Commencement commentary
Romney
Editor’s Note: Unlike most universities, Liberty has two commencement speakers each year, one at the baccalaureate and one at the final ceremony on Saturday. Most universities no longer have a baccalaureate service as part of commencement, but Liberty has continued that practice so that one of its two speakers each year is always a strongly committed Christian. Over the past 25 years, many of Liberty’s speakers for the final ceremony on Saturday have been leaders from the worlds of entertainment, business and politics. Most of them did not share Liberty’s doctrinal beliefs, but Liberty has never held a commencement that did not include a strong gospel message from a Christian leader at the baccalaureate service.
Pro: Commencement speakers chosen to encourage graduates, not preach
Two terms seem to be highly misconstrued with Liberty University’s recent announcement of Gov. Mitt Romney as the 2012 Commencement speaker: baccalaureate and commencement.
Romney’s religious belief in a Mormon faith has left many of the Liberty community struggling to reconcile his worldview with the convictions of the school, claiming a breach in the foundational values of the university.
Contrary to that belief, the commencement ceremony is not one final sermon to the graduating class — that role is reserved for the baccalaureate service. Rather, the commencement ceremony is one final challenge to the students. Traditionally, the ceremony may feature persons from the religious, entertainment, or political industries, all of which have been represented at Liberty in past years.
Past commencement speakers have included those such as former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, Billy Graham, Newt Gingrich, Chuck Norris, Ben Stein and Glenn Beck. Liberty’s commencement speakers have represented almost every faith and have even included some with no known religious affiliation at all.
Who better to challenge students to aspire to greatness than a potential president?
Students have the opportunity to hear from a man who may possibly be the next president of the United States. Although some of his beliefs may differ from those held by many in the university community, it’s important to remember that our political leaders are not our spiritual leaders.
This university has always welcomed persons with differing ideals than Liberty. In spring 2006, 40 students from Nepal were admitted into the university. The late Chancellor Dr. Jerry Falwell Sr. received numerous complaints regarding the students’ faith, but he did not send the students from Nepal away.
“I understand there are some folks who don’t agree with my decision to admit all these students,” Falwell said. “But let me tell you something: If 25,000 Christians can’t love 40 Buddhists in the name of Jesus, then we need to shut down this university.”
Liberty’s motto is to “train Champions for Christ.” The university has offered students numerous opportunities to gain a Christ-centered education, as well as encouraged students in their spiritual growth through various organizations such as Student Leadership.
By the students’ senior year, their faith should be solidified. That is Liberty’s desire.
“Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching…” according to Ephesians 4:14.
As Champions for Christ, our faith should not waver based on the person speaking at commencement. Our faith should be challenged and stretched by the speaker — whether he is of Christian or Mormon faith.
Con: Choosing Romney to speak continues a dangerous and unethical trend
Liberty University has spent 40 years maintaining its motto of “Training Champion for Christ,” yet three of its past five commencement speakers have not claimed to hold the Christian faith. This seems to be a cause for concern.
Mitt Romney was announced as Liberty’s 39th commencement speaker, great — but he is a Mormon.
The ethical issue many students are facing has nothing to do with Romney as a person, but everything to do with the foundational values of Liberty as an institution and the apparent lack of concern over sending off the newest generation of graduates with a farewell from a different faith.
Yes, Romney is the forerunning Republican Presidential candidate, but how does that qualify him as the main voice during the “largest Christian university’s” commencement ceremony?
Commencement is, theoretically, supposed to be the last words from the university encouraging its graduates to go forth into the world, maintaining the values that the institution has developed within them.
If Liberty were a secular institution, this would not be a big deal — but it is not. If Liberty wants to wear the Christian T-shirt, so to speak, then it needs to follow through with the guides set forth in the Bible.
Romans 12:2 says, “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is — his good, pleasing and perfect will.”
Liberty is conforming to the pattern of the world. It is cool and progressively academic to have a potential future president speak at Commencement — but is it Christ-honoring?
Everyone on the other side of the fence is calling out for tolerance, including Romney himself — but biblically there is no such thing as tolerance.
Yes, we are called to love those who are lost. That does not mean we are called to let them live in darkness. We are called to be shining lights —to show people the way, the truth and the life.
“I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God … It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions,” Romney said in his speech on religion back in 2007.
Well, that is taking tolerance to a whole new level. Not every religion draws people to God. In fact, many religions pull people away from the one true God by sacrificing them to idols.
How can one argue that we all worship the same God? That all religions hold the same convictions? This, my friends, sounds like a confused man, not a Christian qualified to send off our class of 2012.
