Dr. James Emery White

The Vanderbilt Decision

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Across the United States and around the world, few ministries are more urgently needed than campus ministries. According to UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute, many students said that they enrolled in college to find their life purpose, and that they expected their college education to help them not only with their intellectual development, but their emotional and spiritual development as well. Little wonder that the college years have been called the last best time to reach someone for Christ.

Yet now, on a growing number of campuses, there are stiff challenges regarding campus access for Christian organizations.

At least if they want to stay distinctly Christian.

In a test that may reverberate through private educational institutions around the nation, Vanderbilt University has placed InterVarsity’s Graduate Christian Fellowship and several other Christian organizations on provisional status until the issue of compliance with the university’s nondiscrimination policy is resolved. In essence, Vanderbilt does not want organizations like InterVarsity to use religious criteria for the leadership or character of its organization. There must be an “all comers” policy that requires completely equal access to all organizations for every student.

Vanderbilt Chancellor, Nicholas Zeppos, has said: "I want to assure you the university does not seek to limit anyone's freedom to practice his or her religion. We do, however, require all Vanderbilt registered student organizations to observe our nondiscrimination policy. That means membership in registered student organizations is open to everyone and that everyone, if desired, has the opportunity to seek leadership positions."

Many students from all kinds of organizations disagree with the implementation of the policy.

So do I.

And not because I studied at Vanderbilt as a visiting student during my Ph.D. years (I did), or because I was challenged to have Christ as my Leader through InterVarsity (I was).

But because it is deeply flawed.

Though far from original with me, the following points must be championed:

1. Being a Christian should not make you a second-class citizen on any college campus.

2. This isn't about discrimination; it's about common sense. Leaders must believe in the purpose and goals of their organization. It makes no sense for a Catholic to lead a Muslim organization. A football quarterback must ascribe to the rules of football to lead a team.

3. The standards for Christian leadership were established 2,000 years ago. Christians cannot dismiss them or substitute popularity without ceasing to be Christian. Vanderbilt is requesting that InterVarsity change its core beliefs in order to remain on campus.

4. InterVarsity loves the university and wants the university to be a place of open exploration of different viewpoints. Selective exclusion of some groups by the university diminishes the quality of a university and denies free speech.

5. InterVarsity welcomes all students to participate in its programs and has a long track record of embracing all kinds of diversity.

6. InterVarsity students are the kind of students the university wants to have on campus. They take their studies seriously, they respect others, they are trained as leaders, they contribute back to the community, and they are committed to high moral standards.

7. If Vanderbilt does not change its policy, or make an exception for religious groups, InterVarsity will be forced to move its Vanderbilt student ministry off campus. This means losing access to the campus that makes room for all manner of student groups, as long as they are not Christian.

As Vanderbilt goes, so may many other private schools. Let’s pray it goes with common sense. I can only imagine what my life would be like without InterVarsity.

You certainly wouldn’t be reading this blog.

James Emery White

Sources

For more information on campus access issues, and InterVarsity in particular, go to http://www.intervarsity.org/about/our/campus-access-concerns.

Editor’s Note

James Emery White is the founding and senior pastor of Mecklenburg Community Church in Charlotte, NC, and the ranked adjunctive professor of theology and culture at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which he also served as their fourth president. His latest book is What They Didn’t Teach You in Seminary (Baker). To enjoy a free subscription to the Church and Culture blog, log-on to www.churchandculture.org, where you can post your comments on this blog, view past blogs in our archive and read the latest church and culture news from around the world. Follow Dr. White on twitter @JamesEmeryWhite.

Theology and Culture

Wednesday, February 08, 2012

There is a great deal of discussion these days in regard to understanding culture sociologically, but very little about understanding it theologically. But a theological understanding is crucial. It is not a difficult theology to grasp. Here is the headline:

“As the world is, it is not as it was intended to be nor is it what it is going to be.”

This simple statement allows us to sketch out all of history in terms of three stages:

The first stage might be termed the age of “innocence,” the time when the world was as it was intended to be. Biblically, this covers the material in Genesis 1-3.

The second stage is the age of “responsibility,” or the actual world, precipitated by the fall. This is the time in which we now live. Biblically, this covers Genesis 4-Revelation 19.

