to go, the battle for their soul began many years prior to the matriculation line of their freshman year.
Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com
Discussion