As I noted a few times over the summer, I've deliberately scaled back the Save OBU effort. For one thing, I believe it would be counterproductive to keep hammering OBU's now veteran administrators for offenses that occurred 2-3 years ago. We made our point. The last thing I want is to make things more difficult for the students and professors who are still trying to engage in rigorous, intellectually honest Christian higher education on Bison Hill. Another fact is that I spent too much time on an issue that is near and dear to my heart, but not very relevant to my personal or professional life.
We certainly celebrate the university's many recent successes. But we hopefully trust that things have stabilized. Unless the situation at OBU takes another turn for the worst, you won't see daily updates and commentary on every OBU news release here.
Even so, there are a few developments I would like to keep before our friends and supporters. The most recent Forbes list indicates that OBU's slide in the rankings has, mercifully, stopped. The Hobbs College of Theology and Ministry has a new faculty member this year. And sources confirm that OBU is planning to follow the lead of several other Catholic and evangelical institutions and sue the United States in federal court over an administrative rule issued by the Department of Health and Human Services last year.
I'll report on each of these matters in the days to come.
I also want to say more about an idea I considered over the summer. The several Southern Baptist colleges that have reverted back toward fundamentalism in recent years should band together and petition the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. Ideally, other evangelical colleges would join us in solidarity. The CCCU should give guidance about how to protect academic freedom and ensure ethical administration when fundamentalists threaten and obliterate long-standing norms of institutional behavior. Or, alternatively, the CCCU should give its blessing to these takeovers and say publicly that it does not care about what many Christian colleges have experienced in recent years.
Let's stay informed and stay connected. Given that another unethical firing or any number of fundamentalist-inspired violations could potentially occur at any moment, we need to keep our movement active so that we can mobilize more easily when the next crazy thing happens. Has the war already been lost? Perhaps. But if we truly want to be "loyal to our alma mater," the least we can do is stand up for what we know is right.
Save OBU is not dead yet!
Showing posts with label Evangelicalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evangelicalism. Show all posts
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Tim Tebow, FBC Dallas, and Evangelical Extremism
As longtime readers know (and hopefully appreciate), Save OBU is completely uninterested in secular politics and "culture wars." This is a bit of a challenge for me personally because I essentially work in the culture war and politics business. I'm writing a doctoral dissertation on evangelicals' contraception attitudes. Though at Save OBU my interest in Southern Baptist institutional life is primarily centered on higher education, I am constantly exposed to SBC/evangelical elites and other thought leaders who appear at least as interested in worldly politics as in the Kingdom God sent Jesus to proclaim. It's true that most Save OBU supporters are culturally and theologically conservative, but I've learned that we have a lot of moderates and maybe even a few liberals in our ranks. For the sake of unity, I've tried to steer clear of politics and culture wars.
Given all that, it would seem that New York Jets backup quarterback Tim Tebow's announcement Thursday that he will not speak as scheduled at First Baptist Church of Dallas in April is irrelevant to our cause. But on reflection, I do think the episode is indicative of something we talk about here all the time: SBC elites' ever-increasing fundamentalism and extremism.
As the story unfolded Thursday, three things struck me. First, FBC's response to Tebow's cancellation was tacky, passive-aggressive, and reflected poorly on the church. Second, the whole affair says a lot more about FBC's pastor, the Rev. Dr. Robert Jeffress, than it does about Tim Tebow. Jeffress has a long history of controversial statements. Tebow, on the other hand, has a long history of living his faith joyfully and publicly under intense scrutiny. But what struck me most was seeing not one but several news headlines proclaiming that Tebow had cancelled an appearance at the "controversial First Baptist Church of Dallas."
For those who missed the story, you can find Tebow's announcement here, the church's press release here, and a partial compendium of Dr. Jeffress's statements here.
Given his record of provocative public statements, most notably about both major party presidential candidates in 2012 but apparently also about Catholicism, it's unsurprising and unremarkable that Dr. Jeffress would be labeled controversial. But FBC Dallas itself? Isn't that a little unfair? It got me thinking.
First of all, I thought Tebow was very classy to phone Dr. Jeffress in advance of announcing his decision publicly and to acknowledge "the faithful members of the historic First Baptist Church of Dallas." Culturally, institutionally, and politically, it's undeniable that the congregation has moved somewhat to the right along with its pastors, the alternative Baptist state convention in Texas, and the entire Southern Baptist Convention's leadership. Of course, the disappearance of moderates and others who rejected having their religion conflated with a political party has also pushed the median member further to the right.
