Subject: RE: the upcoming meeting
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 16:08:19 -0700
From: Dave Urban
Hello Everyone.
I've been keeping up with the membership discussion and I first wanted to say that I think the proposed ideas sound pretty good. I hope that part of our discussion can wrap up fairly smoothly.
In terms of our upcoming discussion regarding the three levels, I'd like to share a few thoughts that I hope everyone will think about. I have been reading over Dr. Cooper's handout that he wrote for our last meeting and I think one section of it really gets to the heart of the issue regarding relgious clubs and Campus Ministry. In section 6 it states "...so it might be thought that all 'approved' religious groups were being seen as fitting equally well with Campus Ministry's own activities, such as Chapel and UCong, and that doctrinal differences were simply being ignored." I think that this statement really hits the nail on the head. When it comes to this discussion I feel that what we really need to look at is the identity of Campus Ministry and how that identity is perceived by members of the PLU community, especially the students.
Whether or not we (members of this task force) understand that there are major doctrinal differences between Campus Ministry activities and non-Christian religious activities (groups like LDS, Jewish Club, and probably many others in the future), many students do not or will not depending on what they perceive. In a past discussion Dennis told me that the identity of Campus Ministry is undeniably rooted in traditional Lutheran doctrine. However, students may not perceive that same identity if all religious clubs (Christian and non-Christian) are represented by Campus Ministry. It certainly sends a mixed message to students about what is and isn't Christian doctrine. In fact, there have been many testimonies of students leaving PLU with a very postmodern view of Christianity due to what they have perceived about Christianity from the University.
We can make a strong effort to show which clubs under Campus Ministry are Christian and which ones are not, and students (depending on our effort) may read us loud and clear. But that really doesn't solve the problem. By having affiliation with Campus MInistry, it is going to seem (whether we intend for it to or not) that all of the doctrines represented in the various religious clubs are being promoted by Campus Ministry. Then, even if students understand that there is a clear difference between Christianity and other religions, some will believe that one is just as legitimate as the other. In other words, doctrines of non-Christian religions can bring salvation just as Christian doctrine can. I think this is a very dangerous thing to mess around with. As Christians, we know that the Bible is very clear that salvation comes only through faith in Jesus Christ, and we are ultimately accountable to God with what we do with this knowledge. We should be more concerned here with the eternal destiny of souls rather than political correctness and making sure everyone is happy. As you know, having Jesus in your life is the most fulfilling thing that you can ever experience. We should do all we can to give all students the opportunity to know Him as well.
The main argument I have heard against putting non-Christian religious clubs in something like SIL is that it will hinder fruitful dialogue going on between different religious clubs. I certainly agree that this dialogue needs to happen. But in a practical sense, I think that dialogue between different religions can occur just as well if non-Christian clubs weren't under the heading of Campus Ministry as if they were.
I hope that we can all just think and pray on these things before the next meeting. Thanks for listening and I look forward to seeing and talking with you all next week.
In Jesus,
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: the upcoming meeting
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 16:33:52 -0700
From: Keith J. Cooper
I look forward to our discussion on the 11th. I thought I would just note, in response to David's valuable remarks, that there is a difference between the following two sentences:
Salvation comes only through Jesus Christ.
Salvation comes only through faith in Jesus Christ.
Although I am a bit rusty about this, I believe it would be inaccurate to say that the Church has been unified through the centuries, or even since the Protestant Reformation, in going beyond the first to say the second.
I look forward to hearing what people think about (possible) differences between "represented by Campus Ministry", "affiliation with Campus Ministry", "under the heading of Campus Ministry", etc. I wonder (and hopefully this came across in my original handout) whether there isn't some way to have the Campus Ministry Council -- whatever its name -- review/monitor/recognize/oversee all student religious groups, and have the Campus Ministry office, including the Campus Pastors, have some formal contact or connection with all such groups, without suggesting that any of the groups, save UCong and Chapel, are "part of" Campus Ministry. We'll just have to sort this stuff out.
- Keith
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: the upcoming meeting
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 13:41:34 -0700
From: Glenn VanWyhe
As I had suggested at our last meeting, it would be helpful to have us exchange basic ideas through e-mail. That way each of us can consider the views of the others more fully before we meet. It really is not fair to say nothing before the meetings and then expect everyone else to digest the views and decide on them in a one-hour meeting. I do apologize for not getting these ideas out sooner, but I have been exceptionally busy.
I will admit that I am not terribly interested in who serves on the Campus Ministry Council. I am far more interested in what it does. And I am having no small difficulty in understanding what it does. There are two issues that, in my opinion, must be resolved--and that quickly. The first issue is one of definition, and the second is one of authority.
The first issue of definition is to define the purview of the council. It appears to me that the point of the council was clear when it was formed many years ago. PLU was a Lutheran school that desired to be Lutheran. Lutheran groups were to be supported and encouraged. Other Christian groups were suspect but tolerated, and thus Christian denominations with at least 50 students could have groups, and religious clubs could be formed by students. With a serious commitment to Lutheranism (and the "right hand" of God, in Luther's terms), the council made at least some sense. It was concerned about the proper proclamation of Christ on the campus. Without such a commitment, the existence of the council is problematic.
The first question becomes: what should be the concern of the council? If it is proper Christianity, then it is necessary to define what is "proper" in Christianity, and be willing to refuse to accept what is improper. If it is Christianity without further definition, then there must be a willingness to accept all groups that claim to be "Christian"--including Branch Davidians and skinhead groups as well as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses (commonly known as cults among mainstream Christians). If it is not Christianity at all, then how is the council's concern to be defined? Is it all monotheistic religions, including Judaism and Islam? Does it include pantheistic religions such as Hinduism? What does it not include? Does it include pagan religions, such as wicca (witchcraft) and astrology? Does it include anything that is "spiritual"? What is spiritual? Does that include yoga and the sexual practices of the Kama Sutra and dianetics? Apparently the campus ministry council already includes a "social justice" group. I am certain that there are young Republicans and young Democrats who think that they are involved in a spiritual struggle. Should they be included? People often say they get their religion in the great outdoors. Should camping and bicycling and mountain-climbing clubs be included? There is a spiritual element to all of life, surely, so should all clubs be the concern of the campus ministry council? Does all of this sound silly? That is because it is silly to have a campus ministry council that has no definition. If you cannot define something, then it is likely that there is nothing there--at least nothing in any useful sense. So the first step, it seems clear, is to define what is the concern of the council and what is not the concern of the council--what is to be included and what is to be excluded. If that cannot be done, then we should admit that the council is a completely undefined group, and proceed accordingly.
The second issue is one of authority. In the CMC constitution it says that PLU "will make provision for organized religious groups and activities" at three levels. In discussing the first two of those levels, the CMC is said to be "administratively responsible" for development of the groups. In the last level, it is said that "Recognition is subject to annual review for purposes of renewal or termination by the Council." Approval of groups apparently allows them to use campus media and University space and, with the first level, "appropriate financial support." This issue of authority, of approval and disapproval, is obviously intimately connected with the issue of definition. Specifically, how does the council decide to disapprove of a group? Is it according to a principle, or merely according to personal whim? The later case is not, I hope, the situation, since I believe that arbitrary authority is a wicked thing. But what then is the principle by which disapproval occurs? It should be clearly enunciated. Or is it true that disapproval can never occur, in which case the discussion of authority is pointless, since there is none. And if there is no authority, what is the point of the council?
An organization without definition or authority is utterly pointless--indeed, it is a silly concept even. To define the CMC as concerned with Christianity on campus would be a clear definition, and it would be in accord with the history of this place--but then it would be inappropriate to have anything but Christian groups involved in it. To define the CMC as concerned with monotheistic religions would be a clear definition, though there is no compelling reason that I can see why the historical definition of the CMC should be so arbitrarily extended. Any attempt at further extension, I think, will probably quickly slide into lack of definition and resulting pointlessness. If it is suggested that having a special campus council solely for Christian groups will make other religious groups feel left out and second class, then I think that supporters of that position should follow it all the way and advocate the elimination of all Lutheran ministry in connection with PLU--including having an official Lutheran campus minister. Inconsistency is a sign either of poor mental abilities or of hidden (and probably nefarious) purposes.
If, for whatever reasons, we do not wish to give the CMC either definition or authority, then we should recognize that the CMC is pointless. Having a pointless organization is inefficient of time and money and should therefore be discouraged. Some may suggest that it is somehow "nice" to have the campus minister somehow connected to an undefined group of student organizations in a pointless organization because it gives an opportunity to dialogue. Surely it is not necessary to be in an undefined organization to dialogue!!!! I would hope that the campus minister would reach out to whatever groups (whether "spiritual" or not) that could use such ministry. One of our group stated how important the encouragement of the campus minister was to that group. But will the campus minister refuse to encourage a group unless it is in the same organization with it? Surely encouragement should not be bound by the limits of an otherwise undefined organization! Or is there a hidden agenda here? Is the purpose of the otherwise undefined organization to force certain groups to dialogue with each other, to force them to accept the ministrations of the campus minister, to force them to follow some unspoken but enforced party line? I would be strongly opposed to such subtle use of force. If there are groups that do not believe that they need the help of the campus minister, then it is up to the campus minister to convince them that they can be helped by such ministry. If the campus minister does in fact perform a good and useful service, then no group with any wisdom would reject such service. But no group, even an unwise group, should be forced to accept such service, I think.
Let me spell out the inevitable conclusion of my discussion. I think that unless we can spell out a clear definition and a proper authority for the CMC we should recognize it as an organization with no point, at least so far as student organizations are concerned. It should handle the matters of Lutheran ritual on campus, and nothing else that I can see. The only reasonable alternative, it seems to me, is to define it as the center of Christian activity on campus and as having authority to recognize proper and improper Christian activity. The groups that would be within its purview would be Christian worship groups (not including political or social justice groups). Some definition of proper Christianity would be necessary.
I would also like to say that I was very impressed with Dave's comments. I wish that I could hear comments like his coming from more professors at PLU and from campus ministry (perhaps I have missed them if they have come from these places). The matter of teaching by example is a very important one. Signifying approval of groups is no light matter. It is an entirely different matter than tolerating opposing groups. The CMC, according to its constitution, approves ("recognizes") groups. Christians cannot "approve" of other religions, though they can and should tolerate them. Christians believe that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone, and other religions say that is not true. Christians cannot "accept" such statements without being untrue to Christ. [There may be people who claim to be Christians who say that Christ is not necessary for salvation and that the New Testament is not authoritative, but they should be taken no more seriously than someone who claims to be a Muslim but says that Muhammad and the Quran are unimportant, or someone who claims to be a religious Jew who says that Moses and the Torah are unimportant.] For a Lutheran university to accept non-Christian groups would be to send a muddy message and provide a poor example. Furthermore, it would be inappropriate for Christian groups to accept the authority of a supposedly "religious" organization that claims that all religions are of equal value, and it would be wrong to force Christian groups into such an organization. Groups should be free to come under the CMC or not, as they prefer, in such a situation--and I would counsel Christian groups not to associate with such a lukewarm religious organization.
Finally, just a quick response to Keith. There certainly is a difference between the two sentences: "Salvation comes only through Jesus Christ" and "Salvation comes only through faith in Jesus Christ." But such subtlety would not support the idea that one (the first) is true while the other (the second) is not. The watchword of the Reformation was "sola fidea" (faith alone), as well as "sola Scriptura" (Scripture alone). Luther and Calvin and the other reformers held that salvation comes through faith in Christ and in His redeeming work for us. That is the faith of all historic Christianity up until the recent (two centuries or so) growing apostasy.
In Christ
Glenn Van Wyhe
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: the upcoming meeting
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 18:52:10 -0700
From: Evan Thomas
To:
Glenn VanWyhe
thank you sir, for speaking the truth. i'm behind you 110%. see you tuesday.
evan [Evan was the student that Dave invited onto the task force]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Levels and prepositions
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:15:31 -0700
From: Keith J. Cooper
I am still trying to make sense out of this, but wonder whether a fair amount of what we will be talking about on Tuesday involves choices about prepositions. (I do not mean, of course, to demean the exercise if that is the right label. Though given the different ways in which people hear/read things, perhaps we will be stuck with less clarity than we would like.)
For example, I can see where UCong and Chapel are activities that occur within Campus Ministry. (I'm not saying that is the best choice of prepositions.) Perhaps also any activities sponsored by Campus Ministry also qualify -- Bible studies, discussion groups, etc. So those would seem to fit within a single level, as is done currently.
I suspect that the current Level II ("endorsed" groups) comes from a day when the denomination/ecumenical landscape looked quite different than it does today. If I knew that past setting better, I might know what I think should be done. Perhaps we don't need at present to provide the possibility of affiliate/adjunct PLU employees from non-Lutheran (or non-ELCA) Christian denominations, and we can simply eliminate this level. Or perhaps we think that such endorsement can occur on an ad hoc basis.
As for Level III (and perhaps IV?), the current setup seems to me to be rather minimalist. If we agree on this, then we could discuss whether we wanted to keep it that way. Some of that conversation may swirl around which, if any, of the following phrases that have been used in our various communications fit what is happening now, and which we think would be good to have.
Religious groups/clubs as . . .
part of CM
accountable to CM
represented by CM
under CM
affiliated with CM
promoted by CM
under the heading of CM
recognized by CM
approved by CM
approved of by CM
in an organization with CM
under the authority of CM
associated with CM
See you in the morning.
- Keith
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Thoughts for Tuesday
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:38:00 -0700
From: Patricia Killen
Hi All,
I want to offer some thoughts with regard to our meeting on Tuesday. I will lay out assumptions that I think are important for thinking about the levels of groups associated with campus ministry council. In the course of doing so I will respond to some points that Dave and Glenn made.
First off, I think it is vitally important that we remember that we are discussing campus ministry at a Lutheran university. The university's Lutheran identity matters. It cannot simply be reduced to "Christian," for there are many different types of Christians, different understandings and expressions of the meaning of the gospel. To subsume Lutheran Christianity into some other kind of Christianity is inappropriate. To construct a structure for campus ministry from a vision of Christianity that is not Lutheran is inappropriate. All of us around the table need, I think, to remember the distinctive Lutheran identity of the institution and not simply assume that what we think is Christian is automatically what Lutheran Christianity also is or should be. I think each of us would do well to articulate the assumptions from which we are working.
Because PLU's campus ministry is Lutheran it will have certain qualities that make it distinctive from what campus ministries might look like at other institutions, say Baptist or Presbyterian or Roman Catholic, qualities that from the perspective of other Christian understandings may even appear weak or unclear or ambiguous. Regardless, PLU's campus ministry must maintain its identity and integrity as Lutheran. What does Lutheran mean? Both the PLU 2000 document and interpretations of it try to express this and do much better than I can. But there are some points that I think are crucial as they relate to us in our task. First, the Lutheran understanding of Christianity rests in the gift of what God has done for us in Jesus. Salvation has been accomplished through God's action in Jesus. Lutherans live in gratitude and hope based on this gift of salvation. Lutheran Christianity (as well as other forms of Christianity, e.g. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Episcopalian) does not make a personal saving experience of Jesus a requirement for salvation. (Neither, Dave, would these groups agree with your statement "we know that the Bible is very clear that salvation comes only through faith in Jesus Christ.") Lutheran Christianity locates salvation in what God has done through Jesus, not in doctrine and not in an act that an individual takes. Doctrine does not save. The Bible does not save. Salvation is from God through Jesus. (The ELCA constitution states clearly that the Word of God is Jesus and that the Bible can be viewed as the word of God only in a tertiary sense.)
In Lutheran understanding, Lutheran Christians are called to witness to the world and in the world, without obliterating the world. Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms means that in Lutheran understanding it is not the task of Christians to bring all the rest of the world, its activities and academic disciplines and institutions under the subjection of God's sovereignty. The impulse to do that is Calvinist or Reformed. It is a mistake to model PLU's campus ministry on a Reformed or Calvinist vision. The Lutheran understanding means first, that there can be no coercion in the effort to spread the good news of what God has done for us in Jesus. Witness and persuasion, but no coercion. Second, the integrity of the world must be respected. This pushes Lutherans to be asking questions of meaning about everything, not drawing lines in the sand by establishing absolute or essentialist definintions of who is a Christian, who is saved, or anything else. There is a quality of paradox to the Lutheran understanding of the gospel and God's presence in the world that requires Lutherans to live with ambiguity, even to embrace it. Within Lutheranism, the enterprise of education is more part of the world than the church. Hence, a Lutheran university is a place where the Christian faith, as understood in its Lutheran mode, is brought into conversation with all knowledge, all disciplines, and other worldviews and faiths. Campus ministry at a Lutheran university is neither a church or an exclusivist evangelistic enterprise. To try to make it either is to distort its purpose.
Let me try to express the general point I am trying to get at by quoting Ernie Simmons' LUTHERAN HIGHER EDUCATION: In a Lutheran perspective ". . .doubt is the partner of faith since in the midst of a finite world all knowing and believing is undertaken by a finite mind and heart. All our knowing of the infinite and the divine is through the finite, that is, through masks of God that open to the divine but never fully disclose it. This means, then, that a sharp line between the sacred and the secular cannot be drawn for the Lutheran tradition. All of the finite world can in some way become a mask for God and therefore must be kept in constant relationship with faith. This is the source of the dialectic, the paradox of faith for Luther" (p. 33).
In brief summary (because I write this with only a few minutes between classes on Monday and want to get it out for thought), efforts to restrict religious groups associated with campus ministry to those that meet some kind of doctrinal purity code is not what we should be about in redoing the levels. That students are "confused" by groups associated with campus ministry is not a problem but an opportunity for teaching them about the Lutheran understanding of Christianity and helping them to understand their own faith positions more fully. However we redo the levels, student confusion and doctrinal purity should not be the primary criteria. If we are going to use definitions, let us use the Lutheran definition which would be the historical creed and Luther's constantly asking about it and all else, "What does this mean?"
I haven't worked out the precise categorization of groups that I would suggest. I do think having university congregation (which is a church on the campus) and chapel (an ecumenical worship service on the campus) in a special category makes sense. How to order all other religious groups I haven't entirely worked through. At this point I would propose the following, however, at least for discussion: All religious groups on campus that identify themselves as such should come under campus ministry through somekind of registration. There should not be separate ASPLU or RHA Christian activities or relations directors. Or, if there are, they must come under the direction of the campus pastors. All religious groups on campus should be educated about the Lutheran Christian perspective and about the limits of activities: namely that those activities that work against the mission of the school are not appropriate. Within a Lutheran Christian understanding, on a Lutheran campus, in a Lutheran campus ministry, the appropriate place for all religious groups, both the multitude of Christian and nonChristian is under campus ministry. Theological orthodoxy tests do not belong on a Lutheran campus.
Patricia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Tuesday Meeting
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:55:05 -0700
From: Cindy Messler
First, a quick reminder that our meeting is tomorrow (Tuesday) at 8:00 a.m. in UC room 214. Next, I wanted a chance to send out some of my thoughts concerning the emails that have been circulating -- and once again encourage others to join the conversation! I know this is late getting it out but hopefully most of you will get a chance to read it before the morning.
To Dave: I think the concerns that you are raising are valid ones and I can see that they come from a deeply heartfelt position according to your understanding of Christianity. I think that the problem is that the definitions you set forth, though, for Christianity is not one that would be embraced by the majority of Lutherans on this campus (at least not the ones I am in circles with): namely, that "the Bible clearly states that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ." Although most Lutherans would claim that Jesus is the way the truth and the life, and that the ultimate meaning and purpose of life are found in the person of Jesus Christ, this does not have anything to do with confessing Jesus as your personal savior or signing your name to a confessional doctrine for Lutherans. Do you not agree with me that this is a problem? You seem to be asserting an interpretation of Christianity which does not embrace a Lutheran understanding. Anything which we propose to the council has to be rooted in our understanding of our Lutheran heritage and Lutheran mission rather than exclude these things.
To Glenn: The observation that you brought up about campus ministry council lacking clear definition is, I think, a valid observation. I am saying that I agree with you that campus ministry council does not clearly define itself and does leave room for some ambiguity. This, perhaps, might even be directly related to why Dave is raising issues about confusion and that sort of thing especially surrounding issues of Christian doctrine. But I would disagree with you when you make the claim that "when you can't define something, it is likely that there is nothing there." Let me see if I can articulate why your claim might have problems with Lutheran theology.
Lutherans do not claim to know the mind of God. Lutherans would say that humans in their finite reality are incapable of comprehending God in God's infinitude. God is too great to be confined in human language and concepts. God is too great for humans to grasp completely. The fact that campus ministry does not set up these rigid dogmatic definitions is deliberate. It is a deliberate witness to the fact that the mystery of God can never be fully articulated, captured, or controlled.