The final stage is the stage of “fulfillment,” or what is going to be. Biblically, this is contained for us in Revelation 20-22.

If you were to draw this out, it might look something like this:

Any number of important conversations – and observations – could be made about culture from this understanding. Let’s consider just one: the human condition, and specifically, the condition of the Christ follower living in a fallen culture. Let’s focus on a single question about that condition:

Are we immoral people who do not wish to be moral, or is it that we are just not able?

We speak lightly of Daniel’s model behind cultural lines in Babylon, or of other cultural subversives such as Joseph or Esther. There is also Christ’s clear call to be salt and light, and all those metaphors hold. But for many, this leaves unexplored our frequent struggle to exhibit Christ in our own day. We get the examples; what we seem to lack is the ability.

It would be easy to dismiss issues of obedience in light of a fatalistic understanding of our proclivity toward sin. No one dares build a theology around the idea of “I couldn’t help myself,” but we would like to. There is a thin line between the inevitability of sin in our lives (which we can build a theology around), and a fatalism that dismisses failure with a wink of the eye.

This was the basis for one of the greatest theological debates in the history of Christendom, involving none other than the church father Augustine and a British monk teaching in Rome by the name of Pelagius.

Pelagius was a moralist. He was deeply concerned that people live good and moral lives. He believed that an overly harsh view of human nature, including a belief in total depravity and inevitability of sin, was counter-productive. If people are told that they cannot help but sin, how can that encourage a moral life?

Indeed, to Pelagius, the idea of inherent immorality (original sin), removed the motivation to even try. So Pelagius emphasized that we do not enter the world biased toward evil, and that through human freedom, we have the ability to choose the good and moral life. Unfortunately, he did this to such a degree that he taught that humans could be free of any influence whatsoever from the fall and that holiness could be achieved by effort alone. Following his thought to its logical end, Pelagius taught that humans could merit salvation - on their own - by perfectly fulfilling God’s commands without sinning.

Pelagianism was condemned as heretical by the Council of Ephesus in 431.

Yet on the way to being condemned, Pelagius did force thinkers such as Augustine – and through Augustine, the church - to sharpen up the dynamics of the tension between our orientation toward sin and our call to obey the will of God.

While agreeing with Pelagius that the image of God in human beings was not entirely lost when cast from Eden, Augustine maintained that we had lost the ability not to sin. Augustine saw the history of the human will in three stages to which he gave succinct Latin titles:

First, before the fall, we were posse non peccari et mori (able not to sin and die). This was the age of innocence.

After the fall, we found ourselves non posse non peccari et mori (not able not to sin and die). This is the age of responsibility.

Yet one day we will be in heaven, where we will be non posse peccari et mori (not able to sin and die), which will be the age of fulfillment.

Returning to our little sketch, we would fold in Augustine’s titles in this way:

One of Augustine’s famous analogies was that of a set of balances, or scales. One pan represented good, and the other evil. Properly balanced, someone could weigh the pros and cons of doing good over and against doing evil, and make a choice. But Augustine argued that the scales are not balanced, but tipped decisively toward evil. The scales still work, but they are seriously prejudiced through the fall of humanity as passed on through Adam. As a result, human beings are now prone to wrongdoing.

Yet Augustine felt the sting of Pelagius’ concern. If we are unable to avoid sin, does this make our struggle to obey the will of God an exercise in futility? The controversy pushed the great thinker to refine his reflections on grace and its relationship to obedience and perfection. Augustine had long seen grace as the liberating force that would set the human will free from its bondage to sin. Grace tips the scales back and allows a person to choose that which is moral and good.

Augustine thus maintained that this grace is prevenient – meaning it “goes ahead”, or is prior to our conversion and sanctification, thus preparing the will to choose good. It is also operative, meaning that it “operates” on us independent of anything we do, for the purpose of salvation. Finally, it is cooperative, meaning that once we become a Christian, we are able to cooperate with grace in our life to achieve growth in holiness.

That is, if we want to cooperate. The reality of life as a Christ-follower is the pull between our inherently carnal nature and the inclination afforded us to pursue the will of God through cooperative grace. “When I get honest, I admit I am a bundle of paradoxes,” writes Brennan Manning.

