Open Apology

To whomever the following concerns:

I’d like to apologize publicly to any persons I may have offended during the past few months of my student activism efforts at Cedarville University. 

After all, I recognize that some of my statements/claims about the perceived injustices at my University have seemed quite shocking, especially without further context. So I apologize for the times when I put pithiness before precision and unwittingly ostracized many good people whom I was not intending to criticize at all.

Many times my frustration – directed at the nebulous group of trustees and administrators most directly responsible for things like the White Papers, the firing of Michael Pahl, and the firing of Carl Ruby – has seeped over and negatively affected some of the good people I’d like to defend and advocate for, if it were their necks on the chopping block.

There are MANY great people at Cedarville University in between those who’ve been fired and those who’ve made the firing decisions, and I don’t want to overlook them or accidentally attack them. If you’re a member of that group and you’ve been put-off by my recent words and actions, I truly am sorry. Please forgive me. 

I’d also like to apologize publicly for any embarrassment I’ve caused to the Kingdom of God in this process.

That is, while I’m NOT sorry for seeking prophetically to address injustices being committed by the people of God against the people of God, I AM sorry if I’ve given the impression to those on the outside looking in that this is how Christianity always goes.

(This is not a retraction of my activism efforts, for I am sincerely convinced that the University has committed institutional sins, if you will, in its recent decisions.)

However, I would like to remind all “outsiders” that following Jesus of Nazareth is not supposed to look like the current controversies which plague Cedarville University. Christianity is more than just intrigue and infighting, although those things will always be a part of Christendom until the end of days because us Christians are messed-up people just like everyone else.

Would you please forgive me, and please forgive us Christians, for doing a poor job of representing Yahweh to you?

He is a God of unity, justice, and peace, and yet far too often we, as his people, miserably fail at embodying those things.

In the end, Yahweh has told us human beings what is good: to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with Him. (Micah 6:8.)

Justice, mercy, and humility. 

Please forgive me for when I’ve failed to embody mercy and humility in my pursuit of justice

Sincerely, 

Joshua Steele

Oh Cedarville…

Have you ever been extremely frustrated with someone/thing you love?

That’s been my experience during my final year here at Cedarville University. See, I love this place. And that’s why I can’t stand it sometimes. There are still so many good and godly women and men here, so much potential for God’s Kingdom. And that’s why recent decisions made by Cedarville Admins and Trustees are so heartbreaking. I’ve written about this before (Open Letter).

The sources of my angst? I’ll give you the top three from my growing list of concerns.

The White Papers

I found out about these a year ago, when I had no idea of the storm that was brewing. I won’t spend time repeating what’s already been well said about the Papers here and here, but suffice it to say that if I turned in a White Paper as an undergraduate theological essay, I’d be getting a C- and a talk from my professor for my sub-par work. It’s patently obvious that Bib/Theo scholars were NOT consulted in the composition of these documents. Or, if they were, they were summarily ignored. And CU is making PhDs in Bib/Theo studies sign these things! Despicable.

This seems like a shameful attempt of reigning in the “creeping liberalism” of Cedarville’s Bible department. First, if you know any of the conservative evangelical CU Bible faculty, you’ll realize that this is some sort of sick joke. Second, at least proofread your documents to the standards of good scholarship! Even if I agreed with the White Papers’ attempts to silence debate and discussion on matters related to creation, justification, and omniscience, I would still be ashamed of their poor quality.

If you haven’t read Cedarville’s White Papers, they can finally be found here (to the right), on the University website. We had to petition and then wait a couple months before the Administration publicly posted the White Papers, even though they are supposed to describe the University’s official position on three important areas of doctrine!!! Did Cedarville ever intend on releasing these documents if students hadn’t petitioned Dr. Gredy and Dr. Cornman? Or were the White Papers just supposed to be a secret weapon to cleanse the Bible faculty? Apparently they were important enough to be used in the firing of Dr. Michael Pahl.