These ideas about not knowing the mind of God does not mean that there is nothing we can say about God, but it does mean that we do leave room for ambiguity and also that we don't close the doors to dialogue or learning because we don't always know where God's truth is going to show up. This is part of what it means to live in the paradox of having a God who is both hidden and revealed. This comes out of Luther's theology of the cross which tells us that even though we would expect to find the savior Christ on earth with a kingly glory, we don't. We find him in the lowliest of positions, suffering and acting as a servant. Luther says that through this God's majesty, power, and glory are hidden from human speculation so that the attempt to know God's mind or plan is not possible, but that God is revealed in Christ's suffering for humans.
So no one can claim to understand God completely. You are right in asserting that CMC does not attempt to clearly distinguish between the categories you set up as proper and improper Christianity. I believe what CMC was formed to do and partakes in now is to encourage people to seek out what is of God and what is not of God; what is God's truth and what is false. And it also encourages and provides an opportunity for people to live out their convictions to these answers by forming clubs where they can engage in activities they find meaningful and spiritually nurturing. Campus Ministry does not encourage this kind of seeking by shutting doors and eliminating opportunities. Rather, it encourages people to become informed and to seek God's truth wherever it may be found rather than having it dictated to them or mediated to them by someone else. (Also, I would like to say here, that having different clubs with different views under the same organization is not making a statement that each club contains the same degree of truth. All it does is affirm that each club has the same rights to seek truth.)
I hope you can see then that your suspicion that there is a hidden agenda within the campus Ministry council "to force certain groups to dialogue with each other, to force them to accept the ministrations of the campus minister, or to force them to follow some unspoken but enforced party line" is not what is going on. In fact, it is just the opposite. The CMC is not trying to force religious groups to do anything (except remain in line with university policies); rather it tries to protect the opportunity for religious seeking and religious freedom. Consequently, it would view any attempt to make Christian groups adhere to some standard doctrinal or confessional statement as an infringement on these freedoms; freedoms which I believe are necessary for proper spiritual growth to occur.
--Cindy Messler
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Update
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 18:04:15 -0700
From: Laura Majovski
Hopefully you all received copies of Ernest Simmons' book, Lutheran Higher Education (or will by Wednesday afternoon). If not, please contact Alison in my office (x7191) to get a copy.
I find Chapter 3 particularly interesting, not being Lutheran myself and more familiar with the Reformed tradition. In addition, Chapter 5, which relies on Sharon Daloz Parks' work, I find especially interesting. She has been on campus as a key speaker in the What's in a Middle Name lecture series.
To pick up on some of our ending comments, I know that admissions has worked particularly hard this year to articulate to perspective students, what it means to attend a Lutheran university. I will talk with Laura Polcyn and include this information because I think it speaks to Dave's point about student confusion.
I look forward to hear everyone's thoughts and perspectives.
Laura
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Update
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:36:10 -0700
From: Evan Thomas
hello everyone
i apologize for not getting my thoughts on e-mail faster but i just wanted to make sure i was on the same page as everyone else. i think that todays meeting and all of the e-mails helped a ton.
first of all, after the meeting today i went to the libray and checked out some books on luther because, not being a lutheran, i have no idea about the foundations of lutheranism and the things luther stood for. so, i wanted to check it out myself. the book is called "A compend of Luther's theology" and is edited by hugh thomson derr from princeton theological seminary.
on page 47 luther talks about "the person of christ, human and divine." i want to share a paragraph quote of luther that seems to shed some much needed light upon the issue raised by keith about salvation through jesus christ versus salvation through faith in jesus christ. "I believe not only that Jesus Christ is the true and only Son of God, begotten from eternity in one eternal, divine nature and substance; but also that all things are made subject to Him by His Father, and that in His humanity He is made Lord of me and of all things which, in His divinity, He, with the Father, has created.
I believe that no one can believe in the Father or come to the Father by his own learning, works or reason, nor by anything that can be named in heaven or on earth, save only in and through Jesus Christ, His only Son-that is, through faith in His name and lordship..." martin luther
this makes clear that, according to luther, which is what was said to be the foundation of the faith of this university, salvation comes one way, through FAITH IN and THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, faith IN HIS NAME AND LORDSHIP. therefore, if in fact we claim to be following what luther believed it seems clear where we must stand.
luther believed jesus is the only way...
this quote was interesting to me. it seems there have been some arguements regarding the very things this quote talks about. i would love to hear all your thoughts
something else i would like to throw out there is some verses i'm curious about. in john 14:6 jesus says that no one comes to the father but through me. while some folks may argue we don't really know jesus said this, that doesn't seem a valid argument regarding the policies of a university that doesn't state publicly, ie PLU 2000, a slant toward jesus seminar beliefs. therefore, it seems, please correct me if i'm wrong, we would need to stick with the fact that jesus said these words. another point of question for me is in the book of acts 4:12. it talks about jesus being rejected. how can someone that came to, and did in effect, save everyone, be rejected? these points of scripture are places where i'm feeling some confusion as to the content of our discusion in relation to them. i apologize if these comments seems a bit ambiguous, it is past my bed-time, but i hope they spur some thoughts about the unbelievable importance of what we are doing. thanks for you time.
in jesus
evan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Tuesday Meeting
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:58:39 -0700
From: Dennis Sepper
Hi all!
My apologies for missing the meeting on Tuesday. I thought I would be done in time, but it just didn't happen. Thanks also for your prayers and concern. I now wait until I see the "sleep" doctor on May 15th!
I just want you all to know that I am sending out by campus mail an article by Richard Hughes, a professor of Religion at Pepperdine University, titled "Our Place in Church-Related Higher Education in the United States." Why he titled it "our", I don't know because he is not a Lutheran but, it is an address he gave to a group of Lutherans. While directed at Higher Education as a whole, I think it will be helpful to the discussion.
Also, as Nancy may have told you we prepared an email that didn't make it to you, I will prepare that again and send it out soon.
Peace,
Denny [Dennis is a campus minister, and was an adviser to the task force]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Tuesday Meeting
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:42:20 -0700
From: Lindsay Daehlin
Hello all. It's been so interesting reading the emails that have circulated. I am really frustrated with my lack of time but I have a few spare now so I will put down my thoughts quickly. I believe that we are guided by Lutheran theological foundations of fostering questions and living in the faith we are given, and working with doubt and accepting difference and diversity. I also believe we are guided by Jesus example which is of inclusion. One of Jesus main visions of the world, our world was the breaking down of barriers between people. Jesus worked so hard to stop Jews from setting themselves apart and above others because of their religion or righteousness. I see this happening if we make black adn white distinctions between what is Christian and nonChristian. Jesus worked hard at breaking down the division between Gentile and Jew; is this not Christian and nonChristian today? I feel by focusing on our personal relationship with the Christ of Faith, we let ourselves off the hook to carry out Jesus model for the world of inclusion, acceptance, radical equality, interdependent community, and above all humble servanthood. This leads me to my next point about the Advocates for Social Justice, a club in the third level on CMC that I have worked in for a year. Jesus calls us to service above all else. How is working for social justice not Christian? We act as Christ to others. The people in this group live out their faith in an incredibly tangible way that is creating real change on issues of justice for disadvantaged people. We do not overtly worship or pray in our actions and meeting as a club, because we want all people to serve together with no divisions. We want all to feel comfortable there, and so many would not participate if we did. I think we need to expand our idea of what worship and prayer are (Glen you mentioned that possibly only Christian worship groups would have cmc status). I think it is so important that Advocates for Social Justice stay recognized or whatever by cmc because that sends a strong message to our community that Christians are committed to social justice, committed to working on Jesus' vision for our world.
I also strongly believe that we can never fully understand God as Patricia wrote Lutheranism states. We must stay far away from drawing lines of inclusion and exclusion that may hinder someone's faith journey and how they will respond to God working intheir life. By drawing lines of exclusion we will turn many away from Christianity and possibly from God. I know this because of countless conversations I have had with people who have been incredibly turned off to Christianity by attending some activities on campus, such as the Well for example. I am not writing this to attack, at all! I have also heard a few stories of great spritual experiences at the Well. I am writing this to open dialogue. There is alot of religious tension on this campus that is often talked around. Maybe it's time we talked openly about the strong differences. I believe learning on all levels can happen.
I have to go to, but I hope to write more soon. I hope I haven't been too confusing. I know I just expanded our discusion to a size I'm not sure is managable with our time constraints. Defining Christianity is no quick task. So i will try to keep my comments focued more on the issue of levels next time. I apologize.
Thanks, Lindsay
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Update
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:54:24 -0700
From: Cindy Messler
Hello everyone,
This will be a brief message. I am in Chicago right now and have been here since Wendesday evening visiting the seminary that I am planning to attend in the fall. It has been a wonderful experience so far and I feel blessed and excited about my call right now and the things God has in store for me. So that is why I have not been on email but I did just receive a few minutes to come down to the library here and type a brief message. I'm glad to see that some people are active on email. I just wanted to put out a strong recommendation to the group that if any of you have ideas about revising the three levels that you would draw up some kind of proposal for that and try and get that out to the group by Wednesday. I think it's important that we have those suggestions out by then so that we have a full week to discuss them through email before we have our meeting the following Thursday, or is it Tuesday, I don't have my calander with me. This may seem hardly like a manageable task with all of your schedules but I htink it's necessary that we make this a goal. Remember we only have one meeting left. I will be back at PLU late Monday night if there are any questions.
--Cindy Messler
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Update
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:28:46 -0700
From: Dave Urban
Hello everyone.
Cindy's reminder that we only have one meeting left made me feel quite overwhelmed, as I'm sure it did for many of you as well. So, even though there are many pertinent things that we could all discuss, I would echo her request to get out ideas for what level three should look like so we can come to some sort of conclusion at our last meeting.
First, I have to quickly say I'm a little confused on the status of level 2. Dennis, maybe you can write and give a little more clarification on its purpose. But, assuming it is still there as level 2, here is what I feel level three should look like. (I don't have the time to put it into exact wording – I think I'd need Keith to help me out with that - but the general meaning will be there).
Level three should include all Christian ministries/organizations that promote and take part in one or a combination of the following things: Christian worship, study, evangelism, discipleship and service. The beliefs/standards/purposes of each of these groups should be congruent with basic Christian doctrine (which is really not that big of a grey area). Though none of these groups have to be exclusively Lutheran, their beliefs should not go against Luther's basic principles of grace, faith, and the authority of scripture (as Evan shared with us in his email).
I still submit that this issue is not about inclusion/exclusion. We are a very inclusive campus in terms of what types of clubs can be formed. But I have been told that Campus Ministry has a Christian identity, so the clubs that it represents (or that the council represents - students will not distinguish between the two) need to be Christian. It simply makes sense to have it be that way, plus I believe it also makes it easier for the message of Jesus to be shared with this campus. Jesus didn't send mixed messages, and neither should this constitution. Jesus, although he was inclusive of all people (as we need to be), was certainly not inclusive of all actions and beliefs. He made it very clear that the path was open to everyone, but that it is very narrow.
So, I think that all non-Christian clubs, or even clubs that say they are Christian but do not adhere to the guidelines set above, should be recognized under S.I.L.
Thanks alot and I look forward talking to you all next week.
In Jesus,
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Update
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 15:43:59 -0700
From: Dennis Sepper
Greetings to all,
Dave, Level II of the CMC constitution has been confusing from the get/go. I claim no divine insight into its exact meaning (as there seems to be a lot of ill defined words), but this is how we have read it the last five year:
Obviously, at one time, there was a religious preference survey done of the entire student body each fall. (as far as I know that is not done now, but we do take a freshman survey on which they can declare their denominational preference.) If that survey revealed a denomination who had more than 50 students, then the Campus Ministry Council would do a survey to see their was an interest or a need for additional ministry to this group.
For example, the Fall Semester religious preference survey found a minimum of 50 Episcopalian students. The CMC would then survey them to see if there was sufficient need or interests to do Episcopalian ministry of services. If there was such interest, then at the initiative of the CMC, the President would request from the Episcopal Dioceses and Bishop that an Episcopal priest be appointed as an official "Episcopal Campus Pastor" to the Episcopal students at PLU.
IF that happened, the Episcopal priest would report to the President (like Nancy and I do) and to the Episcopal Bishop (as Nancy and I do the our Lutheran Bishop).
This Episcopal campus pastor would then do worship services, Bible studies, whatever was needed by the Episcopal students. All funding would be by the Episcopal Church.
In reality, this was once the case with the Roman Catholic Students. There was a certified lay person assigned to PLU who did Campus Ministry to the Roman Catholic Students. They had an office here in the campus ministry office with their own phone, etc. Finally, when diocesan dollars dried up, the position could no longer be funded. My guess is that this became a separate level because the University (the CMC and the President) took the initiative to see if ministry to these large groups of students was needed. In level three, the students take the initiative to form into a religious club.
Currently there are no Level 2 groups on campus. As I believe came up in the discussion last time you met, it is not a "given right" than just anyone can come on campus and do ministry. Being a private institution, we have some say as to who the guests on campus are (and I believe that Nancy told you this is true also of other Lutheran pastors and lay people). That being so, this level gives some oversight by the CMC and the President as to who has an official status on Campus to do ministry.
The question we need to wrestle with is could this need arise again in the future and if so is level 2, as we have it, the best way for it to happen.
I could certainly see this coming up in the future and perhaps we should have some provision for it. In an time when Christian denominations are recognizing each other's ministries and entering into altar and pulpit fellowship with each other, the need may not be as great. (for example, if the episcopalians pass the "Call to Common Mission " document this summer, and all indications are they will, then the Episcopal Diocese could appoint Nancy and I to be chaplains to the Episcopal students.) However, there are still some denominations where a representative from the denomination would be helpful (for example, a Roman Catholic priest in regards to confession and absolution,etc).
I probably muddied the waters more than clarifying things, but it's my attempt. Have at it gang!
I intend to write another email tomorrow on some of the other issues.
Yours in Christ,
Dennis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Three levels
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:15:28 -0700
From: Cindy Messler
So, it is Wednesday night and I am getting a taste of my own medicine. This is what you get when you push for deadlines, it means you have to follow them yourself as well. Unfortunately, I only have time to suggest some options which I think would be fitting but will probably save for another email why I think these are the best options as opposed to other ones that have been proposed.
As regards to level one I don't really have any specific concerns except for the modification we talked about of adding "initiated by campus ministry" to the one statement that was kind of vague.
As far as the second level, I am still a little confused by it. I can see from the discussion we had in our last meeting why it would be important to have a way in which the council somehow officially recognizes certain pastors from different denominations and gives them priveleges to do certain activities on campus. The thing I'm not sure about is why CMC would be involved in initiating that process. It seems to me like it is something which would more naturally be sought out by the individual groups themselves and brought to the council where it could then be addressed. Perhaps there was some historical reason for CMC initiating the process but I wonder if that is still necessary today or if we should change it to being at the request of denominational groups who have a population above fifty members on campus. If anyone knows of any reasons why it would be good for CMC to be the initiators I would really like to hear them cuz it is pretty confusing to me otherwise.
As for level three, I would like to see this remain the way it pretty much is now and has been interpreted by the councils in the past: that campus ministry council approves ALL groups who seek recognition as a religious club (not just Christian) as long as their activities remain in congruence with university policies and do not violate them.
I will try to write when I have more time about why I think this is how things should be. Hope you are all having a wonderful week.
Peace,
Cindy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: CMC stuff
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:46:23 -0700
From: Keith Cooper
Hello, all. Naturally, I didn't meet the deadline that Cindy imposed. (Perhaps because I thought we had more time, forgetting about the three-day weekend? Nah!)
The e-mails have been interesting. I hope here to provide comments worth reading, and also to move us toward a rewriting of the section of the Bylaws having to do with the three "levels." You know already that this will be a long and dense message.
[A] There seem to be three general issues before us::
The nature, uniqueness, or authority of Jesus Christ, and the role of a personal faith commitment in one's salvation.
Where in the university's administrative structure non-Christian (or in some other way non-compliant) student religious groups should be located, including the question of whether all student religious groups should be located together.
Whether (and if so, how and to what extent) the first of those issues should affect what we say about the second.
I realize that you may well be shaking your head at the third of these; leave it to a philosopher, you mutter. But it does strike me as important to separate it out, since those who disagreed about the theological nuances of the first bulleted point could still agree that it was irrelevant to a decision about levels, and those in basic theological agreement could still disagree about how to arrange the levels. As interesting (and important) as the first set of issues is, then, I think we need to be careful not to focus on it too much as part of our work on this special task force.
[B] Having said that, here is my two cents' worth on that first issue (as an occasional reflection, not an unalterable stance). I assure you that you could skip to section 'C' without great loss. First, it is beyond dispute that the Gospel accounts were shaped by the theological interests of the author(s), each Gospel emerging in a particular context and with specific goals and intentions. If there is good reason to believe (i) that the words of Jesus were among the elements of the Gospels so shaped, rather than resembling the notes of a modern-day journalist (or a court transcript), and (ii) that our reading of those words is shaped by our own context and biography, then an awareness of these "two horizons" will, at the least, make us more cautious about appealing to proof texts. It is a long way from (i) to the perceived (and, I think, actual) excesses of the Jesus Seminar, and a long way from (ii), a recognition of the inescapability of interpretation, to a vapid relativism. Plenty of scholars who affirm the authority and even inerrancy of the Bible have no problem with the notion that we do not have the verbatim words of Jesus, though there is no unanimity about this within the Church.
Second, given the Gospel of John's emphasis on belief, the usual reading of 14:6 ("no one comes to the Father but through me") as involving a personal faith commitment makes perfect sense. But: (a) We need to be careful not to read this -- or, e.g., the story of Nicodemus in John 3 -- solely through the lens of contemporary American evangelicalism, as if the Gospel writer had in mind a specific psychological experience (as an adolescent or adult) of being "born again." (b) That no one is welcomed into the presence of God except through Jesus is perfectly consistent with salvation's not being limited to those who make an evangelical-style confession of faith, or even to those who consider themselves Christians while on earth. (c) Evan's quotation from Kerr's Compend of Luther's Theology is not clearly "on point" here; the contrast there seems to be between faith in Jesus and salvation through works, not on the necessity of a personal faith commitment. (Actually, the first paragraph on p. 49 would provide a better citation for you, Evan.)
About my point (b) in the preceding paragraph: I am not saying that it is clear, yet alone obvious, how far God's grace extends beyond the boundaries of the visible Church. I would just rather put the emphasis on the objective work of Christ and not the subjective appropriation of that -- not that there has been unanimity about that, either, within the Church. If we are looking for a proof text from Luther about the ultimate fate of non-Christians, we could try pp. 243-244 of Kerr's Compend: it is not sinful to pray for the dead, Luther says, since we do not know of anyone who has died ". . . that he has his final sentence. . . . [N]o one knows, whether final judgment has been passed upon these souls."
Third, I don't think we are in nearly as cloudy a position, doctrinally, as Lindsay suggested in her e-mail. Our never fully understanding God still leaves a lot of room for humble confidence -- and humility/caution and boldness/confidence seem to me all to be valuable traits; we shouldn't have to choose among them. But breaking down barriers and being accepting of those different from ourselves is fully consistent with believing that Jesus was true God and true (hu)man, that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God, that no one comes to God except through Jesus, and that there are significant differences between Christians and non-Christians. (Lindsay said something about "black and white distinctions," which probably suggests a nuance I haven't gotten.) I do agree with her, though, that we should not limit CMC status to groups involved in worship and study. I would say, though, that themes of inclusion and welcome do not require a doctrinal "melting pot," a celebration of diversity over against the careful consideration of doctrinal differences. There need be nothing about placing various student groups in the same level that suggests that their members are all the same before God, or their tenets equally congruent with Lutheran theology (or Christianity in general).
[C] Now to skip to the third of my bulleted points. As I just got through suggesting, I am not sure that any of that stuff about Jesus or salvation is of much relevance to our present task. I don't think that Campus Ministry "represents" the student clubs, as Dave suggested, or that the clubs represent Campus Ministry. Nor does either seem true of groups and the Campus Ministry Council. "Recognized" student religious groups, i.e., level three groups, have something in common in that they have sought recognition as religious clubs. Period. I feel rather strongly that the existence of confusion over this, or the possibility of future confusion, provides very little reason to change things. If people think that the Mormon group is "approved of" by the campus pastors because it is a recognized student club, so that the pastors (or the university itself) are saying that Mormons are Christians, or that Lutherans shouldn't care about doctrinal matters, then they misunderstand things -- and probably misunderstand the nature of PLU as a Lutheran institution of higher education in allowing such groups.