But let's face the facts. The people of FBC have always been conservative. Before and after the Takeover, FBC Dallas was a (if not the) flagship church of the SBC. Its longtime pastor, the Rev. Dr. W. A. Criswell, was a typical fundamentalist who preached inerrancy and premillennial dispensationalism. (He was also lukewarm at best toward racial integration until it was no longer socially palatable to be racist.) But just as no one could have called FBC controversial, few would have considered Dr. Criswell to be a controversial preacher.
So what has changed?
The legion of SBC elites who unleashed a storm of criticism on Tebow would have you believe that the media are at fault --- that they have forced Christians out of the public square, intimidated Tebow into bowing out, and labeled every conservative "controversial" or worse. Even the Rev. Rick Warren, who should know better, joined the whine-fest. But this is total and complete nonsense. I remain utterly baffled that the majority religion in the freest nation on earth can sustain an imaginary persecution complex.
The First Baptist Church of Dallas wasn't controversial 50 years ago because its pastor wasn't controversial. Southern Baptists weren't controversial because their seminary presidents and agency heads didn't double as political party operatives. Baptists pretty much abided by the centuries-old consensus on what it meant to be Baptist. And the evangelical impulse to engage the culture (contrasted with fundamentalists' separatism and obnoxiousness) was generally in line with that historic consensus.
If FBC Dallas is controversial today, it's because Dr. Jeffress is controversial -- not because the congregation or the media or anything else has changed.
You see, Dr. Criswell may not have supported George Romney for the 1968 Republican presidential nomination, but he didn't publicly call him an unchristian, Hell-bound cult member, as Jeffress did when speaking about Mitt Romney. And Criswell certainly didn't suggest that George Romney's religion disqualified him from public office. Criswell did not like LBJ or Jimmy Carter, but he didn't say that they were paving the way for the antichrist, as Jeffress said about President Obama. Like so many of today's SBC leaders, Dr. Jeffress wants to retain evangelicals' cultural engagement but has embraced the worst aspects of fundamentalism: anti-intellectualism, a completely delusional persecution complex, and a tone that seems to be deliberately as offensive and obnoxious as possible.
Even more obnoxious than FBC's angry and rude press release was Jeffress's pathetic attempt to force Tebow into his crazy camp:
Personally, I'm ambivalent about Tim Tebow. It occurs to me that people who flaunt their religiosity "have received their reward in full" (Matthew 6). But I can't possibly know Tebow's heart and whether or not his motivation is "to be seen of men." Either way, I admire his faithfulness, work ethic, and apparent humility of spirit. One of my first dates with my bride, Cara, was a Florida Gators game in 2008, Tebow's junior season. My brother and sister-in-law saw some of Tebow's (or God's, depending on how you look at it) spectacular performances in Denver late in the 2011 season.
After being hastily and harshly criticized by evangelicals who had for years been his strongest supporters, Tebow now knows how today's evangelical extremists operate. When you're useful to them, they praise and respect you. But when you exercise some independent thought that does not follow their theology or politics to the letter, they throw you out like yesterday's trash.
These are not the people we need running our conventions, our churches, or our universities. For now, we're stuck with too many of them. But in the truest Baptist spirit, let's remind the world that they do not speak for us as they wreck the reputations of our once-proud institutions.
Given all that, it would seem that New York Jets backup quarterback Tim Tebow's announcement Thursday that he will not speak as scheduled at First Baptist Church of Dallas in April is irrelevant to our cause. But on reflection, I do think the episode is indicative of something we talk about here all the time: SBC elites' ever-increasing fundamentalism and extremism.
As the story unfolded Thursday, three things struck me. First, FBC's response to Tebow's cancellation was tacky, passive-aggressive, and reflected poorly on the church. Second, the whole affair says a lot more about FBC's pastor, the Rev. Dr. Robert Jeffress, than it does about Tim Tebow. Jeffress has a long history of controversial statements. Tebow, on the other hand, has a long history of living his faith joyfully and publicly under intense scrutiny. But what struck me most was seeing not one but several news headlines proclaiming that Tebow had cancelled an appearance at the "controversial First Baptist Church of Dallas."
For those who missed the story, you can find Tebow's announcement here, the church's press release here, and a partial compendium of Dr. Jeffress's statements here.
Given his record of provocative public statements, most notably about both major party presidential candidates in 2012 but apparently also about Catholicism, it's unsurprising and unremarkable that Dr. Jeffress would be labeled controversial. But FBC Dallas itself? Isn't that a little unfair? It got me thinking.