Michael Pahl

Dr. Pahl was hired before the 2011-12 school year. He moved his family (wife and four children) all the way from Canada to Cedarville, OH, persuaded that he was going to be a good fit for the Bible department at Cedarville University. After all, the CU hiring process is lengthy and it’s a very long way to move one’s family. After teaching for just two semesters, and closing on a 100 year-old farmhouse in town, he was fired for a doctrinal discrepancy related to his book, The Beginning and The End.

Keep in mind that the book was already in manuscript form when he was hired by CU, meaning that he wrote this book before he even knew he’d be working at a place that would have loved to see a shout out to Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis somewhere, anywhere in the tome’s 106 pages. Furthermore, the hiring committee was made aware of Dr. Pahl’s forthcoming book, and he taught his sample lecture during the hiring process on Genesis and the creation accounts! But that wasn’t enough to save him from getting “reviewed” by an ad hoc panel and “released from his teaching duties.”

Thankfully, he’s remained on the school’s payroll this academic year, so that he and his family didn’t get sent back to Canada right away without work or housing. However, to the best of my knowledge, he is still looking for work.

“Dr. Pahl’s orthodoxy and commitment to the gospel are not in question, nor is his commitment to Scripture’s inspiration, authority and infallibility.  He is a promising scholar and a dedicated teacher, and he will be missed by his colleagues and students.  Nevertheless, the University has determined this decision to be in the best interests of its constituency at this time.”

What a shameful way to treat a gracious and godly immigrant family.

Carl Ruby

As if the previous two concerns weren’t enough, the University quickly got rid of Carl Ruby, the Vice President for Student Life, this January. Not only have the Administration and Trustees neglected to justify this decision, they refuse to admit that they made the decision in the first place!!! According to the University PR statements, we’re to believe that Carl Ruby, after 25 years of service to his alma mater, randomly decided in January that now would be a great time to seek employment opportunities elsewhere. Apparently he also thought it would be great to leave his office just five days after his resignation was announced for him!

What’s the other option? Moral or legal failure, right? Well, Dr. Gredy (acting CU President) himself denied this at the SGA Town Hall meeting last month, saying that Ruby’s resignation was not due to a personal/moral failure.

What’s left, then? Well, despite my University’s urging to “not connect the dots” on these matters, the unavoidable conclusion is that Dr. Ruby was FIRED and that CU Admins/Trustees are hesitant (and deceptively so) to admit that.

Compare this “official” answer from the Cedarville Alumni and Family Questions and Answers page:

“Why did Dr. Carl Ruby leave? 

“Dr. John Gredy, Provost, announced to the University family on January 10 that he and Dr. Ruby had come to a mutual understanding and that Dr. Ruby would conclude his service to Cedarville University. His last day in the office was shortly thereafter, although Dr. Ruby’s administrative contract continues through June 30. The University is committed to protecting the privacy of its employees so is not commenting publicly on the reasons for the decision.

“Sadly, much speculation and questions have arisen. The Board of Trustees at its January 25 meeting carefully reviewed the events surrounding the announcement that Dr. Carl Ruby would conclude his service. The Board acknowledged and expressed regret that the lack of clarity had made this transition even more difficult for the Cedarville University family. Nonetheless, the Board of Trustees supported the understanding between Dr. Ruby and the administration. The Board of Trustees expressed its gratitude to Dr. Ruby for his service.

“Dr. Ruby built a legacy at Cedarville, and he will be missed by many. The passions Dr. Ruby embraced were not simply his personal interests, but rather reflect core values of the Cedarville family. The University is committed to continuing these priorities.”

with this excerpt from the Dayton Daily News’ most recent piece on Cedarville:

“Tennessee Pastor Chris Williamson said he resigned from the school’s board of trustees after being “blindsided” by what he called the administration’s “mistreatment” of the vice president for student life, Carl Ruby, a popular 25-year veteran of Cedarville who resigned last month. […]

“And then, on Jan. 10, it was announced Ruby would “step down” effective June 30. But his last day on campus was Jan. 15, and hundreds of students showed their support by wearing red and lining his walk from his office to his car. Ruby’s departure was publicly called a resignation. But Williamson said he learned at a January trustees’ meeting, “it was a termination of employment.”

and with this excerpt from the New York Times piece on the Cedarville controversy:

“The Rev. Chris Williamson of Franklin, Tenn., who last month resigned from the Cedarville board of trustees, said that both the president and Dr. Ruby were considered problematic by the faction of trustees fearful of what they perceive as a creeping liberalism. “They were threatened by Carl’s approach not to theology but to ministry,” Mr. Williamson said, “in terms of his ministry to people struggling with gender identification, how he ministers to people on the margins.”