Moreover, I do not see -- with one exception, noted in 'D' below -- how a conservative understanding of Jesus' nature, authority, and role in salvation could lead us to a different arrangement for the student religious groups . . . unless, that is, it were also to champion a very different conception of the university than I think we want (or the president or regents would want). This is a place that has for decades welcomed the honest and open exploration of centrally important questions about the purpose and meaning of life, and that has sought not to impose doctrinally-based limits on such exploration. There are solid grounds within Lutheran theology for saying that every student group wanting to be a part of such exploration should be welcome, including, I suppose, groups that think the members of every other group are going to hell. There are equally solid Lutheran grounds for saying that any group that is not going to operate within the parameters set by the university's mission and purpose (e.g., working at cross-purposes to the educational mission of the school, or engaging in proselytizing or other coercive practices) should not be welcome. The uniqueness of Jesus, or his charge to his followers to make disciples of all nations, doesn't in my mind change any of that (in large part because of PLU's being a university and not a church).
[D] Now about the levels: I like Level I, with the tinkering we've already done. I found Dennis' explanation of Level II cogent, and am convinced that our final structure should leave room for something similar. (For one thing, this gives us some leverage with those who would like to self-designate themselves the campus representative of some outside group.) But I also found Cindy's point interesting about who should be doing the initiating. I will work on wording for both those levels, and see what I can come up with.
I would have no problem with preserving Level III pretty much as is, given my understanding (above) of what status those groups do and do not have. I would like to see clarifying language about the rights and responsibilities of such groups, and perhaps also about their connection to the Campus Ministry office. I would also, however, like to see some way of incorporating the faith-related activities of ASPLU and RHA -- while those groups have their own status and fit in the university structure, I would like to find a way of putting all religious activities and groups under one umbrella. Again, I will work on wording.
Two suggestions that have been made caught my eye. The first of these concerns the role of SIL with the student religious groups. I can see the value of having all student groups under some sort of umbrella, and SIL would seem to be the place, even though I think it would be a mistake to not also have the accountability and the connection with the Campus Ministry office that would come from a continuation CMC recognition of religious clubs. Perhaps there is a way to have two, overlapping "umbrellas."
The second suggestion -- and this is the exception I referred to above -- was to group Christian clubs together. While I don't see that this would have to be done in terms of levels, I can see significant value in improving connections among the various Christian groups on campus. Perhaps some sort of "Council of Christian Organizations." It would surely not be inappropriate to have Campus Ministry work with these groups in a way it did not with some other groups, and for them to come together given their common ground. However, I would strongly resist determining eligibility for such a council through a doctrinal litmus test. For one thing, the use of a statement of faith already tilts the playing field toward a particular brand of contemporary Christianity. But also, if the envisioned guidelines resemble at all the document Dennis showed me in January, the one sent to the president, then it would be much too narrow and specific doctrinally, leading to quibbles and division rather than unity.
[E] One last point. Perhaps Cindy, Nancy, and Dennis already have some ideas about how the work of our task force will be presented to the Campus Ministry Council (and perhaps also to the president?). One way, if only we had the luxury of enough time, would be to imitate the Supreme Court and have various draft "decisions" circulating, seeing if a majority opinion could emerge. Instead (and being pessimistic for the moment about our reaching complete consensus), I wonder if we want to have majority and minority reports, or to allow/encourage brief dissenting statements to accompany whatever is decided upon by majority vote.
- Keith Cooper
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: CMC stuff
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:21:12 -0700
From: Keith J. Cooper
Well, I warned you this was coming. Here is one way the section about levels might read. Use as many grains of salt as you need, please; it's just one person's reflections and was done more quickly than it deserves. Perhaps by reading it you will have a clearer idea about how things ought instead to be put.
(One comment about the name of the group whose constitution we have been working on: our discussion has been focusing on student religious groups, but the role of the Council extends also to the university pastors, to the Campus Ministry office, and to ministry on campus in general. So I have changed my mind about favoring a name change to something like the "Religious Activities Council." The current name, if we can arrive at clarification of the relationship of the university pastors and Campus Ministry office to other religious groups, seems fitting.)
See you on Thursday.
- Keith
---------------------
Bylaws to the Constitution of the Campus Ministry Council:
ARTICLE II - RELIGIOUS GROUPS POLICY
Administrative supervision of religious activities on campus shall be guided by the following assumptions and procedures.
Pacific Lutheran University . . .
1. understands and identifies itself as a Lutheran university in view of its origin, its ownership and governance, its mission statements, and its educational philosophy.
2. formalizes this identity as a Lutheran -- and so, Christian -- university in part through the provision of regular opportunities for worship (University Chapel and the University Congregation) and through the support of campus ministry staffed by Lutheran clergy (Campus Ministry Office).
3. actively encourages the Christian faith and life of students, staff, and faculty, recognizing the diversity of Christian denominations and traditions represented within the university community.
4. values the presence of those from other faith traditions, and also those who belong to no faith tradition, acknowledging the benefits within an educational institution of a pluralism of ideas and commitments.
5. provides for the academic study of Christianity and other religious traditions through the course offerings of its Department of Religion.
6. allows for members of the university community to organize recognized religious clubs whose activities are consistent with the university's educational objectives, but refrains from sponsoring or endorsing activities that stand outside the bounds of Christian doctrine and principles, broadly construed
7. retains the right to restrict and/or prohibit those religious groups whose activities originate outside the university, conflict with the educational objectives of the university, or violate established university policies or procedures (for example, active proselytizing on campus, excessive use of bulletin boards, or the excessive influence of off-campus organizations).
To implement the above, Pacific Lutheran University makes provision for organized religious groups and activities at three (3) distinct levels.
LEVEL I - SPONSORED RELIGIOUS GROUPS/ACTIVITIES
Sponsored groups and activities are those officially presented, supported, or organized by the university. As such, they shall of course be consistent with Pacific Lutheran University's identity and mission as a Lutheran university; but in addition, they shall operate within the bounds of Christian doctrine and principles, broadly construed. (This is consistent with the presentation and discussion of controversial positions within an educational setting.)
The Campus Ministry Council and the Campus Ministry Office are administratively responsible to the university president for the development and supervision of these sponsored religious groups and activities. Such groups and activities shall include (but need not be limited to) University Chapel, pastoral leadership for University Congregation, and non-credit classes, discussion groups, and service projects initiated by the Campus Ministry Office.
Full institutional support shall be available for these groups and activities, including use of campus media, priority access to meeting space, and appropriate financial support.
LEVEL II - ENDORSED RELIGIOUS GROUPS/ACTIVITIES
Endorsed religious groups and activities are those organized and supervised by Christian denominations or groups other than the ELCA. These shall also be consistent with Pacific Lutheran University's identity and mission as a Lutheran university, and in addition shall operate within the bounds of Christian doctrine and principles, broadly construed. (This is consistent with the presentation and discussion of controversial positions within an educational setting.)
When sufficient interest is indicated by students belonging to one of these organizations (typically this would mean a minimum of fifty students interested in denominational activities), the Campus Ministry Council shall recommend to the university president that he or she invite the appropriate church judicatory to suggest for appointment an official pastor/priest/chaplain for this organization. The suggested person, if acceptable to the Council and the president for appointment, would be administratively responsible to the president and ecclesiastically responsible to the appropriate judicatory. The duties of the appointed person shall be developed in consultation with the Council, and carried out in cooperation with the staff of the Campus Ministry Office.
Institutional support would include use of campus media, access to meeting space, and provision of university identification for the appointed professional. No direct budgetary allocations for salary, honorarium, or programming would be made. Endorsement would be subject to annual review and renewal by the Campus Ministry Council and the university president.
LEVEL III - RECOGNIZED RELIGIOUS GROUPS/ACTIVITIES (RELIGIOUS CLUBS)
Recognized religious groups and activities are those organized and supervised by students. While the purpose of these groups and their projected activities shall be consistent with Pacific Lutheran University's identity and mission as a Lutheran university, they are not sponsored by the university and so no endorsement or approval of their activities may be presumed.
The Campus Ministry Council is administratively responsible for providing formal recognition of these student religious groups ("clubs"), and for seeing that their activities are consistent with the educational mission of the university. Groups seeking recognition shall submit to the Council a written statement of purpose, a slate of officers responsible for leadership, a list of ten (10) charter members from the student body, and the name of an acceptable faculty or staff advisor. A designated officer of each group shall report to the Council at one of its regular meetings concerning the nature and scope of its projected activities. Groups meeting the above conditions shall be recognized by the Campus Ministry Council.
It is intended that all student religious groups not sponsored by the university or by an outside denomination fall under this category of "recognized" groups. In particular, while ASPLU and RHA have established roles within the organizational structure of the university, their religious activities and programs are subject to the same expectations as those of other groups, and a plan of action should be submitted to the Council as would the projected activities of any religious club. Recognized clubs will be provided use of campus media and access to meeting space, and may apply to ASPLU for funds. (A current list of recognized religious clubs will be supplied to the scheduling office.) Recognition is subject to annual review and renewal by the Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: CMC
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:30:28 -0700
From: Glenn VanWyhe
As you know, I was out of town last week (and was very busy preparing for that the week before). It appears I have missed a deadline that I did not know about (I did not have internet access in my hotel room—and probably could not have afforded it if I did). I got home about 11 p.m. last night and have been desperately trying to cover some bases today. I have just had a chance to read the e-mails sent during my absence. It is almost 9:30 p.m. now, and I do not think I can compose a high quality response tonight, but I do have some things I would like to say. I will certainly try to write them tomorrow, but I teach from 9:55-11:40, 1:45-3:30, and 5:30-7:20 and have some office hours tomorrow, so I may not get to it until Wednesday. I apologize for the inconvenience. I think we should hold open the possibility that Thursday may not be our last meeting, and that we should not (in view of some differences of opinion) try to ram everything through then. While deadlines are a valuable spur to action, inflexible deadlines can often do more harm than good. I will do my best to meet my responsibilities as soon as possible.
Glenn Van Wyhe
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: CMC
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:38:09 -0700
From: Keith Cooper
I agree with Glenn that (while we should try to be efficient with our discussion, not worry about solving every deep issue that confronts us, and focus on the particulars at hand) we should not insist on being done
on the 27th.
- Keith Cooper
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Campus Ministry
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 23:29:54 -0700
From: Glenn VanWyhe
Dear Friends:
The task that we are embarked upon is a thing of great importance. All things that we do in this world are of immeasurable significance to our eternal souls and the souls of those who surround us and are affected by us. We must recognize that. And this task especially is momentous because we are dealing with the heart of this university, its center, its middle name. We may, in these deliberations, have much to do with the future prosperity or decline of this institution, with God's blessing or curse upon it. Surely we must take care in our actions.
It is a time to be honest. As Bob Dylan said, "Let us not speak falsely now…for the hour is getting late." As Patricia said, "I think each of us would do well to articulate the assumptions from which we are working." Straight and strong words are necessary to this task.
I confess that there is much that is distressing to me about the messages that have been sent back and forth. Let me try to express as clearly as I can the sources of my distress.
Keith laid out many matters extremely well, delightfully well, but there are even in his remarks disturbing things. He suggests a couple of times that perhaps the "nature, uniqueness, or authority of Jesus Christ, and the role of a personal faith commitment in one's salvation" might not be relevant to our task. I cannot imagine how that issue could not be central to the task of defining campus ministry at a Lutheran university. For that reason, and for the sake of every soul on this task force, the issue must be addressed, not in a dismissive way but with utmost earnestness.
There appears to be an avoidance of the central fact of Christianity that faith in Christ is essential to eternal salvation. There appears to be some misunderstanding of that fact-though whether such misunderstanding is deliberate or from ignorance I cannot judge. It is astounding that it is questioned at all. This central fact of Christianity is not something that only some Christians believe and others do not; it is not a mere matter of opinion. It is essential. The New Testament Scriptures (the source of all Christianity, including Lutheranism) is not at all unclear on this. It is surely unnecessary to point out all the multitude of places where this is the case, but let me at least point out one that has been treasured by Christians throughout the ages. John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." The apostle does not say, "whoever believes in Him or does not believe in Him, as he or she pleases." If there is honestly any question about whether the New Testament throughout is at all unclear about the centrality of faith in Christ, I would be glad to do a study of the Scriptures with anyone who has been unable to see this.
Luther certainly based (or at least tried to base) his entire belief system upon the Scriptures. That is the reason for his tenet of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone-as opposed to tradition or other sources of "truth"). Luther also recognized the centrality of faith to salvation. That is the reason for his tenet of sola fide (faith alone). Nor was that a formless or contentless faith, a "faith" in "whatever." That is the reason for his tenet of sola Christus (Christ alone). Only, only, only through faith in Christ as taught in the Scriptures is salvation possible. All of this defines God's grace, Luther's tenet of sola gratia (grace alone). "These four solas are like the petals of the Lutheran rose radiating out affirming forgiveness of sins by God's grace alone as recorded in the Scriptures alone and embraced in faith alone, which trusts in Christ alone." (Simmons, p. 26) Nor do I think that there is really anything ambiguous about the quote from Luther that Evan found for us. Luther's credo is clear:
"I believe that no one can believe in the Father or come to the Father [that is, be saved] by his own learning, works, or reason, nor by anything that can be named in Heaven or on earth [that is, by anything else at all], save only in and through Jesus Christ, His only Son-that is, through faith in His Name and lordship."
This statement is so clear that it is hard to understand anyone who suggests that there is some ambiguity about it. Nor is this the only statement of this type that Luther made, and I would be glad to do a study of Luther's works with anyone who has been unable to see this.
Is it perhaps the case that "Lutheranism" has abandoned Luther? Is Lutheranism opposed to Luther's central belief? Why then would it dare call itself Lutheranism? But Lutheranism historically is not opposed to Luther. Lutherans have made many strong and clear statements that are in accord with the Scriptures and with Luther. As Simmons points out (p. 29),
"the confessions of the church are fundamental to the identity and self-understanding of the church and her colleges. The Lutheran church sees itself in the Orthodox Christian tradition and affirms the central creeds of the church, including the Athanasian, Nicene, and Apostle's creeds. In addition, Lutherans give allegiance to the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, and the Formula of Concord."
I would be glad to study these creeds with anyone who thinks that faith in Christ is not central to historic Christianity and historic Lutheranism.
In the light of these facts, why are there e-mails circulating that appear to deny that faith in Christ is central to Christianity and Lutheranism? Patricia says:
"…the integrity of the world must be respected. This pushes Lutherans to be asking questions of meaning about everything, not drawing lines in the sand by establishing absolute or essentialist definitions of who is a Christian, who is saved, or anything else [emphasis mine]. There is a quality of paradox to the Lutheran understanding of the gospel and God's presence in the world that requires Lutherans to live with ambiguity, even to embrace it."
I see a great deal of existentialism in these statements, but nothing of Lutheranism. There is nothing of this running from definition or "embracing" ambiguity to be found in the driving efforts to clearly express their faith made by Luther and the writers of the creeds. They recognized their limitations, surely, but they did not for that reason avoid the effort to try to define things clearly. Echoing Patricia, Lindsay says:
"I also strongly believe that we can never fully understand God as Patricia wrote Lutheranism states. We must stay far away from drawing lines of inclusion and exclusion that may hinder someone's faith journey and how they will respond to God working in their life." In another place she worries about making "black and white distinctions between what is Christian and non-Christian."
First, the fact that I can never fully understand God does not logically lead to the conclusion that I should make no effort to understand Him at all. I will never fully understand my wife, but I should not therefor make no attempt to understand her. The fact is that God has helped us to understand Him through Christ, and it would be an act of despite against God to ignore that. Secondly, this effort to avoid definition is frustrating. Without "lines of inclusion and exclusion" no one would have any motivation to change, to move from outside to inside, to "repent and believe" as Christ put it. Without "lines of inclusion and exclusion" everyone could remain as they are, completely self-satisfied and "comfortable"-as self-righteous as the Pharisees. They would not even seek the grace of forgiveness of sins. Such an attitude is counter to Lutheranism and to Christ. Jesus was "inclusive" (as Lindsay likes to put it) regardless of any external characteristic of a person-but only of those who repented of their sins. He was not at all inclusive toward those who felt no need to repent of their sins, such as the Pharisees. Let us make no effort to "include" those who Jesus refused to include.
Keith rightly cautions about the "cloudy" doctrinal position that Lindsay advances, but I fear that the Son has not completely shone through his statements either. In particular, I refer to this statement:
"I am not saying that it is clear, yet alone obvious, how far God's grace extends beyond the boundaries of the visible Church. I would just rather put the emphasis on the objective work of Christ and not the subjective appropriation of that-not that there has been unanimity about that, either, within the Church. If we are looking for a proof text from Luther about the ultimate fate of non-Christians, we could try pp. 243-244 of Kerr's Compend: it is not sinful to pray for the dead, Luther says, since we do not know of anyone who has died '…that he has his final sentence…[N]o one knows, whether final judgment has been passed upon these souls.' "
It is not acceptable to argue from what is not known in order to throw doubt upon what is known. We know that the Christian (including Lutheran) position is that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. It is possible, as Luther suggests and as I Corinthians 15:29 and I Peter 3:18-20 also suggest, that people who have died without faith in Christ may have a second chance (or even a third, fourth, fifth, etc.). If this is true, then it must still be true that this opportunity will only be successful if they believe in Christ when presented with the message of the gospel. They must recognize Him as true Son of God, as Lord and Savior. If they refuse to recognize Him and cling instead to the sins that oppose Him, they will surely be left in their sins (and the consequences of their sins) as they have chosen.
What I am trying to do is overcome the misunderstanding about the essential nature of faith in Christ. Patricia says "Lutheran Christianity (as well as other forms of Christianity, e.g. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Episcopalian) does not make a personal saving experience of Jesus a requirement for salvation." While there are ways in which this statement is correct, I fear that the implication is that faith in Christ is not necessary for Christians. Such an implication is completely incorrect. Roman Catholics are so cognizant of the essential nature of faith for salvation that they speak of the infusion of faith in baptism (the sacrament of salvation). Likewise, the historic creeds of the Anglican and Episcopal traditions are in accord with Orthodox Christianity. While I know little about Eastern Orthodoxy, I am confident that they do not deviate from the essential belief either, and would be glad to study that matter with someone who doubts that.
Since faith in Christ is essential for salvation, according to Christianity (including Lutheranism), that fact must be considered in our deliberations on the nature of Campus Ministry. If we care about the eternal salvation of people (and surely none of us is careless about such a matter), then our desire must be for all people to come to faith in Christ. That desire for their salvation is the highest expression of love for them, and it would be utterly unloving and hateful to ignore their eternal welfare and leave them lost and hopeless in their sins. That, of course, is the ultimate example of Christ Himself. If our hope is that all people will come to faith in Christ, then that hope will certainly express itself in the way we organize Campus Ministry. While faith in Christ cannot be forced, certainly, and therefore no effort to force it should be made, reasonable efforts toward persuasion can and should be made.
It is almost 11:30 at night and I have still not discussed the three levels. I will try to get to those tomorrow.
May God bless you,
Glenn Van Wyhe
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: CMC
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:15:18 -0700
From: Glenn VanWyhe
Dear Friends:
Here, as promised, are some thoughts on the three levels. I will express my preferences and the reasons for those preferences.
First Choice
My first preference is to eliminate levels two and three entirely and to thus limit the responsibility and authority of Campus Ministry to Lutheran worship only. All other student organizations would come under other umbrellas, such as SIL.
My reason for this preference has much to do with the fact that there is such immense resistance to defining the authority of Campus Ministry. An undefined authority is an unrestricted authority, and such limitless and arbitrary power is a fearsome thing to any lover of liberty-whether of Christian liberty or of academic freedom or of any other liberty. I do love liberty, and I fear the danger of undefined power. I cannot be comforted, because even in our discussions I have seen alarming tendencies toward a kind of liberal Lutheran legalism, and an unquestioning attitude that such a legalism should be imposed on others. In an earlier discussion, for example, there was a condemnation of a religious leader guiding students on dating practices. Now, I would oppose anyone who says that dating practices should take account of superficial things like race, but I would strongly support anyone who says that dating practices should take account of those attitudes which are (or should be) central to character; I tell my sons and would tell anyone that a Christian should not date someone who is not a Christian. Would my attitude be condemned by the arbitrary power of a CMC of the future? Who can tell, since there is nothing limiting that power?