First of all, I thought Tebow was very classy to phone Dr. Jeffress in advance of announcing his decision publicly and to acknowledge "the faithful members of the historic First Baptist Church of Dallas." Culturally, institutionally, and politically, it's undeniable that the congregation has moved somewhat to the right along with its pastors, the alternative Baptist state convention in Texas, and the entire Southern Baptist Convention's leadership. Of course, the disappearance of moderates and others who rejected having their religion conflated with a political party has also pushed the median member further to the right.
But let's face the facts. The people of FBC have always been conservative. Before and after the Takeover, FBC Dallas was a (if not the) flagship church of the SBC. Its longtime pastor, the Rev. Dr. W. A. Criswell, was a typical fundamentalist who preached inerrancy and premillennial dispensationalism. (He was also lukewarm at best toward racial integration until it was no longer socially palatable to be racist.) But just as no one could have called FBC controversial, few would have considered Dr. Criswell to be a controversial preacher.
So what has changed?
The legion of SBC elites who unleashed a storm of criticism on Tebow would have you believe that the media are at fault --- that they have forced Christians out of the public square, intimidated Tebow into bowing out, and labeled every conservative "controversial" or worse. Even the Rev. Rick Warren, who should know better, joined the whine-fest. But this is total and complete nonsense. I remain utterly baffled that the majority religion in the freest nation on earth can sustain an imaginary persecution complex.
The First Baptist Church of Dallas wasn't controversial 50 years ago because its pastor wasn't controversial. Southern Baptists weren't controversial because their seminary presidents and agency heads didn't double as political party operatives. Baptists pretty much abided by the centuries-old consensus on what it meant to be Baptist. And the evangelical impulse to engage the culture (contrasted with fundamentalists' separatism and obnoxiousness) was generally in line with that historic consensus.
If FBC Dallas is controversial today, it's because Dr. Jeffress is controversial -- not because the congregation or the media or anything else has changed.
You see, Dr. Criswell may not have supported George Romney for the 1968 Republican presidential nomination, but he didn't publicly call him an unchristian, Hell-bound cult member, as Jeffress did when speaking about Mitt Romney. And Criswell certainly didn't suggest that George Romney's religion disqualified him from public office. Criswell did not like LBJ or Jimmy Carter, but he didn't say that they were paving the way for the antichrist, as Jeffress said about President Obama. Like so many of today's SBC leaders, Dr. Jeffress wants to retain evangelicals' cultural engagement but has embraced the worst aspects of fundamentalism: anti-intellectualism, a completely delusional persecution complex, and a tone that seems to be deliberately as offensive and obnoxious as possible.
Even more obnoxious than FBC's angry and rude press release was Jeffress's pathetic attempt to force Tebow into his crazy camp:
"There doesn't seem to be any daylight between what we believe," Jeffress said, noting that Tebow is a member of First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Fla. "He simply attributed it to needing to stay away from controversy."Tell you what, Dr. Jeffress. Let's let Tebow speak for himself regarding whether he believes, like you, that homosexuality leads to pedophilia or that the president is paving the way for the reign of the antichrist.
Personally, I'm ambivalent about Tim Tebow. It occurs to me that people who flaunt their religiosity "have received their reward in full" (Matthew 6). But I can't possibly know Tebow's heart and whether or not his motivation is "to be seen of men." Either way, I admire his faithfulness, work ethic, and apparent humility of spirit. One of my first dates with my bride, Cara, was a Florida Gators game in 2008, Tebow's junior season. My brother and sister-in-law saw some of Tebow's (or God's, depending on how you look at it) spectacular performances in Denver late in the 2011 season.
After being hastily and harshly criticized by evangelicals who had for years been his strongest supporters, Tebow now knows how today's evangelical extremists operate. When you're useful to them, they praise and respect you. But when you exercise some independent thought that does not follow their theology or politics to the letter, they throw you out like yesterday's trash.
These are not the people we need running our conventions, our churches, or our universities. For now, we're stuck with too many of them. But in the truest Baptist spirit, let's remind the world that they do not speak for us as they wreck the reputations of our once-proud institutions.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
OBU's Potential
A lot of time is spent on this blog dogging the way things are. And that's true and good because you have to see that there's a problem before you might be willing to find a solution. I think we can all agree there is indeed a problem.
But is it a lost cause? Why are we fighting for OBU, besides the fact that a part of our hearts still probably calls it home?
Jacob mentioned an article on Saturday that I want to take a moment to again consider the import. The article he wrote on mentions a sort-of new scene in higher education: an evangelical renaissance.
Now that I am at a mainline protestant seminary, I am all the more aware of my evangelical tradition. Sometimes, it's easy to forget some of the positives. But I am proud of my Baptist self-identification and believe that it is as a Baptist I have things to bring to the theological discussion table.