It would be frustrating enough if it were a secular organization committing these injustices. But to watch an organization which claims the name of Christ behave in such despicable ways? It’s intolerable.

I’m not the only one who’s frustrated by these things: consider Scot McKnight, Anthony LeDonne, LeDonne again, Michael Bird, Mark Goodacre, and James McGahey

No, this does not mean that everyone at Cedarville is dishonest, evil or misguided. In fact, there are plenty of godly women and men here. Women and men whom I’d like to defend, because I’ve seen how stressful and fearful this environment has become for them and their families.

But it’s the leadership here I’m worried about. And as often as the Bible urges respect for leaders, it holds the leaders of the God’s people accountable even more so, often with strong language. Don’t believe me? Go and read the prophets, focusing on their words for the priests and princes of Israel.

As Chris Williamson put it on his Twitter account:

“There’s nothing more dangerous to the cause of Christ than religious people with an ungodly agenda. #cedarville

(@gdk_chris; 12:49 PM – 1 Feb 13).

I couldn’t agree more. And that is why I’m calling the leadership of my University to repent, or to quit claiming to be Christ-centered in these matters.

God will not be mocked.

An Abused Text: Romans 13 (pt 5)

(Continued from PART FOUR.)

Conclusion

Through the ignorance of the historical background of Paul’s epistle to the Romans as a whole and his instructions in Romans 13:1-7 in particular, the passage at hand has been grossly mis-read and mis-applied in numerous ways since its original composition.

Instead of an argument for unthinking obedience to, approval of, and participation in governments past and present, Paul here argues for the Christians in Rome not to revolt against the empire in an attempt to fully usher in God’s kingdom, but to submit humbly to the Roman authorities as they sought to overcome evil with good. Continue reading “An Abused Text: Romans 13 (pt 5)”

An Abused Text: Romans 13 (pt 4)

(Continued from PART THREE.)

Romans 12:9-13:10

The passage at hand only makes sense within the overarching context of Romans 12:9-13:10. Although Paul undoubtedly changes topics at 13:1, the thematic links between 13:1-7 and 12:9-21 are difficult to ignore. Kakos (“evil”) and agathos (“good”) occur in Rom 12:17, 21 and 13:3-4. Orge (“wrath”) is mentioned in 12:19 and 13:4, 5. Also, conceptually, vengeance is mentioned in 12:19 and 13:4.[1] It is therefore quite reasonable to see a connection between 13:1-7 and 12:9-21.

The links between this passage and the one immediately preceding it, however, should not overshadow the importance of the thematic verses earlier in 12:1-2. There Paul effectively redefines the people of God as no longer just Jews, but Gentiles as well. This is a common enough theme throughout the entire epistle and in almost all of Paul’s writings,[2] but in Romans 12:1-15:13, it is of particular importance. Having spent the first eleven chapters of the epistle explaining the identity of the people of God as a mix of Jews and Gentiles and defending the covenant loyalty of God in the process, Paul now devotes chapters 12-15 to redefining the “rule of life” of the people of God.[3] In 12:9-21, Paul proclaims “love as the fundamental moral imperative in human relationships,”[4] urging his readers to pursue harmony (12:16) and peace (12:18). He then redefines in 13:1-7 how the people of God in the church at Rome should relate to the power structures of the society in which they dwell. Continue reading “An Abused Text: Romans 13 (pt 4)”

An Abused Text: Romans 13 (pt 3)

(Continued from PART TWO.)