“I believe and I doubt, I hope and get discouraged, I love and I hate, I feel bad about feeling good, I feel guilty about not feeling guilty. I am trusting and suspicious. I am honest and I still play games. Aristotle said I am a rational animal; I say I am an angel with an incredible capacity for beer.”

And so are we all.

Yet this explains one of the great tensions between the church and culture. So as we explore culture and how best to redeem, restore and renew it for Christ, let us not forget the great stage upon which this drama is unfolding and its inherent tension: we are not able not to sin and die, but we are able to choose.

And that’s worth throwing into the mix with all of our sociological musings.

James Emery White

Sources

For a helpful introduction to the theology of Augustine, see the two Library of Christian Classic editions of his works, Augustine: Earlier Writings, edited by J.H.S. Burleigh (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, MCMLIII), and Augustine: Later Works, edited by John Burnaby (Philadelphia: Westminster, MCMLV). On the debate between Augustine and Pelagius, one would be hard pressed to find a better exploration than given by Jaroslav Pelikan in the first volume of his monumental history of the development of doctrine, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 100-600 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1971), pp. 307-318.

Brennan Manning, The Ragamuffin Gospel (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1990).

This conversation is explored further in the author’s Wrestling with God (InterVarsity Press).

Editor’s Note

Necessity of the "And"

Sunday, February 05, 2012

In their seminal book on organizational success, Built to Last, authors Jim Collins and Jerry Porras write of the importance of getting past the “tyranny of the or” and embracing the “genius of the and.”

Their research into successful organizations found that those who thrived over long periods of time found a way to live with seemingly contradictory forces or ideas at the same time.

You can have change OR stability.

You can be conservative OR bold.

You can have low cost OR high quality.

You can have creative autonomy OR consistency and control.

You can invest for the future OR do well in the short term.

You can be idealistic (values-driven) OR pragmatic (profit-driven).

Their research found that instead of being oppressed by the “tyranny of the or,” highly visionary and effective companies liberated themselves with the “genius of the and.” In essence, they had the ability to embrace both extremes of a number of dimensions at the same time; instead of choosing between A or B, they figured out a way to have both A and B.

Most leaders are aware of “tyranny of the or” tensions. What is less discussed is that we must not only live with that tension, but let that tension drive us not to one extreme or the other, but to a “genius of the and.” In other words, let the tension drive us to a resolution that allows an embrace of both dynamics.

It’s not simply a need in business; it’s a need for the church.

Here are eight, in no particular order, where this process is a necessity:

1. Relevant and Orthodox.

2. Contemporary and Traditional.

3. High-Tech and High-Touch.

4. Multiple Locations and One Church.

5. Topical and Expositional.

6. Evangelism and Discipleship.

7. Growth and Assimilation.

8. Vision and Reality.

The importance of each of these cannot be underestimated. For example, let’s look at the first one on the list. We must be culturally relevant and remain doctrinally pure. We are trying to bring the message of Jesus to our world -- but not just to our world, but to our nation, in our city, in our time. This means that what we say and do must make sense to the person experiencing it. The apostle Paul had a deep commitment to this, once writing that he became "all things to all men so that by all possible means" he "might save some" (I Cor. 9:22). The message of the gospel is unchanging, and must remain so; the method of communicating that gospel must change according to the language, culture and background of the audience.

If you fall into the "tyranny of the or" on this dynamic, the results are catastrophic. If you give yourself to cultural relevance at the expense of orthodoxy, then you fall into heresy. Further, you have nothing to offer the world it doesn’t already have. If you give yourself solely to doctrinal purity and hold cultural engagement in disdain, then you betray the missionary mandate inherent within the Great Commission.

So this isn’t simply the “genius of the and.”

It’s the necessity of it.

James Emery White

Sources

James C. Collins and Jerry I. Porras, Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies.

Editor’s Note

The Coming Tech Boom... Or Babel

Wednesday, February 01, 2012

There’s a technological transformation coming that will revolutionize this century the way the telephone, electricity and automobiles altered the one before.

According to Mark Mills, a physicist and founder of the Digital Power Group who writes for the Forbes Intelligence column, and Julio Ottino, dean of the McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Northwestern University, we sit “on the cusp of three grand technological transformations.” And what are those three?

