Open Letter to Cedarville - What is a Conspiracy Theory?
I’ve been a member of the facebook group “Students Who Want the Truth About the Faculty Exodus Away from Cedarville” for quite some time now. My reason for joining the group was because I wanted to find the truth about the faculty exodus away from Cedarville. What I have found instead is a very disturbing trend.
I live in Korea, so my information is very limited. I do not know all the facts, but I can guarantee you that not being in the midst of the rumor mill gives me the ability to more objectively view the situation. I wish I knew more, but as it stands, I must be content with what I have. I do not attempt here to show new data that will bring to light any new updates to any of the situations. I only attempt to point out this trend that I see among the Cedarville community with whom I have interacted with on this issue.
So what is this trend? I have seen more and more people surrounding this issue who have exhibited behavior and illogical thought consistent with a conspiracy theory oriented mindset. I asked a question in my title: What is a conspiracy theory? A conspiracy theory is created when an entity (organization, person, etc) makes some sort of accusation against another (usually some sort of governing body), and despite the fact that this accusation, by its very nature, lays the burden of proof upon the accuser, the accuser acts and compels others to act as though the burden of proof lies on the accused. We will use the most popular recently proposed conspiracy theory for our example: 9/11.
The accusation of the 9/11 conspiracy theory is that George W. Bush and his administration either intentionally allowed or directly caused the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 for the purpose of creating an excuse to go to war with Iraq so that he could 1) get their oil and 2) finish what his father started.
This is a very serious claim. If true, then it shows George W. Bush to be the most evil man in power since Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. This kind of accusation must be proved by solid evidence before it can be given any credibility. Until then noone should take it seriously. BUT, since it was presented to the nation in somewhat entertaining semi-documentary form by a guy named Michael Moore who’s attitude through it all is, “If I’m wrong, why doesn’t the government prove me wrong?” people are falling for this nonsense. What Mr. Moore doesn’t realize is that the burden of proof does not lie with the government. It lies with him. He must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his accusation is true in order for it to be valid. But he hasn’t, so it isn’t.
The same is true with the Chemtrail/Contrail conspiracy theory. The accusation is that for whatever reason, the US Government is using airliners to dump toxic chemicals on the populus of the nation through the exhaust. Again they will say repeatedly, “If we’re wrong, why don’t they prove us wrong?” Sorry guys. The burden of proof is not on the government. It is on you. Show some solid evidence, and you’ll get some credibility.
The same goes for Cedarville. The accusation is that the Administration is intentionally forcing out Bible faculty who display conservative hermeneutics and commitments to Biblical truth because they are intentionally trying to move away from Biblical authority. If that is wrong, why don’t they prove it wrong? Because the burden of proof is not on them.
This distrubs me on two levels. First: Anyone connected with Cedarville should be above this kind of illogical thought process. Cedarville is a University. It is an academic institution. The notion that many of its students have bought into a conspiracy theory is laughable, and IMHO a much more harsh indictment of the school’s ability to do its job than whether they dismiss a couple of faculty.
Arguments against the position that Cedarville is divorcing conservative roots and that the recent firings have anything to do with doctrine:
1) Dr. Brown has spent his life fighting the effects of postmodernism. Why in the world would he change now? That would be like Ronald Regan deciding that the USA should be Communist. HUH?
2) Dr. Robert Gromacki (one of the more conservative professors) has read the books by Robert McLaren and other books including the MacArthur book on this issue. Then, armed with a proper understanding of what the Emergent Church is and what they really teach, he interviewed the Cedarville faculty most often accused of espousing Emergent views and came away convinced that “no one within the School of Biblical and Theological Studies is seeking to promote the belief systems of Brian McLaren and the Emerging Church movement.” Dr. Warren, a Cedarville trustee, collaborates this finding. You can read it for yourself at: http://www.cedarville.edu/academics/avp/truth/gromackistatement.cfm
3) Even though Dr. Hoffeditz, Dr. Mappes, Dr. Cragoe and Dr. Thigpen were among the more conservative professors in the Bible department, many conservative professors still remain. Two of the more stark examples I offer are Dr. Blumenstock and the aforementioned Dr. Gromacki. If Cedarville was indeed divorcing Biblical roots and attempting to espouse the Emergent ideals, why not “clean house” on the conservative faculty?
4) Dr. Brown has claimed that the personnel actions taken (there are only 4 that were taken by the University. All of the other 12 you will find listed in the group left on their own. In fact even one of the four actually left the University on his own (Cragoe). It was another action that caused him to do so.) were for violations of the faculty handbook. Why shouldn’t we believe him? The only reason not to believe him is if you accept the conspiracy theory. There’s no other reason not to belive him. The objection of course is to point out the lack of details in his explanation. But I answer that aside from the fact that the Administration does not owe us details, it is a matter of confidentiality and none of our business what the details were. Suffice it to say that to accuse Dr. Brown of lying here (and it would be a flat out lie) brings the burden of proof upon the accuser.
5) Inviting Emergent church chapel speakers does not imply endorsment of their point of view. I don’t care if it’s the Staley Lecture series. Chapel is a class on contemporary Christianity. A class on world religions would be remiss if it focused solely on Christianity. A class on contemporary Christianity would be remiss if it focused solely on one particular denomination or tradition. The purpose of inviting chapel speakers (especially ones who do not necessarily agree with the University’s position) is to expose students to concepts, ideas and beliefs that exist in contemporary Christianity so they can practice interacting with them in a Biblical manner while they are at school in the context of a structure in which they can ask questions and seek help. If the Emergent Church is at all part of the contemporary Christianity landscape, then they ought to be part of the Chaple program.
I could go on. I could discuss many issues pertaining to whether it is right and good to move away from a Baptist position. I could mention the incident in which the Administration supposedly demanded the documents from the grievence committee hearing on Dr. Hoffeditz - a move that was touted by the conspiracy theorists to be a cover up type move. I could point out that Dr. Brown then came out in favor of Hoffeditz’s reinstatement - hardly a cover up if you ask me. But I don’t think I have time to go into all of that.
Many people on BOTH sides of this issue are getting very angry and pointing fingers over what ultimately boils down to an EQUIVOCATION. This whole issue stems from the firing of Dr. Lambourne over his use of the word certainty (which btw I find to be a good definition… if you understand epistemology from a metaphysical standpoint, Lambourne was absolutely right) and it has gone way out of proportion to the point where people are drawing lines and taking sides when it doesn’t really matter. Remember this IT DOESN’T MATTER. And if the firing of Dr. Hoffeditz, Dr. Mappes Dr. Thigpen, and the strongarming of Dr. Cragoe was in any way related to this issue at all it was because they behaved inappropriately. I know that’s tough for some of you to swallow, seeing as how you know and love these profs. Trust me. I do to. But I had Dr. Mappes and Dr. Cragoe, and while I can’t see Cragoe losing his cool, I can see him risking his neck for something he is convicted of (a very good characteristic) and I can see Mappes losing his cool. Don’t know about Thigpen or Hoffeditz, but there is no reasonable logical reason to assume that Dr. Brown is lying when he says that they violated the faculty handbook.
Everyone else who has left has either left for completely unrelated reasons, or because they want to protest. End of story. Cedarville University is, has been, and will continue to be an institution in which students can pursue God’s truth in a free and open environment where inquiry is welcome and discussion is encouraged. If any of you have a problem with that, you can go somewhere else. If you want to be spoonfed doctrine, go to Bible college. If you want to just learn a skill or something, go to trade school or community college to get an associates degree. If you’re at the university to be at the university then use your brain.