Historical Context

When Romans 13:1-7 is read as if it was written in a modern North American context, it seems as though Paul is appealing to the sovereignty of God in the affairs of nations to remind us of the divinely-appointed nature of our free-market economy and federal constitutional republic. All of this is supposedly done to prompt us toward active participation in our civil government and unquestioning obedience to all of its laws. After all, these verses come up in discussions of Christian political involvement, debates on just war theory vs. pacifism, and diatribes against illegal immigrants and those who desire to aid them.

However, using these seven verses as a packet theology of church and state is problematic, even within the Pauline corpus alone. The same man who wrote Romans 13 also frequently took up themes in his writings that would challenge the power and authority of the Roman Empire, for the declaration that Jesus is Lord contains the implicit declaration that Caesar is not. Our understanding of these seven verses must therefore be able to mesh with other passages (such as Phil 2:6-11; 3:20-21; 1 Thess 1:9-10; and 4:13-5:11) and their implications on relations between church and state.[1] Continue reading “An Abused Text: Romans 13 (pt 3)”

An Abused Text: Romans 13 (pt 2)

To make my essay easier to digest, I’ve formatted it for the blog. Here’s the Intro:

Introduction

This study rests upon a crucial presupposition: without context, words can mean anything and everything, and therefore mean nothing. It is only through the delimiting influence of context that words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs are endowed with significance. Although this concept seems simple and justified enough, it is often forgotten within the field of biblical exegesis. Due to influences as simple as our versification of the biblical text and as complex as the historical/theological developments which have dictated how we teach and interpret the Scriptures, many exegetes (wittingly or unwittingly) ignore context when trying to ascertain the meaning of particular biblical texts.

An adequate case study of this phenomenon is the interpretation(s) of Romans 13:1-7, a text that has been used to justify everything from utter obedience to totalitarian regimes to unquestioning support of harsh anti-immigration laws. These seven verses from Paul’s epistle to the Romans have been grossly abused at numerous points since their original composition. In Romans 13:1-7, Paul exhorts the Roman believers to apply his previous commands toward love (12:9), harmony (12:16), and peace (12:18) in the context of obedience to government (13:1-5) and the payment of taxes (13:6-7).

Far from being a comprehensive condensation of the apostle’s beliefs regarding any and all governments past and present, this passage is a specific and historically-conditioned pastoral address to the Roman believers, discouraging them from political unrest, disobedience, and rebellion in order to protect their testimony and the effectiveness of the Roman church in the gospel mission. This thesis will be “proven” by appealing to the historical context of the original audience and the overarching context of Romans 12:9-13:10 in which this passage rests.

(Continued in PART THREE.)

An Abused Text: Romans 13

In recent days, I’ve heard Romans 13 used to justify everything from drone strikes to harsh immigration laws, and even to encourage silence in the face of apparent wrongdoings here at Cedarville University.

While the Bible undoubtedly encourages respect for leaders (and respect for all other human beings, for that matter), it seems inappropriate to use Romans 13 as a command for unquestioning obedience to any and all forms of earthly authority. In fact, I believe that the historical context and the context of Romans 12:9-13:10 should prevent us from doing so.

For my thoughts on the matter, consider: A Contextual Reading of Romans 13.1-7 (PDF), submitted to Chris Miller, Ph.D., in partial fulfillment of BENT 4410: Romans and Galatians.

In this essay, I defend the following thesis:

Far from being a comprehensive condensation of the apostle’s beliefs regarding any and all governments past and present, [Romans 13:1-7] is a specific and historically-conditioned pastoral address to the Roman believers, discouraging them from political unrest, disobedience, and rebellion in order to protect their testimony and the effectiveness of the Roman church in the gospel mission. This thesis will be “proven” by appealing to the historical context of the original audience and the overarching context of Romans 12:9-13:10 in which this passage rests.

Don’t feel like reading that PDF file? Then track along with me on the blog. Here’s Part Two. 

Creation

This is the first post in a series. It’s very straightforward. I’ve simply quoted a doctrinal statement and then pasted the biblical text used to support the statements in italics beneath each statement.