In an earlier discussion, there was a condemnation of a religious leader who taught students that their commitment to Christ must take precedence over everything else, including studies. Now, I would oppose anyone who says that a person should ignore his proper responsibilities, such as that an enrolled student should ignore his studies. But I would strongly support anyone who says that no other responsibilities should cause us to neglect our responsibilities to God. Would my attitude be condemned by the arbitrary power of a CMC of the future? Who can tell, since there is nothing limiting that power?
In an otherwise excellently crafted effort to rewrite the bylaws, Keith says that the CMC "retains the right to restrict and/or prohibit those religious groups whose activities originate outside the university, conflict with the educational objectives of the university, or violate established university policies or procedures (for example, active proselytizing on campus, excessive use of bulletin boards, or the excessive influence of off-campus organizations)." Here, even this partial list of condemned activities strikes fear into my heart. What on earth is wrong with active proselytizing? I would invite every group, Christian and non-Christian and even recreational, to make the fullest possible efforts to persuade others of the goodness of what they are doing. I recommend efforts to persuade, and discussions and debates (and even plain-out arguments) among students. Why, especially in an academic environment, would we want to discourage such debate? Has terminal "niceness" (timidity) completely overtaken us? Jesus told us to go out and make disciples, and I believe we should do just that. Would my attitude be condemned by the arbitrary power of a CMC of the future? Who can tell, since there is nothing limiting that power?
And what is "excessive influence of off-campus organizations." If students belong to a congregation off-campus, they should be submissive to older and wiser people in that congregation. The arrogance of the young is not a Christian attribute (see I Peter 5:5). Certainly there are dangers, as when such leaders become dictatorial. But there is also a danger that the CMC will become dictatorial as well, and that is at least as great a concern. What is "excessive influence" of off-campus organizations, and what is "excessive influence" of on-campus individuals?
Let me be completely frank. I fear that apostasy is growing, and if not defended against may engulf PLU and sink her. I am sure you are aware that among the "intellectual elites" historic Christianity is despised, and that there are mindless followers of such misleading even here at PLU. Those who actually believe the ancient Apostle's Creed are ridiculed. They are sneeringly called "Fundamentalists" because they actually believe the statements of the Creed regarding virgin birth, resurrection, the return of Christ to judge the living and the dead, etc. There are even so-called "intellectuals" who deceitfully say that this type of belief is new and not really historic Christianity-as though the Apostle's Creed was not really believed by anyone until these "fundamentalists" came along. The zeitgeist (Spirit of the Age) is opposed to Christianity, and there are many weak-minded people who are being swept along with the current. Those not strong enough to stand solid against the tide exist even at PLU, and often have a great interest in "religion" for the purpose of undermining Christianity. I fear that they may someday comprise a majority of the CMC, and that their legalisms may prevail. I am a conservative Christian (that is, I desire to conserve the truths of historic Christianity). Will a future CMC say that such "fundamentalist" beliefs are unacceptable? Will a future CMC condemn (as inadequately "diverse" or "inclusive") any group that says that you must believe in Christ to be saved? Would my attitude be condemned by the arbitrary power of a CMC of the future? Who can tell, since there is nothing limiting that power?
Because there is a refusal to define things clearly (as in a clear set of written policies) and because I have a great concern for freedom, I must prefer that the CMC not be in a position to impose arbitrary "religious" legalisms on other religious organizations.
Second Choice
Some have said that in a Lutheran university it seems appropriate to have all religious organizations "under" the CMC. It seems to me that such an attitude might actually be especially NOT appropriate to a Lutheran university. Patricia said that "in Lutheran understanding it is not the task of Christians to bring all the rest of the world, its activities and academic disciplines and institutions under the subjection of God's sovereignty. The impulse to do that is Calvinist or Reformed." If she is correct (and I am not conceding that), then she at least should be opposed to an overarching CMC trying to bring all religious things under its sovereignty. Why, under such a view, should the CMC have its fingers in all religious goings-on?
But perhaps we disagree with that, and do believe that the CMC should have oversight over all religious things-to make sure, I suppose, that no improper religious things are taking place. If that is the case, then we had better go about defining proper and improper religious things. If we wish to avoid that (or at least minimize it), then we can simply define "Christian" as proper. That would mean that we would have a level two dealing with Christian organizations. I think that should be a collapsing of the present levels two and three into a level two which deals with "recognized" groups. The initiation for forming a new on-campus group should come from students, not from the CMC. If that group wants an off-campus leader to help them in providing leadership, that desire should be honored unless there are extreme reasons for rejecting such an off-campus leader. But because my definition of extreme might not be the definition of extreme that prevails in a future CMC, I think an appeals process should be instituted to guard against an arbitrary decision by the CMC. Any rejection by the CMC should be publicly broadcast, through e-mail to all students and publication in the Mast, etc. All Christian organizations should be invited to publicly respond to the decision by the CMC, and any response by individuals should be accepted. There should be an all-campus debate on the rejection, to make sure that all positions are aired. There should be an ability to appeal to a higher authority than the CMC.
Again, the second level should be restricted only to Christian organizations that are especially concerned with all the issues of worship, prayer, study, and service. That is because, at a Lutheran university, there should be a special recognition of those organizations which present the essential Christian truth that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. My reasons for this statement have been presented in my previous e-mail.
So my second preference (definitely not my first preference) is that there be two levels: the first level being the official Lutheran level, and the second being the other Christian level.
Third Choice
There is a very distant third choice. There are some who are determined that the CMC must have oversight over absolutely all things "religious"-again, apparently to make sure that no improper religious things are taking place. A very great deal of work is necessary to define what is proper and improper here. Something like the following statement must be made with regard to a third level including non-Christian groups or Christian groups not concerned with all the issues of worship, prayer, study, and service.
"The CMC in no way endorses or approves of the groups in this level, but merely acknowledges that they exist and that they are concerned with religious matters. In a Lutheran university, it is necessary for some oversight of all religious matters to take place. While Lutheran tradition recognizes that salvation comes only through Christ, it also recognizes that not all people have yet come to a recognition of that truth and so it encourages the honest search for truth. On the other hand, there are certain variants of religion that the CMC must oppose. There shall be active discouragement of idolatry, witchcraft, sorcery, magic, astrology, human or animal sacrifice, licentiousness, and other such outrageous religious practices."
Note that in this third level, groups would not be "recognized" but "acknowledged."
Again, I see no real reason for having this third level under the CMC. These organizations have nothing to do with Christian ministry-and thus the word ministry is highly misleading to anyone coming from a Christian environment (and that is a great many of our students). For that reason, if we want this third level, I think it would be appropriate to change the name of the CMC to the "Religious Activities Council." Such a renaming will avoid unnecessary confusion. Some have suggested that students' confusion is not an important factor. That is an odd sentiment in an academic institution. Imagine running a class by advocating confusion, refusing to make any efforts to relieve that confusion, and caring not one whit whether the student remains confused at the end of the class. I prefer to try to avoid confusion when possible, especially in an academic environment. I prefer to be careful with the use of words, so that clear communication occurs. I prefer to use words not in just any arbitrary way I please, but with the goal of serving my listener and aiding understanding.
Conclusion
Clearly there are issues here which must be debated before we try to craft the exact wording of a set of revised bylaws. I doubt if that entire debate and the crafting of the bylaws can all happen in a one-hour meeting tomorrow. Let us take the time to do this right.
In Christ,
Glenn Van Wyhe
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Thursday meeting
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:51:26 -0700
From: Cindy Messler
Hi everyone,
This is just a reminder that our final meeting is coming up this Thursday at 8:00 a.m. This time it will be in the Washington room in the UC. So if you have anything to say through email first go ahead and get that out now. Particularly if you have a proposed revision of the constitution in written out form like Keith did, that needs to be sent out before we meet. I look forward to seeing you
all then.
Peace,
Cindy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Thursday meeting
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:08:23 -0700
From: Dennis Sepper
Dear Friends,
Well, so much to say and so late to say it. I apologize for this late entry, but pastoral concerns on campus have kept Nancy and I extremely busy this week. Two students lost brothers in Auto accidents over the Easter holiday. A student was hit by a car and seriously injured. A retired professor died and another retired staff has had serious surgery. So, this may be a little too late, but I offer it on behalf of Nancy and myself. I include a little history in terms of Nancy and I coming to PLU and then make a few comments on other issues, some old, some current.
When Nancy and I interviewed here for the position of University Pastor, the call committee (comprised of students, faculty, staff and President Anderson) were unanimous in their desire that the new campus pastors work hard for better cooperation between the religious clubs on campus. Prior to our coming here, there were stories (obviously we weren't here, so this is all second hand) that Christian ministries would not enter into dialog with each other, that some would encourage their participants not to be involved with other ministries on campus, that certain professors should be avoided, and that scheduling conflicts were not to be worried about. Whether these observations were true or not, I don't know, but that was the common impression at that time five years ago.
Rooted in our (meaning mine and Nancy's) faith and belief that even though we may disagree on theological issues, religious groups should be in dialog with each other, should show common courtesy to each other and, especially in terms of Christian ministries, should show a degree of respect and unity to each other, Nancy and I brought the leaders of the religious groups together to talk about these issues and more. We have done that with varying degrees of success in each of the five years we have been here. Busy schedules, many activities, and other pressing matters have made this a challenge, but we are committed and dedicated to showing a Christian unity rooted in hospitality, respect and open dialog.
To that end, we believe not only should the Christian ministries go under the umbrella of Campus Ministry, but that the role of the Campus Ministry Council should be expanded to assist in attaining the goals mentioned above. Let me explain further:
We could certainly achieve many of the goals above if all groups were under SIL. However, we believe it is a strong sign and symbol that the religious groups are united under the banner of Campus Ministry. It is a statement that the religious aspect of PLU is alive and well and an important part of the PLU community, deserving of a unique position. Now, there is a precedent for that in us. The Campus Pastors could logically report to/come under Student Life. However, we report directly to the President to signify the importance of religious life to the PLU education experience. By separating out the religious groups from SIL, we are saying they are not like the chess club or the ski club or even like the ethnic or racial clubs on campus. If unity and religious dialog are still important to us, then the religious groups should go under the Campus Ministry Council.
Since this is an opportunity for the Campus Ministry Council to be reshaped, I would even dream some dreams. (This is totally beyond the charge and scope of this task force, but bear with me for a short digression). Maybe the Campus Ministry Council could meet once a month and discuss the unity and calendar issues. Maybe they could be the ones who bring the ministries together once a semester so that leaders get to know one another and the concerns and prayer requests of the groups could be aired. Maybe they could even be proactive in some religious programming around the issue of how our faith gets lived out in daily life (in our careers, in our vocations). That would be very Lutheran and very profitable for the greater community. This way the CMC would be more than a rubber stamp or a stop gate for religious groups but have a greater and deeper purpose. Just some random thoughts but ones we believe are worth talking about (not at our last meeting because we have enough to do, but down the road).
A couple of comments about Glenn's email. I am sure that no one around our task force table denies the salvific nature of Jesus death and resurrection. How that salvation is appropriated, I think we do disagree on. For Lutherans, a simple motto is "God does everything we do nothing." Even our faith is a gift from God (see Luther’s explanation to the third article of the Apostles’ Creed where he begins, "I believe that by my own understanding or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to him, but instead the Holy Spirit has called me through the gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, made me holy, and kept me in the truth faith.")
Since I can do nothing but receive the gift of salvation, I am humbled before God and must admit that I do not have a corner on the truth, though I know I am in the ballpark as we have noted by such phrases as "basic Christian beliefs" or "as broadly defined" or some of the other phrases we have used. As a Lutheran, the fact that we might disagree on how Christ’s salvific act is appropriated is an opportunity to continue my search for the truth and to nurture this gift of faith God has given me.
Next, I think everyone around our table would agree that faith is good and necessary to the Christian life. But what is faith? Is it intellectual assent to certain doctrinal statements? Yes, for some Christians. Is it agreement to certain interpretations of Scripture and Jesus? Yes, for some Christians. For Lutherans faith is a deep trust in the promises of the living God. If you will, for Lutherans faith is a verb (something we live) not a noun (something we believe). Because of that our theology and faith are a bit existential. Heck, Soren Kierkegaard, the so-called "father of existentialism" was a Lutheran. Faith as a verb, not as a noun. I think this is consistent with Luther’s writings in their greater context.
Also, there is no doubt that Scripture "are the written Word of God. Inspired by God’s Spirit speaking through their authors, they record and announce God’s revelation centering in Jesus Christ. Through them God’s Spirit speaks to us to create and sustain Christian faith and fellowship for service in the world." (ELCA Constitution). BUT if you read Luther further, you will find that while Scripture is the Word of God it is not the only Word God speaks. For Luther the Word comes to us through preaching, teaching and through the risen and living Jesus. What I am saying is that "Scripture alone" has to be put into context and when you do that, it is clear Luther sees the Word coming in other ways in addition to the Bible. Including our debates and deliberations as Ernie Simmon points out in the last paragraph on page 29, going on to page 30.
While you are on page 29…Glenn quoted Ernie in the second paragraph under "Confessional Heritage" citing Lutheran standing in the Orthodox Christian tradition, but failed to finish the paragraph where it states that even though we affirm the historic creeds they are not ends in and of themselves but "These statements provide both believers and scholars with useful paradigms for inquiry and self-understanding. In Lutheran fashion, such statements are human creations and subject to revision on the basis of yet new understandings of the truth."
While you are on page 29, go back to page 28 and read the section under "Simultaneously Saint and Sinner" We Lutherans are a paradox loving lot. We do not look for quick answers to complex questions. We do have penchant for "on the one hand, but on the other hand" types of argument. It is the way we do theology and the way we nurture the gift of faith God has given us.
The time is getting late for me as I have a houseful of students coming over for dinner. So this section is not well argued. It is simply my thoughts on paper before we meet: I think the larger question with the levels is "what are we going to do with non-Christian groups?" Dave and I have had conversations about this and we are not in agreement. My thought is that non-Christian religious groups should come under the governance of the Campus Ministry Council and the Campus Ministry Office. One reason is simply so that the same rules apply to them as to Christian groups (non-proselytizing, in accord with University Policy, etc).
My second reason is pastoral. I am called to serve the religious life of all the members of the University community, Christian and non-Christian. They are all children of God who need to be affirmed as that. How do we relate to non-Christians? Paul wrestles with that in Romans 9 in regards to the Jews. Luther wrestled with that in regards to the Jews and the Turks.
I have no problem confessing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and yet associating with Jews and somehow feeling that they have a connection to God too. The same with Muslims and Buddhists (sorry I don’t know any Hindus). Does that compromise my faith? I don’t think so. My total allegiance is to following the living Jesus. I’ve devoted my life to it. MY worldview is based on it. I pray that all people might come to knowledge of the love of Christ Jesus. Hearing about other faith perspective doesn’t make me less a Christian. (again, because it doesn’t depend on ME, it depends on God).
Now, having said that, as I have contemplated things, I still advocate a fourth level for non-Christian groups that would not be sponsored, endorsed, or recognized but, perhaps, designated as "Adjunct Religious Groups" According to Webster, adjunct means: "something joined or added to another thing but no essentially a part of it." It is an academic term isn’t it? Used in regard to some professors?
To me that says that the Campus Ministry Council and the Campus Ministry Office are essentially Christian with the proclamation of Christ in word and deed and service central to what they are and do. Their work and efforts (be that programming or advocacy or whatever) will be Christian in nature. However, in our glowingly diverse world and campus, we see the need and value of some non-Christian groups organizing themselves into religious clubs.
Would that make the non-Christian clubs "second citizens"? I guess some might say so, but if one values the term "adjunct professor", one could argue for the value of "adjunct religious group." As in many of these matters, it might be well to ask a non-Christian group what they think, but alas time isn’t going to let that happen tonight for me.
Also, what about a non-Christian group like Wiccan? I would leave it to the Campus Ministry Council to determine if a group is legitimate or not. I trust that in prayer, through the Holy Spirit they would be able to discern a cult or a harmful group. I also remind you all that we have the right to say "no" to a group that desires to come on campus. They are guests, they do not have a "right" to be here.
Well, I see I am on page 4 and getting long, so I will close. Again these are thoughts that are presented for discussion, nothing more. My prayer is that they will contribute something to our deliberations.
God’s peace for a restful night
Dennis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: More CMC stuff
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 23:16:37 -0700
From: Keith Cooper
I realize that it is unlikely anyone will read this before our April 27 meeting, since it has taken me three hours to write it. Oh well, perhaps it will help me be better prepared. (Then again, we might not be done with our task Tuesday morning!)
I thought Glenn had several excellent points (which I will put my own way, perhaps wandering off from his precise point):
Limitless and arbitrary authority on the part of the Campus Ministry Council would be a very unfortunate thing.
Efforts to persuade others of the goodness of one's position, thus engaging in vigorous discussion and debate, are a good thing, and a relativistic pluralism for the sake of being nice is a dangerous position to hold.
A student religious group that held to the view that an individual must make a personal faith commitment to Christ in order to be saved (even one with particular emotional or psychological overtones) must not be denied recognition by the CMC on that account alone.
Those on this campus espousing traditional or orthodox Christian doctrines are frequently labeled, and dismissed, as "fundamentalists" in a way that ignores crucially important nuances.
Some sort of check-and-balance on (or appeal of) decisions of the CMC about student religious groups is needed. Public notice of rejection, sanction, etc., and providing the opportunity for campus comment make sense.
Naturally, there are other things he said that I found less compelling. [a] I am not as worried as he, for example, about vague or general phraseology leading to unbridled power. We seem to manage quite well around here without precise guidelines. [b] Patricia's comments about groups that dictate dating practices and tell their members what to major in, or how much time to spend on their studies, seemed to me directed to the need for accountability, for ongoing dialogue on what this place is about as an educational institution, rather than intended to suggest that such a group might be banned from campus or have its application as a religious club rejected. I don't see arbitrary or unlimited power here. (If push comes to shove, however, I do think that Christians presuming to know a detailed blueprint for how others should live out their faith should be told that this stance can adversely affect the educational program and growth of students, and that overly aggressive efforts in that direction need to be curtailed. They also should be assisted to learn that this is not the only way to live a committed Christian life, or to interpret the Bible.)
[c] The notion that a growing apostasy may engulf PLU and sink it does not strike me as fitting well with the notion of a Lutheran university, which, as an educational institution and not a church (or confessing body), is not charged with the tasks of preserving orthodoxy, guarding against heresy, or converting unbelievers. [d] A related point: having the CMC "recognize" student religious groups, and require from them some accountability and attention to fit with PLU's educational mission, does not seem to be an attempt to mold those groups to some common orthodoxy, or to have fingers in all religious pies in an objectionable way. In another sense, of course, it is exactly to say that all religious activities have a central organizational point of contact, but I don't see the threat of doctrinal (or praxis) control. [e] My understanding is that the current prohibition of "active proselytizing" has been able to distinguish that activity from the healthy and vigorous debate of controversial issues. Perhaps Laura can better help us understand how this issue is presently handled. In any event, in my draft wording I was
simply running with the status quo; I don't think this group is in a position to explore and rethink this issue.
[f] For reasons that Dennis has articulated in his message, I find no incoherence in the notion of a Campus Ministry Council (whatever its name) exercising some oversight and coordination of all student religious groups, Christian or otherwise. I tried to make clear in my wording of Level III that no approval was intended, save that the groups were seen as not being inappropriate in a university setting. [g] As a related point, there is a clear and obvious difference between not striving to eliminate every possibility of confusion among students, on the one hand, and advocating such confusion or showing no concern for its existence, on the other. Yes, the current constitution and bylaws is opaque in certain respects, and badly needs reworking; but it is hardly the fault of that document that students (or others) who misunderstand the nature, mission, and purpose of a Lutheran university could then think that there is an internal conflict in saying that non-Christian groups could be operating in a way consistent with the university's mission. I would be glad to help lessen that confusion, and I think my wording does just that, but I don't see the possibility of persistent confusion as a sufficient reason to segregate Christian and non-Christian groups, or to put some or all religious groups under SIL.
----------
As a sidebar, a couple comments about the theological discussion that has been occurring in these messages. [1] Concerning my "prooftext" from Luther: it is certainly possible that his agnosticism about the ultimate destiny of those who had died was due, not to a sense that the sovereign and gracious God might pursue souls beyond death, but because none of us can know a person's heart -- whether he or she truly had saving personal faith in Christ. I had read it in the former way (another passage on p 243 of Kerr saying, "God has not permitted us to know, how it is with the souls of the departed and we must continue uninformed, as to how he deals with them"), but I might have been mistaken. In any case, I still resonate to the words of C. S. Lewis that I first read in high school: "The door to hell is locked on the inside." I am not so confident that I know exactly how God works that out, and I find it easy to suppose that those who have not made a conscious personal faith commitment to Jesus Christ find eternal life with God. (You know the drill: unbaptized infants; baptized infants and toddlers; those who lived before Abraham; Abraham; those who have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel; the severely and profoundly retarded -- the fact that discussion about this has persisted within the Church suggests to me that there is no single orthodox position.)
