Posted on 09/11/2005 6:21:04 AM PDT by rhema
She's bright, homeschooled, and devout. She is definitely college material. So her parents, having read about the relativism and debauchery of the nation's secular universities, send her to a Christian college.
After her parents finish hauling boxes into her dorm and drive away, she is thrilled at the chance to study with so many others who share her faith. By the first week of class, she already has made many Christian friends and has joined a good Bible study. Her classes, though, are confusing.
In her Introduction to Bible class, her professor explains that the Bible was written by many different authors over many centuries and so cannot be taken literally. The professor in her psych class, who calls herself a feminist, teaches that "homophobia," not homosexuality, is a mental illness. In English, she has to read a modern novel filled with profanity and graphic sex scenes. Her biology class teaches Darwinian evolution and makes fun of "creationists" who believe in Intelligent Design.
When she asks her professors about the disconnect between what is going on in the classroom and the college's professed Christian identity, they tell her, "We are just trying to open your mind. That's what a college education is all about. Yes, we are Christians, but we have to challenge our incoming students' narrow fundamentalism in order to broaden their perspectives and make them well-educated." She marvels that these teachers don't seem to recognize that the ideologies they are so impressed with are far narrower than what the Bible teaches. After four years, she graduates, with an education that is little different from that of her friends who went to secular schools.
This scenario plays out over and over again, to the consternation of many students and their parents. As John Mark Reynolds, a professor and director of the honors program at Biola University, observes, "Many profs view their mission as helping poor, right-wing Christian children outgrow their parents' faith."
But not all professors and Christian colleges are like that. In a time when the postmodernist academy is jettisoning truth, reason, and the Western tradition, Christians—with a worldview well suited for education—have a dramatic opportunity to exert intellectual and cultural leadership. In many cases, Christian colleges do give their students a first-rate education, even as they contribute positively to the student's spiritual formation.
Certainly, the demand for what Christian colleges can offer is booming. Between 1990 and 2002, enrollment in the 100 evangelical schools that make up the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities rose by 60 percent.
So to kick off the new academic year, WORLD brought together a panel of distinguished veterans of Christian education: John H. White, president-emeritus of Geneva College; Samuel T. Logan, former president and now chancellor of Westminster Theological Seminary; and Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. As a Christian college English professor for just under 20 years, I also participated in the discussions. What follows represents our common general assessment of the state of Christian colleges.
Conservative Christians tend to value the colleges that were founded by their church bodies or that exist to transmit their particular intellectual and theological heritage. But sometimes those colleges promote theological ideas that undermine that heritage: "the openness of God" movement that denies God's omniscience and omnipotence, "new perspectives on Paul" that deny justification by faith, and feminist theology pushing for the ordination of women.
In The Dying of the Light: The Disengagement of Colleges and Universities from Their Christian Churches (1998), Catholic scholar James Burtchaell studies the history of religiously founded schools, documenting how time and again colleges founded in a specific theological tradition shift to generic Christianity, then to being "church-related," then to holding Christian "values" if not belief, until finally they are as secularized as any public university.
This process is already complete in most institutions founded by mainline Protestants—from Southern Methodist University to Princeton. Catholics held out a little longer, but a study by Patrick Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society, in The Catholic World Report found that Catholic universities now make their students less Catholic. He found that 45 percent of incoming freshmen at the major Catholic universities believe that abortion should be legal; by the time they are seniors, 57 percent believe in abortion, contrary to church teaching. Fifty-five percent of freshmen believe in homosexual marriage; by the time they graduate, 71 percent do. Only 30 percent of freshmen approve of casual sex, but by the time they are seniors, 50 percent do.
Evangelical colleges tend to resist the tide, but not always. In 1988, sociologist James Davison Hunter, in his book Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation, found a similar phenomenon in evangelical institutions. In a survey of students from nine members of the Christian College Consortium (Wheaton, Gordon, Westmont, Bethel, Houghton, Seattle-Pacific, George Fox, Taylor, and Messiah), he found that while 56 percent of incoming students scored high on his "religious orthodoxy" index, that number declined to 42 percent when the students were seniors.
Those holding traditional views of the family plummeted from 45 percent to 30 percent for men, and 34 percent to 14 percent for women. "Contemporary Christian higher education," Mr. Hunter concludes, "produces individual Christians who are either less certain of their attachments to the traditions of their faith or altogether disaffected from them."
