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.
- 176 views
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.
I guess one cannot be a Democrat and a Fundamentalist!
By the way I am for decreased defense spending: I think that France, England, Germany, Japan and South Korea should have increased defense spending so that the US does not need to defend them! See a recent WSJ article entitled Why France Can’t Fight
On paper France has 230,000 men and women in uniform, but only 30,000 are estimated to be deployable on six months notice.France does spend money on modern weaponry: Since 2009, one of the few pieces of equipment that saw an upward revision in planned inventory through 2014 is Dassault’s twin-engine Rafale fighter jet, of which France already has more than 70, with plans for nearly 160 more.
But militaries need the not-so-sexy stuff, too, and here Paris has been shortchanging its soldiers for years. French infantrymen must now deploy with barely half the number of logistical transport vehicles the military had planned four years ago. French diplomats spent the first week of the Malian intervention haggling with the U.S., Canada and Britain for American-made C-17s to transport soldiers and gear to Mali.
George Will has recently addressed the issue - The death of NATO?
NATO’s secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, recently warned that “at the current pace of cuts,” it is hard to see how in the future “Europe could maintain enough military capabilities to sustain” military operations such as those under way in Libya.Actually, Europe could not sustain them today; only U.S. munitions, intelligence, refueling and other assets keep the Libyan operations going.
…..
Since the Cold War’s end, the combined GDP of NATO’s European members has grown 55 percent, yet their defense spending has declined almost 20 percent. Twenty years ago, those nations provided 33 percent of the alliance’s defense spending; today, they provide 21 percent.
The trajectory which you observed in Cedarville could be applied to several of our present conservative colleges and seminaries. The move to restrict authentic fundamentalism to historic fundamentalism, the hesitancy to separate over “secondary doctirnes” and the emphasis of the doctrine of the gospel (soteriology) over a doxological (the glory of God) purpose all contribute to our younger generation being susceptible to becoming the next “conservative” evangelicals. May God give us wisdom to discern this slide to compromise in our own institutions, and churches. Ideas do have consequences.
Pastor Shane Belding
Victory Baptist Church Fort Frances Ontario Canada
Regardless of whether you agree with Faith’s decision in this case, I’m glad to see Dr. Bauder present the school in a positive light, and in a fuller context. Faith has much to offer, but is not an institution that is given to self-promotion. I think the thread on the related news item here on SharperIron is the most attention I have ever seen the school get on this site.
Unfortunately, that thread contains comments from some with little knowledge of Faith who seem willing to judge the school based on this one incident.
I hope this article draws some more informed reaction from Faith alumni and supporters, whatever side of the issue they may be on. Having made a statement on the other thread, I look forward to reading the comments of those with additional knowledge of the situation.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
In defense of Cedarville: “As Cedarville broadened its appeal …”
Mission:
- Faith is primarily oriented towards preparing young adults for vocational ministry
- Cedarville is oriented towards preparing young adults for secular careers
Size:
- If Faith has 300 students (and this number is not clear to me!)
- Cedarville has 3000+ students
Offerings (both are regionally accredited with North Central Association of Colleges and Schools):
- Faith has limited academic offerings (and one would expect that with a narrower mission!)
- Cedarville has broad academic offerings: including engineering, computer science, nursing, Pharmacy, et cetera. Cedarville has fleshed out their offerings in the STEM fields - and Faith does not pretend make those offerings.
I suggest … appreciate Faith for what it is .. and Cedarville for what it is! Yes Cedarville broadened its appeal, but I suggest that they would not be the kind of University that they have become unless they had made some of these strategic decisions.
[Pastor Shane Belding] The move to restrict authentic fundamentalism to historic fundamentalism…I don’t understand this statement. Are you saying authentic fundamentalism is somehow greater (larger) than historic fundamentalism? How are these not the same thing?
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Pastor Shane Belding]The trajectory which you observed in Cedarville could be applied to several of our present conservative colleges and seminaries. The move to restrict authentic fundamentalism to historic fundamentalism, the hesitancy to separate over “secondary doctirnes” and the emphasis of the doctrine of the gospel (soteriology) over a doxological (the glory of God) purpose all contribute to our younger generation being susceptible to becoming the next “conservative” evangelicals. May God give us wisdom to discern this slide to compromise in our own institutions, and churches. Ideas do have consequences.
I know next to nothing about either school but I think you are right that ideas have consequences. I’m not sure who represents “authentic fundamentalism” today since all branches claim to be authentic or at least the most faithful. Yet the “hesitancy to separate over ‘secondary doctrines’” (depending how you define them and separation) actually better represents how Christians should relate to each other – separate when biblically mandated, fellowship as broadly as possible with believers committed to the full authority of Scripture, partner with those who more closely reflect your distinctives.