[2] I continue to see a crucial distinction between saying that salvation comes only through Christ, and that faith is Christ is necessary for salvation. They are not the same. (Not to mention the meta-claim that it is an essential Christian doctrine that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.) I see great value in focusing on the objective work of God in Christ, rather on our subjective response, and I see the potential for great danger in reading "personal faith in Christ" in a particular and culturally shaped way.
[3] I am not sure what to make of the last major paragraph of Glenn's first e-mail (4/25), about caring for the eternal salvation of people and the organization of student religious groups. While I am happy to let Dennis and Nancy figure out how best to make "reasonable efforts toward persuasion" of non-Christians in their role as Lutheran campus pastors, I worry that Glenn is conflating the role of Christians as members of the body of Christ, the Church, and their role in organizing and running a university. It is not the case that my desire for people to come to faith in Christ guides, in any direct way, my design of philosophy courses or my work with students on their senior theses. It would not control my talking with an advisee about a personal problem. I don't see that as a deficiency in my walk with God; others may, but I would submit that it is not obvious that they are correct. On a different level, of course I hope that my faith orientation guides and informs all of my actions, and that God uses them to further God's kingdom; but in that more general sense of things, I don't see any obvious or direct lesson for deciding how student religious groups are organized on the PLU campus.
---------
Now back to the question of levels. Glenn and Dennis both find workable a structure in which Christian student groups are gathered under one rubric and non-Christian groups under another. I don't think I have a problem with that; my attempt at wording for the bylaws was an effort to make the current structure clearer and better, given that I continue to find it workable and, in particular, do not think that it suffers from any internal contradictions or incoherence. If people want four levels, I can live with that, and I thought the e-mails contained some good ideas for how to word the description for the level of Christian student groups. But I also think that we could have such cooperation among Christian groups without a distinction in levels.
- Keith Cooper
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: FWD: RE: Update
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:02:45 -0700
From: Evan Thomas
To: Glenn VanWyhe and Dave Urban
this was sent to me this morning, thursday, at 7:45. i wasn't sure if
everyone else recieved a copy of it or not. thought you guys would be
interested. keep pressing on... et
>===== Original Message From Patricia Killen =====
Hi Evan and the rest,
I am sorry to be so slow to respond to messages and am aware that I am too late for my input to inform people before our conversations today. A combination of class, committee, and conference responsibilities has put me behind.
Evan, I want to encourage you to keep reading about Luther, but to do so other than in compendiums of his thought. Luther's position on reading any text is to put the word into its phrase, the phrase into its sentence, the sentence into the chapter and the chapter into the whole book. In other words, meaning rests partly in context. One cannot take a single passage or statement from Luther out of its context and assume to understand its meaning.
With that said, I don't think there is any doubt that Luther understood faith to come through Jesus. What I want to accent in the passage from Luther that you quote is something you seem not to notice, the part about no one believing in the Father or coming to the Father "by his own learning, works or reason, nor by anything that can be named in heaven or on earth. . ." As I read Luther, this means that not even a person's act of confessing Jesus as Lord, is something that person can do short of receiving the gift of faith. One thing that bothers me as an historian, theologian, and person of faith, about the way you are presenting Luther is that you seem to be pushing that every person must assent to a statement as an act of will that Luther understood comes only as a result of the gift of faith. That is a major distinction, perhaps the greatest distinction between Luther and Calvin and hence between Lutherans and the kind of Reformed heritage Christian theology that you want to make normative for PLU. And that is why I resist your effort. It violates Luther's understanding of how all is gift.
With regard to your reference to John 14:6, again Luther's approach does not allow one to take a passage out of context. As an historian I would side with those who would say that Jesus did not say those words. Your reasons for saying he did are not logical. Whether Jesus actually said them or not, however, is not the saliant issue for the committee's work. The gospels are accepted as authoritative and true, not based on their being some kind of documentary report, but based on their presentation of the good news of what God has done for us in Jesus. The question about that passage pertinent for us is, what do those words mean for disciples of Jesus today? Notice that I said, "disciples of Jesus." The last supper discourses in John are addressed to a community of people who already have received the gift of faith. It is crucial, I think, to remember that.
As for Acts 4:12, this comes in a dramatic scene where Peter and John are hauled up before the elders in Jerusalem for preaching about Jesus. The verse comes in Peter's Spirit-filled presentation of the early kerygma or message about Jesus. In verse 11, Peter refers to Jesus with reference to a passage from the Hebrew Bible, "the stone that ywas rejected by you, the builders; it has become the cornerstone." This discourse is part of the way Acts seeks to show that Jesus is the messiah, the expected one of the Jews. What we now have as verse 12 is Peter's application of the Hebrew Bible passage to Jesus. It is a theological statement, a claim about Jesus, one that Christians have accepted. Notice, however, that the verse talks about Jesus as the one through whom salvation comes. It does not say HOW we connect with that salvation and it certainly suggests nothing to imply that we access it through some act of our own. Salvation comes as a gift.
So, Evan, I encourage you to consider a couple things: a) you can't assume that when you read a verse in Scripture the meaning you see is the meaning that verse had for the writer or for the generations of readers who have followed and are our ancestors in faith. The meaning of any passage of Scripture is part of a larger context that we need to try to understand to understand how that passage is revelatory; and, b) to understand Luther better, go to Luther's works themselves and to a good biography of Luther such as Bainton's or Froede's. As for a selected edition or presentation of the main themes of his thought, Timothy Lull's recent book is very fine.
I'd enjoy talking with you about these issues, if you would like and have some time before the semester runs out.
Patricia O'Connell Killen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Last Meeting
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 11:59:48 -0700
From: Cindy Messler
Hi everyone,
Thanks everyone for your hard work this semester. We are almost done! Just wanted to let you all know that arrangements have been made for our final meeting next Thursday at 7:30 a.m. It will be in UC 208 and there will be lots of coffee waiting for us! See you then.
Peace,
Cindy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: CMC
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 17:16:51 -0700
From: Glenn VanWyhe
It was a productive meeting Thursday morning, I thought. I wanted to get some additional thoughts out as soon as possible in order to allow the maximum amount of time for discussion before our next meeting, and this is absolutely the soonest I could get to it.
I got the message at the last meeting (and from meetings and messages preceding it) that the majority of the task force thinks that campus ministry should be responsible for more than just matters of level 1 (Lutheran worship, essentially). I, as you know, have expressed some grave reservations about that. I have worried about limitless and arbitrary authority being granted to the CMC, and Keith has agreed that such a thing would be "a very unfortunate thing." Nevertheless, he takes a fairly sanguine view toward its possibility. He says: "I am not as worried as he, for example, about vague or general phraseology leading to unbridled power. We seem to manage quite well around here without precise guidelines." Please note that the "we" in that statement are the winners, the ones who presently control things and are quite comfortable in that position. Others who have in the past been forced from the campus might not be quite so satisfied with imprecise guidelines that can be used as "we" please.
I confess that Keith's statement in the very same paragraph makes me nervous. He says: "If push comes to shove, however, I do think that Christians presuming to know a detailed blueprint for how others should live out their faith should be told that this stance can adversely affect the educational program and growth of students, and that overly aggressive efforts in that direction need to be curtailed. They also should be assisted to learn that this is not the only way to live a committed Christian life, or to interpret the Bible." He is perfectly willing to do some pushing and shoving against Christians who dare to presume that they know "a detailed blueprint" (however that may be interpreted by the satisfied "we" mentioned previously) and who are unconvinced that their way is (according to "authority") "not the only way" to live. I will agree that I have an extreme distaste for supposed Christian leaders who try to run other people's lives, and I am fully committed to Christian liberty, as can be plainly seen from the concerns I am presently raising. But I am also worried about any authority that would oppose it in any other way except by efforts at persuasion. I believe in persuasion, in debate, in efforts to convince (and am thus delighted in our present conversation), but I am not a little fearful of other types of "authority" in matters of Christian life and teaching.
I am convinced that there should be an honest effort to formulate some clear (and limiting) policies for CMC to follow. I think most of us agreed with that idea at our last meeting, and I think that the policy formulation process should be laid out in the bylaws. (I will address this in my suggested revisions to the bylaws.) If policy-formulation is undertaken in good faith, it would do much to relieve me of my fears.
Assuming my reservations about limitless and arbitrary authority are thus dealt with, then the question remains: should CMC have authority over all religious groups? In his point [f], Keith said that he found Dennis' arguments compelling on this point. But before I discuss Dennis' position, I want to recall that Keith's efforts to make it clear in his wording of the bylaws that "no approval was intended" cannot be completely successful. As was said in the meeting, we cannot (as Pilate attempted) try to simply get by with washing our hands of the matter in that way. If we want authority, then we must live with the implications of that. Any misdeeds by groups will be assigned to the account of those who claim to have authority to hold those groups accountable.
Now: should CMC have authority over all religious groups? I agree with Keith that Dennis has made the best argument for such authority that I have yet seen in our discussion. Acknowledging one of my arguments, he says: "We could certainly achieve many of the goals above if all groups were under SIL. However, we believe it is a strong sign and symbol that the religious groups are united under the banner of Campus Ministry. It is a statement that the religious aspect of PLU is alive and well and an important part of the PLU community, deserving of a unique position."
Please note this clearly: the only good argument for giving the CMC, specifically, authority over all religious groups is the argument that religion is "special" at PLU. The organizational structure is a sign and symbol of that specialness.
I fully agree that religion is special, and should be treated in special ways-everywhere, and not just in PLU's authority structure. For that reason I can agree that religion should be treated specially in the authority structure of PLU. For those who also agree, however, I want to make certain that they fully understand the implications of this position and that they also agree with those necessary implications.
If religion is special at PLU, it is also true that Lutheranism is extra-special among religions. That is the only reason why there should be one level for the official Lutheran ministries and another level for all other religions. If all religions are equally special, there should be only one level, with equal authority and support for all.
Likewise, if religion is special at PLU, it is also true that Christianity is extra-special among religions (as Lutheranism is extra-special within Christianity). That is certainly true historically; an example is that level 2 in the present bylaws of the CMC deals only with "a recognized Christian denomination." That is also true with Dennis' vision of his ministry as he expressed it in his message. He said, "…the Campus Ministry Council and the Campus Ministry Office are essentially Christian with the proclamation of Christ in word and deed and service central to what they are and do. Their work and efforts (be that programming or advocacy or whatever) will be Christian in nature." That "essential" fact should be shown in sign and symbol in the way we organize CMC as truly as showing the specialness of Lutheranism or the specialness of religion in general.
Clearly then, if there is a reason for having all religious groups under the CMC, and if there is a reason for treating Lutheranism as special among religious groups, there is an equally compelling reason for treating Christianity as special among religious groups. Organizationally (the sign and symbol of this truth), this means that there should appropriately be one level for ELCA Lutheranism, one level for other Christian groups, and one level for other religious groups.
Whatever reasons might be advanced for denying Dennis' assertion on the specialness of Christianity to PLU could equally be advanced to deny the specialness of "all religions" to PLU, and so there would be no reason to put all religious groups under the CMC-except for arbitrary individual prejudice. Since I prefer reason to arbitrary prejudice, I for one would be strongly opposed to such denial of the specialness of Christianity to PLU.
Given the above reasoning and the positions earlier presented, I think the revised bylaws should look pretty much as follows (differences from Keith's text for the introduction and Level I are in italics, with deletions denoted by a "-" around the word/phrase): [I see italics don't work with e-mail, or at least I don't know how to
do it. Sorry!]
-------------------------
ARTICLE II - RELIGIOUS GROUPS SUPERVISION -POLICY-
Administrative supervision of religious activities on campus shall be guided by the following assumptions and procedures.
Pacific Lutheran University . . .
1. understands and identifies itself as a Lutheran university in view of its origin, its ownership and governance, its statement of objectives and mission statements, and its educational philosophy.
2. formalizes this identity as a Lutheran -- and so, Christian -- university in part through the provision of regular opportunities for worship (University Chapel and the University Congregation) and through the support of campus ministry staffed by Lutheran clergy (Campus Ministry Office).
3. actively encourages the Christian faith and life of students, staff, and faculty, while recognizing the diversity of Christian denominations and traditions represented within the university community.
4. values the presence of those from other faith traditions, and also those who belong to no faith tradition, acknowledging the benefits within an educational institution of a pluralism of ideas and commitments.
5. provides for the academic study of Christianity and other religious traditions through the course offerings of its Department of Religion.
6. allows for members of the university community to organize -recognized- religious clubs whose activities are consistent with the university's educational objectives, but refrains from sponsoring or endorsing activities or beliefs that stand outside the bounds of Christian doctrine and principles, broadly construed
7. retains the right to restrict and/or prohibit those religious groups whose activities originate outside the university, conflict with the educational objectives of the university, or violate established university policies or procedures (for example, coercive or strongly confrontational -active- proselytizing on campus, excessive use of bulletin boards, or the excessive and damaging influence of off-campus organizations).
To implement the above, Pacific Lutheran University makes provision for organized religious groups and activities at three (3) distinct levels.
LEVEL I - SPONSORED RELIGIOUS GROUPS/ACTIVITIES
Sponsored groups and activities are those officially presented, supported, or organized by the university. As such, they shall –of course- be consistent with Pacific Lutheran University's identity and mission as a Lutheran university; -but- and in addition, they shall operate within the bounds of Christian doctrine and principles, broadly construed. (This is consistent with the presentation and discussion of controversial positions within an educational setting.)
The Campus Ministry Council and the Campus Ministry Office are administratively responsible to the university president for the development and supervision of these sponsored religious groups and activities. Such groups and activities shall include (but need not be limited to) University Chapel, pastoral leadership for University Congregation, and non-credit classes, discussion groups, and service projects initiated by the Campus Ministry Office.
Full institutional support shall be available for these groups and activities, including use of campus media, priority access to meeting space, and appropriate financial support.
LEVEL II - RECOGNIZED RELIGIOUS GROUPS/ACTIVITIES
Recognized religious groups and activities are those Christian groups and activities which are organized and supervised by students and their advisors. (An exception to this type of supervision may occur in appropriate circumstances in connection with a judicatory or free-standing non-denominational church, as later discussed in these bylaws.) The purpose of these groups and their projected activities shall be consistent with Pacific Lutheran University's identity and mission as a Lutheran university, and they shall operate within the bounds of Christian doctrine and principles, broadly construed. (This is consistent with the presentation and discussion of controversial positions within an educational setting.) They are not sponsored by the university and so no endorsement of their activities may be presumed.
LEVEL III - ADJUNCT RELIGIOUS GROUPS/ACTIVITIES
Adjunct religious groups and activities are those non-Christian groups and activities which are organized and supervised by students and their advisors. (An exception to this type of supervision may occur in appropriate circumstances in connection with a judicatory or free-standing non-denominational church, as later discussed in these bylaws.) While the purpose of these groups and their projected activities shall be consistent with Pacific Lutheran University's identity and mission as a Lutheran university, they are not sponsored by the university and so no endorsement or approval of their activities may be presumed.
It is intended that all student religious groups not sponsored by the university fall under the category of recognized or adjunct groups. In particular, while ASPLU and RHA have established roles within the organizational structure of the university, their religious activities and programs are subject to the same expectations as those of other groups, and a plan of action should be submitted to the Council as would the projected activities of any religious group. Recognized and adjunct groups will be provided use of campus media and access to meeting space, and may apply to ASPLU for funds. (A current list of recognized and adjunct religious clubs will be supplied to the scheduling office.) Recognition and adjunct status is subject to annual review and renewal by the Council.
The Campus Ministry Council is administratively responsible for providing formal recognition of these student religious groups, and for seeing that their activities are consistent with the educational mission of the university. Groups seeking recognition or adjunct status shall submit to the Council a written statement of purpose, a slate of officers responsible for leadership, a list of ten (10) charter members from the student body, and the name of an acceptable faculty or staff advisor. A designated officer of each group shall report to the Council at one of its regular meetings concerning the nature and scope of its projected activities. Groups meeting the above conditions shall be recognized or given adjunct status by the Campus Ministry Council.
A special case arises when religious groups and activities are organized and supervised by a judicatory or free-standing non-denominational church other than the ELCA. Such a judicatory or free-standing non-denominational church may desire to appoint an official leader/guide for a religious group qualifying according to the preceding paragraph. The suggested person, if acceptable to the Council and the president for appointment, would be administratively responsible to the president and ecclesiastically responsible to the appropriate judicatory or free-standing non-denominational church. The duties of the appointed person shall be developed in consultation with the Council, and carried out in cooperation with the staff of the Campus Ministry Office. Provision of university identification for the appointed professional, but no direct budgetary allocations for salary, honorarium, or programming would be made by PLU.
ARTICLE III - FORMULATION OF POLICY
It is the responsibility of the Campus Ministry Council to formulate a clear and carefully crafted set of specific policies to guide religious groups/activities. Such a set of policies shall be given to any group seeking to be recognized or given adjunct status, in order to provide them with clear guidance in the expectations of the university.
ARTICLE IV - APPEAL OF CAMPUS MINISTRY COUNCIL DECISIONS
Any religious group or activity that is disciplined or refused recognition or adjunct status by the Campus Ministry Council has the right to appeal such a decision. Any such decision of the Council shall be widely publicized to the university community in order to provide guidance to other groups and activities and also in order to provide an opportunity for other interested parties to possibly correct and improve the decision-process of the Council and cause a reconsideration of policies and decisions. After an adequate period of time after the decision is widely publicized (not to be less than thirty days) and after the university community and interested parties have had adequate opportunity to consider and discuss the issue, the university president shall adjudicate the appeal. The appealing group or activity may make further appeal to the university Board of Regents. The Campus Ministry Council decision shall be in force unless and until it is overturned on appeal.
ARTICLE V - AMENDMENTS TO THE BY-LAWS
[Same as the present article 3]
----------------------
There are other matters that we have discussed that I will also address, but that must wait for a later time. It is important that the above matters be gotten out for consideration as quickly as possible.
Glenn Van Wyhe
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: CMC stuff
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 23:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Daehlin Lindsay A
Hello all,
Where to start. There is so much to discuss, but I think that I need to focus this discussion because of time constraints. I have had numerous conversations with Christian and Non-Christians in the last few weeks and have come to the conclusion based on their and my ideas that there aren't valid reasons for separating out Christian and non-Christian within the recognized groups. I don't think we have the authority to do this. Especially because then we will be forced to define what is Christian, which I don't think we will be able to agree on. Maybe, it is not our place to say who's in and who's out.That's God's domain. As Dennis wrote, Lutheran theology is based on this notion. We are a university that promotes freedom of religious expression. I think it is belittling students intelligence to say that they would be confused about what is Christian if there is a Jewish organization in the CM brochure.
The main reason I oppose having a level 2 for Christians and a level 3 for "the others" is that it sets up a hierarchy that we are trying to fight as humble servants of God. In my conversations with faithful people who might be deemed non-Christian by some people's standards, they felt more turned off to Christianity in response to the idea of setting Christians above and apart. I too am concerned with people's eternal souls, that is in part why I think putting other religious groups on a lower level is problematic. I think it turns people rapidly away from Christianity. I think it would be incredibly difficult given our culture and history to have two levels- Christian and non-Christian and have people not percieve that as a hierarchy.
That is why I propose one level for all religious groups that will be recognized by campus ministry and will seek as much support and guidance as they choose, and will have some accountability to adhere to the university's mission.
I have not heard any valid argument for drawing inclusion and exclusion lines. I disagree that people wouldn't have any motivation to change if there weren't separations in groups. I don't think we can purport that our way of interpreting scripture and God is the absolute right way and to set up distinctions based on our ideas of what is "Godly" or Christian or
righteous,etc.
I think it will do more damage than good to separate into two levels what groups are Christian and what aren't.
Dennis's words about the potential for interfaith dialogue within the recognized groups of CMC is an important one. I also agree strongly with the message it sends to our community and world that we are committed to dialogue as a way of strengthening, challenging, and growing in our faiths. I believe it is in God's hands; we are not to limit how God works in people's lives. (Ofcourse I am not saying we accept all behavior or stop striving to understand God)
I also agree strongly with Dennis' words about serving all members of our community. I consistently go back to Jesus' acts of breaking down the rigid distinctions between Gentile and Jew (this is Christian and non-Christian in our society). We can also gain insight from Jesus' criticism of the Pharisees, because they set themselves above and apart from "the sinners" and considered themselves righteous people who had God figured out. If we set Christians apart it will turn into above as well, and then we are the righteous Pharisees who are condemning "the sinners" and have God all figured out.