Interesting commentary. One thing that is taken for granted, albeit erroneously, is that in order to be “Christian” one must be a Protestant. If we look historically at the term “Christian,” it was first applied to worshipers of Christ in Christian communities as a nickname. It was later accepted by Christians as a mark of pride, being in a sense taking upon themselves the name of Christ. How is it that Protestants have created such a narrow view of what the term “Christian” means. Many take it so far as to exclude Catholics and Orthodox Christians, not just LDS, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. My question is, who gave Protestants the authority to say who believes in Christ and who doesn’t. If someone says they believe in Christ, since when was it anyone’s responsibility to say, “I’m sorry. You don’t understand his teachings in the same way I do, so you aren’t Christian?” For all those who most Protestants label as “Christian” there are widely divergent views on matters of practice, like the mode of Baptism, or other doctrinal issues. Where is the arbitrary line that marks those who are acceptable Christians and those who don’t quite measure up?
Also, the “Con” argument was equivocating about Romney’s words regarding different faiths. Romney stated that all faiths bring you closer to God, but he never said that they all worship the same god or that they necessarily hold the same convictions. If the writer doesn’t understand how a religion that doesn’t worship Christ can help one become more spiritual and therefore closer to God, perhaps getting outside of the US and going to a place where Christianity isn’t the dominant religion, then truly trying to understand and become friends with people unlike himself/herself will help to understand the truth of this statement. Will adherence to the religion bring the adherent all the way to Christ? Of course not, but “closer” is relative!
Pingback: Romney defiende el matrimonio tradicional | cursovt
Pingback: Romney defiende el matrimonio tradicional | Artis Manus
Pingback: Romney apela al voto evangélico con una defensa del matrimonio tradicional : VivaBonao.com
Next stop, The New York Times!
Pingback: Romney apela al voto evangélico con una defensa del matrimonio tradicional « Evangelizadoras de los apóstoles
I am surprised this writer spoke of Christ and stated that “biblically there is no such thing as tolerance”. Christ was the embodiment of tolerance and forgiveness not intolerance and self-righteousness.
I stand with Rev Falwell who said:“If 25,000 Christians can’t love 40 Buddhists in the name of Jesus then we need to shut down this university.” Change the words “40 Buddhists” to 1 Mormon and the word “university” to Liberty Champion and you have my view.
Get over this because you are not talking about Christ’s view you’re talking about your view.
Pingback: Romney defiende el matrimonio tradicional | Actualidad - Noticias
Pingback: Dossier33 » Romney apela al voto evangélico con una defensa del matrimonio tradicional
Pingback: Romney apela al voto evangélico con una defensa del matrimonio tradicional | Dossier El Gran Fundamento
Pingback: The Weekend:The Bullying Meme and Romney’s Liberty University Speech | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder
It is not an “arbitrary line” that demarcates the true Christian faith, but the test of the teaching set forth in the Holy Scriptures.
Just one example: Does the person who calls himself Christian accept the doctrine of the Trinity? Christians do; Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses do not. Any person who denies the Trinity cannot be considered a Christian.
The Apostle Paul warned about false or distorted gospels (e.g., 2 Cor. 11:3-4; Gal. 1:6-9). Jude enjoined Christian believers to defend the historic faith (Jude 1:3).
Truth is not “tolerant.” Truth is narrow, it excludes all falsehood. But, Christian love is expansive, gracious, generous. Christians are to “speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15).
These two–truth and love–are essential. Both are needed in carrying out the mandate of the risen Christ, to “preach the gospel to all creation” (Mark 16:15).
“Who better to challenge students to aspire to greatness than a potential president?”
I thought Christ preached greatness by becomming the least.
“Although some of his beliefs may differ from those held by many in the university community, it’s important to remember that our political leaders are not our spiritual leaders.”
“render unto Caesar what is Caesar, and unto God what is God’s. Can you name anything as a Christian that does not belong to God? NOTHING, even your vote belongs to Him. So can you vote for someone who openly is against Christ?
As to the comment about loving 40 Buhdist: I love Mr. Romney. He is a fellow human being, but he is lost and so I pray for his salvation. That is a far cry from accepting his belief system.
Have you read Ghandi’s response to “Why did you reject Christianity.” “I did not reject Christianity, I rejected Christians.” In American we are so deluded by our wealth, that we are as hypocritical as the pharasee of Jesus’ day. The only solution is not to vote for either. For one claims to be a Christian, but his views on many things are not biblically based, and the other is a non-believer. Again how can you vote for someone who believes Jesus and Satan are brothers?
1. Does that mean no one should have significant goals and try to set the example for others or strive to earn positions of leadership in their given field?
2. You completely took that verse out of context and misused it. Christ was saying that people ought to follow the laws of their country (by paying taxes in that instance).
3. We are not electing a pastor, we are electing a civic leader. If you do not like the choices, exercise your ability to choose by voting in other elections as well and changing the political climate. Or run for office yourself.
Representational government in the framework of a constitutional republic is a unique blessing we have been given by ancestors who died earning and defending it. Shirking your duty (and justifying it via misapplied Bible verses) is frankly appalling.