Let us not forget what we have to offer. Evangelicals take the bible very seriously. Evangelicalism holds the individual to be of infinite value to God. Evangelicals honor deeply the spiritual aspects of faith.
I sense there is a movement of those who are coming of age in the evangelical churches and realizing that our tradition is deeper than the well from which we currently drink. There is a sense that perhaps we should follow our mainline brothers and sisters into concern for justice issues and leave our parents and their moral majority behind. But there is also a recognition that we cannot simply sell our birthright.
A change is coming. And if you look at what kind of students are coming out of OBU, you will see it.
The potential for our university is to foster this movement, to mold students who give it wings. We are already bringing forth those who say, "You know what, maybe being Baptist isn't about denying women a place in ministry or hating homosexuals. Maybe it is about something bigger."
It's not that the answers changed, the debate is over, and the Bible lost. It's that the questions are changing and our tradition is being reclaimed.
There is a movement stirring in the hearts of young evangelicals who believe that their voices have value in the academic and theological conversation. They do not wish to abandon their roots, but to determine what exactly their tradition means for them. Movements always begin within the academy.
The time is coming when evangelicals might again be taken seriously by the world.
As an "unapologetically Baptist" Liberal Arts University, OBU stands at the cusp of the birth of this movement. If we continue to take seriously the quality of education, academic freedom, and all of the good things on which we claim to stand, we can grow into our potential-- the potential to be a part of the voice of the new evangelicalism.
Maybe this is a little abstract-- after all, I do spend most of my time talking to graduate school professors. But, I hope you can see where I am coming from, and maybe even seeds of these thoughts in your own life-- especially if you, too, are a product of OBU.
There is the chance that real, Evangelical, academic, light could shine from Bison hill-- and perhaps that it already does.
But it seems that there are some who are so attached to the old ways that they do not understand or desire this light. It scares them. It means their tradition is changing. And change is never good. The SBC has decided on what side they stand. That is why we must stand and support our University. To lose that voice would be to lose a treasure for both our own tradition and the others with whom we would interact.
But is it a lost cause? Why are we fighting for OBU, besides the fact that a part of our hearts still probably calls it home?
Jacob mentioned an article on Saturday that I want to take a moment to again consider the import. The article he wrote on mentions a sort-of new scene in higher education: an evangelical renaissance.
Now that I am at a mainline protestant seminary, I am all the more aware of my evangelical tradition. Sometimes, it's easy to forget some of the positives. But I am proud of my Baptist self-identification and believe that it is as a Baptist I have things to bring to the theological discussion table.
Let us not forget what we have to offer. Evangelicals take the bible very seriously. Evangelicalism holds the individual to be of infinite value to God. Evangelicals honor deeply the spiritual aspects of faith.
I sense there is a movement of those who are coming of age in the evangelical churches and realizing that our tradition is deeper than the well from which we currently drink. There is a sense that perhaps we should follow our mainline brothers and sisters into concern for justice issues and leave our parents and their moral majority behind. But there is also a recognition that we cannot simply sell our birthright.
A change is coming. And if you look at what kind of students are coming out of OBU, you will see it.
The potential for our university is to foster this movement, to mold students who give it wings. We are already bringing forth those who say, "You know what, maybe being Baptist isn't about denying women a place in ministry or hating homosexuals. Maybe it is about something bigger."
It's not that the answers changed, the debate is over, and the Bible lost. It's that the questions are changing and our tradition is being reclaimed.
There is a movement stirring in the hearts of young evangelicals who believe that their voices have value in the academic and theological conversation. They do not wish to abandon their roots, but to determine what exactly their tradition means for them. Movements always begin within the academy.
The time is coming when evangelicals might again be taken seriously by the world.
As an "unapologetically Baptist" Liberal Arts University, OBU stands at the cusp of the birth of this movement. If we continue to take seriously the quality of education, academic freedom, and all of the good things on which we claim to stand, we can grow into our potential-- the potential to be a part of the voice of the new evangelicalism.
Maybe this is a little abstract-- after all, I do spend most of my time talking to graduate school professors. But, I hope you can see where I am coming from, and maybe even seeds of these thoughts in your own life-- especially if you, too, are a product of OBU.
There is the chance that real, Evangelical, academic, light could shine from Bison hill-- and perhaps that it already does.
But it seems that there are some who are so attached to the old ways that they do not understand or desire this light. It scares them. It means their tradition is changing. And change is never good. The SBC has decided on what side they stand. That is why we must stand and support our University. To lose that voice would be to lose a treasure for both our own tradition and the others with whom we would interact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)