This is incredibly powerful work we are doing, and I hope we remember to really listen to eachother and feel comfortable voicing our opinions. I love Audre Lorde's words: "Speak your mind always, even when your voice shakes." I hope we can be supportive as we share ideas and not see it as merely a debate we have to win.
Peace,
Lindsay
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: CMC stuff
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 13:56:50 -0700
From: Evan Thomas
hello everyone
first, sorry i haven't put out thoughts previously on the subject of levels and my thoughts on them.
glen sent out an e-mail with suggestions on it about levels and i must say that i agree with his ideas. my thoughts are this:
i think we should just leave level one the same. it would consist of lutheran ministries on campus such as chapel and u-conn.
Level two would then be the rest of the christian ministries on campus. these would be defined as those ministries who declare that jesus christ is the one way to eternal life, the one path to god. that although traditions such as buddhism have many wonderful things to teach us all, those traditions do not lead to eternal life and are not compatible with christianity. those ministries contained in level two would also have some sort of evangelistic approach in their function although this definitely does NOT HAVE to be some sort of intense outreach.
Level three would then not exist and all other clubs/groups/ministries etc would be under SIL. it would be made clear to the student body and campus community that in NO way does this move mean that these groups are not welcome on campus or that they are being shunned in any way. it would just be communicated that as campus ministry at a christian school it was felt that there was great importance in making a distinction between what is christian and what isn't in a culture being run on the idea that truth is relative. The students have been taught by everything around them that there is no such thing as ulitmate truth and that truth is what one thinks it is. Therefore, as a school founded on the principles of christ, it is important to keep a clear purpose in the campus ministry office in the direction of reaching people with the love of jesus and the truth, that he is the one and only way to god, that in fact there is an ultimate truth...
-----------------
the second proposal(second in appropriatness, i feel, to the one above)i have is this:
level one and two stay the same as i have outlined above.
level three would then be all other groups either non-christian in doctrine(meaning they don't believe jesus christ is the only way to heaven)or groups that don't have as central to their mission statement telling people about jesus christ or fostering growth in a personal relationship with him. groups that fall into these categories would be in level three. on the campus ministry publication it would be shown, clearly, that these groups are not christian, in practice and/or doctrine. i agree with lindsay absolutely in the idea that there can't be a feeling of judgement rendered by the christians toward the non-christians. so, every effort must be made, from our end, to prohibit this from happening. however, we must remember that jesus was not popular because he declared, to the pharisees and others, that in fact there was ONE way to god, himself. therefore, although we should definitely try and be non-judgemental, the fact is that our action will appear that way as it has throughout history. as jesus said, if the teacher is hated, shouldn't the students expect to be hated also?
So, i strongly recommend that at the very least there is a clear distinction between christian and non-christian so that we may simply be true to the one we declare as lord of our lives, the one we follow.
so, these are my thoughts. comments are encouraged and appreciated(prof killen, thanks for your comments on my last e-mail). i hope you all have a great couple of days, remember to sleep!!
evan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: proposal
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 16:14:28 -0700
From: Cindy Messler
There is another idea that we have not yet thought of. Perhaps the best solution would be to have a second level that is split into two parts. (This level two would incorporate both levels 2 and 3 from the original constitution). These two parts would be groups who seek to be recognized as a Christian club and those groups who seek to be recognized as a religious club. I am still in the initial stages of thinking about this as an option and have not fully worked through whether this would be the best solution yet but I will throw it out there for us all to think about.
The reasons I am thinking about this as a possible solution is that I think it might solve some of the perceptions of hierarchy that people fear would arise if Christian and non-Christian were split into two different groups. Yet if there was any student who was confused and thought that by putting Christian and non-Christian groups together in the same level that this meant that the council was making a statement that Christian groups and non-Christian groups are the same thing, this confusion could be easily cleared up. By splitting the level into two parts, this would make it clear that there is such a thing as a Christian and a non-Christian. And coming from the other side of the fence it would alleviate problems that non-Christian groups could possibly have with being connected with Campus Ministry because of its Christian identity. I think it also makes more sense to me to have both under one level since Christian and non-Christian groups all have the same rights and responsibilities toward the university and the council, and splitting these into two different levels would inevitably mean more writing.
While the constitution then would make a distinction that there is such a thing as Christian and non-Christian, I personally do not see it as the council's role to formulate who is and who is not. ( I will admit that this may come out of my own convictions that I fear such a thing is coming dangerously close to assuming that you know the mind of God and are claiming the authority of God which I believe is about the most sinful thing one can do, especially when you use that to cast judgment on another human being.) But under this structure, all groups would fall into the same level so there is no need to involve ourselves in the task of deciding who is in and who is out. The only things that we use to decide who is in and who is out are whether or not these groups are seeking recognition as a religious club and whether or not they conflict with the educational goals of the university and its policies.
Before I go to bed tonight I will write out as best I can what I think this might look like in constitutional form. As for now, I will send out these thoughts to let you know what I am thinking and to let you know that it is coming and you can have as much time as possible to respond. Again, I am still in the beginning stages of processing this as an option so any feedback you all have might be helpful.
Peace,
Cindy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Written Proposal
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 17:19:21 -0700
From: Cindy Messler
This is what I came up with. Just to let you all know how I did this, I started with Keith's proposal and reworked it. Everything I changed or added is in bold face type. I hope it makes sense. Let me know what you think.
-Cindy
ARTICLE II - RELIGIOUS GROUPS POLICY
Administrative supervision of religious activities on campus shall be guided by the following assumptions and procedures.
Pacific Lutheran University . . .
1. understands and identifies itself as a Lutheran university in view of its origin, its ownership and governance, its mission statements, and its educational philosophy.
2. formalizes this identity as a Lutheran -- and so, Christian -- university in part through the provision of regular opportunities for worship (University Chapel and the University Congregation) and through the support of campus ministry staffed by Lutheran clergy (Campus Ministry Office).
3. actively encourages the Christian faith and life of students, staff, and faculty, recognizing the diversity of Christian denominations and traditions represented within the university community.
4. values the presence of those from other faith traditions, and also those who belong to no faith tradition, acknowledging the benefits within an educational institution of a pluralism of ideas and commitments.
5. provides for the academic study of Christianity and other religious traditions through the course offerings of its Department of Religion.
6. allows for members of the university community to organize recognized religious clubs whose activities are consistent with the university's educational objectives, but refrains from sponsoring or endorsing activities that stand outside the bounds of Christian doctrine and principles, broadly construed
7. retains the right to restrict and/or prohibit those religious groups whose activities originate outside the university, conflict with the educational objectives of the university, or violate established university policies or procedures (for example, coersive confrontational proselytizing on campus, excessive use of bulletin boards, or the excessive influence of off-campus organizations).
To implement the above, Pacific Lutheran University makes provision for organized religious groups and activities at two (2) distinct levels.
LEVEL I - SPONSORED RELIGIOUS GROUPS/ACTIVITIES
Sponsored groups and activities are those officially presented, supported, or organized by the university. As such, they shall of course be consistent with Pacific Lutheran University's identity and mission as a Lutheran university; but in addition, they shall operate within the bounds of Christian doctrine and principles, broadly construed. (This is consistent with the presentation and discussion of controversial positions within an educational setting.)
The Campus Ministry Council and the Campus Ministry Office are administratively responsible to the university president for the development and supervision of these sponsored religious groups and activities. Such groups and activities shall include (but need not be limited to) University Chapel, pastoral leadership for University Congregation, and non-credit classes, discussion groups, and service projects initiated by the Campus Ministry Office.
Full institutional support shall be available for these groups and activities, including use of campus media, priority access to meeting space, and appropriate financial support.
LEVEL II - RECOGNIZED RELIGIOUS GROUPS/ACTIVITIES (RELIGIOUS CLUBS)
Because the University seeks to be an environment "where the ongoing dialogue between faith and reason, between Athens and Jerusalem, is celebrated and sustained," (PLU 2000 p 23)it recognizes that religious clubs and organizations have a special purpose within the university. It sets these organizations apart from other clubs as unique because it recognizes that it is faith that gives us our ultimate orientation in the world. Because of the uniqueness of these organizations, the university provides for a second level to recognize religious clubs that are not limited to a Lutheran orientation. The level includes two parts:
a. Those groups who wish to be recognized as Christian organizations and whose ministries and activities are Christian in orientation. (or possibly "come out of" a Christian orientation -- I can't decide which wording is better.)
b. Those groups who wish to be recognized as religious organizations, but not specifically Christian, and whose ministries and activities are religious in orientation. (not sure if the word "ministries" is appropriate in this context)
Recognized religious groups and activities are those organized and supervised by students. While the purpose of these groups and their projected activities shall be consistent with Pacific Lutheran University's identity and mission as a Lutheran university, they are not sponsored by the university and so no endorsement or approval of their activities may be presumed.
The Campus Ministry Council is administratively responsible for providing formal recognition of these student religious groups ("clubs"), and for seeing that their activities are consistent with the educational mission of the university. Groups seeking recognition shall submit to the Council a written statement of purpose, a slate of officers responsible for leadership, a list of ten (10) charter members from the student body, and the name of an acceptable faculty or staff advisor. A designated officer of each group shall report to the Council at one of its regular meetings concerning the nature and scope of its projected activities. Groups meeting the above conditions shall be recognized by the Campus Ministry Council.
It is intended that all student religious groups not sponsored by the university or by an outside denomination fall under this category of "recognized" groups. In particular, while ASPLU and RHA have established roles within the organizational structure of the university, their religious activities and programs are subject to the same expectations as those of other groups, and a plan of action should be submitted to the Council as would the projected activities of any religious club.
Recognized clubs will be provided use of campus media and access to meeting space, and may apply to ASPLU for funds. (A current list of recognized religious clubs will be supplied to the scheduling office.) Recognition is subject to annual review and renewal by the Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Written Proposal
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 18:01:10 -0700
From: Cindy Messler
Oops, I forgot to add in what we wanted to incorporate from the original level two about the judicatory and free standing nondenominational church. Please accept this as a footnote that I would like to include those suggestions we discussed in the last meeting in my written proposal but am not quite sure how something like that would be worded.
-Cindy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: CMC stuff
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 22:48:06 -0700
From: Dave Urban
Hello everyone,
I must first say that I have been having a couple of very difficult weeks and I have not fulfilled my responsibility of really thinking and praying hard about these issues before us. I hope you all will forgive me for that. And I unfortuneately still don't have the time to put together an actual proposal for the CMC levels. But I thought I'd share some closing thoughts before our last meeting.
I've been trying to keep up with all the emails and to a certain extent I have been able to internalize things. Two quick thoughts I want to share before talking directly about the levels. The first is in reply to Lindsay's comments regarding Jesus breaking down rigid distinctions between the Jews and the Gentiles. That is certainly true, but that was to let people know that salvation was available for all people, not just the Jews, and that we could all be one in Christ. How one was saved, however, was the same for all people, Jew or gentile. The second thought is with regards to knowing or not knowing the mind of Christ. I certainly believe that God is mysterious and indescribably beyond us in terms of our understanding Him. But, He does allow us to have some insight into His character, desires, will, etc. This is obviously through His inspired Word and through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers. Now, I will be the first one to say that we should not judge others regarding their salvation. I can never truly know the state of someone else's heart in relation to God. But that doesn't mean I cannot know what truth is regarding salvation and that I should not proclaim that to others. Jesus was never shy about telling people the truth, and it often caused conflict, disagreement and anger.
In terms of the levels, I would agree with Evan's proposal/options. The question regarding inclusion vs. exclusion, heirarchy, etc. with regards to separating Christian and non-Christian groups is a very good one because it means we're focusing on what is best for the students. My main objective in this process from the beginning was to see the CMC constitution be shaped in such a way that it broke down as many walls as possible that kept PLU students from embracing the gospel. Though I know that many of us disagree on this, I still assert that lumping all religous groups together, Christian and non-Christian, together into one level, is putting up a barrier to the presentation of the gospel. Now, I agree with Lindsay that students can certainly be able to see the fact that Christianity and Judaism (or LDS, Buddhism, Islam, etc.) are not the same thing. But that is never really what I have been concerned with. What students will be confused about is which "religion" will bring salvation. If there is no way in which campus ministry or the CMC is letting students know this, then postmodernism will develop and that is an awful thing. If campus ministry is going to be Christian, it needs to assert that only through faith in Christ can one be saved. I know we have gone round and round with this point, but I really don't know why. Jesus said this himself, the apostles believed it, and so did Luther. Though faith is certainly a gift from God, one must accept it in order to have it.
So, I would still like to see non-Christian groups in SIL, but if they are going to be in campus ministry, it would make sense to separate them from non-Christian groups in terms of levels. Though this might seem exclusionary to some, ultimately the presentation of the gospel to students is what is most important. The way we can show the love and acceptance of Jesus is by reaching out to non-believers with the good news of the gospel, through our own respective ministries and through our own personal lives. Creating a postmodern structure in CMC will not present this love and acceptance.
I wanted to thank everyone for the time and effort you've all put into this entire process. I have enjoyed our discussions (the real meat has come through emails it seems) and I know I have grown in my walk with the Lord as a result of them. I have been blessed by our time together and I really appreciate everyone's openness and honesty. Thanks again.
In Jesus,
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: CMC stuff
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 00:38:52 -0700
From: Cindy Messler
First of all, Dave, thank you for taking the time to write and for your careful thoughts. I am excited to hear that the fruits of our discussions have encouraged your own spiritual life as they have done for myself as well. I did have a few comments to make after reading through the letter.
My first point is that I do not see that having a Jewish group approved by the Campus Ministry Council has in any way shape or form put barriers up for allowing the proclamation of the gospel to occur on campus. Having a Jewish group does not put limits on when, where, how, what, people are allowed to say concerning Christ. In fact, I know that in the Christian activities I attend on campus on a regular basis (University Congregation, chapel, and holden evening prayer), I have seen the highest attendance this year out of all my time at PLU. While I do not attend many of the other Christian club my impression from what I have heard from most people is that they have had a successful year as well. There have been many wonderful things done on campus this year in the name of Christ. The gospel is being proclaimed and lived.
My next point is that not all Christians believe that salvation comes only through the religion Christianity. Only exclusivist Christians believe that. Inclusivist christians believe that salvation comes through Christ but that Christ is somehow present in some other religions and that other religions can offer salvation as well. And pluralists Christians believe that other religions offer salvation that is in no way derivitave of christianity but stands on its own as completely comperable. There are Christians from all of these categories that attend this university and we need to be aware of that when we are talking about Christians in our discussions. Also, I am next to positive just from the conversations I have had with all of you and from emails that even just among our own committee there is a representative from each of the three positions. Now it would be nice if we all had one unified view on this but the fact is that we don't and I'm not sure that anyone is going to change their own view by the end of our next meeting.
In regards to what I just said I want to make a brief mention of scriptural arguments. The only thing I want to say is that everyone at this table who has made an argument about what Christianity is or where salvation comes from is making an argument based on their understanding of scripture. We all are aware of what the texts say. We have all wrestled with the same questions regarding salvation. We have all looked to scripture to help guide us in our understanding. And yet we do come out with different answers. This most likely has to do with the fact that more than anything we approach scripture in a different way, and we have different methods of interpretation. So while scriptural arguments are helpful in that they allow us to understand where each other is coming from, I don't think they will be very persuasive toward changing someone else's mind at this point.
Finally, I would just like to say that I don't see a model of Campus Ministry Council that incorporates non-Christian groups as being a postmodern structure. I see it as being a Lutheran structure. But I will admit that I think the Lutheran theological orientation does at times find some tendencies of postmodernism to be it's logical partner. Remember that postmodernism is a corrective to the modern period. If I may share with you a short excerpt that I prepared for my senior thesis in religion:
"Postmodern thinking challenges the legacy of the Enlightenment that put its faith in human reason and championed the "fact" that the "freedom of the subject can become an object to itself ... and know itself ultimately as a transcendental subject over and against the world" (Lakeland 14). Thus human reason comes to master the natural world in a very dualistic sense. It was this kind of thinking that for centuries allowed such violent destruction of the environment in the name of progress and the systematic oppression of various peoples in the name of development. Postmodernism denies that this kind of objective thinking can take place. It professes that all of our perceptions of the world and all of are truth claims are born out of social constructions. According to postmodern thinking all human experience and knowledge is filtered and our filters are incredibly diverse (Knitter 39). This kind of thinking has replaced traditional ways of thinking about the world. This becomes particularly problematic for Christians -- and for
anyone in a religious tradition for that matter -- because it means that they have to face the reality that their understanding of God is not objective truth but tainted by the cultural contexts in which God is revealed to them."
I think that this kind of thinking helps keep the reformation spirit of Lutheranism alive because it calls us to critique ourselves, to pursue faith and learning with humility, and to keep ourselves in dialogue with others who have different filters than we do.
I think that's all I have to say for now.
Peace,
Cindy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: CMC
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 00:27:44 -0700
From: Glenn VanWyhe
Let me see if I can summarize what I am hearing.
Religious organizations should be under CMC because religion is "special"
Religion is more "special" than non-religion, which can go under SIL
Lutheranism is more "special" than other religious groups, so it must have special privileges and a higher level
Christianity is not more special than other religious groups, so it must definitely not have any higher level than other religious groups
The danger that non-Christians might misunderstand the lower level they might be put in, and might feel bad, is so great that it must be avoided at all costs
The danger that Christian groups might misunderstand if they were considered no more special to PLU than non-Christians, and might feel bad, is so unimportant that it should be ignored completely
There is such a wealth of inconsistencies in this set of positions that it should make even a thorough-going relativist blush. Actually, there is a kind of perverse consistency underlying it all. If I were an anti-Christian, this would all make a kind of sense to me in terms of strategy. My goal would be to undermine Christianity everywhere I could, including (and even especially) at "church-related" schools. I would advocate the beauty of a vague "spirituality" and be especially bitter against any Christianity that had significant content. Without content, a vague "spirituality" that called itself Christian could be considered as good as (though certainly not better than) a vague "spirituality" that called itself non-Christian. Though I could not attack the specific form of Christianity that connected the school to its sources of finance and support (that would be too sacred to attack), I would attack any other form of Christianity that insisted that Christ is to be defined by Himself and by the people He gave the authority to reveal Him to others. All the inconsistencies would be tolerated for the greater good of undermining Christianity on campus.
This sounds harsh, and I do not want to sound harsh, but I have no other way to explain how all these inconsistencies can be voiced. What other reason can exist for this set of statements being made unabashedly by discussants on one side of the issue?
In the light of the discussion to this point, I must ask: is Christianity special to PLU? If the answer is "yes" then the organization of CMC should reflect that specialness, as sign and symbol. There should be no question of that. If the answer is "no" then the organization of CMC should not reflect any specialness of Christianity. There should be no question of that. Everything hangs on that question.
Christianity should be special to PLU. Certainly it has been historically. And if Lutheran Christianity is presently special to PLU, then Christianity (of which Lutheranism is a part) is special to PLU. If the name of the institution means anything at all, then Christianity should be special to PLU. If I were a student who attended Pacific Shiah University, I would expect that the Shiah sect and Islam as a whole would be considered as special there. I would frankly be a complete fool if I did not expect that, or if I complained about it. It is equally absurd for a student to come to PLU and be offended that Christianity has a special place here. I am amazed at the unbounded arrogance of such a student.
I for one have no interest in humoring such arrogance or kowtowing to its demands. Let me be very clear. It appears from our conversations that the one statement that ELCA Lutherans of various interpretations can agree with other Christians in unity (even though interpretations of the statement may differ) is this: salvation is through Christ alone. If we really believe that, then we must believe that those who do not know it are ignorant, either deliberately or by circumstance. At an educational institution ignorance is something to be overcome, not encouraged. Distinctions are made between those with knowledge and those without (e.g., through grades, promotions, etc.). It is entirely appropriate to make such distinctions in order to encourage all to come to knowledge. It is entirely appropriate to make distinctions between Christians and non-Christians in order to encourage non-Christians to come to a knowledge of Christ and overcome their ignorance. There is no way, I believe, to deny this conclusion without denying the initial premise that salvation is through Christ alone. (If you think that there is some other way of avoiding the conclusion, please do me the courtesy of explaining clearly where exactly you think my logic is faulty.)
