Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 03 September 2010

Mr. Doug DeVos visited campus today as Executive-in-Residence and speaker at the Executive Series Luncheon.

Mr. DeVos spoke in a student and personnel chapel, conducted a question-and-answer session with students and personnel, visited classrooms, and spoke at a university business luncheon. At the luncheon, Mr. DeVos recommended four values, all grounded in his Christian faith: Partnership—shared values; Integrity—Who are you when no one is looking; Personal Worth—everyone is special and important; Achievement—success is not sinful, but one should not stop at success…the next step is to help someone else.

A warm and engaging speaker, Mr. DeVos clearly loves his family and leads his business with an eye toward honoring God. He belies the current culture and sometimes media caricature of all business leaders as nothing more than unscrupulous robber barons ready to cheat the next person out of one more dollar. His commitment to integrity was on display as he shared both successes and some less than successful personal and professional experiences.

Mr. DeVos is the president of Alticor and its subsidiaries, global direct-selling giant Amway Corporation, North America’s e-commerce leader Quixtar, Inc., and business-to-business supplier Access Business Group LLC. As president he oversees the $6.4 billion enterprise and shares the chief executive office with Chairman Steve Van Andel.

The Cornerstone University Executive Series Luncheon is distinctive in that it encourages Christian business leaders to share how their faith influences them in the marketplace. The Series is now in its tenth year providing a venue about four times per year for discussion of Christian faith, business, the economy, and leadership. The lunch is provided to attendees without cost by Executive Series Luncheon supporters Integrity Business Solutions; Grotenhuis; and Mika, Meyers, Beckett and Jones, all of Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Series reinforces the university’s mission “to enable individuals to apply unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world.”

© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2006

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 03 September 2010

There’s probably not a week that goes by that I am not called upon to defend the “Christian-ness” of Cornerstone University on some issue or in some fashion. Usually I find this phenomenon rather fascinating. Sometimes, I confess, I find it frustrating.

People question the university's Christian commitment based upon their understanding of the phrase, and the number of these perspectives seems infinite.  No real consensus seems to exist anymore in what it means to be Christian.

Words that used to work in this defense no longer seem to work. For example, if I say CU is “conservative” people will assign their own definition to the word, which may include---theological understanding (which is what I mean when I use this word: CU is theologically conservative, which is to say that we believe the Bible is God’s Word and that it is our guide for faith and practice), political positions, rules or lifestyle commitments, or an organizational style or orientation as in not innovative, risk averse, or cautious. But CU does not demand that its employees always adopt politically conservative positions, CU bases its spiritual formation program upon spiritual discernment rather than rules, and CU is actually a rather progressive and innovative organization.

If I say that CU is “evangelical,” then people will think of everyone from Jim Wallis on the Left to Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson on the Right. I do not and CU does not niche on either end of this continuum. Or people hear the word “evangelical” and think CU is representative of the “Values Voters” who put Bush back in the White House in the 2004 election. Or people hear that word and think Fundamentalist, legalistic, or a group that doesn’t work and play well with others, has a vision for the world that brooks no disagreement, and in general is comprised of people who would not make good neighbors. Actually, if I say CU is “evangelical,” I mean that we believe the Bible and we believe that Jesus Christ is God’s Son through whom one may receive salvation from sin.

If a university student goes to a dance, than it must mean the university is no longer Christian. If a professor uses a book in his class that was produced by a non-Christian, than this must mean the university no longer cares about its faith. If the university hires according to its faith principles this must mean people at the university stand in judgment of all others who may affirm slightly different views of Christian faith. If an university athlete does not comport himself or herself well on the court or field of play, than this must mean the entire university is given to poor sportsmanship and non-Christian attitudes. If people give to the university and allow it to build a beautiful structure this must mean the university is more about materialism than missions or ministry. If a faculty member writes something someone else does not like, this must mean that the professor’s view is the university’s view and, thus, the university is no longer to be trusted. And so it goes.