But that was in 1988. In her book God on the Quad: How Religious Colleges and the Missionary Generation Are Changing America, Jewish researcher Naomi Schaefer Riley cites Mr. Hunter's research, but reports that recent evidence shows Christian college graduates to be more conservative morally and theologically.
"I believe the tide is moving the other way rather than a watering down," said panelist Mr. White. He sees "an openness and hunger on the part of young faculty" to relate their faith to their discipline. "When I began teaching a biblical worldview course 30 years ago," he said, "other than [theologian Francis] Schaeffer and some obscure Dutch work in the Kuyper tradition, there were no books for college students. Now there are many that are well-written."
Though a veteran of many battles to keep his institution faithful to its biblical heritage, Mr. White finds the climate much improved. "After a year of returning to the classroom I find many students and faculty eager to embrace and understand orthodox Christianity and the holism of the Lordship of Christ."
This points to an important shift in the relationship between faith and learning. Historian Douglas Sloan of Columbia University has shown that a "two realms" model dominated Christian scholarship through most of the 20th century. Objective knowledge of the outside world was considered the realm of science. Inner feelings, values, and commitments to meaning were the realm of faith.
In practice, this distinction meant that faith and learning were not integrated at all; faith was not allowed to trespass onto the territory of science, knowledge, and facts. This was a disaster theologically, as faith was turned into an interior set of emotions, with no connection to external truth.
In today's climate, the fact/value distinction—and the exaltation of scientific rationalism—has been shot down, even for secularist scholars. Christian thinkers from Herman Dooyeweerd to Francis Schaeffer have critiqued that dualism. Nancy Pearcey, researcher with the Discovery Institute, in her book Total Truth has exploded the "two realms" model.
Instead, today's Christian scholars tend to approach issues of faith and learning in terms of "worldview." This allows them to see and build upon the distinct biblical assumptions about God and His creation—such as the complexity of human beings having been made in God's image and yet fallen into sin—while still dealing accurately with the various secularist ideologies, each of which can be seen as an alternative worldview.
So if contemporary Christian scholarship has found a way to effectively relate faith and learning, why are so many Christian colleges still struggling to keep their identity? As WORLD's panel of college presidents made clear, the strongest tides faithful schools have to swim against are institutional and cultural.
Financial pressures can change the direction of a school. Presidents, who now have to focus on fundraising, must cultivate wealthy donors. "Once an institution becomes dependent upon a donor base that no longer holds Christian conviction as the central defining mark of the school, a process of liberalization or secularization inevitably follows," said Mr. Mohler. In some institutions, he said, "a loss of Christian conviction and character can be traced to just one major donor who insisted on a more liberal, less church-directed identity. "
Mr. Logan told of donors who offered gifts of a million dollars plus, if Westminster would change its position on apologetics or give a woman an endowed chair. Not that donor requests are necessarily a bad thing, observed Mr. Logan, but they can have unintended consequences. "Suppose, for example, the Lilly Endowment offered a funding initiative in support of multiculturalism in theological education. It is possible that the conditions set by Lilly would not require subtle alterations in institutional identity. But it is also possible that those conditions would require such alterations. It takes great corporate wisdom to make the right decision and it could take extraordinary courage to do what is right (especially if that meant turning away from a lot of Lilly money)."
Mr. Mohler cited another temptation: "Mission creep can quickly pull an institution away from its more clearly articulated Christian identity. As a rule, the broader the scope of the institution, the greater the danger of loosening church and confessional commitments." He gave the example of a college wanting to attract more students and asking, Why not a pharmacy school? The school may not be able to attract evangelical faculty members qualified to teach pharmacy. As a result, hiring practices get loosened. Non-Christian students uninterested in the college's Christian identity come to study pharmacy. Resources get shifted to the pharmacy program and away from the school's original mission.
Faculty hiring is another issue. Mr. Mohler cited the problem of "catalog envy," in which schools hire a new professor with a Ph.D. from a prestigious Ivy League institution over someone from a lesser-known school who might be a better fit with the school's Christian identity. Also, in the postmodernist climate in which words can have different meanings according to each person, it becomes more difficult to ascertain whether a professor subscribes to a particular statement of faith, or what he means when he says he does.