Big data, smart manufacturing and the wireless revolution.

They’re right.

These are big.

Here’s a quick summary of their significance:

1. Big Data. Processing power and data storage are not only virtually free, but becoming virtually unlimited. The iPhone alone has computing power that puts the 1970s-era IBM mainframe to shame. “The internet is evolving into the “cloud” – a network of thousands of data centers any one of which makes a 1990 supercomputer look antediluvian.

2. Smart Manufacturing. In what is called the “first structural shift” since Henry Ford launched mass production, engineers will soon “design and build from the molecular level…even creating new materials.” This era of “new materials” will explode when combined with 3-D printing (also known as direct-digital manufacturing). Imagine “literally ‘printing’ parts and devices using computational power, lasers and basic powdered metals and plastics.” Then one day, the Holy Grail: “'desktop' printing of entire final products from wheels to even washing machines.”

3. Wireless Revolution. Soon, most humans on the planet will be connected wirelessly. “Never before have a billion people – soon billions more – been able to communicate, socialize and trade in real time.” As the authors of the article note, this introduces both rapid change (e.g., the Arab Spring), as well as great opportunity.

And great danger, if not stewarded with humility.

As I wrote in my book Serious Times, it was this same spirit that erected the infamous tower of Babel, and one could argue is leading to its rebuilding today. Only this time we are not building with bricks and mortar, but silicon chips and genetic engineering. We live in a technological age, and have embraced technological advance with abandon, creating what Neil Postman termed a “technopoly” where technology of every kind is cheerfully granted sovereignty. Or, as Jacques Ellul has written, at least the process of technique designed to serve our ends.

Ironically, within the word “technology” itself lies the new philosophical mooring that marks our intent. The word is built from such Greek words as “technites” (craftsman) and “techne” (art, skill, trade), which speak to the idea of either the person who shapes or molds something, or to the task of shaping and molding itself.

But it is the Greek word “logos,” to which “technites” is joined, that makes our term “technology” so provocative. “Logos” is a reference within Greek thought to divine reason, or the organizing principle of the world. In John’s gospel “logos” was used to communicate to those familiar with the Greek worldview the idea of the divinity of Jesus.

Moderns have put together two words that the ancients would not have dared to combine, for the joining of the words intimates that mere humans can shape the very order of the world. Though technology itself may be neutral in its enterprise, there can be no doubt that within the word itself are the seeds for the presumption that would seek to cast God from His throne and assert humanity in His place as the conduit of divine power.

It reminds me of an interview I read celebrating the 25th anniversary of the first test-tube baby. Robert Edwards, who along with his partner, Patrick Steptoe, pioneered the procedure, graced the occasion with a rare but candid interview with The Times of London. “It was a fantastic achievement but it was about more than infertility,” said Edwards, then 77 and emeritus professor of human reproduction at Cambridge University. “I wanted to find out exactly who was in charge, whether it was God Himself or whether it was scientists in the laboratory.”

Smiling triumphantly at the reporter, he said, “It was us.”

James Emery White

Sources

“The Coming Tech-led Boom” by Mark P. Mills and Julio M. Ottino, The Wall Street Journal, January 30, 2012. Read online.

James Emery White, Serious Times (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press).

Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992).

Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society, translated from the French by John Wilkinson (New York: Vintage Books, 1964).

On the meaning of the words “techne” and “technites”, see the article on “Carpenter, Builder, Workman, Craftsman, Trade” by J.I. Packer in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 1, Colin Brown, editor (Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library/Zondervan, 1975/1986), p. 279.

Anjana Ahuja, “God Is Not In Charge, We Are,” T2-The Times, 24 July 2003, p. 6.

Editor’s Note

About Dr. James Emery White

James Emery White is the founding and senior pastor of Mecklenburg Community Church in Charlotte, North Carolina; President of Serious Times, a ministry which explores the intersection of faith and culture (www.serioustimes.org); and ranked adjunctive professor of theology and culture on the Charlotte campus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Dr. White holds the B.S., M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees, along with additional work at Vanderbilt University and Oxford University. He is the author of over a dozen books.

Example: "Gen 1:1" "John 3" "Moses" "trust"

Advanced Search