The question behind each of these posts: Do these statements flow from the texts? Or are they imposed upon the texts? If you so desire, leave your answers in the comments.

We believe in the literal 6-day account of creation, that the creation of man lies in the special, immediate, and formative acts of God and not from previously existing forms of life. 

Genesis 1:26,27; 2:7-9,16,17; 3:1-19.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Continue reading “Creation”

An Explanation

**If you haven’t read my previous two blog posts, “Cedarville, Let there be Light. (pt. 1 and pt. 2),” please go do so before reading this post.**

Summary: I’ve been blogging in order to raise awareness of Cedarville University’s recent dismissal of Dr. Michael Pahl from his teaching post. Using the University’s statement on Dr. Pahl, I’ve raised some uncomfortable questions that I believe need to be asked in this situation. For example:

  • Why were the five accolades attached to Dr. Pahl above (in the statement, orthodox, gospel, Scripture, scholar, teacher) not enough to keep him on the teaching faculty of Cedarville University?
  • Don’t we want promising scholars and dedicated teachers who are committed to the gospel, to Scripture, and to orthodoxy at Cedarville University? If not, why not?

I’m writing today because the responses I’ve gotten to those posts and questions have been mixed. Some think I’m doing something that is both righteous and necessary, respectfully raising awareness and asking uncomfortable-yet-necessary questions. Others think I’m being un-biblical and disrespectful in my approach, and that I should handle these matters privately (cf. Matt 18:15-22 and such).

Clearly, I’m a bit biased toward the first reaction. It’s always more pleasant to think of your actions as both righteous and necessary, after all. However, that doesn’t negate the careful line to walk in this situation. Several things must be held in Christ-honoring tension, such as boldness and respect, honesty and love, persistence and patience, a hunger for justice and an even stronger craving for God’s perfect shalom peace. Continue reading “An Explanation”

Cedarville, Let there be Light. (pt. 2)

Read Part One

Further Questions, All Relating to the University Statement on Dr. Pahl’s Dismissal:

  • If Dr. Pahl’s book, The Beginning and the End, was controversial enough to lead to his dismissal, why was the book allowed to be used as a textbook last school year?
    • Shouldn’t we trust the Bible professors’ judgment in their selection of the book as a text?
    • If we should, then was it worth firing Dr. Pahl over a book which other CU professors approved of enough to require as a text for their courses?
    • If not, why not? Why don’t we trust these highly-trained men and women as an institution? Shouldn’t they be a resource instead of a feared danger? Does this potential fear have anything to do with Dr. Pahl being dismissed?
  • Do all members of the Board of Trustees agree with “each and every position of Cedarville University’s Doctrinal Statement” in the way Dr. Pahl was expected to in order to still be allowed to teach?
    • If he was dismissed, despite the apparent alignment of his personal views and those expressed in his writing to the Doctrinal Statement, is there a possibility that some of the trustees should also be dismissed according to such strict standards?
  • Was Dr. Pahl dismissed for something that wrote which contradicts the Doctrinal Statement? If so, what was it exactly that he wrote? (I have been unable to find anything in The Beginning and the End)
  • If Dr. Pahl was not fired for something he wrote, was he fired for something that he didn’t write? Again, if so, what was it exactly that he didn’t affirm?
  • Furthermore, is firing someone for not affirming something fair? Are all professors required to affirm the Doctrinal Statement in its entirety in everything they write and/or publish?
  • What is the administration’s vision for the future of the Bible Department at Cedarville University?
  • How does firing an orthodox, promising scholar who is committed to Scripture and to the gospel help to achieve that vision?
  • Has Dr. Pahl been cared for by the University in any way during this process? As our brother in Christ, have we dismissed him in a way that is honoring to God and helpful to him and his family?
  • What explanation has been given to the students who have been affected by Dr. Pahl’s dismissal (i.e. the ones registered for his classes)? Has that explanation been accurate and forthright?
  • Are any other professors currently being considered for dismissal by the University for things they have written and published?

(CONTINUED: An Explanation)