Presidents have to be especially attentive. "I am personally involved in every faculty hire," Mr. Mohler said. "I interview all candidates, read their published material, and check out everything from their resumés to their church responsibilities and their marriage/family commitments. The president must be a scholar who is intellectually engaged, if this is to be effective."
Secularist accrediting agencies can also pressure a school away from its Christian identity. Mr. Mohler told about his institution's social work program. "The Council on Social Work Education is adamantly pro-homosexual and committed to 'non-judgmentalism.' That led to an impasse here, the closing of the school.
"We spent years working to convince our regional accreditation agency that confessionalism allows an authentic academic experience," Mr. Mohler said. "It was so foreign to the visiting committee (in the main) that they were simply at a loss." And yet, eventually, his school did get the accreditation. As did Westminster, said Mr. Logan, after a tough battle.
Thanks in part to the church institutions that stood their ground, most accreditors have switched their approach. Today, said Mr. Logan, "they are generally more likely now to allow Christian schools to define their own missions and to evaluate those schools on the degree to which the schools can demonstrate that they are accomplishing those missions." Mr. White agreed: "My experience is that accreditation is almost always helpful."
So despite the continuing problems, it may be easier now than before, given resolute leadership, constituent support, and faculty committed to the school's Christian mission and identity, to resist the secularizing tide.
Minus biology? Minus geology?
That's what I did in college. It was the science and math classes that made sense. Knowing that God was behind it all, make it all that much clear.
biology and geology are sciences
Yeah, I know, but you'd think that at a christian college they might want to gloss over that stuff. 4000 year-old earth and all.
no i wouldnt think that..necessarily
I'm afraid I might have a little more suspicion. The proverbial "wolf in sheep's clothing" if you will, whether these liberal professors know it or not. I'm sure the evil one is pleased.
At any rate, I think BobD is right. Stick to the solid basics that they can't screw up.
James Burtchaell, the Catholic scholar mentioned, was provost at Notre Dame, the same kind of school he describes. Also, that Holy Cross priest lost his job when it was discovered that he went after the young men he was counseling as students.
Of course, you must define what you mean by "good", "christian", "narrow" and "fundamentalist".
Go ahead and sling the "puritanical" and "judgemental" labels around, too!
The whole idea has been a passing interest of mine for a while. The fact that they mention the ToE specifically makes me wonder just how the "average" Christian college handles the teaching of Geology and Biology.
Well, at least this part is good news.
At least the college is, well, a college. It has to be acredited, and it won't be if it teaches ID, creationism, or any of that other fantasy rubbish.
If a school were to teach ID / creationism, it might as well teach astrology and voodoo as well.
McBrien forced to deal with his past
By Observer Viewpoint
Published: Thursday, January 29, 2004
Article Tools: Page 1 of 2
Note: This letter to the editor was the subject of a response by Father Richard McBrien, a response by Bishop Daniel Jenky and an editor's note.
In the Jan. 27 Observer article "Campus, seminary react to priest scandal," Fr. Richard McBrien asserts that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' audit of its program for preventing sexual abuse by priests "could have been prevented if the Church has responded properly when allegations began coming to light over 25 years ago." According to McBrien, "some ... dioceses were not as forthcoming - and still are not - as they should be."
McBrien insists that "the officials of the Church need to allow every relevant question to be placed on the table and discussed. Nothing can be ruled out of bounds." Nothing except the sexual misconduct committed by McBrien's good friend and theological soulmate James Burtchaell, and the concealment of that behavior by his other friend Daniel Jenky.
Like Martin Luther, McBrien is a virulent anti-papist who loathes everything Roman Catholic from the cloth to virtually all dogma. The incontrovertible evidence shows he also is a hypocrite.
McBrien indicts the Church and its leaders for not responding properly to the sexual abuse issue 25 years ago. That seems like an apt time to start.
McBrien was head of Notre Dame's Theology Department in 1989-90 when he was advised that Fr. James Burtchaell sexually abused Notre Dame students during the 1970s and 1980s. See Observer, Vol. XXIV No. 64, p. 4 (Dec. 3, 1991). Burtchaell was a member of the Theology Department; McBrien was his boss.
Given his current sanctimonious condemnation of the Church regarding clergy sexual abuse, one might assume McBrien, to use his words, "responded properly" when Burtchaell's sexual misconduct was brought to his attention. To the contrary, McBrien concealed Burtchaell's conduct; he did not discipline him or remove him from contact with students. In short, McBrien continued to put Notre Dame students at risk of a known sexual predator.