Evan does a good job of expressing this and I want to repeat his statement (adding some capitalization and other clean-up): It would just be communicated that as campus ministry at a Christian school it was felt that there was great importance in making a distinction between what is Christian and what isn't in a culture being run on the idea that truth is relative. The students have been taught by everything around them that there is no such thing as ultimate truth and that truth is what[ever] one thinks it is. Therefore, as a school founded on the principles of Christ, it is important to keep a clear purpose in the campus ministry office in the direction of reaching people with the love of Jesus and the truth, that He is the one and only way to God, that in fact there is an ultimate truth...
Evan wisely suggests that a simple statement defining Christian groups in Level II would be helpful. He says, "these would be defined as those ministries who declare that Jesus Christ is the one way to eternal life, the one path to God." While I entirely believe this statement and know it to be true, I would be willing to compromise with a similar but less direct statement. This is the statement I suggest: "A Christian group is a group that confesses that salvation is through Christ alone."
I also agree with Evan (and with Dave) that it would be better to have non-Christian groups under SIL, but in a spirit of compromise I suggested in my last message that non-Christian groups could be included in an "adjunct" (the word suggested by Dennis) level 3. Evan in his message seems willing to compromise in this way as well.
Also, I still advocate that some limits should be established upon non-Christian religious groups (and "Christian" groups, for that matter). I inadvertently omitted from my Sunday message a paragraph that I think would be useful. That paragraph, if you will recall, was:
"The CMC in no way endorses or approves of the groups in this level, but merely acknowledges that they exist and that they are concerned with religious matters. In a Lutheran university, it is necessary for some oversight of all religious matters to take place. While Lutheran tradition recognizes that salvation comes only through Christ, it also recognizes that not all people have yet come to a recognition of that truth and so it encourages the honest search for truth. On the other hand, there are certain variants of religion that the CMC must oppose. There shall be active discouragement of idolatry, witchcraft, sorcery, magic, astrology, human or animal sacrifice, licentiousness, and other
such outrageous religious practices."
Dennis courteously responded to this suggestion by explaining why he disagreed with it. He said: "Also, what about a non-Christian group like Wiccan? I would leave it to the Campus Ministry Council to determine if a group is legitimate or not. I trust that in prayer, through the Holy Spirit they would be able to discern a cult or a harmful group. I also remind you all that we have the right to say "no" to a group that desires to come on campus. They are guests, they do not have a 'right' to be here."
I am not so sanguine as Dennis. Trusting in prayer and "the Holy Spirit" is not enough in this situation, I fear. That is because we are more easily deceived than we would like to admit, and we can even deceive ourselves. Claims that we have heard from the Holy Spirit in our prayers are easily made, but not necessarily true, even if we sincerely think they are at the time. We need to be able to make decisions on more solid ground than our purely subjective feelings. The leader of a Wiccan group may appear very likeable. Serial rapists and murderers can also, I understand, appear very charming and intelligent. How charming a person might appear is not an adequate basis for determining whether a group should be acceptable on PLU campus.
Please understand. I have great faith in the Holy Spirit, and in His ability to guide us through our prayers and in other ways. However, I know that one of the most important ways that the Holy Spirit guides us is through the Scriptures-the Scriptures whose writing He guided at least as well as He will ever guide us directly in our prayers or other ways. If Dennis had said, "I trust that in prayer, through the Holy Spirit and the careful study of the Scriptures, they would be able to discern a cult or a harmful group," then I would be more comforted. But the omission of one of the most powerful tools the Spirit has given us to discern harmful groups and ideas does not bode well. We know that the Scriptures condemn witchcraft, for example. Now we might discuss whether Wicca is really witchcraft in the sense the Scriptures mean it, and that could be a fruitful discussion. But it is foolish to simply ignore the guidance the Spirit has already given us about how harmful witchcraft can be.
Now it may be that the omission by Dennis of any reference to the Scriptures was merely inadvertent, but I suspect not. There seems to be a strong push by him and others to rob Christianity of all intellectual content. He asks, "what is faith? Is it intellectual assent to certain doctrinal statements? Yes, for some Christians. …If you will, for Lutherans faith is a verb (something we live) not a noun (something we believe)." Why the either/or? I must ask why Luther wrote a catechism if such an effort were so opposed to the way he looked at faith, or why there are so many Lutheran creeds if the Lutheran idea of faith has nothing to do with "something we believe." This view of Lutheranism appears to me to be a highly idiosyncratic view of Lutheranism (however much it might be shared by others at PLU).
In spite of this denial of intellectual Christianity, Dennis quotes an intellectual statement of faith from the ELCA Constitution itself. That statement is that the Scriptures "are the written Word of God. Inspired by God's Spirit speaking through their authors, they record and announce God's revelation centering in Jesus Christ. Through them God's Spirit speaks to us to create and sustain Christian faith and fellowship for service in the world." This is a beautiful intellectual statement of faith. This is Lutheran, and Christian. Yet instead of rejoicing in this source of guidance from the Spirit, Dennis follows this statement with a capitalized "BUT". He says that Luther said that Scripture was not the only Word God speaks, but comes in other ways in addition to the Bible. This statement may be true, but if so, it is irrelevant. There is nothing in such a position to suggest that any other Word from God would be in opposition to the Scriptures, as though the Spirit were divided against Himself. Any Word from the Spirit would be in accord with the Word from the Spirit that He gave us in the Scriptures, and any claimed Word that was in opposition to the Scriptures would clearly not be from the Spirit. Thus we have a wonderful way to "judge the spirits" by reference to the Scriptures given us by the Spirit. Why would be belittle or ignore or downplay such a great gift from God, such a perfect grace that He has given us?
Furthermore, any attempt to set an alternative supposed Word against the Scriptures is very unLutheran. While the Word of God can come through other means, we must be extremely careful. Luther fought with all his might against the Papal position that their traditions (preaching, teaching, etc.) were on a par with Scripture. That is the whole point of his sola Scriptura.
In a similar discussion of Scripture, Keith pointed out that we may not have the verbatim words of Jesus in Scripture. Likewise, Patricia (in an e-mail addressed to "Evan and the rest," so I presume it is for everyone) says, "With regard to your reference to John 14:6, again Luther's approach does not allow one to take a passage out of context. As an historian I would side with those who would say that Jesus did not say those words. Your reasons for saying he did are not logical. Whether Jesus actually said them or not, however, is not the saliant issue for the committee's work. The gospels are accepted as authoritative and true, not based on their being some kind of documentary report, but based on their presentation of the good news of what God has done for us in Jesus." Patricia suggests that in a particular case we do not have the words of Christ, but then admits that such a point is irrelevant. Why bring it up, then? Is there some subtle attempt to downplay Scripture? The reliability of Scriptures is questionable, certainly, if they say that Jesus said something He did not say (though it need not be the exact words, of course, so long as it was the essence of what He said). Yet there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus did not say these things-even these exact words. All suggestions that He did not say those things are the purest guesswork, based on what the guesser (hundreds of years later) pretends he knows about what Jesus was really like and really would have said. If we ignore the guessers (regardless of the credentials the world gives them), and trust the Spirit that He did not leave us with unreliable records, then we can be constantly confident about the Scriptures.
What disturbs me is that this undermining of Scriptures appears to be part of an effort to rob Christianity of its intellectual basis. That is certainly the goal of many of the guessers who pretend to know Jesus better than the eyewitness of His work. (It is like Thomas Jefferson, who edited the Bible by removing all references to miracles because he "knew" that miracles don't happen.) The Scriptures make statements about who Jesus is and who God is, and those statements get in the way of those who want to make up a Jesus in their own image and according to their own biases. For that reason the Scriptures must be opposed by them. But we who confess that the Scriptures are given us by the Spirit should instead allow our biases to be corrected by the Spirit's leading in the Scriptures.
It appears to me that PLU is in danger of being engulfed by an extreme pietism. Simmons writes about pietism, saying: "It is in reaction to this rigid intellectualism that the movement of Pietism emerged in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, centered at the University of Halle. Pietism emphasized the inner spiritual life and engagement in mission work and deeds of mercy. Less concerned about intellectual formulations, Pietism stressed the commitment of the individual believer in living out an active life of faith and gave a strong impetus to lay involvement in the church." [p.
16] Now, I do not want to condemn pietism, for there is much about it that is desirable. And a "rigid intellectualism" is not desirable. But there are many disadvantages to this later development in Lutheranism, and it is not wise to go to either extreme. And I fear that the pietism that seems to be so strong at PLU is of the most extreme type. The earlier pietists may have avoided elaborate creeds but they did not downplay Scripture. Nor does an extreme pietism (a simple-minded faith) seem appropriate to an educational institution. I believe that we should steer away from such an extreme, rather than succumb to it.
While there is much more to say, I have no more strength to say any more tonight.
May God bless you, by bringing you ever closer to Christ,
Glenn Van Wyhe
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Deliberations
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 08:39:02 -0700
From: Patricia Killen
Hi All,
I haven't had a chance to read the messages from Cindy, Glenn, and Dave of this morning, but this half hour is the only time I have to respond to what I have read, the messages that came through Tuesday at about 4:00pm. I am responding by making some points and with each a suggestion. I am sorry that I don't have time this morning to hammer out a complete document such as Keith, Glenn, and Cindy have done.
1. Building on a comment that I made toward the end of our meeting on Thursday, I see multiple factors that do and should inform our deliberations. PLU is a Lutheran educational institution. It is rooted in the Lutheran Christian heritage and owned by the congregations of region I of the ELCA. Out of that heritage and identity the school has made a commitment to diversity. One of the things we are trying to work out in this task force is how to act faithfully out of PLU's Lutheran Christian identity in carrying out the institution's educational mission and commitment to diversity. One of the things I value about this task force is that we are able to talk about this task and seem able to work with the realization that faithful and committed Christians may not agree on how to carry it out. The task I have described above is not an easy one, in part, because we must apply the guidance we have from the Lutheran religious and educational heritages in new contexts. It also is not easy because appropriate actions are not simply the result of logical deduction from first principles. Neither the life of faith, nor the action of God's grace, nor education, nor public life that seeks to protect the dignity of individual conscience operate syllogistically.
2. I think there are two distinct functions to the campus ministry council that are being conflated and at times confused in our conversations. One function of campus ministry council is the oversight of religious organizations on the campus, providing a coordination of them, and supporting them to keep their activities in line with the identity, purpose, and mission of the university. The second function is the promotion of Christian (however it is defined) ministry on the campus. In relation to this second function, Dennis has articulated his and Nancy's desire that the campus ministry council function to support cooperative Christian activity on campus. These are distinguishable functions that, when kept distinguished, suggest a possible alternative to organizing the religious groups on campus.
With regard to the function--oversight of religious organizations (and I would include all ministries, networks, fellowships, clubs, etc. in this category)-- I don't see why distinctions should be made between Christian (however it is defined) and other faith or inter-faith groups. The oversight function has to do with keeping organizations' activities congruent with the identity, mission, and purpose of the university. It also has to do with keeping off-campus leaders/pastors/coordinators accountable. This task needs doing regardless of the identity of the religious organization and should, as Glenn points out, include those activities sponsored by ASPLU or RHL. Hence, in terms of the current language, I would simply have all of these groups in a level two and would include the stipulation we discussed last Thursday about how to handle the off-campus leaders/pastors/coordinators.
With regard to the promotion of Christian ministry on the campus, beyond those designated in the current level one, I want to suggest a parallel structure for Christian and for other faith or inter-faith religious organizations. I would suggest the creation under University Ministries and with some connection to the Campus Ministry Council of a Christian Ecumenical Committee and a Faith/Inter-Faith Committee. All religious organizations would choose to be part of one or the other or both of these committees.
The suggestion I am making here may not be in the best form. I do, however, want to push the distinction between the oversight function and the promotion of ministry function of campus ministry council.
3. This comment relates to Evan's message as well as comments made by Lindsay, Cindy, and Glenn. The issue of how "Christian" will be defined is complex. Theological, historical, sociological, or other approaches yield different ways to set the definition. Evan chose a theological definition. My problem with your definition, Evan, is that it is exceedingly narrow. It suggests that only a certain kind of evangelical Christian is really Christian. It also argues that only those Christians when involved in evangelistic outreach should be considered Christian. I find this definition theologically, historically, and sociologically inadequate.
My own position would be to allow groups to self-identify.
Also, Evan, you make a dichotomy between a culture running on an idea that truth is relative and a true Christianity that promotes absolute truth. I'm not sure what this is about. You seem to have a view of Christ and Culture which suggests that culture is bad and that Christ is overagainst it. That is not a Lutheran position and hardly the position that the majority of Christians have held historically or hold today. I need to understand more what you are talking about before I can accept that your reasoning should inform the decisions the taskforce makes.
4. On the student confusion or misunderstanding issue. I am suspicious of just want the issue is under this concern. Students come to PLU from a range of Christian experiences and understandings. Why should the university not cause discomfort to them? Part of education is learning that there are Christians who experience faith, hold beliefs, and practice their Christianity in ways different than one does. PLU students are not stupid, so. Why should the possibility that someone who does not come from a Lutheran background might be confused by a Lutheran way of understanding and organizing Christian and other religious activities on campus constrain the way that the University or Campus ministry operates?
5. Glenn, in your proposal for levels, you put strictures on level III-Adjunct Religious Groups/Activities, that you don't put on Level II. Was this intentional? If so, I would usrge that the strictures you put on Level III be included with level II.
I agree with you that policy, which you include in article III, is needed. I don't think, however, the policy should be in the by-laws. I would be glad for the by-laws to include a statement that policy must be developed and reviewed annually or bi-annually. Such review is important in order for us to have policies faithful to the school's identity and mission and appropriate to the current forms of religious organization in society (and these are changing rapidly and likely will continue to do so).
I am not sure what your Article IV on appeals is about. I need to hear more about this one.
I must go teach now and so will let what I have said here suffice as my contribution to tomorrow morning. I do want to add, though, in agreement with Glenn, that the conversation taking place in this task force is significant. Perhaps our experience modeling conversation across divergent Christian perspectives is something that can be expanded so that PLU can become a place of genuine conversation about religious and spiritual issues.
Patricia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: CMC...
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 12:14:45 -0700
From: Evan Thomas
To:
dave urban, Glenn VanWyhe
Dave and Glen
I just wanted to thank you guys for your input and efforts in representing our Lord in truth, with love and grace. Glen, I especially want to thank you for your last e-mail. The truth has been spoken, again and again. I must confess that my heart is grieved beyond description but I have absolute faith that the Lord is in control. May he have mercy on this campus... Continue to run the race, fighting the good fight.
Evan
P.S. Glen, I have really enjoyed getting to know you a little bit and working with you. I can't even express to you how wonderful it is to know that there is someone fighting for the truth in this place within the faculty/staff/administration. Please let me know if there is ever anything I can do for you. ET
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: CMC
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 15:33:04 -0700
From: Keith J. Cooper
Where to begin! Even given the brevity of my reflections on the many thoughtful messages that have been exchanged, I believe I have found one way of threading my way through to something potentially useful. It probably rehashes stuff I've already said; oh, well. (I warn you in advance that I often don't think well when I think quickly, and also that my prose tend to get a bit ponderous when I haven't had time to polish it.)
It seems central to the Lutheran Christian tradition out of which PLU arose, and in which it still wishes to stand, that this place is a university and not a church. I think that when we take that seriously, we end up with the following:
There is at PLU an acknowledgment of the importance of religion in society and in the lives of individuals, something that gets fleshed out in a number of ways, including support of student religious groups. There is not a sectarian focus to either the curriculum or co-curricular activities. In fact, there is an openness to diverse viewpoints, including religious viewpoints, including non-Christian viewpoints. (The special place of Lutheran activities due to PLU's heritage and ownership, not to a theological judgment.) Getting very specific in one's explication of what is Christian and what is not -- to the point of using 20th-century American evangelical language as normative of Christianity, or seeing one particular understanding of how best to live out one's faith as normative, is not appropriate. The university is not in the primary business of presenting the gospel, removing obstacles to the presentation of the gospel, or doing things with the direct purpose of enabling its students to embrace the gospel. (And to the extent it does such things, the most natural place for them is Level I activities.) "Adjunct" is an odd term to use for gathering non-Christian student religious groups, since it suggests that they are less than a full participant in campus life. Oversight or accountability functions of campus pastors, or a CMC, with respect to student religious groups does not imply an authority over those groups in the sense that there is an implicit theological approval of the content or direction of their activities. Student religious groups, even Christian ones, are not "in" campus ministry in the sense of being part of the Campus Ministry Office.
My bottom line, with no additional justification provided at this point:
1.Retain two levels for groups and activities, one done by (or sponsored by) the university and the other done by students. Include the possibility of outside religious leaders receiving official status in the latter level, along the lines that Glenn had in his 4/30 message. (I haven't yet studied his specifics.)
2.Include in the bylaws something about (a) the formulation of policy, assigning CMC a task it must fulfill; and (b) an appeal process, though I am wary of requiring public notice of each and every case of discipline or censure. (Not putting that in there would not prevent the council from deciding to publicize such matters.) Also, appeal should go no higher than the president, and perhaps should involve the V.P. for Student Life, since we are talking about student groups.
3.Include as one of the CMC's responsibilities working with the University Pastors to get conversation and collaboration going among the Christian student groups. (This may already be covered, though not adequately, under Article IV, Sections 1 and 4, of the current Constitution.) This is a really good idea, but I don't see that it has to be reflected in the structure of student religious groups.
Enough for now . . . too much, no doubt.
- Keith
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: CMC
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 20:58:39 -0700
From: Ari Mattson
I know I'm barely getting my contribution in in time, but I wanted to put ideas out in cyberspace before our meeting. I havn't been as active in this e-mail discussion as I had hoped because of school and my bout with pneumonia (I'm doing much better, thank you), but I wanted to get my ideas out. They may be a little bit random, but I'll try to be as clear as possible. Also, some of my comments may be old or moot points that were discussed and/or dismissed at the last meeting in my absence. If so, please ignore.
First of all, I don't think that non-Christian or non-Lutheran groups should be moved from CMC to SIL, mostly because I see no need, but also because I believe religions, and religious groups specifically, are unique (or 'special' to use Glenn's word) in the spectrum of student groups on campus in their purpose and aims and should be accountable to a body separate from SIL which is specifically concerned with religious life on campus (i.e. CMC).
In response to Glenn's concern that the Council will have unlimited power, I wish to note that CMC is not the highest ruling body on this campus. Wouldn't the university president, board of regent's, and/or the faculty be able to curb any council they saw as getting out of hand? (I plead some ignorance about university politics and power hierarchies.)
As for Dave's concern that combining Christian and non-Christian groups under one umbrella in CMC will confuse students and hinder the spread of the gospel, I, like Lindsay, have talked to several students (Christian, Mormon, Jewish, et. al.) and all of them understood that 1) the Campus Ministry Council is different from Campus Ministry Office and 2) neither promotes or acknowleges non-Christian groups as being correct.
Now for the matter of levels. I think level 1 should stand as is with our small corrections from three weeks ago. As for the other levels, I would prefer one level for all student religious groups with the option of an outside pastor/advisor (as under the current level 2). However, I can understand Glenn and Evan's desire to distinguish Christian from non-Christian and would not be overtly opposed to splitting a level (as Cindy suggests) or creating a separate level.
I meant to write more, but I'm tired and need to rest (I'm still not completely over my pneumonia). I'll see you all bright and early in the morning.
Your friend in Christ,
Ari
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: CMC
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 22:19:48 -0700
From: Glenn VanWyhe
Well, it looks like the votes are in, and by my count the idea that Christians should be treated as special at PLU-even in its Campus Ministry Council-has lost. There is a virulent opposition to that idea in this place. I cannot say that I am surprised, but I am saddened once again.
As a result, I must take the position that there should not be three levels in the CMC, nor should there be two levels in the CMC. The CMC should deal with its own little Lutheran thing, however Lutheranism is defined on the council, and not be allowed to impose itself upon other Christian or non-Christian groups. All of my worst fears about arbitrary power were realized in this little exercise we have undergone.
Every effort by me or Evan or Dave to establish content with regard to anything was opposed. Listen to Cindy's thoughts:
"My next point is that not all Christians believe that salvation comes only through the religion Christianity. Only exclusivist Christians believe that. Inclusivist christians believe that salvation comes through Christ but that Christ is somehow present in some other religions and that other religions can offer salvation as well. And pluralists Christians believe that other religions offer salvation that is in no way derivitave of christianity but stands on its own as completely comperable."