Cornerstone University is a Christian university. What does this mean? It means that all of our trustees and personnel are authentic and dedicated Christian people. It means that our academic, athletic, student development, seminary, and radio programming are intentionally constructed upon a biblical worldview with the purpose of teaching or propagating a biblical worldview. It means that we make decisions we believe will advance our mission—“to enable individuals to apply unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world.” It does not mean we are perfect, but it does mean we strive for excellence, consistency with our biblical worldview, and effectiveness.

Sole Deo Gloria.

© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2006

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogrers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 29 August 2010

Christianity helped conceive the idea of the university, which developed from schools attached to great cathedrals in places like Paris and Bologna.[i] The pattern continued in America. Beginning with Harvard University in 1636, for the next two centuries most institutions of higher learning east of the Mississippi River were founded by a religious or specifically Christian group. Yet today, the only thing left of biblical Christianity in most of these institutions is the Scripture reference inscribed on the gatepost.

“To anyone who investigates the current academic standing of reason, truth, knowledge, human individuality, and even the meaning of meaning itself, the thought is hard to avoid: if this is not a crisis, it is certainly not an intellectual position on which to sustain a great civilization or even a satisfactory university.”[ii]

“The modern academy has lost any consensus on that which is true, good, or beautiful. That’s another way of saying that the ontological and epistemological foundation for the pursuit of truth has pretty much crumbled, leaving a worldview vacuum of yawning proportions.”[iii] Postmodern thought’s greatest cultural foothold is in the academy.[iv]

In the postmodern university, the clearly dominant viewpoint teaches students that truth does not exist and that there is no meaning or morality (and thus, no hope). Yet people continue to send their children there.

No one suggests that students cannot receive a “higher education” at a contemporary public university. Of course they can and do. But students cannot receive a Christian “higher education” in a public institution of higher learning. This is one reason Cornerstone University exists.

Of even greater importance are the needs of people in current culture. God said to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31). So Cornerstone University cannot proceed, “business as usual,” blithely ignoring the spiritual destitution of our neighbors. Men and women, their culture, and the created order stand in need of redemption and reconciliation found only in the One who said, “I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6).

This fact compels us. This must become Cornerstone University’s passion. Cornerstone University must, therefore, offer distinctive academic programs that prepare Christian students for a life calling of serving God and enjoying his creation by evangelizing people and transforming culture for Jesus Christ.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 29 August 2010

A January 7-8, 2006 article in The Wall Street Journal, called “A Test of Faith,” tells the story of Wheaton College’s (IL) decision not to continue the employment of a non-tenured faculty member who converted to Catholicism. Wheaton College is an academically outstanding Christian institution of higher learning that requires full-time faculty to sign annually a doctrinal statement affirming belief in “biblical doctrine that is consonant with evangelical Christianity.” The faculty member’s conversion put him in a position in which he no longer could, in the view of Wheaton leadership, affirm this key point in the college’s belief system.

It would appear that Wheaton College’s administrators acted properly, professionally, and compassionately, doing what is right for Wheaton and its mission and stopping short of condemning the departing faculty member as a man, as a professor, or as a fellow believer.

Cornerstone University operates with a similar mission and doctrinal commitment. All university personnel and members of the Board of Trustees annually sign their affirmation of the university’s doctrinal statement, “The Cornerstone Confession.” In addition, personnel are expected to be “faithfully involved” in a “conservative and biblical church.”

This form of annual, mutual commitment to a list of biblical doctrines helps define what we mean when we say “Cornerstone University is a conservative Christian university.”

Cornerstone is a higher educational institution organized as a “university.” It is an avowedly “Christian” university in that we work to build all programs upon an understanding of a biblical worldview. “Conservative” is a theological term. In this sentence and on campus “conservative” means that we believe the Bible is what it claims that it is—the Word of God, and that Word is our guide for faith and practice. Our conservative theology also makes us conservative in our morality—in terms of our attitudes toward definitions of life (“pro-life”) and human sexuality. As a conservative Christian university we work to be, as our “Cornerstone” name implies, “Christ-centered.”