Continued...
Although McBrien had knowledge of Burtchaell's crimes as early as 1989, Burtchaell's sexual abuse of Notre Dame students was not made public until late 1991. When asked about Burtchaell's serial sexual abuse of students after concealing knowledge thereof for more than two years, McBrien refused to "comment on the matter." See National Catholic Reporter (Dec. 6, 1991).
Remarkably, McBrien even refused to comment on Burtchaell's resignation. See Observer (Dec. 3, 1991).
McBrien's silence simply cannot be reconciled with his demand that "every relevant question" be asked and that "[n]othing can be ruled out of bounds." Those questions include what McBrien knew and when he knew it, and why he failed to act when Burtchaell's sexual abuse of students was disclosed to him.
Similar questions relate to Fr. Daniel Jenky's knowledge of Burtchaell's sexual abuse of Notre Dame students. At the time Burtchaell was preying on young boys, Jenky was the rector of Dillon Hall, where Burtchaell resided and where he committed his sins. There is compelling evidence that Jenky was aware of Burtchaell's conduct. Currently, Jenky is the Bishop of Peoria, Ill.
In a recent interview with the Denver Post, McBrien asserted that the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Report failed to provide for the "punishment of bishops who knowingly moved abusive priests from parish to parish." Denver Post (June 9, 2002). Indignant, McBrien demanded "[t]hat oversight ... be remedied."
Revealing his "true" Christian virtues, McBrien shrieked that "[s]everal bishops are going to have to walk the plank. There will be no peace in the Catholic Church until some bishops pay the price." According to judge, jury and executioner McBrien, the "first down the plank should be ... Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston and Cardinal Edward Egan of New York - but there's room for several others."
If McBrien had any decency or intellectual honesty, he would be fixing the blindfold for his good friend Bishop Jenky and lighting his last cigarette. McBrien's hypocritical refusal to respond to inquiries about his knowledge of Burtchaell's crimes is as morally bankrupt as his failure to call for the resignation of his good friend Jenky.
Until McBrien applies the standards he demands of the Church to his friends and himself, he lacks moral standing to speak on this issue. His words are the empty rhetoric of an over-zealous apostate. Not coincidentally, McBrien is a bully who censors any inquiry into how his own "theological" opinions and thoughts have contributed to the allegedly high incidence of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy.
Unfortunately for McBrien, he has been outed by Michael Rose in "Goodbye, Good Men," which links abuse by Catholic priests to the pabulum pawned off as "theology" by McBrien and his ilk.
Edward B. Fitzpatrick
alumni
'80 BBA, '83 JD
Jan. 27
http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/paper660/news/2004/01/29/Viewpoint/Mcbrien.Forced.To.Deal.With.His.Past-590959.shtml?page=2
Amen! I spent 4 years in engineering school, and 2 in graduate MBA, and seldom heard any of this anti-christian liberal baloney. However, friends I had while working in the restraunt industry influenced my thinking to the left side, for a time.
A good Christian education should deepen their faith by teaching them to understand the why of what they believe.
I took neither for my Industrial Engineering or my MBA work. Wasn't required. Imagine, learning engineering (and being very successful) without being indoctrinated in the basis of all science, EVOLUTION?!?! /so
Yeah, we know the earth is like billions of years old, 'cause evolution is true and the Bible is wrong. And we know Evolution is true (and the Bible worng), cause the earth is Billions of years old!
WARNING: About to become an evolution debate thread!
I almost feel as though I were in some kind of penal institution. I feel somewhat as I do when I am in Los Angeles or any of the over-regulated cities of the West, where pedestrians meekly wait around on the street comers for non-existent traffic and cross the streets only at the sound of the prison gong."
LOL
(I use Avant Browser, and it enables me to turn off the flashing. That's good -- because I was getting HYP-MO-TIZED!)
Dan
What I've been wondering is just how the topics of Biology or Geology are addressed at Christian colleges. I know that you didn't take the courses yourself, but did you get an idea of what was taught or how it might have been taught differently from a secualr college?
From that article once again, I love this admiring tribute from Pearl Buck, whom Machen opposed assiduously:
"He stood for something and everyone knew what it was."
Not a bad epitaph, eh?
I don't like to say this, God will punish the US. Hurricanes and jihadists??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.