I can only repeat what Patricia said incorrectly about Evan's thoughts: "I find this definition theologically, historically, and sociologically inadequate." It is pure nonsense, in fact. (I think that the Lutherans must have killed all their prophets if there is no one among them willing to stand up and call this the absurdity that it is.) According to Cindy's definitions, a completely committed and practicing Muslim could call himself a "pluralistic Christian." (The Quran at least says that Jesus was born of a virgin and worked many miracles, and that is more than many who call themselves Christians believe.) All of this makes words meaningless. To her, Christian does not mean someone committed to Christ and the salvation He died to bring us. No, no; we can ignore all that. Christian means whatever we want it to mean. I feel like Alice talking to the caterpillar in a wonderland of purest nonsense. Now I understand what previously appeared to me to be a completely vapid remark by Lindsay in an earlier e-mail. She said, in defense of the organization she works with, "How is working for social justice not Christian?" Of course, if one actually thinks about what she said, it makes no sense. Does she mean that everyone who works for social justice is by definition a Christian? I don't think that Jews or Muslims who work for social justice would appreciate that definition. But I realize now that I was not supposed to think about it; I was only meant to feel it. "Christian" does not really mean anything to her, except maybe "nice" in some sort of way. So what she really meant was, "How is working for social justice not nice?" This explains also why people who are not in the slightest bit Christian in any meaningful sense of the word still want to call themselves Christians. They want to be called "nice" and if there were any other word in our culture which communicated niceness so well, they would call themselves that instead. And of course, they will fight bitterly against anyone who would put any other content into the word Christian because then they could not rightly be called Christian (i.e., "nice" in a "special" way).
I had no idea (well, maybe some idea) that PLU was so anti-intellectual. Patricia says in her latest e-mail that the work of this task force "is not easy because appropriate actions are not simply the result of logical deduction from first principles. Neither the life of faith, nor the action of God's grace, nor education, nor public life that seeks to protect the dignity of individual conscience operate syllogistically." Of course, logic is not at all opposed to faith as she seems to suggest. I have reasons for why I trust God-real reasons that are perfectly reasonable and not at all opposed to logic. The effort to undermine logic is destructive to all discussion. The purpose of logic is to make things clear, to communicate carefully, to give coherent reasons, to make sense. If we abandon logic, none of these purposes can be achieved. If we no longer need to give reasons, then all we can do is express feelings. And, of course, one feeling is as valid as another. So, if I do not "feel" the same way you do, and if I will not allow reason to move me, then I cannot be moved-except by some irrational whim of feeling. Then discussion is pointless (as I have discovered) and even compromise will not be possible. Evan and I offered compromises to what we thought was best, but no compromise was offered in return. Feelings, after all, cannot be compromised. Since reasoning is impossible, the only way to come to unity is to force our feelings on others. All religious groups will be forced to bow to an idiosyncratic view of Lutheranism. The ultimate answer to any discussion will be, "What you say is not according to Lutheranism as I feel Lutheranism, and therefore is rejected without hope of appeal."
Patricia says, "Perhaps our experience modeling conversation across divergent Christian perspectives is something that can be expanded so that PLU can become a place of genuine conversation about religious and spiritual issues." Our experience is a model, certainly, but I would not be optimistic about expanding it. I for one do not think I could take any more of this type of frustration-talking to people who do not hear because they define words to mean whatever they want. That is not communication, but its very opposite. Dennis spoke about trying to work toward Christian unity, and that is a powerful dream of mine. But, if the level of discourse I have experienced is any indication, I am certain that Dennis' efforts will bear no fruit at all. That is because most of the Christian groups on campus actually take Christ seriously, and take His offered way of salvation seriously. Thus they will find no reason to take CMC seriously. The only way the CMC could achieve Christian unity would be through force and bullying ("You must feel the way I feel-the Lutheran way"), but that will fail also because the groups will move off campus.
As I said earlier, this discussion has confirmed all my worst fears. The CMC is determined to remain contentless, and thus any oversight it can exercise must be based on feelings. These feelings will not be required to follow any logic, and so decisions will be entirely arbitrary. Without content these feelings are not limited, and so the CMC will have limitless authority to impose arbitrary decisions. As long as the people in charge of the CMC are "nice" (and think that niceness and Christianity are related) they may not be too harsh on "fellow" Christians who do not quite "feel" the same way they do. But things change (witness the last forty years of changed attitudes toward Christianity on the PLU campus). Terrible things can be done by "religious" people with limitless power over those who do not "feel" things as they do. There is simply no way that I can support giving such an organization authority over anyone or anything. CMC should be limited to the official Lutheran ministries, and all other organizations (Christian and non-Christian) should be treated the same as all other non-religious organizations. Christians will flourish best without the "protection" or "guidance" of the CMC that has been presented in our discussions. The CMC is essentially irrelevant to many Christians on campus, and that fact should be reflected in its limited structure.
I realize that my position that the CMC should be limited to official Lutheran duties will be ignored. A majority of the carefully selected members of the task force will make their strong statement that Christianity-by Gosh-is not special on this campus, nor should it be allowed to be left alone by the ruling religionists. And after the majority has imposed itself, self-satisfied that it has been done "democratically" (if three men on an island vote to rape the two women on the island, is democracy still good?) and has been done in imitation of careful consideration, the majority will say, "This system has worked well for us." But the CMC will (and should) remain irrelevant to the real religious life of the campus.
Glenn Van Wyhe
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: CMC
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 00:06:38 -0700
From: Keith Cooper
[Well, it's probably now too late for anyone to read this before 7:30 tomorrow morning. Here it is anyway.]
I am very sorry that Glenn feels so disappointed and discouraged by both the process and (what he predicts as) the outcome of this task force. Perhaps by the end of our meeting tomorrow, he will have changed that position some. (Perhaps, instead, several others of us will have joined him in that opinion.)
While our e-mail interchanges have been extremely helpful in some ways, and to a certain extent, there is no question that this medium has its limitations. But I hope that you will find the following comments useful anyway.
I tried in my previous e-mail to focus on a central thread of our discussion that I thought would help us see what approach fit well on this campus. In so doing, I did not speak to many of the points that people raised. (Time constraints were also a factor, of course.) I did not intend to slight those positions, or arguments, by not responding to them, but it may well be, Glenn, that I have contributed in some way to your thinking that obvious truths were being ignored for reasons that very likely involved spiritual deficiencies. Perhaps I can make up for that some, if that was indeed the case, in this e-mail. Unfortunately, the result will be a fairly critical (but I hope not therefore automatically negative) message. I hope, however, that it will be seen as speaking to the matter with which we were charged, suggesting changes to the CMC constitution and bylaws.
While I could list disagreements with just about everyone who has written anything of much length, the focus of my concern is with positions taken by Glenn. Glenn, there have been many points you have made in your messages that I found valuable. These have included the need to clarify specific policies and expectations for student religious groups, the need for some sort of appeal process (if there is not already, as Ari mentioned, some standard general provision that could apply), and some of the concerns you had about an understanding of Christianity that seemed welcoming (or "nice") to the point of being vapid -- downplaying or even eliminating specific doctrinal content from a religious tradition or faith stance. But there have been many other things that I thought, to put it in a way that may not be the best use of e-mail, simply wrongheaded.
Some of that comes from the final paragraph of your latest (Wednesday 22:19) message. First, for a group not to adopt your position of limiting the CMC to official Lutheran duties is not to ignore your position, but to disagree with it. Second, I find little reason to agree with you that there has been only the "imitation of careful consideration" -- unless, that is, those who have thought carefully about such matters prior to the formation of the task force cannot be seen as having carefully considered something unless they change their minds as a result, in which case we would seem to have plenty of sauce for goose and gander alike.
I myself, as I said in a previous message, am deeply skeptical about a pluralist understanding of religion. But there are people who regard themselves as Christians, who regard themselves as committed to Christ, and who find pluralism intellectually attractive. Even if (or "though") they are mistaken, it would not seem to fit well with the educational mission of a Lutheran university to characterize Christianity in a narrow or overly precise way and tell them that they are not Christian. And I do agree with Patricia that Evan sure sounded like he was doing that, in suggesting that groups were not Christian in practice and/or doctrine if they did not see "fostering growth in a personal relationship with [Jesus]" as central to their mission, or did not have "some sort of evangelistic approach in their function."
Part of my concern about the way Dave and Evan put things was that it seemed to elevate a particular way of conceptualizing or imaging the Christian faith into essential doctrine. Either there is here little awareness of the variety of ways in which people have made sense out of their encounter with Jesus, or else there is an awareness of that variety and yet an insistence upon a narrow conception. Neither of those seems to me to fit well with the educational mission of a Lutheran university.
There are lots of other little things Glenn said that seemed to me off track. For example, Lindsay did not say or imply that all who work for social justice are Christian. I believe that her point was that a group of Christians which had as its focus social-justice issues should be regarded as a student religious group just as much as one that focused on one-on-one evangelism with the goal of a "born-again" experience. Again, Cindy did not say that a practicing Muslim might be a pluralistic Christian; rather, a pluralistic Christian might think that God was mediating salvation through the practice of Islam. Or again, Patricia was not suggesting that logic is opposed to the life of faith, or that one should not be expected to give reasons for one's faith stance, but only that (to put it my own way) there is no algorithm, no easy and simple way of working out these matters -- and perhaps also, no foundationalist first principles. Or again, in an earlier message (5/3) Glenn expressed consternation that a set of claims was full of inconsistencies, but I myself was unable to identify any member of the task force who actually held all of those points. I just don't see the anti-intellectualism that Glenn does, at least to the extent that he does. (Certainly not in anything Patricia or I have written.)
There are a variety of ways in which Christianity is privileged, if that is the word to use, on this campus. Part of that involves the Campus Ministry Office, and part involves -- or could easily involve -- the Campus Ministry Council. For example, a renewed emphasis on different Christian groups listening to one another, challenging one another as appropriate, and working together is something the university pastors could work toward, encouraged and supported by the CMC. But when it comes to the question of student religious groups, I still find myself understanding the mission and purpose of PLU in such a way that student activities are encouraged and open exploration -- even of positions the Church already knows to be mistaken -- is supported. I do not see reason for an oversight body to make theological judgments (although, if they wished, the campus pastors could do so, and could invite only certain groups into a joint venture).
There is no idiosyncratic imposition of Lutheranism in the current structure of the CMC. There is no arbitrary power, either, though I acknowledge that spelling things out more clearly is a good idea, and that in the end the CMC should not be the final arbiter. (Though I am not sure that it is, even now.) In exercising oversight of the student religious groups, any constraints would be those arising out of a clash between the educational mission of the university and the activities of a group. If a group wishes not to be accountable, then it won't be an officially recognized group, but I see no indication that students will be harassed or persecuted for wishing to belong to such a group nonetheless.
Once we move from the question of oversight of student religious groups to other functions of the CMC, current or anticipated, then I am not so sure that it will remain as contentless as Glenn fears. Certainly Dennis' e-mail (4/26) did not suggest that.
Finally: Glenn may well have a point about this task force being "carefully selected", though he is clearly hinting that this was so that it would reach a predetermined outcome, which I'm not so sure about. But let me be as blunt as he was: if there is persistent disagreement among us on important matters -- if his arguments, for example, do not persuade -- and if some sort of definite outcome is needed, does anyone really expect that an American evangelical viewpoint (a conservative evangelical viewpoint -- there is a fair amount of diversity within evangelicalism itself) is going to carry the day? That a statement of faith to be required of all Christian groups, such as was recently sent to the president, one that fits well -- in both general approach and specifics -- the theological tradition of my alma maters but not that of mainstream American Lutheranism, will be adopted? The fact that I don't think (in general -- there are nuances) that's what this place should be seems besides the point. It is not what this place is, and I don't see where PLU mission statements going back forty years call it to be that sort of place I hope that we will be able to continue working to understand one another's positions, to find points of agreement, and to be puzzled and, yes, maybe even a little distressed over ongoing differences. But should those differences continue, it will be for us (maybe each of us) to inform as best we can the next level of decision makers what we see as the central issues, and the best outcomes.
- Keith Cooper
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: CMC
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 11:06:55 -0700
From: Evan Thomas
To:
Glenn VanWyhe, urban
Dave and Glenn
I just wanted to say to you both that it was an extreme pleasure working with you these past months. Keep fighting the good fight and don't be discouraged, remember the Lord has already won...
In Jesus
Evan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: CMC
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 16:20:43 -0700
From: Glenn VanWyhe
To: Evan and Dave:
I want to thank you both for displaying your commitment to Jesus with great courage. It has been an inspiration to me, and I thank God for you both. I hope this effort has strengthened you both, for I am certain that there will be a need for such courage and even more in the future. I cannot tell you how happy it has made me to be a part of your battle for our Lord. Thanks for inviting me into this, and thank you for letting me work with you.
May God bless you forever and ever.
Glenn Van Wyhe
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: CMC...
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 09:47:51 -0700
From: Dave Urban
To: Glenn VanWyhe, Evan Thomas
Evan and Glenn,
Just wanted to echo your words Evan to both of you. I want to thank you guys for your commitment to the Lord. I will be praying for you guys next year and this campus for as you know this is only the beginning. Satan has quite a grip on this school and if revival is coming (which I believe it is) then Satan will continue to throw everything he has at us.
Thanks again and God bless.
In Jesus,
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: CMC
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 13:22:18 -0700
From: Glenn VanWyhe
Keith wrote an e-mail that I was not able to read prior to our meeting yesterday, and it is thoughtful enough to deserve a response from me. Indeed, I would be glad to respond to anyone who would like to make further comments. I believe this discussion is worth continued effort, and I am willing to make it. And I do think that e-mails are an excellent way to do much of the work. That is because I believe in writing, in taking the time to think things out and write them down carefully. That cannot be done in a conversation. Of course, there are things that can be done in conversation that cannot be done in writing. One possible perceived drawback of e-mails is that strong statements made in writing can seem too strong, since there is no face-to-face effects to mitigate them. I do not look at that as a significant hindrance, however, because I prefer strong statements. Keith, do not worry about appearing too hard. I like straight talk and bluntness, and I think I can handle it.
I appreciate your message, Keith, as I have enjoyed all along your generally reasonable approach. You made some good points about some overstatements of mine. I plead some extenuating circumstances. I have been exceedingly busy, working weekends and often into the late night. I was tired. I had also put a great many hours (hours that cost me) into writing my thoughts for this task force, and was disappointed that most others had not put a similar effort into something I considered quite important. That was not fair, because I am sure that you were all busy as the semester is drawing to a close. It was frustrating that we did not seem to have the time to deal with this issue adequately. These reasons do not excuse me, however. I apologize for making the suggestion that there was only an "imitation of careful consideration." I am sure that we all did what we could.
I was also extremely grateful to Patricia for helping us at the meeting to see clearly what it was that we were doing. Underneath all that we were doing, we were making a choice. (I cannot remember her exact words, but I remember my reformulation of it, which she assented to.) It was a choice between saying that salvation can come from "wherever" (the "pluralist" position) and saying that salvation comes from Christ alone. Or, to look at it from another angle, it was a choice between denying that salvation can come from wherever or denying that salvation comes from Christ alone. At least, at the end, we were all facing head-on exactly what it was that we were doing, and what the real choice was. When we made our choices (the choices we will be eternally responsible for) we knew what we were doing, and I am grateful to Patricia for that. Apparently all of my previous efforts had not managed to make that point clear until she helped us all see it.
There were some weak efforts even at the end to deny that that choice was what we were actually making. Although Keith had earlier admitted that students "may" (and I assured him that they will) see the single level 2 as saying that all religions are the same, he tried to argued even after Patricia's revelation that we were not really saying any such thing. Even though Dennis' reason for having all religious groups under CMC was that it would act as a sign and symbol that religion is special at PLU, Keith tried to argue that no real message was being sent by having a single level rather than two. But everyone else at least, I think, knew that a message was being sent. That was the reason there was such passion from both sides on this issue. That was exactly the point of the entire discussion from the beginning. A clear message was being sent, and it was a message of tremendous, indeed eternal, significance.
I think that we should be very careful about thinking that we can divide the world and our lives into boxes. There is not an education box, a church box, a politics box, a family box, etc., where there is some huge discontinuity as we move from box to box. All things are interrelated. All people are whole people, and it is the same person who moves from concentrating on one task to concentrating on another. That person should not deny one part of his life when he moves into another part of his life. In an earlier message about a week ago, Keith, you said,
"I worry that Glenn is conflating the role of Christians as members of the body of Christ, the Church, and their role in organizing and running a university. It is not the case that my desire for people to come to faith in Christ guides, in any direct way, my design of philosophy courses or my work with students on their senior theses. It would not control my talking with an advisee about a personal problem. I don't see that as a deficiency in my walk with God; others may, but I would submit that it is not obvious that they are correct. On a different level, of course I hope that my faith orientation guides and informs all of my actions, and that God uses them to further God's kingdom; but in that more general sense of things, I don't see any obvious or direct lesson for deciding how student religious groups are organized on the PLU campus."
I must simply say, Keith, that I do indeed see what you have described here as a deficiency in your walk with God, and I would encourage you to overcome it. If a person comes to you after a death in the family, and if you have received any comfort on this matter from Christ and His resurrection, then you are negligent in denying that comfort to someone who needs it. If a person comes to you with troubles as a result of destructive sexual practices, and if you have received any wisdom on this matter from the Lord, then you are negligent in denying that wisdom to someone who needs it. If a person comes to you struggling to understand life and things as they are, and if you have received wisdom on this matter from Christ (who is the key to all wisdom), then you are negligent in denying that wisdom to someone who needs it. Why would you deny such help? Because you are not in the right box to speak about Christ? Where did the idea of such discontinuous boxes come from? There is a superficial logic to it, but if the reality that people are whole people is recognized as a premise that reality forces on us, then the logic for boxes falls apart. I suspect that the idea of boxes was invented by someone who wanted to argue that, though he was destructive is his family box, he was perfectly fine in his business box or his politics box. The reality is that a destructive or faithless or deceitful person is a destructive or faithless or deceitful person no matter what box he is in. The argument for boxes is not valid. Nor is the argument valid that a Christian should only be a Christian (and talk like a Christian) in the church box. God is not the God merely of churches, but of all of a person's life and of all the areas of a person's life (including, yes, education). That is the whole point of the Lutheran concept of vocation. It is not that areas outside of church have nothing to do with God, but rather the opposite, that every area of life is of God and should be informed by our love of God and His love for us. Hiding that out of some concern for boxes is not right.
That is why it was not and could not be convincing that we should look at CMC as a bunch of separate boxes. It was suggested that one box had only to do with administration (and sent no other message), and so one level with everybody dumped in was fine, while another box had to do with ministry, and we could have different ministries as appropriate. That is simply not correct, nor would any reasonable student understand it that way. I think we should skip the whole business of levels and administration, and should speak only of ministry, since that should be only what CMC is about. We should never mention the word levels again, but say that CMC is composed of three ministries: one ministry to Lutherans, one ministry to Christian groups, and one ministry to inter-faith groups. Each ministry will have administrative issues, of course, but such administrative issues should always be entirely subsidiary to the ministry issues.
Let me focus again on communication. The goal of dumping all religious groups into one level or one group does send a message. Any attempt to deny that is unconvincing. The message is that salvation comes from whatever. I am completely opposed to that message with all of my heart, and I will oppose it every time it rises. I believe that salvation is through Christ alone, and that every attempt to deny that results in inestimable harm to whoever might heed such a denial. Furthermore, I am not willing to call a pluralist a Christian. Keith, if you were to walk up to me and tell me that you were a dog, I would not simply accept your self-definition and think of you from that point on as a dog. Self-definition is not an absolute. If you call yourself a dog, you are wrong, as far as any reasonable person is concerned (though I am sure an academic could stretch the definition of dog until you could be included in that class). I am not under obligation to think of you as a dog, but rather to try to help you understand that you are not a dog (and perhaps find you competent counseling to that end). A pluralist thinks that salvation comes from wherever, and therefore that Jesus is not special in any salvation sense. Why a person who does not think that Christ is truly special would even want to call himself a Christian is beyond me, but I certainly have no obligation to agree that he is a Christian. Words have meaning, and cannot be stretched to mean whatever we want. Rather, we should work within those meanings and try to be true to them. If you do not like what the word Christian means, then do not call yourself a Christian, but rather have the honesty and integrity to find some other word that more correctly describes your position.
There is, of course, more to be said. But, unless called upon, I shall restrain myself. Thank you all for allowing me the opportunity of working with you on this task so crucial to PLU as an institution.
Sincerely,
Glenn Van Wyhe