So Cornerstone University is different. It is not like public universities, and it is not like many private colleges and universities, including those that are church-related or even some that are Christian.

Attracting and enabling a faculty and staff who are themselves conservative Christians is not a sacrifice, not limiting, and not an isolating act. Rather, this approach provides a coherent and cohesive philosophy of education. It provides the “uni” in university, which liberates university professionals to explore and to teach “all truth as God’s truth.”

Much is made in the Journal article about whether such faith-based hiring practices somehow violates intellectual “diversity” or prevents “quality” or otherwise biases or limits the institution’s academic program. But I don’t think so. Sometimes, given our criteria, filling a faculty position is more challenging and may take more time. But it is a big world, and we serve a Big God. He counts many in his service who work in a vast array of professions. It’s simply our task to find them. And I can say from experience that we have done so.

If we are not faithful to our mission as understood in part by our confession of faith, we are not distinct. We are not focused. We are not even needed, for there are many colleges and universities that no longer work with any “test of faith” in their hiring practices.

© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2006

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 25 August 2010

On the day before the sixty-fourth anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor the United States military had to go to the United States Supreme Court to defend its ability to recruit on the campuses of the nation’s most prestigious law schools. Because of the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” policy toward gay and lesbian military personnel, a number of law schools have denied military recruiters access to their campuses.

While the schools do not want the United States military they do want millions of dollars in government largesse. But the government has threatened to withhold these funds if military recruiters are not allowed to recruit among the nation’s best and brightest students. The government’s response is based upon a 1994 law allowing the government to withhold funds when military recruiters are not given the same access to campuses as other groups.

A consortium of some 30 law schools claims the schools’ First Amendment rights have been violated by the government’s intention to withhold millions in aid. Schools like Yale Law School contend that they have every right to oppose what they term “discrimination against gays and lesbians,” so the government’s threat to withhold funds directly undermines the schools’ right to free speech.

This case will not likely be decided by the United States Supreme Court until June of next year. But it presents an interesting nexus of current hot potato issues: academic freedom, free speech, attitudes toward homosexuality, military recruiting, government and military action in wartime.

Who among us, say thirty or more years ago, would have ever believed that the United States military would be denied access to public “pro-gay” campuses while the military is cast as “anti-gay”? This debate is not about academic freedom—faculty members are still free to express their views in the classroom as pertains to their coursework. This debate is not about free speech—law schools are still free to assume whatever position on homosexuality that they deem appropriate. This debate is about money. The law schools want their cake and they want to eat it too.

The United States Supreme Court, as it appears disposed to do, should rule in favor of the government and the Pentagon in this case. No one is forcing the schools to accept government funds, nor is any agency forcing them to accept military recruiters. The government is simply saying that there are certain expectations associated with accepting those funds. If the schools want the funds, than they need to provide access to military recruiters. It’s a simple business transaction.

This case is also about the gay agenda. The unique requirements of the military service necessitate its current policy toward gay and lesbian military personnel. The Pentagon doesn’t condemn or discriminate against them. It does say their sexual predilections should remain private matters so that they in no way affect military unit cohesiveness and operations. It’s straight forward. It’s simple. But individuals embracing homosexuality do not interpret these standards this way. For them anything short of full acceptance is discrimination by definition. That’s where the law schools fit.

Many faculty and staff members in law schools have apparently embraced this new public morality. They don’t just provide open access to the schools to all students. The schools assume, as they do in this case, a proactive stance promoting gay agendas.

I’ve said before. I am not anti-gay person nor anti-gay person civil liberties or current civil rights. I am against special rights, and I am against normalizing gay behavior in American culture. If you believe, as I do, that homosexual expression is immoral, than you cannot embrace, much less promote, each new advance of the gay lifestyle. My position is not always pleasant or easy to maintain, but it is right and righteous.

© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2005

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers, President or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.