When we hold our distinctives with the same certainty with which we hold the fundamentals of the faith then we will practice a greater degree of separation. When we hold our distinctives with conviction but with a lesser degree of certainty (particularly in areas of historical divergence) we can enjoy genuine fellowship and express biblical unity. For example, I believe that believer’s baptism by immersion best reflects what the New Testament teaches and the apostles and early church practiced. Yet I am more convinced about the subject of baptism than the mode. And I wasn’t always exposed fairly to other views during some of my training. It took taking Church & Sacraments with Sinclair Ferguson at RTS to at least admit that others have compelling arguments for their positions. I still don’t buy into the position but I won’t separate from those who differ (although full partnership in some endeavors wouldn’t work). So how these schools see their mission and understand what and how much needs to be distinctively emphasized will determine what students and faculty they will attract. It also may determine their viability. May both schools prosper!
Just over a year and half ago, I was at Faith for a high school tournament. What I experienced was impressive.
The students were both friendly and helpful. The staff I found to be extremely interested in our needs and concerns.
The chapel services were outstanding. I could think I were at Bob Jones or Maranatha while being in attendance.
The music was very conservative and the preaching totally Biblical. I came away with a deeper respect and appreciation
for Faith.
I would NOT hesitate to send my children there today.
Would we have this problem if churches had not handed over the training of future ministers to colleges and universities?
Just askin’.
[Bert Baker]Just over a year and half ago, I was at Faith for a high school tournament. What I experienced was impressive.
The students were both friendly and helpful. The staff I found to be extremely interested in our needs and concerns.
The chapel services were outstanding. I could think I were at Bob Jones or Maranatha while being in attendance.
The music was very conservative and the preaching totally Biblical. I came away with a deeper respect and appreciation
for Faith.
I would NOT hesitate to send my children there today.
Would you send your young adult there if he aspired to be a chemist? (or another one of the majors Cedarville offers but Faith does not)
I say this because if one wants to be a chemist, 4 years at Faith really will not advance a young adult in that field of endeavor! I would never say that one’s education dollars are wasted but to become a chemist will entail many more years and dollars after the Faith.edu education.
Jim,
You appear to be confusing two issues. One is the question of whether a Christian college can offer a curriculum that is broader than biblical studies or ministry training. Is there a place for a Christian university or liberal arts college? Your answer seems to be yes, and I agree with you in that answer. Separatist fundamentalism has fine example of both, the best-known being Bob Jones University. My brother is a graduate of BJU, and I believe that he received above-average preparation for his vocation (I also have two siblings who attended Cedarville, and I pastored a church that encouraged its young people to consider Cedarville). The breadth of the curriculum is simply not the issue.
The other issue has to do with doctrinal and ecclesiastical breadth. Dixon wanted a big university instead of a little liberal arts college. The Regular Baptist movement could not give him the students and money that he needed, so he began looking for a broader ecclesiastical base upon which to build. By itself, that is not necessarily a problem—all of the Regular Baptist institutions must reach beyond the GARBC, The question is, In which direction do they reach?
Cedarville has consistently reached toward its left. In order to appeal to those on the left, it had to broaden its commitments, connections, and philosophy in that direction. What Cedarville is facing now is that consequence of that broadening. Any movement toward its right is likely to cost it support from those to whom it has sought to appeal. The university cannot retreat very far, because it needs all 3,000 of those students to keep financing its operations.
Can a person be a Democrat and a fundamentalist? Not intelligently, no. To put it more broadly, a thoughtful person cannot simultaneously be a liberal and a conservative—and the connection between social/political and theological/ecclesiastical liberalism (or conservatism) is closer than some people seem to think. Given its current posture, Cedarville is not a consistently conservative institution.
All other things being equal, students who attend Cedarville can learn to be good chemists. I am not convinced, however, that they will learn to be good Christians. I would sooner have my child in a Catholic university or a state school than in Cedarville University.
Kevin
All other things being equal, students who attend Cedarville can learn to be good chemists. I am not convinced, however, that they will learn to be good Christians.
This should never be, IMO, the purpose for attending any university or seminary. This is a function best served by parents, and sans parents, one’s church.
Which hearkens back to my earlier question…
I agree with you on the Democrat point
Re this: “All other things being equal, students who attend Cedarville can learn to be good chemists. I am not convinced, however, that they will learn to be good Christians. I would sooner have my child in a Catholic university or a state school than in Cedarville University.”
Or is it the job of the church to make people “good Christians”?!
I have no skin in this game … University of Cincinnati ‘71
All other things being equal, students who attend Cedarville can learn to be good chemists. I am not convinced, however, that they will learn to be good Christians. I would sooner have my child in a Catholic university or a state school than in Cedarville University.
I would say this is true of “fundamentalist” colleges like PCC as well, but for different reasons.
Susan,
Ministers have been trained in colleges and universities since the Middle Ages. For a thousand years before that, they were trained (often badly) by monasteries. Before that, no one needed to teach them Koine, because they all spoke it.
Other than settling for an ignorant ministry, what do you see as an alternative to colleges and universities?
Kevin
Jim,
It is certainly not the job of avowedly Christian, evangelical institutions of higher learning to make people worse Christians.
If the mission of these institutions has no connection at all to fostering biblical Christianity, then why bother with them? Close their doors—we will be none the poorer.
Kevin
Discussion